Podcasts about mercatus

This Omni Talk Retail Fast Five segment breaks down the explosive June 2025 e-grocery data from Brick Meets Click and Mercatus, which showed a 28% year-over-year surge to $9.8 billion, with delivery, pickup, and ship-to-home all posting gains of 25% or more. Chris Walton and Jenn Hahn dig into what's really driving the growth, from the rise of the free delivery era to why time-starved consumers are leaning on online grocery harder than ever. Chris makes the case that regional grocers shouldn't just benchmark against Walmart and Amazon. They should be looking to Sweden, where grocers are making e-grocery profitable despite $35-an-hour starting wages. They also discuss why Walmart is quietly gobbling up grocery market share, what hard discounters like Aldi are doing right, and why Jenn's 80%+ online grocery habit might be the canary in the coal mine for traditional supermarkets everywhere. ⏩ Tune in for the full episode here: https://youtu.be/k2JviUlR0-Q

Welcome to Omni Talk's Retail Daily Minute, sponsored by Duvo and Mirakl.In today's Retail Daily Minute, Omni Talk's Chris Walton discusses:Yum! Brands agrees to sell Pizza Hut in a two-part, $2.7 billion deal, splitting ownership between private equity firm LongRange Capital and Yum China.New data from Brick Meets Click and Mercatus shows U.S. online grocery sales surging nearly 28% year over year, even as in-store sales slip.Lidl US prepares to launch its new Lidl Plus rewards program on July 1st, replacing myLidl with point-based perks and personalized pricing.The Retail Daily Minute has been rocketing up the Feedspot charts, so stay informed with Omni Talk's Retail Daily Minute, your source for the latest and most important retail insights.

Can artificial intelligence help uncover what short medical appointments and isolated symptom checkers often miss?Haresh Patel joins Dr. Michael Haley to explore the mind-body connection, root-cause healthcare, and why a patient's complete life story may contain important clues about chronic illness.Haresh spent 55 years searching for answers to a complex collection of symptoms. His journey included suspected food allergies, chronic urticaria, repeated specialist visits, expensive symptom-suppressing treatments, childhood trauma, unresolved grief, and an unexpected experience that changed the course of his health.The turning point came when practitioners stopped looking only at his current symptoms and began asking about his entire history.In this episode, Haresh explains why medical records, injuries, diet, stress, emotional experiences, major life events, and physical symptoms may need to be examined together rather than separately. He also introduces Sanare Health, an AI-assisted platform designed to help patients organize their histories into practitioner-ready summaries.Sanare Health is not intended to diagnose illness, prescribe treatment, or replace a qualified healthcare professional. Its purpose is to help patients communicate a more complete story and help practitioners recognize patterns that might otherwise remain hidden.IN THIS EPISODE, YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT:• Why complex health problems are difficult to understand during brief medical appointments• Haresh's misdiagnosed food allergy and eventual diagnosis of chronic urticaria• The possible connections among stress, grief, emotional patterns, and physical symptoms• Why a chronological health story may reveal patterns that individual tests do not• How AI can help patients organize medical records, symptoms, treatments, and life events• Why asking the right questions is essential when using artificial intelligence• How Sanare Health is designed to support both patients and practitioners• Tinnitus, Diet Coke, candy, and recognizing personal symptom triggers• Why some processing aids and sub-ingredients may not appear on product labels• The value of considering conventional, functional, Ayurvedic, and alternative perspectives• Why Haresh encourages people to become the CEO of their own health• Learning to express grief, laughter, and emotion later in lifeABOUT HARESH PATELHaresh Patel is an entrepreneur, author, and the founder and CEO of Sanare Health. Before entering the healthcare technology space, he spent decades building Silicon Valley technology companies, including Mercatus, a private-markets financial technology platform that was acquired by State Street.His memoir, The Ghost in My Body, documents his decades-long search for health answers, the childhood loss of his mother, and the experiences that inspired his work.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00 What symptom checkers may be missing00:42 Haresh Patel's 55-year search for answers04:26 Why chronic symptoms can remain unexplained06:12 The limitations of brief medical appointments09:18 Becoming the CEO of your own health10:08 Misdiagnosed allergies and chronic urticaria13:10 The Ayurvedic doctor who asked different questions15:04 When did your stress first begin?17:32 Childhood bullying, loss, and emotional disconnection18:51 A spiritual explanation for physical symptoms19:58 Traveling to Bodh Gaya23:13 What happened after the ritual23:57 The mental, emotional, and spiritual sides of health26:02 How Sanare Health uses artificial intelligence28:57 The doctor who examined Haresh's whole story30:52 A platform for patients and practitioners34:32 Can AI remain open to alternative healthcare?36:28 Tinnitus and root-cause investigation40:09 Diet Coke, candy, and tinnitus triggers43:10 Using pattern recognition to identify triggers43:32 Hidden ingredients in processed products45:21 Aloe vera, natural health, and supporting the body47:26 The long-term cost of managing chronic disease49:53 Haresh's call to take control of your health52:43 Learning to express emotion, cry, and laugh55:30 Final thoughtsRESOURCESEpisode Show Notes:https://drhaley.com/mind-body-root-cause-ai/Haresh Patel's Website:https://hareshpatel.ai/Sanare Health:https://sanarehealth.ai/The Ghost in My Body by Haresh Patel:https://amzn.to/4uAczTWHaresh Patel on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/hareshpatel/DiagnosticMD on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@mydiagnosticmdHaresh Patel on Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/mydiagnosticmd/Watch the Video Version:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-aBzGqBSv8Explore Haley Nutrition:https://haleynutrition.com/LISTENER OFFER FOR JUNE 2026Save $20 on a Haley Nutrition purchase of $200 or more with coupon code THRIVE.Visit:https://haleynutrition.com/The offer applies during June 2026 and may be used with sale-priced and already-discounted bundled products.If this episode made you think of someone who has been searching for answers to unexplained symptoms, please share it with them.Subscribe to The Dr. Haley Show for more conversations about natural health, nutrition, gut health, root-cause thinking, emerging healthcare technology, and unconventional ideas that deserve a closer look.MEDICAL DISCLAIMERThis podcast is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The personal experiences and opinions discussed in this episode should not replace individualized care from a qualified healthcare professional.AFFILIATE DISCLOSURESome links may be affiliate links. If you make a purchase through one of these links, we may receive a commission at no additional cost to you.

