Podcast appearances and mentions of Mervyn King

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)

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

Dans cet épisode, James Parkyn et François Doyon La Rochelle discutent les sujets suivants :  Dans les nouvelles : La crise de solvabilité des Banques mondiales  Sujet Principal : Mise à jour sur la Gestion Active vs. Passive  Dans cet épisode, nous invitons nos auditeurs à découvrir notre dernière fonctionnalité ci-dessous. Pour la première fois, nous partageons le script du podcast, à la demande de certains de nos auditeurs.    Liens:  - The Grumpy Economist: How many banks are in danger? (johnhcochrane.blogspot.com)  par John Cochrane  -The Non-Bailout Bailout – Foreign Policy  par Adam Tooze, balado “Ones & Toozes”  -How Bank Oversight Failed: The Economy Changed, Regulators Didn't - WSJ par Andrew Acherman, Angel Au-Yeung & Hannah Miao  -Chief Risk Officer: The Most Thankless Job in Banking - WSJ par Ben Cohen  -Foolproof: Why Safety Can Be Dangerous and How Danger Makes Us Safe: Ip, Greg: 9780316286046: Books - Amazon.ca par Greg IP  -The Price of Time: The Real Story of Interest: Chancellor, Edward: 9780802160065: Books - Amazon.ca par Edward Chancellor  -Épisode 44 : Banques Centrales et Récessions — Sujet Capital par James Parkyn & François Doyon La Rochelle  -When Headlines Worry You, Bank on Investment Principles | Dimensional par Dimensional  -What Gets Lost When You Rescue Markets - WSJ par Jason Zweig  -It Wasn't Just Credit Suisse. Switzerland Itself Needed Rescuing. - WSJ par Margot Patrick, Patricia Kowsmann, Drew Hinshaw & Joe Parkinson  -SPIVA U.S. Year-End 2022 - SPIVA | S&P Dow Jones Indices (spglobal.com)  par Tim Edwards, Anu R. Ganti, Craig Lazzara, Joseph Nelesen & Davide Di Gioia  -Active Funds Continue to Fall Short of Their Passive Peers | Morningstar par Bryan Armour    Lire le script :  Introduction :  François Doyon La Rochelle: Bienvenue à Sujet Capital, un balado mensuel à propos de la gestion passive de portefeuille et de la planification financière et fiscale pour les investisseurs à long terme.  Vos hôtes pour ce balado sont James Parkyn et moi-même François Doyon La Rochelle, tous deux gestionnaires de portefeuilles avec PWL Capital.  Au programme aujourd'hui pour l'épisode #51 :  Pour notre premier sujet, nous aborderons la solvabilité des banques.  Et ensuite, pour notre sujet principal, nous ferons le point sur les résultats de la gestion active versus la gestion passive pour 2022.  Bonne écoute !    La crise de solvabilité des Banques mondiales :  François Doyon La Rochelle: Notre premier sujet aujourd'hui est un sujet d'actualité, c'est un sujet qui porte sur la solvabilité bancaire. James, tu vas aborder l'actualité entourant l'échec de la Silicon Valley Bank, également connue sous l'acronyme SVB, aux États-Unis et la crainte d'une contagion qui pourrait se propager à d'autres banques américaines et internationales, en particulier après l'annonce de la fusion forcée de la Banque crédit Suisse avec UBS. Il est important de noter que le crédit Suisse figurait parmi les 30 banques les plus importantes au niveau mondial. Maintenant, beaucoup de nos auditeurs se demandent si c'est le début d'une crise bancaire majeure comme nous l'avons vu il y a 15 ans en 2008-2009 avec la crise financière mondiale ?  James Parkyn: Je peux comprendre pourquoi nos auditeurs et en fait la plupart des investisseurs seraient très inquiets à propos de ces nouvelles dans le monde bancaire. C'est partout dans la presse financière. Vous ne pouvez pas y échapper. Dans ce segment, nous essaierons de résumer ce qui s'est passé et ce qu'il est important pour que les investisseurs sachent afin qu'ils évitent de prendre de mauvaises décisions qui pourraient avoir un impact négatif sur leur plan d'investissement à long terme.   François Doyon La Rochelle: Alors, commençons par SVB aux États-Unis. Qu'est-ce qui s'est passé et pourquoi a-t-elle échoué si rapidement ?  