Podcast appearances and mentions of Mervyn King

Danielle DiMartino Booth praises the FOMC minutes as "clean" under new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh—no manipulation of data like Janet Yellen did in 2013—and notes Warsh has successfully convened consensus around "less is more" Fed communications with an unusually quiet media environment. The real bombshell is the July jobs data: the unemployment rate fell to 4.2% only because 720,000 Americans gave up looking for work in a single month, representing a 50-year low in labor force participation since 1976, while 49% of adults under 30 now live with their parents as affordability collapses and job insecurity rises. Danielle warns the official narrative of economic strength masks a deteriorating real economy: revolving credit declined (a sign lenders are tightening), consumer confidence shows jobs are hard to get, and vacation spending has crashed to Great Recession levels—yet mainstream media remains fixated on an inflation narrative unsupported by broad data. The biggest systemic risk is the "too big to fail" stock market: 51% of global assets now sit outside the regulated banking system, asset managers hold assets larger than major banks, and the government can't allow equity market collapse when 401(k)s are the only retirement plans left, implying inevitable Fed monetization and the "end of capitalism." Her source of hope: summer interns aged 18-28 who are hungry, hardworking, and reject the "too big to fail" mentality—representing a generation determined to work their way out rather than accept billionaire UBI schemes designed to maintain inequality.Thank you to our sponsors: Kalshi - download the Kalshi app and use code JULIA to get $10 when you trade $10. http://kalshi.com/r/JULIA Monetary Metals - learn more at https://www.monetary-metals.com/julia/Links: Danielle's Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/dimartinobooth Substack: https://dimartinobooth.substack.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DanielleDiMartinoBoothQIFed Up: https://www.amazon.com/Fed-Up-Insiders-Federal-Reserve/dp/0735211655Timestamps: 00:00 Intro and welcome back Danielle DiMartino Booth 00:40 FOMC minutes from June - Clean, Warsh didn't manipulate data1:30 Warsh convened consensus, less is more communications working2:57 Forward guidance removal, Fed less visible, refreshingly quiet3:20 Elizabeth Warren defends bloated 12 district banks, Waller calling it out4:38 Warsh has convened consensus around leadership position5:13 Warsh refuses forward guidance, hints at ending dot plot6:23 Inflation cooling seen but Iran hostilities change calculus6:59 No press conference if nothing to say - Hail Mary move7:25 Mervyn King taking communications, five task forces with outsiders8:49 Kalshi traders: 79% hold rates in July, 76% expect no cuts 20269:36 Labor force participation 50-year low since 197615:35 720,000 Americans gave up looking for work in one month16:05 Unemployment fell to 4.2% but for wrong reasons16:59 Full-time jobs destroyed, replaced by gig workers17:36 Labor market called stable but disconnect with data18:18 Jobs hard to get at highest level, Americans aware19:30 Revolving credit down, unusual sign of lender tightening20:20 49% of adults under 30 living with parents21:12 Five of 20 K-Shiller metro areas below 2000 price levels22:35 Young people disenfranchised, AI destroying college degree value24:32 Stock market too big to fail - implies Fed buying equities25:01 Inequality gap - bottom 10% stock holdings fell 3% to 1%26:14 Top 0.1% holdings doubled, bottom K getting bigger26:33 Worry about social fabric fraying with K-shaped economy29:16 Billionaires pushing UBI while controlling AI benefits30:14 Work ethic is what made America great30:30 Writing piece on too big to fail for weekly flagship32:08 51% of global assets outside regulated banking system33:34 Summer interns give hope - bright, hungry, great work ethic34:45 Young generation rejects too big to fail narrative 

AI commoditises knowledge production and throws judgment into scarcity. In this episode, Ed Smith asks what that means for sport, education and the people building careers in the business — and why the humanities might be the most undervalued edge in an age of machines.About the guestEd Smith is an unusual hybrid in today's sports world. An academic, he left Cambridge with a Double First in History, and is the author of several excellent books including Luck, Making Decisions and What Sport Tells Us About Life. He served as Chief Selector for England men's cricket from 2018 to 2021, and is the current President of the MCC. In 2019 he co-founded the Institute of Sports Humanities, which offers the Strategic Sport Leadership Master's — a programme designed for ambitious sports industry executives looking to accelerate their careers while continuing to work. Applications for the next cohort, starting at the end of September, are now open: sportshumanities.orgWhat we coverThe Moneyball hangover. Why the lazy reading of Billy Beane — "scouts are idiots, if it's not data it's not real" — was always wrong, and how elite sport has swung back to data as one source among many, not the whole story.The limits of scientism. Ed on "creeping scientism," the idea that nothing's true unless it can be proved — and why some decisions (COVID policy, selection calls) carry intrinsic radical uncertainty that probability can't resolve.Can judgment be taught? The case that the entire humanities tradition — criticism, history, weighing competing evidence — is really an apparatus for honing judgment, the skill AI makes scarce rather than obsolete.Orchestration and the curated platform. What happens when a creative questioner goes straight to a powerful AI platform with curated data — near-instant insight — and why the bottleneck becomes asking the right question.The apprenticeship gap. If AI absorbs the entry-level rungs of knowledge work (in law, in sport), how does anyone climb to the judgment seat at the top? Ed's two answers: institutionalised challenge, and getting your hands dirty early.Sport as the last human product. Why Ed is "long sport" in the age of AI — live, embodied, uncertain competition as the most anti-fragile asset there is — and why the Tech Titans buying into London Spirit were buying the green grass, not the gadget.The purpose problem. As production gets frictionless, meaning becomes the scarce good. Where the humanities, the arts and sport come into their own.Careers without bosses. Charles Handy's "look for customers, not bosses," the death of the 50-year career path, and what an ideal student looks like: someone who doesn't know what's coming but trusts they can cope with it.People, books & ideas referencedJohn Kay & Mervyn King, Radical Uncertainty · Peter Bernstein, Against the GodsIain McGilchrist, The Matter With Things (and his left-brain/right-brain work)Michael Lewis, Moneyball · Howard Marks, Oaktree memos · Charles HandyInstitute of Sports Humanities — MA delivered with Loughborough University LondonUnofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry. To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartnerWe publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday. These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport. Our entire back catalogue of 500 sports business conversations are available free of charge here. Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner' on Apple, Spotify and every podcast app. If you're interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series and live events, you can reach us via the website.

Mervyn King, Former Bank of England Governor, discusses the legacy of Alan Greenspan, putting him on a par with Kissinger and Shultz. On the UK, he says Andy Burnham MP needs "clear intellectual convictions" to lead the UK. He speaks to Bloomberg's Caroline Hepker and Lizzy Burden.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sir Keir Starmer says he will step down as Labour leader and UK prime minister. What does the political uncertainty mean for the British economy? Cape Verde has become one of the stories of the FIFA World Cup - what impact is the tournament having on its economy? And Alan Greenspan, the longtime chair of the US Federal Reserve, has died aged 100. We'll hear from the former Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, on Greenspan's impact on the American economy. Presenter: Andrew Peach Producer: Rob Cave and Haider Saleem

In this special live discussion, Mervyn King, Lord King of Lothbury, and Terry Burns, Lord Burns, reflect on the economics and politics of the Lawson boom, chaired by Daniel Mahoney. Drawing on their first-hand experience working with Nigel Lawson, they revisit one of the most consequential periods in modern British economic history.Presented in front of a live audience, the discussion touches on the inheritance of 1970s inflation and the controversial 1981 Budget, tax reform, monetary targeting, exchange-rate policy, and the late-1980s boom and bust. King and Burns challenge the myth that the 1988 Budget alone caused the Lawson boom, arguing instead that prolonged low interest rates, financial deregulation, data misreads, and global conditions played a decisive role.Looking forward, they connect these lessons to today's debates on inflation after Covid, the role of money and fiscal discipline, supply-side reform, and the growing strain on central bank independence. A timely, candid exchange between two architects and critics of Britain's modern macroeconomic framework – and a crucial reminder of how hard-won credibility must be renewed.Stay informed with CapX's unmissable daily briefings from the heart of Westminster. Go to capx.co to subscribe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Llega a España "Incertidumbre radical", el libro de John Kay y Mervyn King sobre cómo afrontan los riesgos y el futuro los mejores decisores. Llega a España "Incertidumbre radical", el libro de John Kay y Mervyn King sobre cómo afrontar los riesgos y tomar mejores decisiones.

Can clear Ends exist in a radically uncertain world? Lord Mervyn King explains how to align Ways and Means without them. Successive national security and defence reviews in recent years have adjusted their language about the nature of the world, moving from being one of competition, to uncertainty, to today's 'radical uncertainty'. Is the concept simply being used to justify the new review and differentiate it from the last one, or does it reflect a real change in the challenges nations confront? Have we moved beyond VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous), to BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear and incomprehensible) and does it matter? And what does it mean for our approach to making strategy? To guide us through these questions, we are joined by Baron Mervyn King of Lothbury KG. An economist by training, he graduated from both Cambridge and Harvard Universities, after time as an academic he became the Bank of England's chief economist. Between 2003-1013, he served as its Governor, where he was responsible for the United Kingdom's economic strategy during the 2008 global financial crisis. An accomplished academic, thinker and author, his book Radical Uncertainty with Professor John Kay considers the implications for decision making of this radical uncertainty. Further Reading John Kay and Mervyn King, Radical Uncertainty: Decision-making for an Unknowable Future, Bridge Street Press, 2020. Mikael Krogerus and Roman Tschäppeler, The Decision Book: Fifty models for strategic thinking, Profile Books, 2023. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, Penguin, 2007. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random House, 2006.