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

Send a textHaresh Patel is a Silicon Valley CEO turned HealthTech innovator who has spent his career solving complex systems across technology, finance, and human health.Born in India and raised in New Hampshire, Haresh earned his electrical engineering degree from the University of Notre Dame before beginning a 25 year journey in Silicon Valley. His leadership spanned semiconductor and technology companies including Texas Instruments, PMC Sierra, Agilent, and WJ Communications, before culminating in the founding of Mercatus. What began as a kitchen table startup grew into the global standard for private market investment technology, supporting over $1.5 trillion in assets under management before being acquired by State Street.Haresh's most profound breakthrough did not happen in a boardroom but in a healing room.For 55 years, he lived with unexplained health symptoms that twelve specialists could not diagnose. Refusing to accept that there were no answers, Haresh applied the same systems thinking and pattern recognition that powered his business success to his own body. By connecting the dots conventional medicine had missed, he uncovered the root causes behind his condition, an experience that fundamentally reshaped his life and purpose.Today, he is the founder of Diagnostic MD AI and a leading advocate for integrating conventional medicine with proven alternative approaches through patient-centric, AI-driven diagnostics. He believes the future of healthcare lies not in choosing between Eastern and Western medicine, but in intelligently combining their strengths to understand the whole system.His forthcoming book, The Ghost in My Body, chronicles this journey from medical dead ends to healing breakthroughs, offering both a deeply personal story and a vision for how healthcare can evolve.https://hareshpatel.ai/Use code FA FOR 40% OFF Athletic greens is a non-negotiable part of my daily routine. With 75 absorbable vitamins and minerals in just one scoop a day, I have increased my energy, improved my immune function and so much more. To get your own AG at 20% off go to www.athleticgreens.com/functionallyautoimmune Order now for a free vitamin D3/K2 supplement and 5 free travel packs!Support the show

Scott Sumner is the Ralph G. Hawtrey Chair Emeritus of Monetary Policy and the founder of the Monetary Policy Program at Mercatus. Scott returns to the show, to discuss his life post Mercatus, nominal GDP counterfactuals of the pandemic and the Great Financial Crisis, the role of QE in inflation, the fears about Fed independence, and much more. Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on January 15th, 2025 Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Follow David Beckworth on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Check out our Macro Musings merch! Subscribe to David's new BTS YouTube Channel  Timestamps 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:34 - Scott's Life Post Mercatus 00:05:28 - Nominal GDP Targeting 00:19:53 - Quantitative Easing 00:38:28 - Fed Framework Review 00:42:36 - Fed Independence 01:04:33 - Outro

When you're managing $60 trillion in assets across dozens of products and 30 global jurisdictions, technical debt isn't just an inconvenience—it's an existential risk.Jason Adams, Interim CTO of Charles River, a State Street Company, leads 800 engineers building mission-critical trading platforms for the world's largest asset managers. Joined by Sid Pardeshi, Co-Founder and CTO of Blitzy, he explains how State Street is using an AI-augmented SDLC to modernize decades-old systems, refactor legacy code, and dramatically increase developer productivity—without compromising the rigor required in financial services.Jason frames the strategy around three pillars: AI for engineering (copilots and polyglot support),AI for operations (APM, observability, and proactive monitoring), andAI embedded in products (LLM-powered explainers).Using Blitzy's agentic approach—iterative context building, dependency mapping, and targeted code generation—State Street compressed months of work into weeks while maintaining strict quality gates.About the Guests:Jason AdamsJason Adams is the Interim CTO of Charles River, a State Street Company. He brings deep expertise in modernizing legacy fintech infrastructure into scalable, cloud-native systems that support mission-critical financial services at global scale.Previously, Jason was Head of Platform Product and Strategy at Charles River Development and CTO of Mercatus (acquired by State Street and now part of Charles River for Private Markets). He has led high-impact initiatives across engineering, product, and cloud infrastructure, with extensive experience guiding end-to-end delivery teams.Today, Jason is driving a comprehensive SaaS transformation at CRD, focused on building resilient, future-ready architectures. From scaling global engineering organizations to delivering secure, high-performance platforms, he is committed to advancing innovation, agility, and long-term growth across Charles River, State Street Alpha, and State Street.Sid PardeshiSid Pardeshi is a technology leader and entrepreneur, currently Co-Founder and CTO of Blitzy. He holds a Harvard MS/MBA and previously served as a Software Architect at NVIDIA, where he built deep expertise at the intersection of AI, large-scale software systems, and product innovation.At NVIDIA, Sid was recognized as a Master Inventor, earning the Inventor's Jacket for driving AI-powered product innovation, with more than 25 U.S. patents filed across gaming, augmented reality, and virtual reality. He is also a seasoned software engineer with a strong track record in application performance optimization, delivering native client load-time improvements of up to 90%.Beyond hands-on engineering, Sid has led and coordinated software design, framework requirements, and application architecture across global teams of 500+ engineers. Today, he applies this blend of innovation, technical depth, and organizational leadership to building autonomous software development platforms that help enterprises modernize at scale.Timestamps:00:30 – Jason on Managing $60 Trillion in Assets01:55 – Challenges and Strategies in Financial Services07:00 – Embracing AI for Modernization09:10 – AI in Software Development Lifecycle15:55 – Ensuring Quality and Compliance with AI23:55 – AI in Operations and Incident Response26:00 – Proactive Workflow Monitoring26:20 – AI in SDLC: Creation to Operations30:00 – Challenges in AI Recommendations33:20 – Iterative Context Building with AI36:00 – Human Side of AI Transformation42:30 – Adopting AI Tools in Financial ServicesGuest Highlights:"One of the things that excites me the most right now is the ability to use an AI-augmented SDLC to drive modernization. Otherwise, with this many systems, it's too hard." — Jason "You have to invest in the non-attractive parts first. You have to build a foundation that's gonna support being able to bring on solutions and tools that could change your overall enterprise SDLC. That's a lot of work and that's a major investment." — Jason "We are unlocking by adding these additional capabilities and additional assurance that improves quality exponentially more than we could have in the past. Now I can have an agent swarm check itself—multiple agents doing code review at a level of depth we just don't have time to get to." — JasonGet Connected:Jason Adams on LinkedInSid Pardeshi on LinkedInYousuf Kahn on LinkedInIan Faison on LinkedInHungry for more tech talk? Check out latest episodes at ciopod.com: Ep 63 - How Autonomous AI is Solving the Enterprise Modernization ChallengeEp 62 - Running IT Like a Growth EngineEp 61 - What Manufacturing Can Teach You About Scaling Enterprise AILearn more about Caspian Studios: caspianstudios.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In Veronique's first appearance on Macro Musings she discusses her career as a think tanker's think tanker, what the difference is between classical liberals and libertarians, how America's mindset has shifted on trade and immigration, the fiscal health of the United States, the US's impending debt crises, solutions for fixing the fiscal health of the United States, and much more. Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on November 18th, 2025 Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Follow David Beckworth on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow Veronique on X: @VerodeRugy Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Check out our Macro Musings merch! Subscribe to David's new BTS YouTube Channel  Timestamps 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:18 - Vero's Career 00:17:35 - Vero's Career 00:24:32 - Fiscal Policy at Mercatus 00:40:59 - Steps Toward a Sustainable Fiscal Path  00:48:34 - Flattening the Debt Curve 00:59:13- Outro

Culture, Healing, and the Afterlife with Haresh Patel Haresh Patel is an entrepreneur. He founded a company called Mercatus which was recently sold to State Street Investments, one of the largest investment firms in the world. He is also the author of a soon-to-be published book called The Ghost in My Body: A 55year Journey … Continue reading "Culture, Healing, and the Afterlife with Haresh Patel"

Market: The Fed and stability. Veronique De Rugy, Mercatus 1945 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW Patrick Tuohey hosts x.com/PatrickTuohey 0:00 SEG 1 The Speaker's Stump Speech is brought to you by https://www.hansenstree.com/ and features an update from Israel. Hear Tim cry while talking about touching the exact spot where Christ was crucified. 14:48 SEG 2 Eli Kahn, Housing Policy Researcher, The Mercatus Center at George Mason University | TOPIC: Recent housing reforms in STL, what they mean and what other cities and states are doing to support housing development; then talk about WSJ story on New Rochelle x.com/Mercatus 32:40 SEG 3 Susan Pendergrass, Director of Research, Show-Me Institute | TOPIC: recent trends in STL crime https://x.com/spendergrass4 https://newstalkstl.com/ FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps 24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CONGRESS: GOOD BAD UGLY OF THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL NOW ACT. VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS CONTINUED 1907 NYSE