James Parkyn: L'histoire de ce qui s'est passé n'est pas encore entièrement connue. Ce que nous savons jusqu'à présent, c'est que l'effondrement soudain de la Silicon Valley Bank a été provoqué en partie par les actifs qu'elle détenait (principalement des bons du Trésor américain de haute qualité) qui ont perdu de la valeur lorsque les taux d'intérêt qui ont beaucoup augmenté après avoir été près de zéro. Un mauvais appariement entre ses actifs et ses passifs a provoqué une crise de liquidité. Les événements se sont déroulés si rapidement qu'ils ressemblaient un peu à l'histoire du film américain de Noël classique "It's a Wonderful Life" de Frank Capra avec le comédien Jimmy Stewart. Certain de nos auditeurs connaissent l'histoire du film où le frère de Jimmy Stewart a perdu l'argent de dépôt du Bailey Building and Loan, une caisse Populaire locale, dans une confusion d'enveloppe de dépôt à la banque appartenant au redoutable M. Potter. Très vite, la nouvelle se répandit dans la petite ville que le Bailey Building and Loan était insolvable et les clients se précipitèrent pour retirer leurs dépôts.     François Doyon La Rochelle: Oui, je dirais que pour les anglophones que c'est un film classique du temps des fêtes, l'un des plus aimés de tous les temps. Il illustre également parfaitement une panique bancaire ou en anglais « A run on the bank ».  James Parkyn: On peut se tourner maintenant vers L'économiste John Cochrane dans son blog intitulé "Combien de banques sont en danger ?" le 14 mars 2023, il explique selon moi le mieux la situation qui s'est produite avec la SVB. Il a dit : « SVB a échoué, essentiellement, parce qu'elle a financé un portefeuille d'obligations et de prêts à long terme avec des dépôts non assurés susceptibles de retrait sans conditions. Les taux d'intérêt ont augmenté, la valeur marchande des actifs est tombée en dessous de la valeur des dépôts. Quand les gens voudraient récupérer leur argent, la banque devrait vendre à bas prix, et il n'y en aurait pas assez pour tout le monde. Les déposants se sont précipités pour être les premiers à retirer leur argent. Et voilà, c'est ce qui est arrivé à SVB, une ruée aux guichets bancaires.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Pour mieux comprendre, il faut se souvenir de la situation économique qui prévalait en 2022 et de ce qui l'a précipitée. L'année dernière, le problème clé pour l'économie et les banques c'était l'inflation, qui a bondi au-dessus de 5% après des décennies autour de 2%. Jusqu'à la mi-2021, la Fed avait signalé qu'elle maintiendrait les taux proches de zéro pendant des années, puis elle a radicalement changé de vitesse et a relevé les taux au rythme le plus rapide depuis le début des années 1980. De nombreux investisseurs, dont SVB, ont été pris au dépourvu par cette nouvelle réalité de taux plus élevés.  James Parkyn: La mécanique de l'investissement obligataire est que la hausse des taux fait chuter les prix des obligations, en particulier les obligations qui n'arrivent pas à échéance avant de nombreuses années. Il a été largement rapporté que SVB privilégiait les obligations à plus long terme pour leur rendement supplémentaire. Une baisse de la valeur des avoirs obligataires d'une banque pourrait en théorie réduire son capital, C'est à dire le coussin entre l'actif et le passif qui absorbe les pertes.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Comment les régulateurs ont-ils laissé cette situation se produire ?  James Parkyn: Dans le WSJ du 24 mars 2023, dans un article intitulé "How Bank Oversight Failed: The Economy Changed, Regulators Didn't". L'article déclare: "Alors que les taux d'intérêt ont bondi après des années de stabilité, les régulateurs n'avaient pas pleinement anticipé l'impact que les banques subiraient sur la valeur de leurs avoirs obligataires. Jusqu'à la mi-2021, la Fed s'attendait à ce que l'ère des taux ultra bas se poursuive. Ce n'est qu'à la fin de 2022, alors que les taux avaient déjà considérablement augmenté, que les régulateurs ont averti SVB que sa modélisation du risque de taux d'intérêt était inadéquate. »  François Doyon La Rochelle: Alors, est-ce qu'on peut dire que les régulateurs n'effectuaient pas leur travail ?  