An interview with Mervyn King, Baron King of Lothbury, who has just completed a booming year as president of MCC. The former Governor of the Bank of England discusses the remarkable sale of the MCC-administered London Spirit franchise for £145m to the so-called Tech-Titans, why he loves both Test cricket and the Hundred and how the English game can prosper on the world stage. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Der Titel der heutigen Episode ist: Populismus und Ordoliberalismus. Das ist wieder eine sehr spannende Episode, denn die Frage, was Populismus eigentlich ausmacht, wie man ihn sinnvollerweise definiert und verortet, scheint in Zeiten, wo solche Begriffe doch verstärkt aktivistisch eingesetzt werden, höchst relevant. Ich führe dieses Gespräch mit Nils Hesse, der als freier Ordnungsökonomen arbeitet, derzeit zwar in den USA lebt, sich aber mit Artikeln, Beiträgen oder als Host des R21-Klimapodcasts »Der Preis ist heiß« in die deutsche wirtschafts- und klimapolitische Debatte einbringt. Wissenschaftlich setzt er sich ideengeschichtlich und institutionenökonomisch mit dem Verhältnis von Ordoliberalismus und Populismus auseinander und schreibe dazu am Walter-Eucken-Institut an einer Habilitationsschrift. Diese Arbeit ist das Thema unseres Gesprächs.  Wir beginnen das Gespräch mit der Frage, was eigentlich unter Populismus zu verstehen ist? Populistische Bewegungen unterscheiden zwischen Volk und Elite. Welche Ausprägungen des Populismus gibt es in Folge? Was ist der Zusammenhang zwischen Populismus und repräsentativer Demokratie? Welche politischen Folgen können von populistischen Gruppierungen abgeleitet werden? Wie ist Populismus zu bewerten? Ist »Populismus« als abwertende Marke, als politischer Kampfbegriff sinnvoll verwendet? Ist die Verwendung global einheitlich, oder unterscheidet sie sich im europäischen und US-amerikanischen Kontext? Wann und unter welchen Rahmenbedingungen wird der Populismus zum Problem? Welche Typen des Populismus gibt es? Was sind Trägergruppen des Populismus? Wie formen sich aus dem Populismus politisch (wirksame) Strömungen? Was bedeutet der Begriff der Elite? Wie ist diese definiert? Was bedeutet der Begriff »Nobilitas Naturalis« nach Röpke? Wie können die folgenden Gegenreaktionen auf Populismus beschrieben werden:  Isolationsstrategie   Strategie der Annäherung   Beschäftigung mit den strukturellen Mängeln und Problemen, die zum Populismus geführt haben Warum werden intellektuelle und »abstraktere« Berufe von Populisten häufig abschätzig betrachtet? Was sind die Folgen davon? »Wenn man die Leute als radikal bezeichnet, dann gehen Leute, die mit diesen Zuschreibungen Probleme haben, eher weg, und die Leute, die drinnen sind, erkennen sich dann eher als bestätigt [von den Eliten ausgegrenzt]. Das führt dann eher dazu, dass sie sich weiter radikalisieren.« Werden wir zum Nanny-State, weil politische Entscheidungsträger glauben, immer mehr Aspekte der Gesellschaft durch Zentralisierung vermeintlich verbessern zu können? Wie ist das Rousseausche Rätsel aufzulösen? »Wie können wir frei sein, obwohl wir unter Regeln leben müssen, denen wir selbst nicht zugestimmt haben?« Welche Rolle spielt Dezentralisierung, und mit welchen praktischen Problemen ist man konfrontiert? Warum sind Repräsentationslücken ein Problem? Gibt es einen Volkswillen, den die Politik »erkennen« kann? Oder gibt es in einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft prinzipiell sehr unterschiedliche Ziele, die zu respektieren sind? Wie ist das in der Praxis umzusetzen? Was hat Elinor Ostrom zum Problem der Tragedy of the Commons beigetragen? Auf welcher Ebene kann man sinnvollerweise welchen Mehrwert schaffen? Warum können Regelwettbewerbe sehr nützlich sein? Kommen wir zum Ordoliberalismus. Um welche politisch-ökonomische Strömung handelt es sich dabei? Wer hat ihn begründet, und warum ist es heute relevant, sich damit auseinanderzusetzen? Geschichtlich greifen wir hier auf die Zeit vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg zurück und dann auf die Verwerfungen, die sich durch die Weltkriege ergeben haben und das Deutschland der Nachkriegszeit substantiell definiert haben. Welche emanzipatorische Wirkung kann von der Marktwirtschaft ausgehen? Warum ist Machtkonzentration und die Vermischung von politischer und wirtschaftlicher Macht ein Problem, und wie kann dies vermieden werden? Welche Art der Wettbewerbsordnung entspringt diesen Überlegungen und Herausforderungen? Was ist die Basis einer freien und menschenwürdigen Gesellschaft? Führt all das zur sozialen Marktwirtschaft, einem nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg sehr erfolgsbewährten Konzept? Was hat all das für Deutschland der Nachkriegszeit bedeutet, was waren die Gründe für das Wirtschaftswunder? Woher kam der Konflikt mit den angelsächsischen Libertären, und was ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten geschehen? Sind diese Ideen auf die Probleme der heutigen Zeit anwendbar? Was sind die Prinzipien dieser Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsordnung, und warum war sie so erfolgreich? Können Märkte als anti-elitäre Maßnahmen verstanden werden? Was ist das Verhältnis zwischen Populismus und Marktwirtschaft? Wie ist die politische Orientierung der AfD, und wie ist deren Veränderung über die Zeit zu verstehen? Warum konnte sich der Ordoliberalismus international nicht durchsetzen? Erleben wir in den letzten Jahrzehnten, speziell in Mitteleuropa und Großbritannien, die Situation, dass die Probleme ständig zunehmen und die Regierungen glauben, diese mit immer stärkeren staatlichen Eingriffen zu lösen – wie es scheint, mit immer weniger Erfolg? Welche Rolle spielt die Europäische Union in dieser Gemengelage? Wie ist Javier Milei und dessen Politik – insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund der Geschichte Argentiniens – zu begreifen? Kann es uns in Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Österreich gelingen, aus den schweren Verwerfungen und politisch herbeigeführten Krisen evolutionär herauszukommen, oder ist ein totaler Abstieg wie in Argentinien notwendig, bis wir die notwendigen Lehren ziehen? Anders ausgedrückt: Brauchen wir die Motorsäge, oder reicht der ordoliberale Unkrautstecher? Sind wir auf dem dauerhaften Weg in die Misere, oder werden manche/viele Dinge tatsächlich besser? Alles schlechtzureden ist ebenfalls kein funktionierendes Rezept für die Zukunft. Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 129: Rules, A Conversation with Prof. Lorraine Daston Episode 126: Schwarz gekleidet im dunklen Kohlekeller. Ein Gespräch mit Axel Bojanowski Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 117: Der humpelnde Staat, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Kletzer Episode 108: Freie Privatstädte Teil 2, ein Gespräch mit Titus Gebel Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 89: The Myth of Left and Right, a Conversation with Prof. Hyrum Lewis Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Episode 72: Scheitern an komplexen Problemen? Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft — Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 58: Verwaltung und staatliche Strukturen — ein Gespräch mit Veronika Lévesque Nils Hesse Publikationen von Nils Hesse Wettbewerb, Cronyismus und Populismus, Ordo (2025) Dickere Bretter bohren! Wie reagieren auf erfolgreiche Populisten?, Denkfabrik R21 (2023) Der Preis ist heiß — Podcast Fachliche Referenzen Reckwitz, Andreas (2020): Das Ende der Illusionen. Politik, Ökonomie und Kultur in der Spätmoderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Röpke, Wilhelm (1942/1979): Die Gesellschaftskrisis der Gegenwart. 6. Aufl., Bern, Stuttgart: Paul Haupt. Röpke, Wilhelm (1958/1979): Jenseits von Angebot und Nachfrage. 5. Aufl., Bern: Paul Haupt. Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eucken, Walter (1952/2004): Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. 7. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Böhm, Franz, Walter Eucken und Hans Großmann-Doerth (1936/2008): Unsere Aufgabe. In: Goldschmidt, Wohlgemuth (Hrsg.): Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, S. 27-37. Erhard, Ludwig (1957/2009): Wohlstand für Alle. Köln: Anaconda. Müller-Armack, Alfred (1946/1990): Wirtschaftslenkung und Marktwirtschaft. München: Kastell. Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1971/1983): Die Verfassung der Freiheit. 2. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rothbard, Murray (1992): A Strategy for the Right. Mises Institute vom 03. September 2010. Abgerufen am 28. November 2022. Friedrich Hayek, Der Weg zur Knechtschaft (1945) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) The Pretence of Knowledge, Friedrich August von Hayek; Nobel Prize Lecture (1974)

Season 18, Episode 4: Over the years, we've had the company of many people who have an involvement in cricket without it being their day job. But none have had as many letters after their name to reflect their massive careers. Mervyn King's life in economics has been just that, teaching at some of the finest universities in the world before moving into policy, where he went on to become the long-standing governor of the Bank of England. That term included the period of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, where he became one of the world's most important figures in finding a way out of that shock. Now well retired from these posts, he's been able to give much of himself to the game he's loved since growing up in the 1950s, serving this year as the president of MCC. In the Lord's pavilion, he spoke with Adam about that role approaching a complex period of transition in the international game before stretching out to discuss his huge career. Tickets for the 18th of August - get them quick and bring your mates: uk.emma-live.com/WormsleyFinal2025 Support the show with a Nerd Pledge at patreon.com/thefinalword Get your big NordVPN discount: nordvpn.com/tfw Sort out expat finances with Odin Mortgage & Tax: odinmortgage.com/partner/the-final-word Maurice Blackburn Lawyers - fighting for the rights of workers since 1919: mauriceblackburn.com.au Get 10% off Glenn Maxwell's sunnies: t20vision.com/FINALWORD Find previous episodes at finalwordcricket.com Title track by Urthboy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Auch heute freue ich mich wieder darüber, einen äußerst kompetenten und prominenten Gast vorstellen zu dürfen: Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer. Das Thema ist eines, das uns seit einiger Zeit begleitet, und auch noch weiter begleiten wird, denn es gehört zu den wesentlichsten Fragen der heutigen Zeit. Werden wir von der stetig steigenden Komplexität in unserer Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft überrollt, oder gelingt es, Mechanismen zu entwickeln, trotzdem kluge und resiliente Entscheidungen zu treffen? Entscheidungen, die uns auch helfen, mit komplexen Risiken umzugehen? Gerd Gigerenzer war unter anderem langjähriger Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, ist Direktor des Harding Center for Risk Literacy an der Universität Potsdam, Partner von Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions und Vizepräsident des European Research Council (ERC). Er ist ehemaliger Professor für Psychologie an der Universität von Chicago und John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law an der Universität von Virginia. Darüber hinaus ist er Mitglied der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der British Academy sowie Ehrenmitglied der American Academy of Arts and Sciences und der American Philosophical Society. Er hat unzählige Preise gewonnen sowie zahlreiche Bücher geschrieben, die nicht nur inhaltlich höchst relevant sondern zudem auch noch sehr zugänglich für eine breite Leserschicht sind.  Zu seinen Forschungsschwerpunkten zählen: Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit und Zeitbeschränkung Risikokompetenz und Risikokommunikation Entscheidungsstrategien von Managern, Richtern und Ärzten Und genau über diese Themen werden wir uns in der Episode unterhalten. Wie geht man in Situationen großer Unsicherheit mit Daten und Informationen um? »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, desto mehr Informationen muss man ignorieren.« Was ist eine Heuristik, und welche Heuristiken wenden wir erfolgreich in welchen Situationen an? »In Situationen von Unsicherheit, verlassen sich Menschen nicht auf die ganze Vergangenheit, sondern auf die jüngste Vergangenheit — das nennt man recency Heuristik.« Warum führen mehr Daten nicht immer zu besseren Entscheidungen? »Ein Datenpunkt, gut gewählt, erlaubt [in vielen Fällen] bessere Vorhersagen als Big Data« Was ist Intuition und unter welchen Umständen ist intuitives sinnvoller als vermeintlich rationales Entscheiden? »Intuition ist keine Willkür. Intuition ist gefühltes Wissen, das auf jahrelanger Erfahrung beruht.« Was ist von den neuen Theorien der Rationalität, z. B. dem System 1 und 2 von Kahnemann zu halten? »The abject failure of models in the global financial crisis has not dented their popularity among regulators.«, Mervyn King Was ist defensives Entscheiden, und warum ist es eines der größten Probleme unserer modernen Welt? »Der Arzt ist nicht in einer Situation, dem Patienten das Beste zu empfehlen. Viele Ärzte fürchten, dass die Patienten klagen, insbesondere, wenn etwas unterlassen wurde. Die Patienten klagen nicht, wenn unnötige Operationen vorgenommen wurden.« Weniger kann oft mehr sein: »Viele Menschen denken — auch in der Wissenschaft — mehr ist immer besser.« Dabei gilt in den meisten Fällen, gerade auch dort, wo wir häufig versuchen, komplexe Modelle anzuwenden: »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, umso einfacher muss man die Regulierung [oder das Modell] machen.« Eine Erkenntnis, die im Grunde jedem klar ist, der sich mit der Steuerung komplexer Systeme auseinandersetzt. Warum handeln wir stetig dagegen? »Wir brauchen eine Welt, die den Mut hat zur Vereinfachung.« Und dann gibt es noch den Aspekt der Rückkopplung von (schlechten) Modellen auf die Welt, die sie vermeintlich beschreiben oder vorhersagen, und wir kommen leicht in einen Teufelskreis der zirkulären und selbstverstärkenden Fehler. Wie lassen sich diese vermeiden? Was wird die Folge sein, wenn diese Formen der Modellierung und Verhaltenssteuerung auf eine immer totalitärere und total überwachte Gesellschaft trifft? Entwickeln wir uns aber in der Realität mit künstlicher Intelligenz, Large Language Models und IT-getriebener Automatisierung, aber nicht gerade ins Gegenteil? Eine Welt, deren Entscheidungen von immer komplexeren Systemen intransparent getroffen werden, wo niemand mehr nachvollziehen oder bewerten und in Wahrheit verantworten kann, ob diese Entscheidungen sinnvoll sind? Denken wir beispielsweise an Modelle, die Rückfallwahrscheinlichkeiten von Straftätern bewerten. »Viele Menschen lächeln über altmodische Wahrsager. Doch sobald die Hellseher mit Computern arbeiten, nehmen wir ihre Vorhersagen ernst und sind bereit, für sie zu zahlen.« Zu welcher Welt bewegen wir uns hin? Zu einer, in der wir radikale Unsicherheit akzeptieren und entsprechen handeln, oder einer, wo wir uns immer mehr der Illusion von Kontrolle, Vorhersagbarkeit und Steuerbarkeit verlieren? »In einer Welt, in der Technik (vermeintlich) smart wird, brauchen wir vor allem eines, nämlich Menschen, die auch smart werden. Also Menschen, die mitdenken, die sich nicht zurücklehnen und konsumieren; die sich nicht auf das reduzieren lassen, was man ihnen empfiehlt.« Und zum Ende macht Prof. Gigerenzer noch den wichtigsten Aufruf der heutigen Zeit: Mitdenken! Denn es gilt: »The world is inherently uncertain and to pretend otherwise is to create risk, not to minimise it.«, Mervyn King Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 121: Künstliche Unintelligenz Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 99: Entkopplung, Kopplung, Rückkopplung Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer Prof. Gigerenzer amd MPIB-Berlin Fachliche Referenzen Gerd Gigerenzer, Bauchentscheidungen: Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition, Goldmann (2008) Gerd Gigerenzer, Das Einmaleins der Skepsis: Über den richtigen Umgang mit Zahlen und Risiken, Piper (2015) Gerd Gigerenzer, Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft, Pantheon (2020) Gerd Gigerenzer, Klick: Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen, Bertelsmann (2021) Gerd Gigerenzer, Smart Management: Mit einfachen Heuristiken gute Entscheidungen treffen, Campus (2025)  Daniel Kahnemann, Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken, Siedler Verlag (2012) Gerd Gigerenzer, The rationally wars: a personal reflection, BPP (2024) Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, Gerd Gigerenzer et al, Transparent modeling of influenza incidence: Big data or a single data point from psychological theory?, International Journal of Forecasting (2022) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) Rory Sutherland, Alchemy, WH Allen (2021) Peter Kruse, next practice. Erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität. Veränderung durch Vernetzung, Gabal (2020) John P. Ioannidis, Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed, International Journal of Forecasting (2022)