SHOW SCHEDULE JULY 7, 2025 GOOD EVENING: The show begins in the darkness visible of Syria... 2909 SRSB DESERT CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR 9:00-9:15 Combat zones at mid-year: Syria, Iran, Ukraine. Bill Roggio, FDD 9:15-9:30 Combat zones at mid-year: Syria, Iran, Ukraine. Bill Roggio, FDD continued 9:30-9:45 Iran: Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis rearming or retreating? David Daoud, Bill Roggio, FDD 9:45-10:00 Iran: Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis rearming or retreating? David Daoud, Bill Roggio, FDD continued SECOND HOUR 10:00-10:15 Israel: Bibi to POTUS privately. Malcolm Hoenlein @conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 @thadmccotter @theamgreatness 10:15-10:30 Antisemitism: Major trouble in Australia. Malcolm Hoenlein @conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 @thadmccotter @theamgreatness 10:30-10:45 #NewWorldReport: @POTUS posts in praise of Jair Bolsonaro and in disdain for Lula da Silva. Joseph Humire @jmhumire @securefreesoc. Ernesto Araujo, former Foreign Minister Republic of Brazil. #newworldreporthumire. Alejandro Pena Esclusa 10:45-11:00 #NewWorldReport: Investigating assassination plot in Colombia. Joseph Humire @jmhumire @securefreesoc. Ernesto Araujo, former Foreign Minister Republic of Brazil. #newworldreporthumire Alejandro Pena Esclusa THIRD HOUR 11:00-11:15 Western Balkans: 30 years of temporary Bosnia Herzegovina. Ivana Stradner FDD 11:15-11:30 Western Balkans: 30 years of temporary Bosnia Herzegovina. Ivana Stradner FDD continued 11:30-11:45 Justice: Overcharging and overcrowding alleged criminals; what is to be done? Paul Larkin, Heritage, Civitas Outlook. 11:45-12:00 Justice: Overcharging and overcrowding alleged criminals; what is to be done? Paul Larkin, Heritage, Civitas Outlook continued FOURTH HOUR 12:00-12:15 Congress: Good bad ugly of the big beautiful bill now act. Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus 12:15-12:30 Congress: Good bad ugly of the big beautiful bill now act. Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus continued 12:30-12:45 Syria: The trouble with Damascus. 12:45-1:00 AM Gaza: No solutions from the Arab states. Ahmad Sharawi, Bill Roggio, FDD

In this episode, Veronique de Rugy, a Senior Research Fellow and George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy here at Mercatus, chats with Distinguished Visiting Fellow and former CBO Director, Keith Hall, about his latest research documenting SNAP waste, explain why fraud exists in the program, and present solutions for reforms. This episode features audio from a recent Mercatus webinar. If you would like to connect with a scholar featured in this episode, please email the Mercatus Outreach team at mercatusoutreach@mercatus.gmu.edu. Check out Keith's research on SNAP: https://www.mercatus.org/research/research-papers/reducing-waste-and-fraud-snapRead a full transcript of the conversation: https://www.mercatus.org/mercatus-policy-download/snap-waste-fraud-conversation-keith-hall

Good evening: The show begins with a European debate, should we acquire a Eurobomb? 1953 NEVADA CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor FIRST HOUR 9-915 3 Eurobomb: Fantasy or Next? Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute 915-930 #NATO: Can Europe Rally Without the US? Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute 930-945 1/2: Remembering Baroness M. Thatcher, Charlie Cooke, Civitas Institute, NRO 945-1000 2/2: Remembering Baroness M. Thatcher, Charlie Cooke, Civitas Institute, NRO SECOND HOUR 10-1015 #Canada: Green PM Mark Carney. Mary Anastasia O'Grady, WSJ 1015-1030 #MrMarket: Tariffs Cost Manufacturing Jobs. Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus 1030-1045 #PPRC: Tariffs Crush the CCP Export Driven Model. #ScalaReport: Chris Riegel CEO, Scala.com @Stratacache. 1045-1100 #Canada: Premier Doug Ford of Ontario Offers a Deal to the Trump Administration. Conrad Black, National Post THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 1/8: Taking Manhattan: The Extraordinary Events That Created New York and Shaped America Hardcover – March 4, 2025 by Russell Shorto (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Manhattan-Extraordinary-Created-America/dp/0393881164/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0 The author of The Island at the Center of the World offers up a thrilling narrative of how New York―that brash, bold, archetypal city―came to be. In 1664, England decided to invade the Dutch-controlled city of New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island. Charles II and his brother, the Duke of York, had dreams of empire, and their archrivals, the Dutch, were in the way. But Richard Nicolls, the military officer who led the English flotilla bent on destruction, changed his strategy once he encountered Peter Stuyvesant, New Netherland's canny director general. Bristling with vibrant characters, Taking Manhattan reveals the founding of New York to be an invention, the result of creative negotiations that would blend the multiethnic, capitalistic society of New Amsterdam with the power of the rising English empire. But the birth of what might be termed the first modern city is also a story of the brutal dispossession of Native Americans and of the roots of American slavery. The book draws from newly translated materials and illuminates neglected histories―of religious refugees, Indigenous tribes, and free and enslaved Africans. Taking Manhattan tells the riveting story of the birth of New York City as a center of capitalism and pluralism, a foundation from which America would rise. It also shows how the paradox of New York's origins―boundless opportunity coupled with subjugation and displacement―reflects America's promise and failure to this day. Russell Shorto, whose work has been described as "astonishing" (New York Times) and "literary alchemy" (Chicago Tribune), has once again mined archival sources to offer a vibrant tale and a fresh and trenchant argument about American beginnings. 115-1130 2/8: Taking Manhattan: The Extraordinary Events That Created New York and Shaped America Hardcover – March 4, 2025 by Russell Shorto (Author) 1130-1145 3/8: Taking Manhattan: The Extraordinary Events That Created New York and Shaped America Hardcover – March 4, 2025 by Russell Shorto (Author) 1145-1200 4/8: Taking Manhattan: The Extraordinary Events That Created New York and Shaped America Hardcover – March 4, 2025 by Russell Shorto (Author) FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 #NewWorldReport: Tariffs and Mexico and Brazil. Trouble in Panama. Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @RevAnEllis #NewWorldReportEllis 1215-1230#NewWorldReport: Mexico and the Cartels, Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @RevAnEllis #NewWorldReportEllis 1230-1245 #NewWorldReport: SecState Rubio Visits Jamaica, Guyana, Suriname. Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @RevAnEllis #NewWorldReportEllis 1245-100 AM #NewWorldReport: Good News in Buenos Aires. Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. @RevAnEllis #NewWorldReportEllis

#MRMARKET: TARIFFS COST MANUFACTURING JOBS. VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS

.#POTUS: EXITING EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS 1905 NORMAL SCHOOL, LA