James Parkyn: En partie oui, encore une fois le titre de l'article le dit bien. Un deuxième facteur a été l'absence de prise de conscience du danger que représentait la dépendance de la SVB à l'égard de dépôts très importants, qui pouvaient être retirés pratiquement à tout moment grâce à la technologie d'aujourd'hui. L'article du WSJ poursuit en disant : « Les banques en sont venues à dépendre davantage de ces dépôts. Les régulateurs reconnaissent qu'ils n'ont pas insisté sur une telle préoccupation parce que les gros dépôts provenaient des principaux clients de SVB et de Signature, qui, pensait-on, resteraient.   François Doyon La Rochelle: L'article du WSJ poursuit en disant : "... les dépôts ont fui beaucoup plus rapidement que jamais auparavant, aidés à la fois par la peur alimentée par les médias sociaux et par la technologie qui a permis aux gens de déplacer de grosses sommes en quelques clics sur un smartphone". J'ai du mal à croire qu'une grande banque avec un actif déclaré de 209 milliards de dollars américains échouerait à une gestion des risques aussi élémentaire. Est-ce qu'on peut dire que c'était une sorte de tempête parfaite?   James Parkyn: Je ne le crois pas. Nous disons souvent dans notre podcast, on ne sait pas ce qu'on ne sait pas, et un événement de type Black Swan n'est pas prévisible. Le cas de la SVB, est un cas de mauvaise gestion des risques à la base très élémentaire.  François Doyon La Rochelle: L'économiste John Cochrane dans son blog du 14 mars semble être d'accord. Il a déclaré : « Dans mon dernier article, j'ai exprimé mon étonnement que l'immense appareil de régulation bancaire n'ait pas remarqué ce risque énorme et élémentaire. Il faut mettre 2 + 2 ensembles : beaucoup de dépôts non assurés, une grande exposition au risque de taux d'intérêt. 2+2=4, ce ne sont pas des maths avancées ».  James Parkyn: Ce n'est pas tout, il y a encore plus d'éléments à cette histoire. La réglementation bancaire dans les pays développés comme le Canada et les États-Unis exige qu'ils aient en poste un cadre supérieur dans chaque banque dans le poste de chef de la gestion des risques (Chief Risk Officer). C'est incroyable, mais au moment de l'échec, la SVB n'avait personne dans ce rôle.   Le journaliste Ben Cohen du WSJ a écrit un article le 23 mars 2023, intitulé « C'est le poste le plus ingrat dans le secteur bancaire. Silicon Valley Bank ne l'a pas rempli pendant des mois. Il a écrit : « L'absence d'un cadre supérieur dans ce rôle pour la Silicon Valley Bank pendant huit mois critiques nous rappelle que le risque n'a pas à être excessif ou exotique pour être existentiel. L'exposition alarmante de SVB à la hausse des taux d'intérêt n'aurait pas dû être difficile à prévoir par la banque et les mesures pour se protéger aurait dû être facile à implanter. » Je suis étonné de voir comment une banque qui desservait une clientèle le plus innovant de l'économie américaine aurait pu être condamnée par une mauvaise gestion élémentaire des risques. Mais cette banque qui était une préférée du secteur de la technologie en Californie a échoué à cause de sa gestion des risques.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Mais la SVB devait sûrement avoir d'autres processus de gestion du risque parce que la responsabilité ultime revient au PDG de la banque et au conseil d'administration.  En fin de compte, le conseil d'administration de la banque serait-il responsable?  James Parkyn: Effectivement, le conseil est responsable. Puis même si on n'a personne en poste il faut avoir quelqu'un qui prend la responsabilité au niveau réglementaire. PWL Capital est réglementée, on a un Chef des Finances, on a un Chef de Conformité, on a un PDG qui est ultimement responsable de tout. Et on a un conseil d'administration qui supervise le Président et les activités de l'entreprise. Donc si on creuse un peu plus loin, oui je suis d'accord que même en l'absence de chef de la gestion des risques, au moins il aurait dû y avoir une personne par intérim et la réglementation aurait exigé des rapports réguliers au conseil d'administration sur la gestion du risque. Ben Cohen du WSJ l'a dit le mieux : "Bien sûr, la présence d'un directeur de la gestion des risques n'est pas nécessaire pour savoir quand la Réserve fédérale augmente les taux. Les dépôts des rapports réglementaires suggèrent que SVB était conscient de ses vulnérabilités bien avant la ruée sur la banque. : Le comité de la gestion des risques du conseil s'est réuni presque autant de fois l'an dernier (18) qu'au cours des trois années précédentes combinées (19). » Donc François, là encore, nous assistons à un échec retentissant des processus de gouvernance de base.  