This talk is an introduction to John Kay's recent book “The Corporation in the twenty-first century”.In the industrial revolution, businesses were defined by their tangible capital. the iron works and the textile mills in which the routine assembly process was operated by minimally skilled workers. Modern business is no longer like this. Tangible capital is bought as a service from specialist suppliers who have neither interest or ability to control the business. The corporation is a collection of the capabilities of teams of people, and the workers, not the plant, are the means of production.Speaker:Sir John Kay is one of Britain's leading economists with wide practical experience in business and finance. A Fellow of the British Academy and Royal Society of Edinburgh, he was the founding dean of Oxford University's Saïd Business School and held a chair at London Business School. He is a winner of the Senior Wincott Award for Financial Journalism for his Financial Times columns. Other People's Money won the Saltire Prize for non-fiction and was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize for Political Writing. His other books include Obliquity, The Long and Short of It, Greed is Dead (written with Paul Collier) and Radical Uncertainty (with Mervyn King).

Former Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King has never shied away from expressing his opinion. Here, he sits down with his friend Martin Wolf — the FT's chief economics commentator — to discuss some of the thorniest problems central banks now face: Will rate-setters manage to stay independent in the era of Trump 2.0? What should they do about cryptocurrencies? And how can they regain credibility after getting inflation so wrong?Martin Wolf is chief economics commentator at the Financial Times. You can find his column hereSubscribe to The Economics Show on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you listen.Presented by Martin Wolf. Produced by Laurence Knight. Manuela Saragosa is the executive producer. Original music by Breen Turner. Audio mix by Simon Panayi. The FT's head of audio is Cheryl Brumley.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Unabhängig von „Starsky & Hutch“ oder „Barbapapa“, auf „Game On“ ist immer Verlass! Auch wenn Flo einen ganzen Geburtstag verschlafen hat, was demnächst im Saarland bei einer anderen Party hoffentlich nicht passieren wird. Dazu rätselt er über einen 74er Average aus Leicester und gibt uns einen Grundkurs für Steuerabgaben eines Dartsspielers, den Mervyn King wohl eher nicht belegt hat. Dieses Mal bringt er sogar Elmar mit fünf Fragen mächtig an seine Grenzen, was seltenerweise zu stillen Podcast-Momenten führt. "Game on! Der Darts Podcast" ist eine Produktion der Podcastbande. Neue Folgen gibt's immer dienstags - überall, wo es Podcasts gibt

Luke Littler bleibt ein Phänomen: Wie im letzten Jahr siegt er beim ersten European Tour Event des Jahres, dazu kommt eine unglaubliche Serie von 19 Siegen. Durchbrochen wird diese dann von Gian van Veen, der zunächst ein weiteres Finale verliert, um nur einen Tag später seinen ersten Titel zu holen. Kevin Barth und Benni Scherp analysieren das Geschehen der vergangenen Woche und sehen besonders bei den Deutschen vereinzelt Licht, aber auch viel Schatten. Und was hat das Finanzamt Dortmund-Ost mit alledem zu tun? Gar nichts, wäre da nicht noch das Drama um Mervyn King…Shortleg, der dartn.de Podcast, mit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Marvin van den Boom⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Kevin Barth⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Moritz Käthner⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Benni Scherp⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ und⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Lutz Wöckener⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Alle Infos zum Podcast:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.dartn.de/Shortleg⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ihr wollt Shortleg und dartn.de unterstützen?[Patreon][Buy us a beer][Paypal-Spende][dartn.de Merchandise Shop][DAZN Affiliate][Abo Spotify][YouTube Kanalmitgliedschaft]0:00 Intro & Begrüßung0:54 Premier League Spieltag 53:40 Belgian Darts Open20:19 Players Championship 5 & 633:19 Women's Series40:20 Dart aus aller Welt (World Cup, WDF, Mervyn King)46:41 Ausblick kommende Tage