Good evening: The show begins in Las Vegas with an apparently political attack on parked Teslas... 1885 "ROBUR THE CONQUEROR" BY JULESS VERNE CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR 9-915 #PacificWatch: #VegasReport: BURNING TESLAS @JCBliss 915-930 #CANADA: PM CARNEY CALLS AN ELECTION. CONRAD BLACK 930-945 #SMALLBUSINESSAMERICA: UNCERTAINTY. @GENEMARKS @GUARDIAN @PHILLYINQUIRER 945-1000 #SMALLBUSINESSAMERICA: AI SUPREME. @GENEMARKS @GUARDIAN @PHILLYINQUIRER SECOND HOUR 10-1015 #CA: NEWSOM HOSTING PODCAST. BILL WHALEN, HOOVER 1015-1030 #POTUS: EXITING EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS 1030-1045 MORE FIREFLY SUCCESS. BOB ZIMMERMAN BEHINDTHEBLACK.COM 1045-1100 STARLINER: MORE TESTS. BOB ZIMMERMAN BEHINDTHEBLACK.COM THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 #EL SALVADOR: BUKELE THE JAILER OF TREN DE ARAGUA. MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY 1115-1130 #ITALY PM MELONI BETWEEN DC AND BRUSSELS. LORENZO FIORI IN MILAN. 1130-1145 1/2: #POTUS: US AND THE UKRAINE NUCLEAR POWER FLEET. HENRY SOKOLSKI, NPEC 1145-1200 2/2: #POTUS: US AND THE UKRAINE NUCLEAR POWER FLEET. HENRY SOKOLSKI, NPEC FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 #AGI: THE NEXT AI. BRANDON WEICHERT, NATIONAL INTEREST. 1215-1230 #URANUS: HEAT ON AN ICE GIANT. KEN CROSWELL, SCIENCE NEWS 1230-1245 #SCOTUS: DEPORTING DISORDER. RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS INSTITUTE 1245-100 am #SCOTUS: PUNISHING COLUMBIA. RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS.

Good evening: The show begins in Las Vegas, celebrating the global Disneyfication of the F1 sport and passion. More later. 1953 LAS VEGAS I'll add boldface to the four hour headings: CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR 9:00-9:15 #PACIFICWATCH: #VEGASREPORT: F1 DISNEYFICATION. @JCBLISS 9:15-9:30 ENERGY: ELECTRICITY DEMANDS, THREATEN SHORTFALL. 9:30-9:45 1/2: #TARIFFS: FREE TRADE AND NVIDIA CHIPS. JOHN COCHRANE, HOOVER 9:45-10:00 2/2: #TARIFFS: FREE TRADE AND NVIDIA CHIPS. JOHN COCHRANE, HOOVER SECOND HOUR 10:00-10:15 #CALIFORNIA: NEWSOM PODCASTS. BILL WHALEN, HOOVER. 10:15-10:30 #TARIFFS: NO USEFULNESS. VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS 10:30-10:45 #NASA: ISAACMAN? BOB ZIMMERMAN, BEHINDTHEBLACK.COM 10:45-11:00 FIREFLY BLUE GHOST SLEEPS. BOB ZIMMERMAN, BEHINDTHEBLACK.COM THIRD HOUR 11:00-11:15 1/4: "The Shadow War: Iran's Quest for Supremacy" by Brandon J. Weichert (Author) 11:15-11:30 2/4: "The Shadow War: Iran's Quest for Supremacy" by Brandon J. Weichert (Author) 11:30-11:45 3/4: "The Shadow War: Iran's Quest for Supremacy" by Brandon J. Weichert (Author) 11:45-12:00 4/4: "The Shadow War: Iran's Quest for Supremacy" by Brandon J. Weichert (Author) FOURTH HOUR 12:00-12:15 #NUKES: POLAND, SOUTH KOREA. HENRY SOKOLSKI, NPEC. 12:15-12:30 #ITALY: EARTHQUAKE NAPLES; FLOR FIRENZE. LORENZO FIORI IN MILAN 12:30-12:45 SCOTUS: INDEPENDENT BOARDS. RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS INSTITUTE 12:45-1:00 AM DHS: DEPORTING GREEN CARD. RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS INSTITUTE

#TARIFFS: NO USEFULNESS.. VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS 1908 NYSE

A Wuhan-developed AI agent went viral this weekend. Guests Rohit Krishnan of the substack Strange Loop Canon, Shawn Wang of Latent Space, and Dean Ball of Mercatus and Hyperdimensional join us to discuss. We get into What Manus is and isn't What Manus tells us about the broader AI ecosystem's ability to produce products we actually want to use The political economy and liability issues that AI agents will engender More ChinaTalk coverage: https://www.chinatalk.media/p/manus-chinas-latest-ai-sensation Outtro Music: La Marelu "Mala" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAB5rx8mqjM&ab_channel=LaMarelu-Topic Alaska y Dinarama "A Quién Le Importa" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQhdDtdXg0&ab_channel=YouMoreTv-Espect%C3%A1culo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Wuhan-developed AI agent went viral this weekend. Guests Rohit Krishnan of the substack Strange Loop Canon, Shawn Wang of Latent Space, and Dean Ball of Mercatus and Hyperdimensional join us to discuss. We get into What Manus is and isn't What Manus tells us about the broader AI ecosystem's ability to produce products we actually want to use The political economy and liability issues that AI agents will engender More ChinaTalk coverage: https://www.chinatalk.media/p/manus-chinas-latest-ai-sensation Outtro Music: La Marelu "Mala" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAB5rx8mqjM&ab_channel=LaMarelu-Topic Alaska y Dinarama "A Quién Le Importa" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQhdDtdXg0&ab_channel=YouMoreTv-Espect%C3%A1culo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this special crossover episode, Ideas of India podcast host, Shruti Rajagopalan, interviews Christopher J. Coyne on the economics of conflict and peace, the history of the U.S. security state, the US intervention in Afghanistan, domestic consequences of militarism abroad, and much more!For the full length transcript and for more episodes like this, check out the Ideas of India podcast page.Shruti Rajagopalan is a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center and a Fellow at the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University School of Law. She leads the India political economy research program and Emergent Ventures India at Mercatus and hosts the Ideas of India podcast.Christopher J. Coyne is Associate Director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, and Director of the Initiative for the Study of a Stable Peace (ISSP).If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Virtual Sentiments, a podcast series from the Hayek Program, is streaming. Subscribe today and listen to season three, releasing now!Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

#MRMARKET: DOGE REBATE AND THE DEBT. VERONIQUE DERUGY, MERCATUS LAKE HURON

GOOD EVENING: The show begins in LA where the mayor has fired the fire chief for cause following the massive fires in Pacific Palisades and Eaton Canyon.. 1904 LA CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR * 9:00-9:15: PACIFICWATCH: MAYOR BASS FIRES LAFD CHIEF CROWLEY   Guest: @JCBliss * 9:15-9:30: LANCASTER REPORT: DC BLUES   Guest: Jim McTague, Former Washington Editor, Barrons (@McTagueJ)   Author of "The Martin and Twyla Boundary Series" * 9:30-9:45: SMALLBUSINESSAMERICA   Guest: @GeneMarks (@Guardian @PhillyInquirer) * 9:45-10:00: SMALLBUSINESSAMERICA   Guest: @GeneMarks (@Guardian @PhillyInquirer) SECOND HOUR * 10:00-10:15: KEYSTONEREPORT: DAY THE MUSIC DIED   Guest: Salena Zito (Middle of Somewhere, @DCExaminer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, New York Post) * 10:15-10:30: START: DE-NUKING   Guest: Henry Sokolski, NPEC * 10:30-10:45: SPACEX: LANDING A BOOSTER IN THE BAHAMAS   Guest: Bob Zimmerman (BehindTheBlack.com) * 10:45-11:00: NEO: 2024 YR4   Guest: Bob Zimmerman (BehindTheBlack.com) THIRD HOUR Book Discussion: "Embers of the Hands: Hidden Histories of the Viking Age" by Eleanor Rosamund Barraclough * 11:00-11:15: Part 5/8 * 11:15-11:30: Part 6/8 * 11:30-11:45: Part 7/8 * 11:45-12:00: Part 8/8 FOURTH HOUR * 12:00-12:15: MRMARKET: DOGE REBATE AND THE DEBT   Guest: Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus * 12:15-12:30: ITALY: MT ETNA ERUPTION DRAWING HIKERS TO THE PERIL   Guest: Lorenzo Fiori * 12:30-12:45: HOTEL MARS: ASTEROID BENNU COLLISION WITH EARTH 2187?   Guest: Harold Connolly, JPL * 12:45-1:00 AM: HOTEL MARS: THE DISCOVERIES   Guests: Harold Connolly (JPL), David Livingston (SpaceShow.com)