François Doyon La Rochelle:  Alors, qu'en est-il de la Banque Crédit Suisse et de la fusion avec UBS? Est-ce que la situation ressemble à celle de la SVB ? Quel est l'impact de la fusion du Crédit Suisse et d'UBS?  James Parkyn: La situation est en effet différente, mais c'est un effet de rebond. Tout le monde immédiatement dans les marchés financiers a remis en question toutes les banques. Sont-elles bien gérées ou mal gérées ? C'est là qu'il y a une historique récente, dans les 10 et 15 dernières années, ou le Crédit Suisse a été souvent mis en garde par les autorités réglementaires par des grosse amandes par les milliards et on s'inquiétait de sa gestion du risque. L'historien économique Adam Tooze dans son podcast Ones and Toozes du 17 mars 2023 l'a qualifié de "choc de confiance qui a tué le Crédit Suisse". Les auditeurs réguliers se souviendront du Podcast # 44 lorsque j'ai recommandé son livre « Crashed » une œuvre magistrale qu'il a écrit sur le système bancaire pendant la crise financière mondiale. Contrairement à SVB, avec Crédit Suisse, Adam Tooze affirme qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'une crise de liquidité mais plutôt d'une crise de contrepartie…… D'autres banques mondiales et des clients importants perdaient confiance dans la viabilité à long terme du Crédit Suisse compte tenu de son historique récente de sa mauvaise gestion du risque.  C'est aussi un enjeu majeur pour la Suisse et son rôle dans le système bancaire mondial. Un article récent du WSJ intitulé "Ce n'était pas seulement le Crédit Suisse. La Suisse elle-même avait besoin d'être sauvée ». Pour n'importe quel pays, les problèmes du Crédit Suisse seraient une urgence financière. Pour la Suisse, c'est un enjeu existentiel. Son modèle économique et son identité nationale, cultivés au fil des ans, se sont construits sur la sauvegarde des richesses et la gestion des grandes fortunes mondiales. Il ne s'agissait pas seulement d'une banque. La Suisse elle-même qui avait besoin d'être secourue.  François Doyon La Rochelle: La crise bancaire du Crédit Suisse a ajouté la dimension de contagion mondiale à cette crise. Pour les Suisses, elle menace un modèle économique et une identité nationale.  James Parkyn: Crédit Suisse, c'est la deuxième plus grande banque suisse et fait partie du Top 30 des banques systémiques mondiales. Donc, les autorités des pays du G20, surveillent ces 30 grandes banques et doivent respecter les normes de capital qui sont plus restrictives. Le Crédit Suisse a des problèmes de gestion des risques depuis plus d'une décennie. Adam Tooze dans son podcast du 17 mars l'a qualifié de "choc de confiance qui a tué le Crédit Suisse". Maintenant que le Crédit Suisse et UBS, la plus grande banque suisse, ont fusionné, la question qui doit se poser est : la nouvelle banque, aura plus de 50% du marché bancaire suisse, est-elle maintenant trop grande pour être renflouée si une nouvelle crise se réaliserai dans l'année ? Le WSJ a rapporté le 22 mars 2023 : « Son système bancaire est cinq fois plus grand que son produit intérieur brut et plus grand que dans la plupart des économies. UBS combiné avec le Crédit Suisse a un bilan deux fois plus grand que l'économie suisse ». C'est énorme ! On disait qu'il y avait une expression anglaise, une banque qui est « Too big to fail » ce qui veut dire que si elle est dans le trouble, le gouvernement va devoir qu'il vient à la rescousse pour la maintenir en vie. Mais dans ce cas-ci, c'est plutôt « Too big to bail ».   François Doyon La Rochelle: Il est clair pour moi que toutes ces turbulences auront un impact sur l'élaboration des politiques des banques centrales et leurs moyens pour lutter contre l'inflation en augmentant les taux d'intérêt. La SVB qui s'effondre aux États-Unis et le sauvetage d'urgence du Crédit Suisse devrait forcer les banques centrales à sous-peser leur décision entre gérer des risques systémiques et les risques d'inflation.  