Whether it's the 1903 New York Times article that claimed a flying machine was ten million years away, or the record executive who (allegedly) told the Beatles in the early 1960s that guitar bands were on the way out, predictions are hard.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss the psychologist Philip Tetlock's research on superforecasters, the people who make the most accurate predictions of all. Even if you can't become a superforecaster yourself, it turns out there's a lot we can learn from them about how to form beliefs—and how to be right more often.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, where this week Tom has written a review of the new book, Doctored, about fraud in Alzheimer's research. Read that and many other short pieces on the Works in Progress Substack at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* A book chapter on the “Expert Political Judgement” study from Philip Tetlock* Research on how people interpret terms like “a serious possibility” and “likely”* Research that argues against the idea that teaming up makes superforecasters better* Study on the correlates of being a good superforecaster (i.e. having a low Brier score)* A paper on “small steps to accuracy”: how people who update their beliefs more often are better forecasters* Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner's book Superforecasting* Julia Galef's book The Scout Mindset* Tom's book, Everything is Predictable* Tom's review of Mervyn King's book, Radical UncertaintyCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Something a little different for you today.I am speaking at the Battle of Ideas this weekend on three rather different matters:* Immigration and Demographics* Who Is the World's Greatest Comic?* Why Cash Keeps Us FreeDo come. You can get tickets here. With this years Battle in mind, the Academy of Ideas asked me to write one of its Letters on Liberty. Here it is for your reading or listening pleasure. (There is a PDF version here).It begins with this note from the Academy.What are Letters on Liberty?It's not always easy to defend freedom. Public life may have been locked down recently, but it has been in bad health for some time.Open debate has been suffocated by today's censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today.We stand on the shoulders of giants, but we shouldn't be complacent. We can't simply rely on the thinkers of the past to work out what liberty means today, and how to argue for it.Drawing on the tradition of radical pamphlets from the seventeenth century onwards - designed to be argued over in the pub as much as parliament - Letters on Liberty promises to make you think twice. Each letter stakes a claim for how to forge a freer society in the here and now.We hope that, armed with these Letters, you take on the challenge of fighting for liberty. Academy of Ideas teamWhy Cash Keeps Us Free by Dominic FrisbyGive most people the choice of living and working anywhere in the world, I bet the large majority would choose the US. For all its many shortcomings, it's still the land of opportunity. It's exciting, it's dynamic. Wonderful things can happen there. In terms of tech, with Silicon Valley and all the ensuing social media and ecommerce, it is very much the world leader. And yet, Americans still use cheques.When was the last time you used a cheque in Europe? Donkey's years ago. As much as 5 per cent of all financial transactions in the US last year were by cheque. For all its modernity, the US is - in terms of fintech - a good 10 years behind Europe or Australia. Not only do they use cheques, but people in the US still go out with cash in their pockets. Bunch of luddites.However, things are slowly changing, and the US is following the rest of the developed word to cashlessness. It is inevitable, I'm afraid. Technology is destiny.It's also a great shame. Cash empowers its usersWhen I pay you in cash, nobody else gets in on the transaction - it's a direct transfer from me to you. No grubby middlemen can cream off their percentage. No prying eyes of the state can monitor what we do. Big Tech can't glean information from the exchange, to be used at some later stage to sell you stuff or, worse, report back to Big Brother, Big Insurance or whichever Big wants in on your data. Nobody can stop you making the transaction. With cash, you can buy and sell and store your wealth outside of the financial system, if you so choose. There are plenty of reasons, both practical and moral, to do this.Cash means control. Just take the recent de-banking scandals from Canada to the UK, where truckers had their fundraised money withheld because of their views on lockdown, and a UK politician was kicked out of Coutts for holding the wrong opinions. Both the Canadian truckers and their families, and Nigel Farage, had one thing in common – they held views outside of the liberal mainstream. And because their money wasn't under their mattresses but in banks and websites, they lost control of their own cash.Indeed, instability is nothing new. We are repeatedly told how, in 2008, we were ‘on the brink', how close the system was to imploding. Surely, then, it makes practical sense to keep money outside of the system? When Cyprus' banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, there were bail-ins. Ordinary people's money, sitting in deposit accounts, was sequestered to save the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out an organisation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would want little part of it.What you do with your money says more about you than what you say  - no wonder so many want access to this information.Indeed, the former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has admitted that banking is not fixed - and we will see financial panic again. It makes sense to hoard some cash, if only as emergency money.In 2016, the Japanese central bank imposed negative rates to try to goad people into spending rather than saving, as the ageing Japanese are prone to do. The spectre of being charged a fee to keep your money in the bank loomed, and so much cash was then withdrawn that the country sold out of safes. Who can blame the Japanese? In Germany, Denmark and Switzerland, some high-net-worth individuals with more than 100,000 euros were charged for being wealthy. There was plenty of talk of confiscation and bail-ins during the financial panic that came with Covid, though fortunately it proved to only be talk. Nevertheless, when in the bank, your money can become a tool of government. How often do you support what your government is doing? Not that often, I imagine. People don't seem to realise this, but when you deposit money in the bank, you are actually lending it to the bank. The bank, under government orders, can then decide who you can and can't send money to (anyone tried sending money from a UK bank to a bitcoin exchange recently? Most banks won't allow you to). The bank can certainly monitor and then disclose what you do with your money. In times of financial panic, it is within the bank's power to confiscate money, again, on government orders. Cash protects you against all of this. It enables you not to play the game - if you don't want to.What you do with your money says so much about you - no wonder so many want access to this information. From the apparently benign (we can see what books you have bought, and so can suggest other books you might like) to the sinister (we can see what books you have bought, and therefore now have you marked down as a problem). When I was at university, a rumour circulated that various organisations monitored who took which books out of the library. Anyone who borrowed Mein Kampf went on a list as potential spy material - I'm not sure on who's side.These are all, in my view, quite legitimate reasons to want to keep money outside of the system. I'm not saying we should take all of our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to do so. It's our money, not the banks'. We need cash because it is private.Privacy - and why it matters‘Who are you? Why do you hide in the darkness and listen to my private thoughts?' - William ShakespeareIt's so obvious why we all need some privacy in the real world that it almost doesn't need explaining. Yet, in the digital world, so many of us don't realise just how much of our privacy we are giving away. On a daily basis, we sacrifice privacy for convenience. Different people know different things about you. You might supply your doctor with information you wouldn't give your taxi driver, but your taxi driver knows where you are going - and your doctor might not. You might supply your lover with information you wouldn't give your lawyer. Then again, you might tell your lawyer something you wouldn't tell your lover. The difference is, information you supply online - what you say, read, watch, share, buy or sell - can be used for purposes beyond those for which it was supplied.Information is taken, without you realising that you are granting permission, and is used to shape your behaviour.How often has this happened to you? I was talking to my daughter on the landing outside my bedroom about a trip I was planning. I said, ‘should I bring my Timberlands or my hiking boots?' She said ‘your Timberlands'. I said that they were a bit old. I got into bed, looked at my phone, and Amazon was flogging me Timberlands. Your phone is listening - accumulating information with which you did not deliberately supply it.It's not all bad - often that information might be used advantageously. I'm a huge Game of Thrones fan but I only discovered the books all those years ago because Amazon recommended them. YouTube frequently suggests videos to me that I'm interested in, which I might not otherwise have found. Nevertheless, information is taken, without you realising that you are granting permission, and is used to shape your behaviour and influence the decisions you make. The same data mining is taking place every time you use your credit card, or Apple Pay. It is used to determine the content you receive, to sell things to you, to make decisions about you - the loan, insurance, job or the opportunities you are offered. It is used to influence the political decisions you make. And all this information could be stolen. In the wrong hands, it could be used against you in some way. It can and is being used to spy on you.With financial transactions in the online world, you have little idea what information about you is being used, how it is being used or by whom. You have little say in its use - no ability to object nor power to amend that information. You have no control. There are no such concerns when using cash.You have nothing to hide‘If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide' is the common argument against worrying about privacy. But if you are exploring new ideas - dangerous ideas, ideas that go against the orthodoxy, perhaps investigating the concept that the world might not be flat and is in fact round - do you really want some hidden power knowing what you are up to? The effect of this threat of intrusion is to censor free thought - to censor your inquisitiveness.One solution is to become a drone, to not do anything experimental or anything wrong. Perhaps that's what they - whoever they are - want. Gmail reads the emails you draft but decide not to send. Effectively it knows what you thought, but decided not to say. How dark is that?A better solution is to protect privacy - to limit the scope that others have to use our information beyond the purpose for which it was supplied. It allows us to have greater control over our online reputation and enables us to grow and mature without being shackled by foolish things we might have said or done in the past. It enables us to explore new ideas outside the mainstream, without fear of being watched. Those that know about us have power over us. Protecting privacy limits that power. Cash is key to this.But, of course, protecting privacy costs money. The internet is, mostly, free. Protecting your privacy takes effort. If you protect your privacy, you lose all the benefits that your phone and computer knowing a bit about you brings, from saved passwords to helpful book recommendations.This is the dilemma we all face, and most choose convenience without even realising it. This, above all, is why the world is going cashless. It's more convenient to pay with your phone, or with a card, than it is to carry cash. In the marketplace, convenience always wins.Mobile phones and the naysayersHere's a little story for you. By 2023, some 85 per cent of the global population - 6.8 billion people - had a smart phone. That's more people than have a toilet. Yet, at its peak in 2008, there were 1.3 billion landlines for a global population near 7 billion. Why did the mobile, and then the smartphone, succeed where the landline failed?Yes, superior wireless technology made widespread coverage more possible. But there is another, simpler reason: to get a landline, you need a bank account. When more than half of the world's population is ‘unbanked', as it was in 2008, without access to basic financial services, telecoms companies saw no potential custom. Those companies would have built lines in the Arctic circle if there was profit to be made by it, but there wasn't. Too many people were financially excluded. The infrastructure was never built, and people were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. A mobile, on the other hand, you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. The financial system was a barrier to progress for the world's poor. Cash is a facilitator for them - it means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better off take for granted. Without financial inclusion - and there will always be some that, for whatever reason, often some bureaucratic quirk, won't have it - you are trapped in poverty. Beware the war on cash.The irony is that the smartphone now facilitates financial inclusion, whether via traditional finance (banking etc) or modern alternatives - the likes of the African mPesa (a widely used currency based on airtime) or bitcoin and other crypto currencies.Handy cashCash still has its uses for small transactions - a chocolate bar, a newspaper or a pint of milk. It will always be the fastest form of payment there is - think of the change you might put in a busker's hat or the bucket of someone collecting money for charity. It is also the most direct payment there is.For many people not at the top end of the economic scale, cash is still king. For example, I like to tip waiters in cash, knowing they will receive that money without it being syphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I like to shop in markets, where new businesses often start out. Cash is widespread - it's fast, it's cheap. I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive all the money, without middlemen shaving off their percentages. Goodness knows it's hard enough for new, small businesses as it is.A quick look at a recent British Retail Consortium report shows that, surprisingly, cash remains the least costly payment method to process. I want to maximise new businesses profits where I can. Many new businesses starting out need the cash economy. Small businesses need it. The financially excluded need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them. Cash also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many - and by no means are all of them illegal. But if you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax-evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes multi-national corporations employ. Starbucks doesn't use cash to avoid tax, it's all done via legislative means.I have a confession to make - even I, with my highfalutin principles, no longer carry cash, guilty though it may make me feel.A quick poll of my Twitter followers showed that 36 per cent no longer carry any cash when they go out. This is also a generational thing. The number of no-cash-users is much higher among the under-30s. I have four kids between the ages of 18 and 23, none of them carry cash. Nor do their friends. It's the older (wiser?) generation who still carry cash, even if only as emergency money. The problem is, cash is like playing records, when the rest of the world is on Spotify.Use of cash fell quite dramatically with Covid, but it still accounts for 14% of all retail payments in the UK, according to a 2023 House of Commons paper. Projections are that, by 2031, this number will fall to 6%. (Obviously, if you include other payments the proportion is much lower.)In mainland Europe, the use of cash is higher at around 20% of all retail transactions. Germany, Italy and Spain are still at 35-50% cash, while the Nordic countries are below 10 per cent. In the US, the number is in the 20-25% region. But the trend is very much down. But here I have a confession to make - even I, with my highfalutin principles, no longer carry cash, guilty though it may make me feel. The truth is, cash is dying. The convenience of fintech is killing it. Money is now almost entirely digital.Bitcoin and digital cashTech might have doomed cash, but it is also coming to the rescue in the form of bitcoin and other crypto currencies. Bitcoin itself was invented to be a digital replication of the cash process. A can send money directly to B without there having to be any middleman to process the transaction. Bitcoin is cash for the internet.Among the many breakthroughs which got people so excited about this new technology was that Satoshi Nakamoto's blockchain solved the problem of ‘double spending' - making sure you can't spend the same money twice - without having to use third parties such as banks to process the transaction. There is now a plethora of copycat currencies, with many of them focused on privacy in order to make their usage anonymous.At the other end of the scale, we have central bank digital currencies - CBDCs. These have been piloted in various countries around the world and, fortunately, nowhere has really got them to work. They have been met with neither trust nor understanding, and in many cases the tech has fallen short. In Nigeria and the Eastern Caribbean, they went beyond the pilot phase and have been out and out failures. Even in the Bahamas, the one place where a CBDC is said to have worked, adoption has been much lower than hoped. I asked my friend who lives there how successful it had been. He gave me this reply: ‘LOL. I have never seen one person use it.'Fortunately, government incompetence is on our side.Money has always been a bottom-up technology. Users prefer what is convenient. The fiat currency we use in the West today has evolved over many hundreds of years, especially as communication technology has developed. All you are doing when you make a payment is, effectively, sending a promise - the money itself does not exist. There is no gold or anything tangible backing it.Cash is slightly different, because you are handing over something physical. But read what's on that piece of paper - it's just another promise. Once upon a time, you might have been able to swap a 10-pound note for 10 pounds of sterling silver (not quite true as silver was abandoned before paper money became widespread) or 10 gold sovereigns (true). But today, all it says is ‘I promise to pay the bearer the sum of 10 pounds' - it is a promise of nothing. How the whole house of cards doesn't come tumbling down is beyond me, but there you go.Many central banks want to make the transition to CBDCs, despite zero democratic mandate. The planners want it because it then allows for money to become even more of a tool of government policy: whether it be monetary policy, taxation, welfare, surveillance or control. Fortunately, government incompetence is on our side. The history of government IT is so bad, it's unlikely any will succeed, thank goodness, especially not in countries with large populations. Heck, they can't even fix the potholes! But that's not to say they won't try. Always end on a song That's an old show-business maxim. Why don't we do just that?‘Programmable Money', a song I wrote last year about CBDCs, summarises everything there is to be worried about. Enjoy!If you liked this song, you should sign up for my comedy newsletter.Lyrics C - B - D - C. C - B - D - CProgrammable money. Programmable money.We'll monitor every purchase you make,Every transaction or decision you take.If you're not doing wrong, what is there to hide?How you spend money is for us to decide.Your social-credit rating, how do you score?If you're compliant you will get your reward.You may only own what we deem you can own.If you don't register, we'll block your phone.Wait! You'll be late for the expiry date.The state has mandated your money terminatesSo spend, speculate before it's confiscatedThis is what we're going to orchestrateNo more savingProgrammable money. Programmable money.C - B - D - CC - B - D - CYour money's now a tool of policy.You will be living in a smart city.You may only travel in a limited range.Energy and meat rations cos, climate change.We'll take your dough if we think it's owed.No matter if you do not think it's so.Taxes and fines, fares, fees of all kinds.All embedded in the lines of code.Hail Big BrotherProgrammable money. Programmable money.C - B - D - CC - B - D - CTears of the sun, fallen from heaven.Empires fall. Radiant droplets everlasting.We will implant you with a microchip,AI and other forms of censorship.We will decide what is good for you.Total control there's nothing you can do.Bitcoin fixes this!From here.Here's a PDF of today's piece.Finally, here are some videos I made of recent articles, for your viewing pleasure. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Something a little different for you today.I am speaking at the Battle of Ideas this weekend on three rather different matters:* Immigration and Demographics* Who Is the World's Greatest Comic?* Why Cash Keeps Us FreeDo come. You can get tickets here. With this years Battle in mind, the Academy of Ideas asked me to write one of its Letters on Liberty. Here it is for your reading or listening pleasure. (There is a PDF version here).It begins with this note from the Academy.What are Letters on Liberty?It's not always easy to defend freedom. Public life may have been locked down recently, but it has been in bad health for some time.Open debate has been suffocated by today's censorious climate and there is little cultural support for freedom as a foundational value. What we need is rowdy, good-natured disagreement and people prepared to experiment with what freedom might mean today.We stand on the shoulders of giants, but we shouldn't be complacent. We can't simply rely on the thinkers of the past to work out what liberty means today, and how to argue for it.Drawing on the tradition of radical pamphlets from the seventeenth century onwards - designed to be argued over in the pub as much as parliament - Letters on Liberty promises to make you think twice. Each letter stakes a claim for how to forge a freer society in the here and now.We hope that, armed with these Letters, you take on the challenge of fighting for liberty. Academy of Ideas teamWhy Cash Keeps Us Free by Dominic FrisbyGive most people the choice of living and working anywhere in the world, I bet the large majority would choose the US. For all its many shortcomings, it's still the land of opportunity. It's exciting, it's dynamic. Wonderful things can happen there. In terms of tech, with Silicon Valley and all the ensuing social media and ecommerce, it is very much the world leader. And yet, Americans still use cheques.When was the last time you used a cheque in Europe? Donkey's years ago. As much as 5 per cent of all financial transactions in the US last year were by cheque. For all its modernity, the US is - in terms of fintech - a good 10 years behind Europe or Australia. Not only do they use cheques, but people in the US still go out with cash in their pockets. Bunch of luddites.However, things are slowly changing, and the US is following the rest of the developed word to cashlessness. It is inevitable, I'm afraid. Technology is destiny.It's also a great shame. Cash empowers its usersWhen I pay you in cash, nobody else gets in on the transaction - it's a direct transfer from me to you. No grubby middlemen can cream off their percentage. No prying eyes of the state can monitor what we do. Big Tech can't glean information from the exchange, to be used at some later stage to sell you stuff or, worse, report back to Big Brother, Big Insurance or whichever Big wants in on your data. Nobody can stop you making the transaction. With cash, you can buy and sell and store your wealth outside of the financial system, if you so choose. There are plenty of reasons, both practical and moral, to do this.Cash means control. Just take the recent de-banking scandals from Canada to the UK, where truckers had their fundraised money withheld because of their views on lockdown, and a UK politician was kicked out of Coutts for holding the wrong opinions. Both the Canadian truckers and their families, and Nigel Farage, had one thing in common – they held views outside of the liberal mainstream. And because their money wasn't under their mattresses but in banks and websites, they lost control of their own cash.Indeed, instability is nothing new. We are repeatedly told how, in 2008, we were ‘on the brink', how close the system was to imploding. Surely, then, it makes practical sense to keep money outside of the system? When Cyprus' banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, there were bail-ins. Ordinary people's money, sitting in deposit accounts, was sequestered to save the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out an organisation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would want little part of it.What you do with your money says more about you than what you say  - no wonder so many want access to this information.Indeed, the former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has admitted that banking is not fixed - and we will see financial panic again. It makes sense to hoard some cash, if only as emergency money.In 2016, the Japanese central bank imposed negative rates to try to goad people into spending rather than saving, as the ageing Japanese are prone to do. The spectre of being charged a fee to keep your money in the bank loomed, and so much cash was then withdrawn that the country sold out of safes. Who can blame the Japanese? In Germany, Denmark and Switzerland, some high-net-worth individuals with more than 100,000 euros were charged for being wealthy. There was plenty of talk of confiscation and bail-ins during the financial panic that came with Covid, though fortunately it proved to only be talk. Nevertheless, when in the bank, your money can become a tool of government. How often do you support what your government is doing? Not that often, I imagine. People don't seem to realise this, but when you deposit money in the bank, you are actually lending it to the bank. The bank, under government orders, can then decide who you can and can't send money to (anyone tried sending money from a UK bank to a bitcoin exchange recently? Most banks won't allow you to). The bank can certainly monitor and then disclose what you do with your money. In times of financial panic, it is within the bank's power to confiscate money, again, on government orders. Cash protects you against all of this. It enables you not to play the game - if you don't want to.What you do with your money says so much about you - no wonder so many want access to this information. From the apparently benign (we can see what books you have bought, and so can suggest other books you might like) to the sinister (we can see what books you have bought, and therefore now have you marked down as a problem). When I was at university, a rumour circulated that various organisations monitored who took which books out of the library. Anyone who borrowed Mein Kampf went on a list as potential spy material - I'm not sure on who's side.These are all, in my view, quite legitimate reasons to want to keep money outside of the system. I'm not saying we should take all of our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to do so. It's our money, not the banks'. We need cash because it is private.Privacy - and why it matters‘Who are you? Why do you hide in the darkness and listen to my private thoughts?' - William ShakespeareIt's so obvious why we all need some privacy in the real world that it almost doesn't need explaining. Yet, in the digital world, so many of us don't realise just how much of our privacy we are giving away. On a daily basis, we sacrifice privacy for convenience. Different people know different things about you. You might supply your doctor with information you wouldn't give your taxi driver, but your taxi driver knows where you are going - and your doctor might not. You might supply your lover with information you wouldn't give your lawyer. Then again, you might tell your lawyer something you wouldn't tell your lover. The difference is, information you supply online - what you say, read, watch, share, buy or sell - can be used for purposes beyond those for which it was supplied.Information is taken, without you realising that you are granting permission, and is used to shape your behaviour.How often has this happened to you? I was talking to my daughter on the landing outside my bedroom about a trip I was planning. I said, ‘should I bring my Timberlands or my hiking boots?' She said ‘your Timberlands'. I said that they were a bit old. I got into bed, looked at my phone, and Amazon was flogging me Timberlands. Your phone is listening - accumulating information with which you did not deliberately supply it.It's not all bad - often that information might be used advantageously. I'm a huge Game of Thrones fan but I only discovered the books all those years ago because Amazon recommended them. YouTube frequently suggests videos to me that I'm interested in, which I might not otherwise have found. Nevertheless, information is taken, without you realising that you are granting permission, and is used to shape your behaviour and influence the decisions you make. The same data mining is taking place every time you use your credit card, or Apple Pay. It is used to determine the content you receive, to sell things to you, to make decisions about you - the loan, insurance, job or the opportunities you are offered. It is used to influence the political decisions you make. And all this information could be stolen. In the wrong hands, it could be used against you in some way. It can and is being used to spy on you.With financial transactions in the online world, you have little idea what information about you is being used, how it is being used or by whom. You have little say in its use - no ability to object nor power to amend that information. You have no control. There are no such concerns when using cash.You have nothing to hide‘If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide' is the common argument against worrying about privacy. But if you are exploring new ideas - dangerous ideas, ideas that go against the orthodoxy, perhaps investigating the concept that the world might not be flat and is in fact round - do you really want some hidden power knowing what you are up to? The effect of this threat of intrusion is to censor free thought - to censor your inquisitiveness.One solution is to become a drone, to not do anything experimental or anything wrong. Perhaps that's what they - whoever they are - want. Gmail reads the emails you draft but decide not to send. Effectively it knows what you thought, but decided not to say. How dark is that?A better solution is to protect privacy - to limit the scope that others have to use our information beyond the purpose for which it was supplied. It allows us to have greater control over our online reputation and enables us to grow and mature without being shackled by foolish things we might have said or done in the past. It enables us to explore new ideas outside the mainstream, without fear of being watched. Those that know about us have power over us. Protecting privacy limits that power. Cash is key to this.But, of course, protecting privacy costs money. The internet is, mostly, free. Protecting your privacy takes effort. If you protect your privacy, you lose all the benefits that your phone and computer knowing a bit about you brings, from saved passwords to helpful book recommendations.This is the dilemma we all face, and most choose convenience without even realising it. This, above all, is why the world is going cashless. It's more convenient to pay with your phone, or with a card, than it is to carry cash. In the marketplace, convenience always wins.Mobile phones and the naysayersHere's a little story for you. By 2023, some 85 per cent of the global population - 6.8 billion people - had a smart phone. That's more people than have a toilet. Yet, at its peak in 2008, there were 1.3 billion landlines for a global population near 7 billion. Why did the mobile, and then the smartphone, succeed where the landline failed?Yes, superior wireless technology made widespread coverage more possible. But there is another, simpler reason: to get a landline, you need a bank account. When more than half of the world's population is ‘unbanked', as it was in 2008, without access to basic financial services, telecoms companies saw no potential custom. Those companies would have built lines in the Arctic circle if there was profit to be made by it, but there wasn't. Too many people were financially excluded. The infrastructure was never built, and people were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. A mobile, on the other hand, you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. The financial system was a barrier to progress for the world's poor. Cash is a facilitator for them - it means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better off take for granted. Without financial inclusion - and there will always be some that, for whatever reason, often some bureaucratic quirk, won't have it - you are trapped in poverty. Beware the war on cash.The irony is that the smartphone now facilitates financial inclusion, whether via traditional finance (banking etc) or modern alternatives - the likes of the African mPesa (a widely used currency based on airtime) or bitcoin and other crypto currencies.Handy cashCash still has its uses for small transactions - a chocolate bar, a newspaper or a pint of milk. It will always be the fastest form of payment there is - think of the change you might put in a busker's hat or the bucket of someone collecting money for charity. It is also the most direct payment there is.For many people not at the top end of the economic scale, cash is still king. For example, I like to tip waiters in cash, knowing they will receive that money without it being syphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I like to shop in markets, where new businesses often start out. Cash is widespread - it's fast, it's cheap. I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive all the money, without middlemen shaving off their percentages. Goodness knows it's hard enough for new, small businesses as it is.A quick look at a recent British Retail Consortium report shows that, surprisingly, cash remains the least costly payment method to process. I want to maximise new businesses profits where I can. Many new businesses starting out need the cash economy. Small businesses need it. The financially excluded need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them. Cash also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many - and by no means are all of them illegal. But if you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax-evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes multi-national corporations employ. Starbucks doesn't use cash to avoid tax, it's all done via legislative means.I have a confession to make - even I, with my highfalutin principles, no longer carry cash, guilty though it may make me feel.A quick poll of my Twitter followers showed that 36 per cent no longer carry any cash when they go out. This is also a generational thing. The number of no-cash-users is much higher among the under-30s. I have four kids between the ages of 18 and 23, none of them carry cash. Nor do their friends. It's the older (wiser?) generation who still carry cash, even if only as emergency money. The problem is, cash is like playing records, when the rest of the world is on Spotify.Use of cash fell quite dramatically with Covid, but it still accounts for 14% of all retail payments in the UK, according to a 2023 House of Commons paper. Projections are that, by 2031, this number will fall to 6%. (Obviously, if you include other payments the proportion is much lower.)In mainland Europe, the use of cash is higher at around 20% of all retail transactions. Germany, Italy and Spain are still at 35-50% cash, while the Nordic countries are below 10 per cent. In the US, the number is in the 20-25% region. But the trend is very much down. But here I have a confession to make - even I, with my highfalutin principles, no longer carry cash, guilty though it may make me feel. The truth is, cash is dying. The convenience of fintech is killing it. Money is now almost entirely digital.Bitcoin and digital cashTech might have doomed cash, but it is also coming to the rescue in the form of bitcoin and other crypto currencies. Bitcoin itself was invented to be a digital replication of the cash process. A can send money directly to B without there having to be any middleman to process the transaction. Bitcoin is cash for the internet.Among the many breakthroughs which got people so excited about this new technology was that Satoshi Nakamoto's blockchain solved the problem of ‘double spending' - making sure you can't spend the same money twice - without having to use third parties such as banks to process the transaction. There is now a plethora of copycat currencies, with many of them focused on privacy in order to make their usage anonymous.At the other end of the scale, we have central bank digital currencies - CBDCs. These have been piloted in various countries around the world and, fortunately, nowhere has really got them to work. They have been met with neither trust nor understanding, and in many cases the tech has fallen short. In Nigeria and the Eastern Caribbean, they went beyond the pilot phase and have been out and out failures. Even in the Bahamas, the one place where a CBDC is said to have worked, adoption has been much lower than hoped. I asked my friend who lives there how successful it had been. He gave me this reply: ‘LOL. I have never seen one person use it.'Fortunately, government incompetence is on our side.Money has always been a bottom-up technology. Users prefer what is convenient. The fiat currency we use in the West today has evolved over many hundreds of years, especially as communication technology has developed. All you are doing when you make a payment is, effectively, sending a promise - the money itself does not exist. There is no gold or anything tangible backing it.Cash is slightly different, because you are handing over something physical. But read what's on that piece of paper - it's just another promise. Once upon a time, you might have been able to swap a 10-pound note for 10 pounds of sterling silver (not quite true as silver was abandoned before paper money became widespread) or 10 gold sovereigns (true). But today, all it says is ‘I promise to pay the bearer the sum of 10 pounds' - it is a promise of nothing. How the whole house of cards doesn't come tumbling down is beyond me, but there you go.Many central banks want to make the transition to CBDCs, despite zero democratic mandate. The planners want it because it then allows for money to become even more of a tool of government policy: whether it be monetary policy, taxation, welfare, surveillance or control. Fortunately, government incompetence is on our side. The history of government IT is so bad, it's unlikely any will succeed, thank goodness, especially not in countries with large populations. Heck, they can't even fix the potholes! But that's not to say they won't try. Always end on a song That's an old show-business maxim. Why don't we do just that?‘Programmable Money', a song I wrote last year about CBDCs, summarises everything there is to be worried about. Enjoy!If you liked this song, you should sign up for my comedy newsletter.Lyrics C - B - D - C. C - B - D - CProgrammable money. Programmable money.We'll monitor every purchase you make,Every transaction or decision you take.If you're not doing wrong, what is there to hide?How you spend money is for us to decide.Your social-credit rating, how do you score?If you're compliant you will get your reward.You may only own what we deem you can own.If you don't register, we'll block your phone.Wait! You'll be late for the expiry date.The state has mandated your money terminatesSo spend, speculate before it's confiscatedThis is what we're going to orchestrateNo more savingProgrammable money. Programmable money.C - B - D - CC - B - D - CYour money's now a tool of policy.You will be living in a smart city.You may only travel in a limited range.Energy and meat rations cos, climate change.We'll take your dough if we think it's owed.No matter if you do not think it's so.Taxes and fines, fares, fees of all kinds.All embedded in the lines of code.Hail Big BrotherProgrammable money. Programmable money.C - B - D - CC - B - D - CTears of the sun, fallen from heaven.Empires fall. Radiant droplets everlasting.We will implant you with a microchip,AI and other forms of censorship.We will decide what is good for you.Total control there's nothing you can do.Bitcoin fixes this!From here.Here's a PDF of today's piece.Finally, here are some videos I made of recent articles, for your viewing pleasure. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