#MRMARKET: DOGE ISN'T SUFFICIENT FOR THE DEBT. VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS 1834 https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/02/25/the-upside-risks-and-limits-of-doge

GOOD EVENING.  The show begins in Ukraine waiting on more details of the negotiations between Washington and Moscow... 1898 Brussels # CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR ## FIRST HOUR **9:00-9:30** #UKRAINE: No ceasefire before talks - Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute **9:30-9:45** #SCALAREPORT: While Europe slept - Chris Riegel CEO, Scala.com @Stratacache **9:45-10:00** #QUANTUM REPORT: Breakthrough at Oxford - Brandon Weichert, Center for National Interest ## SECOND HOUR **10:00-10:15** #PRC: Billionaire Communists - Grant Newsham, "When China Attacks" **10:15-10:30** #CANADA: Off-put by POTUS remarks - Conrad Black, National Post **10:30-11:00** #POTUS: Tax cuts and the discontents - John Cochrane, Hoover ## THIRD HOUR **11:00-12:00** Extended discussion of "Paris in Ruins: Love, War, and the Birth of Impressionism" - Sebastian Smee, Author - Discussion of Impressionism's birth during the Franco-Prussian War - Focus on Manet, Morisot, and other key Impressionists ## FOURTH HOUR **12:00-12:15** #PRC: FENTANYL: Follow the money - Elaine Dezenski, FDD **12:15-12:30** #MRMARKET: DOGE isn't sufficient for the debt - Veronique De Rugy, Mercatus **12:30-12:45** #HOTEL MARS: Endgame SLS - Eric Berger, Ars Technica - David Livingston, SpaceShow.com **12:45-1:00** #HOTEL MARS: Endgame ROSCOSMOS - Eric Berger, Ars Technica - David Livingston, SpaceShow.com

She's an economist, an institution-builder, an ecosystem-nurturer and one of our finest thinkers. Shruti Rajagopalan joins Amit Varma in episode 410 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about her life & times -- and her remarkable work. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Shruti Rajagopalan on Twitter, Substack, Instagram, her podcast, Ideas of India and her own website. 2. Emergent Ventures India. 3. The 1991 Project. 4. Life Lessons That Are Priceless -- Episodes 400 of The Seen and the Unseen. 5. Other episodes of The Seen and the Unseen w Shruti Rajagopalan, in reverse chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 6. The Day Ryan Started Masturbating -- Amit Varma's newsletter post explaining Shruti Rajagopalan's swimming pool analogy for social science research. 7. A Deep Dive Into Education -- Episode 54 of Everything is Everything. 8. Fixing Indian Education — Episode 185 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 9. Population Is Not a Problem, but Our Greatest Strength -- Amit Varma. 10. Our Population Is Our Greatest Asset -- Episode 20 of Everything is Everything. 11. Where Has All the Education Gone? -- Lant Pritchett. 12. Lant Pritchett Is on Team Prosperity — Episode 379 of The Seen and the Unseen. 13. The Theory of Moral Sentiments — Adam Smith. 14. The Wealth of Nations — Adam Smith. 15. Commanding Heights -- Daniel Yergin. 16. Capitalism and Freedom -- Milton Friedman. 17. Free to Choose -- Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman. 18. Economics in One Lesson -- Henry Hazlitt. 19. The Road to Serfdom -- Friedrich Hayek. 20. Four Papers That Changed the World -- Episode 41 of Everything is Everything. 21. The Use of Knowledge in Society -- Friedrich Hayek. 22. Individualism and Economic Order -- Friedrich Hayek. 23. Understanding the State -- Episode 25 of Everything is Everything.  24. Richard E Wagner at Mercatus and Amazon. 25. Larry White and the First Principles of Money -- Episode 397 of The Seen and the Unseen. 26. Fixing the Knowledge Society -- Episode 24 of Everything is Everything. 27. Marginal Revolution. 28. Paul Graham's essays. 29. Commands and controls: Planning for indian industrial development, 1951–1990 -- Rakesh Mohan and Vandana Aggarwal. 30. The Reformers -- Episode 28 of Everything is Everything. 31. India: Planning for Industrialization -- Jagdish Bhagwati and Padma Desai. 32. Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration -- Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith. 33. Cows on India Uncut. 34. Abdul Karim Khan on Spotify and YouTube. 35. The Surface Area of Serendipity -- Episode 39 of Everything is Everything. 36. Objects From Our Past -- Episode 77 of Everything is Everything. 37. Sriya Iyer on the Economics of Religion -- The Ideas of India Podcast. 38. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ramachandra Guha: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 39. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Pratap Bhanu Mehta: 1, 2. 40. Rohit Lamba Reimagines India's Economic Policy Emphasis -- The Ideas of India Podcast. 41. Rohit Lamba Will Never Be Bezubaan — Episode 378 of The Seen and the Unseen. 42. The Constitutional Law and Philosophy blog. 43. Cost and Choice -- James Buchanan. 44. Philip Wicksteed. 45. Pratap Bhanu Mehta on The Theory of Moral Sentiments -- The Ideas of India Podcast. 46. Conversation and Society — Episode 182 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Russ Roberts). 47. The Common Sense of Political Economy -- Philip Wicksteed. 48. Narendra Shenoy and Mr Narendra Shenoy — Episode 250 of The Seen and the Unseen. 49. Sudhir Sarnobat Works to Understand the World — Episode 350 of The Seen and the Unseen. 50. Manmohan Singh: India's Finest Talent Scout -- Shruti Rajagopalan. 51. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 52. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 53. The Forgotten Greatness of PV Narasimha Rao — Episode 283 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vinay Sitapati). 54. India's Massive Pensions Crisis — Episode 347 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ajay Shah & Renuka Sane). 55. The Life and Times of KP Krishnan — Episode 355 of The Seen and the Unseen. 56. Breaking Through — Isher Judge Ahluwalia. 57. Breaking Out — Padma Desai. 58. Perestroika in Perspective -- Padma Desai. 59. Shephali Bhatt Is Searching for the Incredible — Episode 391 of The Seen and the Unseen. 60. Pics from the Seen-Unseen party. 61. Pramod Varma on India's Digital Empowerment -- Episode 50 of Brave New World. 59. Niranjan Rajadhyaksha Is the Impartial Spectator — Episode 388 of The Seen and the Unseen. 60. Our Parliament and Our Democracy — Episode 253 of The Seen and the Unseen (w MR Madhavan). 61. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Pranay Kotasthane: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 62. The Overton Window. 63. When Ideas Have Sex -- Matt Ridley. 64. The Three Languages of Politics — Arnold Kling. 65. Arnold Kling and the Four Languages of Politics -- Episode 394 of The Seen and the Unseen. 66. The Double ‘Thank You' Moment — John Stossel. 67. Economic growth is enough and only economic growth is enough — Lant Pritchett with Addison Lewis. 68. What is Libertarianism? — Episode 117 of The Seen and the Unseen (w David Boaz). 69. What Does It Mean to Be Libertarian? — Episode 64 of The Seen and the Unseen. 70. The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom -- David Boaz. 71. Publish and Perish — Agnes Callard. 72. Classical Liberal Institute. 73. Shruti Rajagopalan's YouTube talk on constitutional amendments. 74. What I, as a development economist, have been actively “for” -- Lant Pritchett. 75. Can Economics Become More Reflexive? — Vijayendra Rao. 76. Premature Imitation and India's Flailing State — Shruti Rajagopalan & Alexander Tabarrok. 77. Elite Imitation in Public Policy — Episode 180 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Alex Tabarrok). 78. Invisible Infrastructure -- Episode 82 of Everything is Everything. 79. The Sundara Kanda. 80. Devdutt Pattanaik and the Stories That Shape Us -- Episode 404 of The Seen and the Unseen. 81. Y Combinator. 82. Space Fields. 83. Apoorwa Masuk, Onkar Singh Batra, Naman Pushp, Angad Daryani, Deepak VS and Srijon Sarkar. 84. Deepak VS and the Man Behind His Face — Episode 373 of The Seen and the Unseen. 85. You've Got To Hide Your Love Away -- The Beatles. 86. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad — Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 87. Data For India -- Rukmini S's startup. 88. Whole Numbers And Half Truths — Rukmini S. 89. The Moving Curve — Rukmini S's Covid podcast, also on all podcast apps. 90. The Importance of Data Journalism — Episode 196 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rukmini S). 91. Rukmini Sees India's Multitudes — Episode 261 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rukmini S). 92. Prosperiti. 93. This Be The Verse — Philip Larkin. 94. The Dilemma of an Indian Liberal -- Gurcharan Das. 95. Zakir: 1951-2024 -- Shruti Rajagopalan. 96. Dazzling Blue -- Paul Simon, featuring Karaikudi R Mani. 97. John Coltrane, Shakti, Zakir Hussain, Ali Akbar Khan, Pannalal Ghosh, Nikhil Banerjee, Vilayat Khan, Bismillah Khan, Ravi Shankar, Bhimsen Joshi, Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Esperanza Spalding, MS Subbulakshmi, Lalgudi Jayaraman, TN Krishnan, Sanjay Subrahmanyan, Ranjani-Gayatri and TM Krishna on Spotify. 98. James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Israel Kirzner, Mario Rizzo, Vernon Smith, Thomas Schelling and Ronald Coase. 99. The Calculus of Consent -- James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. 100. Tim Harford and Martin Wolf. 101. The Shawshank Redemption -- Frank Darabont. 102. The Marriage of Figaro in The Shawshank Redemption. 103. An Equal Music -- Vikram Seth. 104. Beethoven: Symphony No. 7 - Zubin Mehta and the Belgrade Philharmonic. 105. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's violin concertos. 106. Animal Farm -- George Orwell. 107. Down and Out in Paris and London -- George Orwell. 108. Gulliver's Travels -- Jonathan Swift. 109. Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass -- Lewis Carroll. 110. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. 111. The Gulag Archipelago -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. 112. Khosla Ka Ghosla -- Dibakar Banerjee. 113. Mr India -- Shekhar Kapur. 114. Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi -- Satyen Bose. 114. Finding Nemo -- Andrew Stanton. 115. Tom and Jerry and Bugs Bunny. 116. Michael Madana Kama Rajan -- Singeetam Srinivasa Rao. 117. The Music Box, with Laurel and Hardy. 118. The Disciple -- Chaitanya Tamhane. 119. Court -- Chaitanya Tamhane. 120. Dwarkesh Patel on YouTube. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new course called Life Lessons, which aims to be a launchpad towards learning essential life skills all of you need. For more details, and to sign up, click here. Amit and Ajay also bring out a weekly YouTube show, Everything is Everything. Have you watched it yet? You must! And have you read Amit's newsletter? Subscribe right away to The India Uncut Newsletter! It's free! Also check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. Episode art: ‘Learn' by Simahina.