James Parkyn: Donc, on peut penser qu'il y a un certain consensus qui semble se développer surtout au Canada et aux États-Unis qu'on est à la fin de la hausse des taux. Même si c'est le cas, je pense que les hausses qu'on a eu depuis les 12 derniers mois continueraient de faire effet, selon certains économistes spécialisés, sur les banques et ça va impacter les bilans des banques ainsi que les actifs qu'ils détiennent. Ils causeront également des problèmes dans d'autres secteurs de l'économie. Je cite encore Adam Tooze, il a déclaré : « Lorsque les banques centrales augmentent les taux d'intérêt, elles essaient d'avoir un impact sur l'inflation par le biais d'événements négatifs. Avec un cycle de hausse des taux aussi rapide adopté par les banques centrales, il fallait s'attendre à ce que des chocs économiques négatifs se produisent. C'était seulement une question à savoir ce qui se plierait VS ce qui se casserait.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Quel est le rôle des régulateurs bancaires dans ce gâchis ?  James Parkyn: C'est une très bonne question François, je reviens sur les propos de l'ancien gouverneur de la banque de l'Angleterre, Mervyn King, que l'on a cité lors de notre podcast #44, qui invitait les Leaders des banques centrales à une réflexion sur les nouvelles stratégies à développer. Jason Zweig a écrit dans son l'article du WSJ du 17 mars et je le cite: « Au cours des deux dernières décennies, la Fed, le Trésor et d'autres autorités sont intervenues à maintes reprises pour stabiliser les marchés financiers, comme si l'échec n'était plus une option. Tout cela illustre un problème encore plus grave : les autorités centrales ne sont ni omniscientes ni omnipotentes, et leurs efforts pour extraire les risques du système peuvent le rendre plus dangereux, pas moins. Alors même que les règles se sont multipliées et que les renflouements se sont multipliés, le marché boursier américain a subi quatre krachs d'au moins 20 % depuis l'an 2000. »  François Doyon La Rochelle: Eh bien maintenant, nous parlons de Risque Moral. Jason Zweig en parle justement: "La tentative d'éradiquer l'échec du système financier, bien sûr, fait partie de la poussée plus large de la société moderne pour rendre la vie elle-même sans risque et à l'épreuve des idiots, avec des poussettes indestructibles, des emballages de médicaments à l'épreuve des enfants, voitures presque autonomes et autres... »  James Parkyn: Un autre chroniqueur du WSJ, Greg IP, l'a souligné dans son livre "Foolproof" publié en 2015. Il dit : « … rendre un environnement plus sûr peut endormir de nombreuses personnes dans la complaisance et la prise de risques excessifs »." Je lis également un livre écrit par l'historien financier britannique Edward Chancellor, intitulé "Le prix du temps". Ce livre décrit l'histoire et les origines des taux d'intérêt. Cet auteur fait valoir que "la tentative de contrôler le risque en abaissant les taux d'intérêt réduit le coût de la prise de risque, et finit donc par augmenter le montant global du risque dans le système". Nous avons beaucoup parlé François dans notre podcast des taux d'intérêt normalisés a plusieurs reprises dans la dernière année dans notre Podcast. Je crois que nous avons eu des taux trop bas pendant trop longtemps et trop de gens ont tenu pour acquis que ça continuerait tout simplement.  François Doyon La Rochelle: James, quel est ton conseil pour nos auditeurs ?  James Parkyn: En préparation de ce Podcast, je suis retourné à notre Podcast #44 sur les Banques Centrales. La grande crainte à l'automne quand on l'a publié, concernait les récessions et l'impact potentiel sur les marchés financiers. Nous avons souligné la recherche de Dimensional qui a montré que les marchés du monde entier ont récompensé les investisseurs même lorsque l'activité économique a ralenti. Beaucoup pensent maintenant que le spectre des faillites bancaires réduira les activités de faire des prêts par les banques, ce qui augmentera encore la probabilité d'une activité économique au ralentie. Nous recommandons à nos auditeurs de rester disciplinés dans leur plan d'investissement a LT et d'oublier tout le bruit du moment tel que l'inflation, les taux d'intérêt, la récession et maintenant nous pouvons ajouter à la liste les faillites bancaires.