bto#263 – Die Präsidentin der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB), Christine Lagarde, warnt in einer Rede vor den gefährlichen Parallelen zwischen den 1920er- und den 2020er-Jahren. Angesichts der ungewöhnlichen Herausforderungen sieht Lagarde die Notenbanken allerdings vorbereitet. Die Notenbanker hätten aus früheren Fehlern gelernt und würden dafür sorgen, dass es zu keinen Krisen kommt. Ob dieser Optimismus berechtigt ist, klären wir in dieser Episode.Außerdem: Professor Dr. Rüdiger Bachmann von der University of Notre Dame du Lac in Indiana/USA spekuliert über die aussichtsreichsten Kandidaten für den diesjährigen Alfred-Nobel-Gedächtnispreis für Wirtschaftswissenschaften und gibt dabei einen Überblick über die Top-Themen der Volkswirtschaftslehre. HörerserviceDen vollständigen Redetext von Christine Lagarde finden Sie hier. Den Bloomberg-Podcast Merryn Talks Money mit dem früheren Gouverneur der Bank of England, Mervyn King, finden Sie hier.Professor Bachmanns Liste der Kandidaten für den Alfred-Nobel-Gedächtnispreis für Wirtschaftswissenschaften finden Sie hier.Neue Analysen, Kommentare und Einschätzungen zur Wirtschafts- und Finanzlage finden Sie unter www.think-bto.com. Den monatlichen bto-Newsletter abonnieren Sie hier.Sie erreichen die Redaktion unter podcast@think-bto.com. Wir freuen uns über Ihre Meinungen, Anregungen und Kritik.ShownotesHandelsblatt – Ein exklusives Angebot für alle „bto – beyond the obvious – featured by Handelsblatt”-Hörer*innen: Testen Sie Handelsblatt Premium 4 Wochen lang für 1 Euro und bleiben Sie zur aktuellen Wirtschafts- und Finanzlage informiert. Mehr erfahren Sie unter: https://handelsblatt.com/mehrperspektiven Werbepartner – Informationen zu den Angeboten unserer aktuellen Werbepartner finden Sie hier. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Das heutige Gespräch führe ich mit Dr. Manfred Glauninger. Er ist Soziolinguist und forscht am Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und lehrt am Institut für Germanistik der Universität Wien. Dieses Gespräch war für mich ganz besonders interessant und auch unterhaltsam, weil wir eine ganze Reihe von Dingen miteinander verbunden haben, die schon in früheren Episoden erwähnt wurden. Was ist Wissenssoziologie, warum muss Wissenschaft auch als soziales Phänomen verstanden werden? Ist es gefährlich oder notwendig, Wissenschaft zu entmystifizieren und auch hart zu kritisieren? Wirkt Wissenschaft in manchen Bereichen unserer Gesellschaft gar als Ersatzreligion? Was sind die Auswirkungen davon? Was lernen wir aus den schweren Krisen der letzten 20 Jahren und dem regelmäßigen Versagen von Institutionen über die Rolle der Wissenschaft? Wie läuft die Produktion von Wissen ab? Welche »magischen« Mechanismen gibt es hier, oder verhält es sich letztlich ähnlich wie die Produktion zahlreicher anderer Güter? Was hat es mit Fehlern und Inkompetenz auf sich? Gibt es unterschiedliche Arten von Fehlern? Gibt es eine frühe »Prägung« des Nachwuchses in der Wissenschaft, gepaart mit starken Hierarchien und Gerontokratie? Welche Rolle spielt Wettbewerb gegenüber Kooperation in der Wissenschaft? Richten wir die Wissenschaft zu sehr nach marktwirtschaftlichen Prinzipien aus, oder besser gesagt: spielt die Wissenschaft Marktwirtschaft, weil weder die Akteure dafür die Kompetenz haben, noch das Modell passt? In einigen anderen Folgen wurde das Thema Stagnation schon angesprochen, auch hier stellen wir die Frage: Verdoppelt sich das Wissen oder eher Rauschen regelmäßig? Eine in diesem Zusammenhang für die Gesellschaft sehr relevante Frage ist, welchen Beitrag die immer größere Zahl an wissenschaftlich ausgebildeten Menschen tatsächlich für unsere Gesellschaft leisten? Welche Rolle spielt eben diese wissenschaftliche Ausbildung dabei? Bringt die universitäre Ausbildung tatsächlich signifikante Gewinne für unsere Gesellschaft oder dominiert Signalisierung über Substanz? Der US-amerikanische Ökonom, dessen Name mir in der Episode nicht eingefallen war, ist Bryan Kaplan, der selbst an der George Mason Eliteuniversität forscht und unterrichtet. »My best guess says signaling accounts for 80% of education's return”«, Bryan Kaplan Die Idee der Signalisierung und sollte mit der schon genannten der Frage nach der Qualität der Bildung in unseren Institutionen verknüpft werden, besonders hinsichtlich der nur verbleibenden  20% : »Teachers' plea that “we're mediocre at teaching what we measure, but great at teaching what we don't measure” is comically convenient.«, Bryan Kaplan Auch zwischen den Studienrichtungen gibt es Unterschiede. Gilt die Geisteswissenschaft immer häufiger als Notnagel für diejenigen, die schwierigere Studien nicht schaffen? In einer früheren Episode hat bereits Prof. Michael Sommer ähnliche Aussagen getätigt. “The excentric university professor is a species that is going to be extinct fast. […] The bad currency is driving out the good and in effect where the people who are nimble in the art of writing for grants are displacing the idiosyncratic thinkers who are generally much less nimble at that sort of activity.”, Peter Thiel Peter Thiel bietet sogar ein Stipendium für diejenigen an, die »Dinge bauen wollen, anstatt im Klassenzimmer zu sitzen.« Damit stellt sich eine noch grundlegendere Frage: Stellen viele Fächer so etwas wie eine institutionelle Autopoiesis dar, ist es also Wissenschaft als selbstreferenzielle Legitimation ihrer eigenen Institutionen, weil sie keinen direkt erkennbaren Nutzen haben? Aber die Frage kann auch umgedreht werden: Was richtet Institutionalisierung mit Wissenschaft an? Als »Berufsdenker« sollte auch die Selbstreflexion hoch im Kurs stehen, warum hört man dann so wenig davon in der Öffentlichkeit, im Besonderen nach großen Krisen? Wie kann das Zusammenspiel zwischen Politik und Wissenschaft beschrieben werden? Kann Wissenschaft tatsächlich nur in Demokratien das volle Potenzial ausspielen? »Macht ist ein wichtiger Punkt in der Wissenschaft.« Was können wir hier aus der Vergangenheit lernen, etwa der Wissenschaft während der Nazi-Diktatur in Deutschland und Österreich? »Lawyers and doctors, all credentialed with university degrees, were substantially overrepresented within the NSDAP, as were university students (then a far narrower section of society than today)«, Niall Ferguson Benötigen wir überhaupt so viele Akademiker in unserer Gesellschaft? Der deutsche Philosoph Julian Nida-Rümelin spricht vom Akademisierungswahn. Der damalige britische Premierminister Rishi Sunak warnt, dass zu vielen Universitätsstudenten ein falscher Traum verkauft werde. Auch Thomas Sowell kritisiert die eindimensionale Betrachtung des Wissensbegriffs: »Someone who is considered to be a “knowledgeable” person usually has a special kind of knowledge—perhaps academic or other kinds of knowledge not widely found in the population at large. Someone who has even more knowledge of more mundane things—plumbing, carpentry, or automobile transmissions, for example—is less likely to be called “knowledgeable” by those intellectuals for whom what they don't know isn't knowledge. Although the special kind of knowledge associated with intellectuals is usually valued more, and those who have such knowledge are usually accorded more prestige, it is by no means certain that the kind of knowledge mastered by intellectuals is necessarily more consequential in its effects in the real world.«, Thomas Sowell Absolventen von Universitäten müssen aber auch als Denkkollektiv gesehen werden. Ist dies aber ein Kollektiv, wo Diversität nur auf der Verpackung steht?  Wer ist überhaupt Innovator in unseren modernen Gesellschaften?  »But just as most engineers are not inventors, and most scientists are not researchers, so most science is not research. […] The university was keeping up with a changing technological world rather than creating it.«, David Edgerton Was hat es also mit Kreativität im Wissenschaftsbetrieb, im Kollektiv zu tun?  Hat zumindest eine kleine Minderheit noch die Chance, sich einen Freiraum zu schaffen, den die Institution (noch) nicht erkannt und durch Prozesse und Regeln ausradiert hat. Zuletzt kehren wir zur Frage zurück, wie Krise und Expertise zusammenwirken. Was sind die zwei wichtigsten Aussagen, die Sie von jedem Experten hören sollten, aber selten hören? Dr. Glauninger wird es am Ende der Episode enthüllen. “Evidence based policy has become policy based evidence.”, Mervyn King Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 101: Live im MQ, Macht und Ohnmacht in der Wissensgesellschaft. Ein Gespräch mit John G. Haas. Episode 96: Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert Episode 93: Covid. Die unerklärliche Stille nach dem Sturm. Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Teil 1 Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 85: Naturalismus — was weiß Wissenschaft? Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 83: Robert Merton — Was ist Wissenschaft? Episode 72: Scheitern an komplexen Problemen? Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft — Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 71: Stagnation oder Fortschritt — eine Reflexion an der Geschichte eines Lebens Episode 44: Was ist Fortschritt? Ein Gespräch mit Philipp Blom Episode 41: Intellektuelle Bescheidenheit: Was wir von Bertrand Russel und der Eugenik lernen können Episode 39: Follow the Science? Episode 38: Eliten, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Michael Hartmann Episode 28: Jochen Hörisch: Für eine (denk)anstössige Universität! Episode 18: Gespräch mit Andreas Windisch: Physik, Fortschritt oder Stagnation Dr. Manfred Glauninger  Dr. Manfred Glauninger an der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Publikationen Fachliche Referenzen John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Findings Are False (2005) Sabine Kleinert, Richard Horton, How should medical science change? Lancet Comment (2014) Ludwig Fleck, Genesis and development of a scientific fact. ed. T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton, foreword by Thomas Kuhn. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1979. This is the first English translation of his 1935 book titled Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollectiv. Basel: Schwabe und Co Bryan Kaplan, The Case against Education, Princeton University Press (2018) Conversation between Peter Thiel und David Graeber, Where did the Future go? (2020) Peter Thiel Fellowship Niall Ferguson, The Treason of the Intellectuals, The Free Press (2023) Niall Ferguson, The Treason of the Intellectuals, Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson (2024) Julien Benda, La trahison des clercs (1927) Julian Nida Rümelin, Der Akademisierungswahn, Vortrag Körber-Stiftung (2014) Thomas Sowell, intellectuals and Society, Basic Books (2010) Rishi Sunak, Too Many University Students are Sold a False Dream, Telegraph (2023) David Edgerton, The Shock Of The Old: Technology and Global History since 1900, Profile Books (2019) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) Karl Popper, Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde

John Anderson speaks with Lord Mervyn King about the shortcomings of modern economics, including its detachment from practical issues and over-reliance on modelling. They discuss the failures of economic forecasting during the COVID-19 pandemic and on climate change, stressing the importance of humility and honesty from policymakers. The discussion extends to socio-economic challenges like rising national debt and intergenerational inequality in Western democracies. The conversation also touches on modern monetary theory, quantitative easing, and the geopolitical implications of trade policies, especially with China. Lord King offers a critique of central bank digital currencies and cryptocurrencies, advocating against a completely cashless society.

This short comes from a conversation that co-hosts Jean Gomes and Scott Allender had with Sir John Kay back in June 2021 (S2 Ep19).LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION:Distinguishing Risk and Uncertainty with John KayIn this episode of the Evolving Leader, co-hosts Jean Gomes and Scott Allender talk to John Kay, one of the world's leading economists, whose life's work is focused on the relationship between economics and businesses.  Together with Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England, he wrote Radical Uncertainty about the impoverished approach many economists and business strategists take regarding risk in the face of uncertainty.  In this conversation we get a wealth of insight about the judgement challenges facing leaders today and into the future. Social:Instagram           @evolvingleaderLinkedIn             The Evolving Leader PodcastTwitter               @Evolving_LeaderYouTube           @evolvingleader The Evolving Leader is researched, written and presented by Jean Gomes and Scott Allender with production by Phil Kerby. It is an Outside production.Send a message to The Evolving Leader team

David Williams |Journalist & Author of Corporate Revolutionary  take Motheo Khoaripe through his new book, The Corporate Revolutionary - Mervyn King's Life in Law, Business and Governance . Mervyn King has transformed the global business landscape. King advocated reporting on society and the environment, not only on profit. His legacy transcends borders and continues to guide companies worldwide.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nghe trọn nội dung sách nói Sự Kết Thúc Của Thời Đại Giả Kim trên ứng dụng Voiz FM: https://voiz.vn/play/1496 Giấy không thể biến thành vàng, và thuật giả kim thời trung cổ đã bị chứng minh đa phần chỉ là trò lừa đảo không hơn không kém. Ấy thế mà suốt một thời gian dài, hệ thống tiền tệ và tài chính của con người đã lấy đó làm nền tảng: biến giấy (tiền) thành vàng. Tác giả Mervyn King, cựu Thống đốc Ngân hàng Anh quốc, chính là một trong những người đầu tiên cảm nhận về vấn đề trầm kha của hệ thống tiền tệ và tài chính hiện hữu. Cuộc Cách mạng Công nghiệp (thế kỷ XVIII-XIX) đã tạo nên nền tảng của thời đại tư bản hiện đại. Tuy nhiên, sự bùng nổ của những đổi mới công nghệ của thời hiện đại đang thách thức hai ý niệm cũ về hệ thống tài chính và tiền tệ: đó là việc sử dụng tiền giấy và sự ra đời các ngân hàng tín dụng. Ngày nay, chúng ta vẫn coi những hệ thống này như điều hiển nhiên, dẫu cho cốt lõi của những ý niệm đó có bất thường và “màu nhiệm” (như thuật giả kim) ra sao đi nữa. Những tờ giấy có in chữ bình thường bỗng trở nên quý giá chẳng kém gì vàng, và những khoản vay dài hạn đầy rủi ro được chuyển thành các khoản tiền gửi ngắn hạn an toàn. Như tác giả gọi, đây chính là “thuật giả kim tài chính” – sự tạo ra những sức mạnh tài chính khổng lồ có thể phớt lờ thực tế và lý lẽ tự nhiên. Niềm tin vào sức mạnh này mang lại những lợi ích to lớn; tính thanh khoản mà nó tạo ra đã giúp thúc đẩy sự tăng trưởng kinh tế trong suốt hai thế kỷ đã qua. Tuy nhiên, nó cũng tạo ra một chuỗi thảm họa kinh tế không có hồi kết, từ siêu lạm phát cho đến sự sụp đổ của ngành ngân hàng, từ những cuộc suy thoái toàn cầu cho đến tình trạng trì trệ hiện tại. Tại ứng dụng sách nói Voiz FM, sách nói Sự Kết Thúc Của Thời Đại Giả Kim được đầu tư chất lượng âm thanh và thu âm chuyên nghiệp, tốt nhất để mang lại trải nghiệm nghe tuyệt vời cho bạn. --- Về Voiz FM: Voiz FM là ứng dụng sách nói podcast ra mắt thị trường công nghệ từ năm 2019. Với gần 2000 tựa sách độc quyền, Voiz FM hiện đang là nền tảng sách nói podcast bản quyền hàng đầu Việt Nam. Bạn có thể trải nghiệm miễn phí đa dạng nội dung tại Voiz FM từ sách nói, podcast đến truyện nói, sách tóm tắt và nội dung dành cho thiếu nhi. --- Voiz FM website: https://voiz.vn/ Theo dõi Facebook Voiz FM: https://www.facebook.com/VoizFM Tham khảo thêm các bài viết review, tổng hợp, gợi ý sách để lựa chọn sách nói dễ dàng hơn tại trang Blog Voiz FM: http://blog.voiz.vn/ --- Cảm ơn bạn đã ủng hộ Voiz FM. Nếu bạn yêu thích sách nói Sự Kết Thúc Của Thời Đại Giả Kim và các nội dung sách nói podcast khác, hãy đăng ký kênh để nhận thông báo về những nội dung mới nhất của Voiz FM channel nhé. Ngoài ra, bạn có thể nghe BẢN FULL ĐỘC QUYỀN hàng chục ngàn nội dung Chất lượng cao khác tại ứng dụng Voiz FM. Tải ứng dụng Voiz FM: voiz.vn/download #voizfm #sáchnói #podcast #sáchnóiSựKếtThúcCủaThờiĐạiGiảKim #MervynKing

Tell us what you think of this episodeOssie begins by talking about his experiences as Chairman of Glamorgan CCC and the difficulties cricket and Glamorgan faced in the late 1970s and early 1980s.We move swiftly talking about the Kerry Packer Circus and it's impact on the game.  Ossie mentions the Tony Grieg affair which arose out of this and then talks about the Gatting affair in 1988 when England captain Mike Gatting was caught on camera pointing his finger at Pakistani umpire Shakoor Rana.  For more on that you can go herehttps://www.wisden.com/cricket-news/the-gatting-rana-fall-out-when-a-whole-day-of-test-cricket-was-lost-to-a-player-umpire-argumentWe then move to talking about the idea of a UK Board of Cricket.  By the way Ossie gives us a little bit of history about the role of the MCC.  Ossie tells the story of the England AND WALES Cricket Board and how it came to be called that and the implications of that for the development of the first class game and it's various academies and pathway organisations.After finishing his work as an administrator with the first class game, Ossie talks about his involved with the founding and development of what was called the Cricket Foundation but what became the Chance to Shine Charity.  In particular, we hear the story of how the ex Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, got involved and managed to get a huge investment form the government of the day to take cricket into primary schools.We talk about Ossie's involvement with the Sports Council of Wales and he talks at length about Tom Cartwright's involvement as a coach in welsh cricket.Ossie reflects on the game today with particularly interesting comments about the County Championship and Test cricket, including ‘Baz Ball'. We end with Ossie's thoughts on welsh cricket and the need to produce some more of our homegrown talent.

My latest guest is Garry Honey. Garry trains boards, non-executive directors, and business leaders on strategy, governance, risk, and communication. He is the founder of the consultancy Chiron Risk and runs leadership courses for various business schools. In this conversation, we cover reputation, strategic risk, leadership, and decision-making in a crisis, why so few organizations try to map out a purpose, and a vision for their futures, uncertainty in the limits of knowledge, human factors, the problem with ESG, and so much more. If you are a leader in an organization, or if you're interested in some of the challenges with leadership in large organizations, you will want to listen to this. It's fascinating stuff. Show notes: Garry on LinkedIn Chiron Risk Larry Fink on ESG Ataraxia Radical Uncertainty by Mervyn King and John Kay The Carillion bankruptcy in the UK Wicked problems Wilful Blindness by Margaret Heffernan  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Like what you heard? Subscribe to All Things Risk wherever great podcasts are found: https://thedecisionmaking.studio/podcast Learn more about The Decision-Making Studio

Stephen Sackur speaks to Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England. The international economic outlook is troubled, with geopolitical tensions and climate change heightening uncertainty about inflation, trade and low growth. Are economic policymakers making things worse?

Former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King says the central bank hasn't been covering itself in glory of late, and that's partly thanks to it falling victim to groupthink. The economics profession is jammed with brilliant people, he argues on this week's episode of Merryn Talks Money, but unfortunately, they've all been taught the same thing: money has absolutely nothing to do with inflation.Believing that was a “big mistake,” King says it's brought the UK economy to where it is: inflation at multi-decade highs and the BOE having its credibility questioned.  According to King, it's likely that—despite all money supply indicators signaling the consumer price index will soon be falling fast—the BOE will keep raising rates and the UK will end up in a recession. The central bank will have made the misstep “in both directions over a period of three to four years.” He points out that whether rates go up or down a little over the next year won't change the fact that they are likely to remain far above the historical lows to which people are accustomed. And that suggests all asset prices are going to have to come down relative to income.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

» Die Themen der Folge 226: --- (00:05:36) » Threads & Elon-Clown-Show https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/10/instagrams-threads-app-reaches-100-million-users-in-just-five-days/ https://archive.ph/2023.07.08-031831/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/mark-zuckerberg-threads-twitter-elon-musk-ecec1eaa https://archive.li/2023.07.09-160444/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/07/twitter-dead-musk-tiktok-public-square/ https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-most-followed-users-are-now-on-threads-2023-7 https://www.semafor.com/article/07/06/2023/twitter-is-threatening-to-sue-meta-over-threads https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12280535/Elon-Musk-escalates-war-words-Mark-Zuckerberg-ahead-Las-Vegas-cage-fight.html https://archive.li/8B0lz (00:28:06) » Metaverse: RIP https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/metaverse-zuckerberg-pr-hype/ (00:30:24) » ChatGPT-Nutzer-Statistiken https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/07/chatgpt-users-decline-future-ai-openai/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/chatgpts-user-base-shrank-after-openai-censored-harmful-responses/ https://beebom.com/chatgpt-code-interpreter/ https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-code-interpreter-chatgpt-data-scientist-jobs-8818501/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/code-interpreter-comes-to-all-chatgpt-plus-users-anyone-can-be-a-data-analyst-now/ https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-tool-code-interpreter-masters-things-in-seconds-wharton-professor-2023-7 https://gizmodo.com/openai-pauses-chatgpt-browse-with-bing-paywall-1850605577 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/10/tech/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-lawsuit/index.html https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/5/23784257/google-ai-bard-privacy-policy-train-web-scraping (00:38:18) » Character.AI https://archive.ph/2023.07.08-143013/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-07/character-ai-chatbots-are-tech-s-weirdest-1-billion-hit (00:43:28) » AI-Phone: Humane https://www.designboom.com/technology/humane-ai-pin-wearable-smartphone-project-apps-calls-hands-07-03-2023/ (00:48:18) » Health-Chatbot von Google https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/8/23788265/google-med-palm-2-mayo-clinic-chatbot-bard-chatgpt https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/5/23784257/google-ai-bard-privacy-policy-train-web-scraping (00:52:02) » AI in der ärztlichen Behandlung https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/opinion/artificial-intelligence-medicine-healthcare.html (00:58:04) » Medizinische Revolution und Ende von Volkskrankheiten? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/23/magazine/golden-age-medicine-biomedical-innovation.html (00:59:31) » Spotify-Gründer mit Neko Health https://venturebeat.com/ai/daniel-ek-neko-health-raises-65m-for-ai-driven-preventative-healthcare-solutions/ (01:05:17) » China-Fintechs mit Strafzahlungen https://www.nzz.ch/technologie/china-verhaengt-geldbussen-gegen-internetplattformen-investoren-sehen-ein-ende-des-regulierungsfeldzugs-sie-koennten-sich-wieder-einmal-taeuschen-ld.1746565 (01:07:45) » Phosphat-Rohstoff-Sensation in Norwegen https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/great-news-eu-hails-discovery-of-massive-phosphate-rock-deposit-in-norway/ https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/battery-solar-panels-norway-phosphate-b2368444.html (01:10:31) » Buchtipp https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Mervyn-King/dp/1408712601 https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Annie-Duke/dp/0735216355 https://www.amazon.de/Think-Again-Power-Knowing-What/dp/1984878107 https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Tim-Harford/dp/1594634807/ Streaming-Empfehlung: Devs https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8134186/

Today's guest are Mervyn King and Ed Smith.Lord Mervyn King, Baron King of Lothbury, was formerly Governor of the Bank of England and is an Expert Lecturer at the Institute of Sports Humanities (ISH). Ed Smith is an author, journalist and former National Selector for England cricket. As a professional cricketer, he played for Kent, Middlesex & England and is the Founder of ISH.The conversation builds on the themes of Mervyn's book, Radical Uncertainty: Decision Making for an Unknowable Future. The recording took place at Ed's house in Kent.Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry. To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter @UnffclPrtnrWe publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday. These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport. Our entire back catalogue of 300 sports business conversations are available free of charge here. Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner' on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and every podcast app. If you're interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series, you can reach us via the website.