#MrMarket: Tariffs are not inflationary. Veronique De Rug, Mercatus 1909 Chicago

Good Evening: The show begins in Ukraine, despairing that  the EU refuses to give uo]p Russian gas purchases... 1917 Odessa CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR 9-9:15 Ukraine: EU must buy Russian gas. Anatol Lieven, Quincy 9:15-9:30 GERMANY: Turning away from Zeitenwende. Anatol Lieven, Quincy 9:30-9:45 Election 2024: It was not the economy. Peter Berkowitz, Hoover 9:45-10:00 Antisemitism: Elite universities continue to fail. Peter Berkowitz, Hoover SECOND HOUR 10-10:15 ISRAEL: Relocating Gazans. Alex Traiman, JNS.org. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 10:15-10:30 QATAR: Enabling Hamas and the Muslim Brothers. Yaakov Lappin, Alma Research, Miryam Institute, JNS.org 10:30-10:45 HOSTAGES: Hamas deceives. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 10:45-11:00 Antisemitism: Trouble in Australia. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 THIRD HOUR 11:00-11:15 CANADA: Unhinged denouncing of Israel and Canada at the University of Toronto. Conrad Black, National Post 11:15-11:30 SCALA REPORT: PRC culture of knock-offs and bootlegs. Chris Riegel, CEO, Scala.com @Stratacache 11:30-11:45 1/2: Nuclear Weapon Arsenal: Two saber-rattling adversaries and What is to be done? Peter Huessy, National Institute of Deterrent Studies 11:45-12:00 2/2: Nuclear Weapon Arsenal: Two saber-rattling adversaries and What is to be done? Peter Huessy, National Institute of Deterrent Studies FOURTH HOUR 12-12:15 Mr Market: Tariffs are not inflationary. Veronique De Rugy, Mercatus 12:15-12:30 RUSSIA: EU cannot forgo Russian energy. Michael Bernstam, Hoover 12:30-12:45 1/2: HOTEL MARS: From Ice Station Zebra to the next: Russian spy satellites. Anatoly Zak, RussianSpaceWeb.com. David Livingston, SpaceShow.com 12:45-1:00 am 2/2: HOTEL MARS: From Ice Station Zebra to the next: Russian spy satellites. Anatoly Zak, RussianSpaceWeb.com. David Livingston, SpaceShow.com