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Oui, en effet, nos auditeurs réguliers le savent, c'est l'un de nos mantras en tant qu'investisseur discipliné avec un état d'esprit à long terme, vous ne pouvez pas prévoir l'avenir.  James Parkyn: En conclusion François, nous nous tournons vers nos amis de Dimensional, ils ont produit un excellent article intitulé "Quand les grands titres vous inquiètent, misez sur les principes d'investissement" qui dit que : «Bien que le plan de chaque investisseur soit un peu différent, ignorer les grands titres et se concentrer sur les principes éprouvés suivants peut vous aider à éviter de faire des faux pas avec vos placements.  1. L'incertitude est inévitable : l'incertitude n'est pas nouvelle et investir comporte des risques.  2. La synchronisation du marché c'est-à-dire le Market Timing en EN est futile.  3. "La diversification est votre ami", une citation attribuée au lauréat du prix Nobel Merton Miller.  François Doyon La Rochelle: J'aime la citation suivante dans cet article : « Lorsque l'inattendu se produit, de nombreux investisseurs ont le sentiment qu'ils devraient faire quelque chose avec leurs portefeuilles. Souvent, les grands titres et les experts attisent ces sentiments avec des prédictions de scénarios négatifs et décourageants. Pour l'investisseur à long terme, cependant, planifier ce qui peut arriver est beaucoup plus approprié que d'essayer de prédire l'avenir. Comme d'habitude, nous partagerons le lien avec nos auditeurs.    Mise à jour sur la Gestion Active vs. Passive  François Doyon La Rochelle: Pour notre deuxième sujet d'aujourd'hui, on va vous donner une mise à jour des résultats de la gestion active versus gestion passive pour 2022. Je crois maintenant, qu'après tous les podcasts qu'on a publiés, que la grande majorité de nos auditeurs comprennent que nous croyons dans l'efficacité des marchés et que notre philosophie d'investissement est basée sur les preuves empiriques que l'utilisation de produits d'investissement grandement diversifiés, à faible coût et gérés passivement est la meilleure façon de capturer les rendements du marché et d'augmenter les chances de succès à long terme pour nos clients.  James Parkyn: Exactement et ça fait plus de 20 ans maintenant qu'on a adopté cette approche d'investissement basée sur la conviction que l'investissement actif est un jeu à somme négative ou en anglais « is a negative sum game ». Cependant, ça ne veut pas dire qu'on ne remet pas en question et qu'on ne consulte pas les derniers papiers de recherche et derniers articles pour nous assurer que notre philosophie d'investissement est toujours supportée par des preuves.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Oui, et c'est pourquoi on analyse année après année le rapport SPIVA, de S&P Dow Jones Indices qui mesure les résultats des indices S&P par rapport aux fonds actifs, et aussi le rapport de Morningstar « Active vs Passive Barometer » qui mesure la performance des fonds actifs par rapport à leurs pairs passifs, pour voir si les résultats de la dernière année étaient différents des résultats des années passé. Malheureusement pour les gestionnaires actifs, cette année n'a pas été différente des années précédentes, puisqu'encore une fois les gestionnaires actifs dans leur ensemble n'ont pas été capable de battre leurs comparables passifs.  James Parkyn: Ce que tu souligne la Francois est particulièrement intéressant après une année difficile comme 2022, lorsque les marchés boursiers et obligataires se sont exceptionnellement repliés en même temps. Le vieux discours des gestionnaires actifs est qu'une bonne gestion active surpassera les investissements passifs en période de volatilité des marchés. Donc qu'est ce qui s'est passé réellement en 2022 ?  