If we ignore the flagrant human rights abuses, there's a lot to admire about China. There economy has grown at an incredibly rate whilst the West has been stagnating. So, what's their secret? Phil quotes Mervyn King, former BoE governor, who spoke to a Chinese central banker and asked that very question. Here what he said, and what Steve Keen thinks is behind China's growth, in this week's podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Following on from my piece last week Tyranny of the Midwits, I was having dinner the other day with a friend who is a big cheese behind the scenes in government. I won't say his name. Discretion is everything. In any case, his name doesn't really matter to what I'm about to say.I was busy moaning, as we all do, about the state of the country, and at the fact that there are so many things that, it seems to me, could be quite easily remedied with some reasonably ballsy decision-making by those in power. Yet, from planning to tax to energy to immigration, nothing seems to change. We seem to be having the same arguments we were having decades ago, arguments that I thought had long since been won. Something, in particular, that drives me nuts is when a politician or public servant in an influential position stands down, then goes to the media and says what needs to be done. And you're thinking: you were literally just the person who could've done something, you were in charge, why didn't you do anything? I remember it happened with George Osborne, with Mervyn King and many more besides.My friend came back with this. If you want somebody in government or in a position of influence at a major institution to do something, and you say to them, “look, we have this problem here, and this is the solution, this is what needs to be done”, they will nod their heads wisely and then do nothing, because to do something involves, first, extra effort and initiative on an already-full plate, but, more significantly, career risk. The path of least resistance, with the least career at risk, is usually to continue with things as they are. People don't like to ruffle feathers or create work for themselves unless they really have to.On the other hand, if you invert the process, and you leak a story to the press, create a scandal, then you turn to the person in charge and you say, “look at this story, it's really bad, it reflects really badly on you, you've got to do something,” then suddenly the career risk to that person in charge becomes not doing something.So the only way you can get people to do stuff is by creating pressure, usually via the media, and somehow making the career risk to not do something. It's why it so often seems we are ruled by the media. It's only when they create a scandal, and put pressure on those who run institutions, that anything ever gets addressed. Our system of rule is not a democracy but a media-cracy, never mind a mediocrity. It's nuts. It's such a backwards way of operating. Lord knows how, but if any of the change so many of us crave is to happen, we need to invert that career-risk thing, so that the risk in powerful institutions is no longer doing something, but not doing something, otherwise, this ridiculous process of leaking stories to the press to put pressure on those in charge will continue to be the only way of ever getting anything done. It's such a second- or even a third-rate way of operating, and it's especially bad when midwits are running the show.Subscribe to the amazing publication which is The Flying Frisby. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Following on from my piece last week Tyranny of the Midwits, I was having dinner the other day with a friend who is a big cheese behind the scenes in government. I won't say his name. Discretion is everything. In any case, his name doesn't really matter to what I'm about to say.I was busy moaning, as we all do, about the state of the country, and at the fact that there are so many things that, it seems to me, could be quite easily remedied with some reasonably ballsy decision-making by those in power. Yet, from planning to tax to energy to immigration, nothing seems to change. We seem to be having the same arguments we were having decades ago, arguments that I thought had long since been won. Something, in particular, that drives me nuts is when a politician or public servant in an influential position stands down, then goes to the media and says what needs to be done. And you're thinking: you were literally just the person who could've done something, you were in charge, why didn't you do anything? I remember it happened with George Osborne, with Mervyn King and many more besides.My friend came back with this. If you want somebody in government or in a position of influence at a major institution to do something, and you say to them, “look, we have this problem here, and this is the solution, this is what needs to be done”, they will nod their heads wisely and then do nothing, because to do something involves, first, extra effort and initiative on an already-full plate, but, more significantly, career risk. The path of least resistance, with the least career at risk, is usually to continue with things as they are. People don't like to ruffle feathers or create work for themselves unless they really have to.On the other hand, if you invert the process, and you leak a story to the press, create a scandal, then you turn to the person in charge and you say, “look at this story, it's really bad, it reflects really badly on you, you've got to do something,” then suddenly the career risk to that person in charge becomes not doing something.So the only way you can get people to do stuff is by creating pressure, usually via the media, and somehow making the career risk to not do something. It's why it so often seems we are ruled by the media. It's only when they create a scandal, and put pressure on those who run institutions, that anything ever gets addressed. Our system of rule is not a democracy but a media-cracy, never mind a mediocrity. It's nuts. It's such a backwards way of operating. Lord knows how, but if any of the change so many of us crave is to happen, we need to invert that career-risk thing, so that the risk in powerful institutions is no longer doing something, but not doing something, otherwise, this ridiculous process of leaking stories to the press to put pressure on those in charge will continue to be the only way of ever getting anything done. It's such a second- or even a third-rate way of operating, and it's especially bad when midwits are running the show.Subscribe to the amazing publication which is The Flying Frisby. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Central banks have held the financial world in their grip for much of the twentieth century, but is their reign coming to an end? In this episode of Worldview, Adam Boulton is joined by the former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, along with journalist and author Merryn Somerset Webb, Iain Martin, Editor-in-Chief of Engelsberg Ideas, and economic historian, Samuel Gregg. Image: Currencies from around the world. Credit: Jochen Tak / Alamy Stock Photo 

Central banks have held the financial world in their grip for much of the twentieth century, but is their reign coming to an end? In this episode of Worldview, Adam Boulton is joined by the former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, along with journalist and author Merryn Somerset Webb, Iain Martin, Editor-in-Chief of Engelsberg Ideas, and economic historian, Samuel Gregg. Image: Currencies from around the world. Credit: Jochen Tak / Alamy Stock Photo  

We are living in an age when economic failings have shaken faith in global capitalism. Political failings have undermined trust in liberal democracy and in the very notion of truth. The ties that ought to bind open markets to free and fair elections are being strained and rejected, even in democracy's notional heartlands. Some now argue that capitalism is better without democracy; others that democracy is better without capitalism. What can be done? In this episode of the podcast, Martin Wolf and Mervyn King consider the present and future of our political and economic framework. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Den amerikanska centralbankschefen Jerome Powell reser till Sverige och Stockholm i veckan för att delta vid en konferens om centralbankers oberoende, som anordnas av Riksbanken. Deltar gör även bland annat Andrew Bailey, chef för Bank of England, samt nationalekonomerna Mervyn King och Kenneth Rogoff. Utspel från Fed-chefen och de övriga i direktionen blir viktiga att följa den kommande veckan, skriver CNBC. I fredags släpptes jobbrapporten för december som visar att lönerna ökar mindre än väntat och nu på fredag släpps inflationssiffrorna för samma månad. Där finns ingen mekanisk koppling mellan centralbankerna och de privatägda bankernas kreditutgivning och att det finansiella systemet är upp och ner och dessutom bak och fram enligt gemene mans uppfattning om detsamma sade visst Merwyn King en gång i tiden... #CarlNorberg #DeFria De Fria är en folkrörelse som jobbar för demokrati genom en upplyst och medveten befolkning! Stöd oss: SWISH: 070 - 621 19 92 (mottagare Sofia S) PATREON: https://patreon.com/defria_se HEMSIDA: https://defria.se FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/defria.se

In mid-2021, Lord Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England, joined our podcast and was almost singular (compared to other experts) in predicting the inflation that we see today. Now, as we look back on 2022, he rejoins us with a somewhat more optimistic outlook on what may happen next.King, Bethany, and Luigi go back to the basics to unpack what was foreseeable, and what was less so. How did "too much money, too few goods" cause today's inflation? What were the effects of energy shocks, the COVID-related labor market, and what might be the implications for asset prices, wages, and interest rates, among other things? They discuss the successes and pitfalls of economic models, the risks ahead in policy approaches, and the political pressures that might impact their implementation.

It has been abundantly clear in these times we live in that the current model of capitalism does not work – or at least not for the majority of people. In this episode, we are honored to hear insights from former South Africa Supreme Court Judge, Professor Mervyn King. Professor King shares his reimagined model of capitalism. He confirms that trickle-down economics does not work. He envisions a new brand of capitalism where there is a new purpose for business, which is to create shared value for multiple stakeholders, serve society, and deliver sustainable impact. The good news is you too can boldly reimagine capitalism. Where do you choose to work? Where do you choose to shop? What kind of company you choose to create? Join in and learn how you can be part of this radical new thinking.Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review & share! https://anne-pratt.com

Does business shrink the heart or does it help it expand? Does it nourish the spirit? Can it even nourish the spirit? Martin Reeves of the BCG Henderson Institute and author of the new book “The Imagination Machine” explores how we might deliberately harness the full human potential of imagination in corporate arenas. Get‌ ‌book‌ ‌links‌ ‌and‌ ‌resources‌ ‌at‌ https://www.mbs.works/2-pages-podcast/  Martin reads two pages from 'Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making Beyond the Numbers' by John Kay and Mervyn King. [reading begins at 07:34] Hear us talk about: The limitation of quantitative models and statistics. [11:22] | How Martin brings the concepts of storytelling and imagination into business conversations with clients: 'To create alignment, excitement and motivation, you need more than numbers.' [13:34] | How to keep curiosity and imagination alive in instances where efficiency is viewed as the main goal. [19:43] | Ways to measure success beyond the metrics: 'There are some things in life that you cannot obtain by pursuing them directly." [25:42] | Martin's experience and realisations in co-writing his book 'The Imagination Machine.' [31:01]

In this episode of the Evolving Leader, co-hosts Jean Gomes and Scott Allender talk to John Kay, one of the world's leading economists, whose life's work is focused on the relationship between economics and businesses.  Together with Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England, he wrote Radical Uncertainty about the impoverished approach many economists and business strategists take regarding risk in the face of uncertainty.  In this conversation we get a wealth of insight about the judgement challenges facing leaders today and into the future. "Radical Uncertainty: Decision-making for an unknowable future", John Kay and Mervyn King (2020)Social:Instagram           @evolvingleaderLinkedIn             The Evolving Leader PodcastTwitter               @Evolving_Leader

In these uncertain times, we're exploring the concept of 'radical uncertainty' in this episode with Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, alongside renowned economist John Kay and Jesse Norman MP. Mervyn and John are the co-authors of a new book titled Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making Beyond the Numbers, and in this episode they discuss the most successful - and most short-sighted - methods of dealing with an unknowable future using history, mathematics, economics and philosophy.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mervyn King explores how some uncertainty is unavoidable and how statistical forecasts can lead us astray if we're not careful. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/mervyn-king-how-to-handle-radical-uncertainty/ (Mervyn King: How to handle radical uncertainty) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

While statistical models and probability scores can be useful for helping diagnose problems, they are not reliable information for predicting the future. Brent is joined in this episode by two eminent economists, John Kay, a fellow at St. Johns College, Oxford and the first dean of Oxford's Said Business School, and Mervyn King, former Governor […] The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/how-statistical-modeling-can-make-it-harder-to-understand-the-world/ (How statistical modeling can make it harder to understand the world) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

Points this week: (1) How do we know if someone is claiming the right degree of precision? (2) If Russ + guests are right, how have economists gotten away with it for so long? (3) Sunk cost fallacy is real and we should continue to preach it. Twitter: https://twitter.com/EconReply Email me at kasey.podtalk@gmail.com Get the PodTalk app: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/podtalk/id1438894462 Join EconTalkers PodTalk group: https://podtalk.app/join_group?u=podtalk://join/group:3

El Kiosco vuelve a abrir de manera virtual, por lo que Macarena Lescornez y Angélica Bulnes traen los mejores artículos, entrevistas y crónicas para discutir y amenizar esta cuarentena en tiempos de Covid-19. En este primer episodio, nuestras conductoras conversaron sobre el peso del juicio en la toma de decisiones de cara a la “Incertidumbre Radical” que aborda Mervyn King, y el dilema que plantea el uso de los datos médicos en países como Corea del Sur para el rastreo y seguimiento de enfermos por Covid-19, y su posible impacto en la privacidad de los usuarios en los próximos meses.

In the second episode of The Director's Chair, Michael Fullilove speaks with Lord Mervyn King about COVID-19, global economic downturn, the UK's response to the virus, Brexit, and what Lord King terms the 'radical uncertainty' of economic forecasting during a global crisis. Lord King served as the Governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2013, including the period of the global financial crisis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kit Juckes, Societe Generale Chief FX Strategist, and Marc Chandler, Brown Brothers Harriman Global Head of Currency Strategy, discuss the latest in currency moves. Mervyn King, Former Bank Of England Governor, says we ought to be concerned about whether banking problems in other parts of the industrialized world could spill over into our economy.Bill Hoagland, Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Vice President, says you cannot govern in a country as large as the United States in a partisan way. Stewart Warther, BNP Paribas Head of U.S. Equity and Derivative Strategy, says it seems the market is anticipating that the worst is over.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Kirsty Young's castaway this week is the out-going Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King. He has been in charge during a period of unprecedented global financial turmoil yet under his leadership the Bank of England has emerged as one of the world's most powerful central banks. He may have grown used to the pink tails coats and top hats of his attendants in Threadneedle Street but his background was far from privileged. His father worked on the railways and then became a teacher; his mother was a housewife and sang in the church choir. Their son studied hard and gained a top first at Cambridge before going on to teach at MIT and the London School of Economics. Throughout his demanding public life he has been sustained by his twin passions for cricket and Aston Villa football club. His other great love appears to have been an intriguingly slow burn: he first met Barbara, the woman who would become his wife, in 1970 - they married in 2007. He says, "Being the Governor of the Bank of England is actually the easiest job I've ever done; you're in charge & you've got tremendous support." Producer: Cathy Drysdale.