Hui Min Zheng, cofundadora de Mercatus 9 by Diario La república

Send us a textWhat if transaction costs could shape entire political and economic systems? Join us for an insightful discussion with Shruti Rajagopalan, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, as she takes us through her fascinating journey from the University of Delhi to George Mason University. Her research on India's economic liberalization shaped her understanding of economics and public choice theory, and now she is looking at the Indian Constitution as a subject of study. She shares how India's socialist elements and frequent amendments navigate the balance between democracy and central planning.Explore the contrasting worlds of constitutional amendments in the United States and India, where transaction costs play a pivotal role. We unravel the philosophical differences in how these two nations interpret their constitutions, impacting citizens' rights and governance in uniquely distinct ways. Through metaphors like the Ship of Theseus, we evaluate the stability and adaptability of these constitutions, shedding light on how they sustain their respective democratic frameworks amid evolving societal needs.Adding a dose of humor, we recount a satirical tale of international contractors bidding for a White House fence and explore the complexities of voting systems influenced by transaction costs. The episode takes a reflective turn as we discuss Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs, highlighting themes of personal sacrifice and political intricacies. This conversation promises to enrich your understanding of how economics, law, and political systems intricately intertwine, offering both serious insights and light-hearted moments to ponder.Links:Dr. Shruti Rajagopalan's web site at Mercatus and her personal web siteDr. Rajagopalan's podcast, "Ideas of India" and publicationsBook o'da'month: U.S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, Modern Library, 1999. A note on the TWEJ: Some listeners may find the joke racist. But in fact each of the three stereotypes captures a kind of "excellence," though the three kinds of excellence might not all be equally socially admirable. Gordon Tullock, who was discussed in this episode, made some observations about corruption that are worth keeping in mind: Western nations abhor, or pretend to abhor, corruption, though in fact there is plenty of it in the West. Tullock's point was that, in a nation with dysfunctional institutions, corruption can be efficiency enhancing. Institutions matter. The point is not that Germans are inherently organized and methodical, nor that Mexicans are inherently hard-working and efficient, and certainly not that Indians are all corrupt. But the political and economic systems of those nations create a setting where such actions are "rational," and even expected.  I wrote a piece for Public Choice on Tullock's insight, and the problem of India, and that's why I enjoyed this joke!If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

Jon Hartley and David Beckworth discuss David's career, monetary policy, the history of Nominal GDP targeting as an idea along with its benefits and challenges, the history of inflation targeting along with its recent evolution, the Fed's recent framework reviews, as well as corridor (scarce reserves) versus floor (ample reserves) systems. Recorded on January 7, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: David Beckworth is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and director of the Mercatus Center's monetary policy program. His primary research focuses on the targets, tools, operating system, and governance of the Federal Reserve, and has included work on the US Treasury market, the safe asset shortage, and dollar dominance. He has advised congressional staffers and Fed officials on monetary policy and has been cited by the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the Economist.  Beckworth is also the host of Macro Musings, a weekly podcast on macroeconomics, where, since 2016, he has interviewed hundreds of experts, including regional presidents of the Federal Reserve, Nobel laureates, and leading academics from around the world. He is the author of Boom and Bust Banking: The Causes and Cures of the Great Recession (Independent Institute, 2012). Formerly an international economist at the US Department of the Treasury, he earned his PhD in economics from the University of Georgia.  Follow David Beckworth on X: DavidBeckworth Jon Hartley is the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast at the Hoover Institution and an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, where he specializes in finance, labor economics, and macroeconomics. He is also currently an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), and a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Jon is also a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and serves as chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as well as in various policy roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, US Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes, and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC, and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list, and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

As CEO and Co-Founder of Mercatus, I grew a dining-room-table idea into the largest private market investment platform, managing $1.5 trillion in assets across real estate, infrastructure, and energy sectors. Following its acquisition by State Street, I successfully guided the integration while doubling revenue and maintaining less than 2% employee turnover. Before Mercatus, I spent 25 years in the semiconductor industry, driving growth and innovation at market-leading companies like Texas Instruments, Fujitsu, PMC-Sierra Agilent Technologies and WJ Communications. These global head of sales and marketing roles honed my expertise in navigating complex markets, scaling teams, and delivering operational excellence. Advisory and Board Expertise in Fintech AI, SaaS Platforms, and Semiconductor technologies, with experience in: -Strategic growth and scaling: Proven ability to align people, processes, and priorities to create exponential growth. -M&A and integration: Hands-on expertise in acquisitions, ensuring seamless transitions while maintaining momentum. -Corporate governance: Seasoned in board-level decision-making, stakeholder engagement, and fostering accountability and transparency. -Culture and talent development: Building high-performing teams and creating cultures that drive innovation and execution. What Others Say About Me "Haresh has an exceptional ability to foresee trends, identify opportunities, and navigate challenges with confidence and precision." "A revenue-driven leader who harmonizes all aspects of a business to deliver aggressive, sustainable growth." "His focus on culture, transparency, and integrity sets him apart as a board member and trusted advisor." Let's Connect I'm passionate about leveraging my experience to help early and mid-stage organizations achieve their full potential. Whether as a board member, advisor, or consultant, I'm eager to work with leadership teams and investors to drive growth, help execute a critical pivot, and achieve product market fit. and solve challenges.

Jeffrey Lacker is a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center, and he previously worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, where he served as its president from 2004 to 2017. Jeff is also a returning guest to the podcast, and he rejoins David on Macro Musings to talk about the history of the Federal Reserve's credit policy, as well as a recent Shadow Open Market Committee conference.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Jeffrey's website Jeffrey's Mercatus profile   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server!   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *A 50-Year Retrospective on the Shadow Open Market Committee and its Role in Monetary Policy* — A conference hosted by the Hoover Institution   *From the “Lender of Last Resort” to “Too Big to Fail” to “Financial System Savior”: Federal Reserve Credit Policy and the Shadow Open Market Committee* by Jeffrey Lacker   *Last Resort Lending: Classical Thought vs. Modern Federal Reserve Practice* by Jeffrey Lacker   Timestamps:   (00:00:00) – Intro   (00:01:47) – The Shadow Open Market Committee and its Contributions Throughout Time   (00:05:32) – Highlights from the Recent Shadow Open Market Committee Conference   (00:10:17) – From FAIT Back to FIT?   (00:14:07) – *Federal Reserve Credit Policy and the Shadow Open Market Committee*: Motivation and Summary   (00:16:05) – Breaking Down the Difference Between Credit Policy and Monetary Policy   (00:22:10) – The Four Doctrines of Fed Lending: The Monetary Stability Doctrine   (00:28:56) – The Four Doctrines of Fed Lending: The Real Bills Doctrine   (00:34:49) – The Four Doctrines of Fed Lending: Warburg's Mercantilism   (00:39:11) – The Four Doctrines of Fed Lending: Too-big-to-fail and the Reluctant Samaritan   (00:47:45) – Solutions for Improving the System Moving Forward   (00:55:25) – Outro

MRMARKET: Double taxation & What is to be done? Veronique De Rugy, Mercatus NYSE 1939 

As India's economic landscape evolves amid population growth, crafting regulations that foster progress is critical. But how can India leverage its advanced digital infrastructure and young workforce to drive innovation and create sustainable job opportunities? What regulatory reforms could help create an environment that encourages start-up growth and technological entrepreneurship? And how do proposed reforms like the draft Digital Competition Bill shape up? In this conversation, Shane Tews is joined by Shruti Rajagopalan and Shreyas Narla. Shruti is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and a fellow at the Classical Liberal Institute at the New York University School of Law. She leads the India Political Economy program and Emergent Ventures India at Mercatus. Shreyas is a research scholar with the India Political Economy program at Mercatus. Join us as they explore the challenges regulatory frameworks pose, the importance of digital infrastructure, and the need for reforms to foster innovation and growth in India's economy.

#MRMARKET: FTC vs. Bigness, failing. Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus 1912 Waiting for Bryant to speak.