François Doyon La Rochelle: Eh bien, étant donné la forte volatilité du marché en 2022, on s'attendait à ce que les gestionnaires actifs aient de nombreuses opportunités de battre les stratégies passives.  James Parkyn: En effet, on a couvert les grands événements géopolitiques et économiques dans notre podcast au cours de la dernière année, mais je pense qu'il est utile d'en souligner certains pour que nos auditeurs aient une idée des opportunités que la gestion active aurait pu exploiter pour générer de meilleurs résultats. L'année a commencé avec la guerre en Ukraine et les troubles géopolitiques qui ont suivi, ensuite on a eu l'augmentation des taux d'inflation à des niveaux très élevés ce qui a mené à la réaction rapide et forte des banques centrales pour augmenter les taux d'intérêt. Encore une fois, je ne fais que souligner ici l'évidence, mais pour en revenir à notre sujet, comment est-ce que la gestion active s'est comportée contre la gestion passive l'année dernière ?  François Doyon La Rochelle: He bien, pour répondre à ta question, James, je vais me baser principalement sur le rapport de Morningstar appelé « Active vs passive Barometer » donc en français le baromètre actif versus passif de Morningstar. Ce rapport est assez complet, il couvre près de 8 400 fonds gérés activement aux États-Unis avec environ 15,7 billions de dollars d'actifs sous gestion. Je préfère ce rapport au SPIVA car il mesure le taux de réussite des gestionnaires actifs par rapport aux résultats de fonds gérés passivement et non seulement par rapport à des benchmarks.  James Parkyn: C'est une nuance importante. Les « benchmark ou indices de références » du rapport Morningstar reflètent la performance réelle, nette des frais, des fonds passifs que l'on peut acheter et non simplement la performance d'un indice boursier dans lequel on ne peut pas investir sans encourir de frais.  François Doyon La Rochelle: C'est exact James, et c'est une nuance très importante. Donc si on passe maintenant aux résultats, encore une fois, sur la base du récit selon lequel les gestionnaires actifs feront mieux en période de tension et de volatilité sur le marché, je pense que les résultats pour 2022 sont très peu concluants pour les gestionnaires actifs.  Dans l'ensemble, sur la base des 20 catégories d'investissement différentes rapportées par Morningstar, seuls 40,5% des gestionnaires actifs ont pu battre leurs indices de référence respectifs en 2022. C'est un résultat qui est plus faible qu'en 2021, une très bonne année sur les marchés, quand 51,1 % des gestionnaires actifs ont battu leurs indices de référence.  James Parkyn: Comme tu l'as mentionné, c'est très intéressant car ça va à l'encontre de ce que nous récite la gestion active, qu'ils seront plus performants dans les années difficiles. Donc sur les 20 catégories, quelles étaient les meilleures ?  François Doyon La Rochelle: Sur les 20 catégories différentes, 6 d'entre elles ont un taux de réussite supérieur à 50%. Ce qui veut dire que dans chacune de ces 6 catégories plus de 50% des gestionnaires ont pu battre leurs benchmarks. À titre de comparaison, ce chiffre-là en 2021 était de 7. Cela dit, les catégories qui ont le mieux faites en 2022 étaient, en premier, la catégorie des titres de petite capitalisation de type valeur avec un taux de réussite de 61%, en deuxième, la catégorie de titre de petite capitalisation de type croissance avec un taux de réussite 56,9% et le troisième était la catégorie des actions mondiale avec un taux de réussite de 56 %. Je dois mentionner, en toute objectivité, que la catégorie des actions américaines de grande capitalisation, qui est probablement la catégorie de fonds la plus importante en termes d'actifs sous gestion, figurait également parmi les meilleures catégories en 2022 avec un taux de réussite de 54,1%. Ce qui signifie que 54,1 % des gestionnaires actifs de cette catégorie ont battu leur indice de référence dans la dernière année.  James Parkyn: C'est quoi maintenant les catégories qui ont moins bien faites ?  François Doyon La Rochelle: La pire catégorie parmi les 20 était l'immobilier mondial avec un taux de réussite de seulement 20%, cette catégorie a été légèrement dépassée par la catégorie des obligations d'entreprises avec un taux de réussite de 22,6% et par la catégorie des actions des pays émergents avec un taux de réussite de 23,4%.  