GOOD EVENING: The show begins with the roll-out of the Trump Administration's national security team as reported by Cliff May of FDD... 1955 CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR FIRST HOUR 9:00-9:15: POTUS: Trump Administration National Security team roll out. Cliff May, FDD 9:15-9:30: #BRAZIL: Lula da Silva's ambition to be a hegemon. Mary Anastasia O'Grady 9:30-9:45: #PRC: Stock Bubble building at the hands of the CCP. #SCALAREPORT: Chris Riegel, CEO, Scala.com @Stratacache 9:45-10:00: #INDIA: No generalities suit on the polling and voting 2024. Sadanand Dhume, WSJ SECOND HOUR 10:00-10:15: #LEBANON: Hezbollah seeks separate peace. Hussain Abdul-Hussain, Research Fellow at FDD 10:15-10:30: #IRAQ: Shia militias firing drones and rockets. Dr. Michael Knights, Jill and Jay Bernstein Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute 10:30-10:45: #ANTISEMITISM: Dion J. Pierre, Campus Correspondent, The Algemeiner 10:45-11:00: #ISRAEL: ICC attacks; Bernie Sanders fails; EU and UN sanction. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 THIRD HOUR 11:00-11:15: #NewWorldReport: APEC, G-20 and Xi 11:15-11:30: #NewWorldReport: Milei and Xi 11:30-11:45: #NewWorldReport: Sheinbaum and Trump 11:45-12:00: #NewWorldReport: US and Maduro All segments with Latin American Research Professor Evan Ellis, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute @revanellis FOURTH HOUR 12:00-12:15: #ICC: Global Lawfare targeting Netanyahu and Gallant. Richard Goldberg, FDD 12:15-12:30: #MRMARKET: FTC vs. Bigness, failing. Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus 12:30-12:45: #RUSSIA: Provocation parade (Part 1). Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute 12:45-1:00 AM: #RUSSIA: Provocation parade (Part 2). Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute

Hour 1 for 10/16/24 Veronique de Rugy from Mercatus joined Drew to discuss some of the problems with Donald Trump's tariff proposals (17:49). Then, Ed Morrissey from HotAir.com broke down Kamala Harris' problems with Catholic voters (30:19) and the betting markets (45:13). One Catholic caller articulated why he isn't voting for Trump (49:12).   

#MrMarket: "Republicrats" Harris and Trump on trade, industrial policy, spending, taxes, entitlements.  Veronique DeRugy, Mercatus Center https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/08/24/how-similar-are-harris-and-trumps-economic-policies-lets-take-a-look 1964 Atlantic City Democratic National Convention

#MrMarket: The deficit and the debt ignored by all parties in DC. Veronique DeRugy, Mercatus Center https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-the-media-and-trudeau-have-yet-to-return-to-reality 1885 Cleveland Inaugural

Jeffrey Lacker is a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center, but has also previously worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond from 1989 to 2017, serving as its president from 2004 to 2017. Jeff is also a returning guest to podcast, and he rejoins Macro Musings to talk about Fed governance issues and the lessons learned from the recent inflation surge. Specifically, David and Jeffrey also discuss the issue of maximum employment, how the Fed could reform its governance structure, what the central bank should address during the next framework review, and more.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Jeffrey's Mercatus profile Jeffrey's website Jeffrey's Richmond Fed archive   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server!   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *Governance and Diversity at the Federal Reserve* by Jeffrey Lacker   *What Lessons Should the Federal Reserve Learn from the Recent Inflation Surge?* Presentation by Jeffrey Lacker at the 2024 UC San Diego Economics Roundtable Lecture Series   *Central Bank Undersight: Assessing the Fed's Accountability to Congress* by Andrew Levin and Christina Parajon Skinner   *Reform the Federal Reserve's Governance to Deliver Better Monetary Outcomes* by Dan Katz and Stephen Miran   *Don't Audit the Fed, Restructure It* by Michael Belongia and Peter Ireland   *Restoring the Promise of Federal Reserve Governance* by Peter Conti-Brown   *Jim Hamilton on Econometrics, Energy Markets, and Low Interest Rates* by Macro Musings   Timestamps:   (00:00:00) – Intro   (00:04:35) – Jeffrey's View on “Monetary Federalism”   (00:10:01) – Reducing the Number of Regional Fed Banks   (00:13:11) – Addressing Peter Conti-Brown's Proposals for Fed Governance Reform   (00:18:23) – Addressing Andy Levin and Christina Skinner's Proposals for Fed Governance Reform   (00:23:07) – Altering the Fed's Responsibilities as a Bank Regulator   (00:29:21) – What Lessons Should the Federal Reserve Learn from the Recent Inflation Surge?   (00:36:14) – The Issue of Maximum Employment   (00:46:38) – Evaluating the Fed's Response to the Recent Inflation Episode   (00:50:45) – What Should the Fed Be Addressing During the Next Framework Review?   (00:55:01) – Outro

12-1215A:  The plan that can end all freight trains by 2035, Veronique De Rugy, Mercatus https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/05/01/the-ideological-cocktail-poisoning-american-campuses/ 1882

#MrMarket: Federal subsidies to revive manufacturing are ineffective welfare for the already prosperous and no solution for the men who have dropped out of the workforce. Veronique De Rugy, Mercatus https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/04/24/washingtons-job-creation-circus-is-hitting-the-road 1936 Garment District NYC

Eric Leeper is a professor of economics at the University of Virginia, a former advisor to central banks around the world, and a distinguished visiting scholar at the Mercatus Center. Eric is also a returning guest to the podcast, and he rejoins Macro Musings to talk about his work on the fiscal accounting of the COVID inflation surge. Specifically, David and Eric discuss fiscal dominance during the pandemic period, how the fiscal theory of the price level explains inflationary trends, the backward and forward-looking fiscal accounting exercises, and more.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Eric's Twitter: @EricMLeeper Eric's UVA profile Eric's Mercatus profile   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *A Fiscal Account of COVID Inflation* by Eric Leeper and Joe Anderson   *Fiscal Dominance—What It Is and How It Threatens Inflation Control* by Eric Leeper   *Three World Wars: Fiscal-Monetary Consequences* by George Hall and Thomas Sargent   *The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level With a Bubble* by Markus Brunnermeier, Sebastian Merkel, and Yuliy Sannikov   *George Hall on the History of the U.S. National Debt and Government Financing* by Macro Musings

Jeffrey Lacker is a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, where he served as its head from 2004 to 2017. Jeffrey is now a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center and is also a returning guest to the podcast. He rejoins David on Macro Musings to talk about a wide range of Fed governance issues, including the evolving nature of governance at the Fed, the increasing politicization of the central bank, its continuing relationship with Congress, and a lot more.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Jeffrey's Mercatus profile Jeffrey's website Jeffrey's Richmond Fed archive   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Related Links:   *Governance and Diversity at the Federal Reserve* by Jeffrey Lacker   *Some Questions About the Fed's Monetary Policy Operating Regime* by Jeffrey Lacker   *The Legacy of Bennett McCallum and Lessons for Monetary Policy Today* an event hosted by the Mercatus Center   *Ed Nelson on the Life, Work, and Legacy of Bennett McCallum* by Macro Musings   *What Can the Fed Do About the Deficit? Nothing* by Greg Ip

#MrMarket: The beginnings of a responsible debt-reducing commission. Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/11/23/congress-can-redeem-itself-by-calling-for-help

#MrMarket: Student Loan spending $9B equals higher interest rates for longer. Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus  https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/10/23/good-government-is-a-two-way-street#increaseFont 1930 FDR