James Parkyn: Ce que je trouve intéressant dans ces résultats, c'est que les catégories très sensibles aux taux d'intérêt comme l'immobilier mondial et la catégorie des obligations de sociétés ont été parmi les catégories les moins performantes l'année dernière.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Effectivement, j'ai également été surpris par ces résultats et par le fait que les autres catégories de revenu fixe « ou d'obligations » comme la catégorie d'obligations à moyenne échéance et la catégorie d'obligation à rendement élevé ont également eu de mauvais résultats avec des taux de réussite faibles de 37,9 % et 27,2 % respectivement. Donc eux aussi ont grandement sous-performer leurs homologues passifs.  James Parkyn: Wow, j'aurais pensé que dans une année comme 2022 avec toutes les discussions entourant l'inflation, les taux d'intérêt et les décisions de la banque centrale, que la gestion active aurait prévalu. On se serait attendu à ce que les gestionnaires actifs soient en mesure d'ajuster leurs portefeuilles et de tirer profit de la prévision des variations des taux d'intérêt.  François Doyon La Rochelle: En effet James. J'ai aussi regardé les rapports SPIVA américains et canadiens de 2022 et bien que ces rapports n'analysent pas la performance de la gestion active versus la gestion passive de la même manière que Morningstar, il y avait quand même des points très intéressants dans leur rapport en ce qui concerne l'incapacité des gestionnaires actifs à surperformer leurs indices de références respectifs. Le rapport souligne que les conditions de marché pour les actions et les titres à revenu fixe ont été exceptionnellement difficiles en 2022, soulignant toutefois que ces marchés difficiles ont donné aux gestionnaires actifs de grandes opportunités pour générer une surperformance relative. Des opportunités que la grande majorité des gestionnaire actifs n'ont pas su exploiter.  James Parkyn: Qu'est ce que tu veux dire?  François Doyon La Rochelle: Eh bien, si on examine l'exemple fourni dans le rapport américain de SPIVA, l'indice S&P500 de type croissance et l'indice S&P500 de type valeur, qui sont tous deux des indices d'actions américaines à grande capitalisation, étaient respectivement les indices de référence pour les actions les moins performants et les plus performants en 2022. Le rapport poursuit en mentionnant qu'il y avait plus de 20 points de pourcentage qui séparaient leur performance respective pour l'année. Nos auditeurs réguliers vont se souvenir qu'on a souligné dans notre podcast #48 que les titres de valeur avaient largement surperformé les titres de croissance en 2022.  James Parkyn: C'est vraiment étonnant, j'aurais pensé que ce type de dispersion dans les rendements auraient offert des belles opportunités pour la gestion active.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Oui on aurait pensé, mais les gestionnaires actifs n'ont pas su saisir les opportunités puisque la majorité d'entre eux, qui ont comme indice de référence le S&P500, n'ont pas réussi à le battre. Étant donné que les actions de croissance à grande capitalisation étaient la classe d'actifs la moins performante, un gestionnaire de titre de croissance à grande capitalisation aurait pu simplement acheter des actions d'une autre classe d'actifs pour battre son indice de référence. Malgré ça, près de 74 % des gestionnaires actifs de titre de croissance à grande capitalisation n'ont pas été capable de battre leur indice de référence.  Voici une citation du rapport SPIVA américain, "la perspective pour les meilleur gestionnaires d'actions américaines à grande capitalisation était supérieure à la moyenne et les vents favorables, même pour les gestionnaires moins performant, étaient exceptionnellement bons", le rapport poursuit en disant "un examen des différents segments de marché qui ont été les plus et les moins performants montre qu'ils auraient dû donner l'avantage aux gestionnaires actifs, en particulier grâce à leur capacité à s'écarter des indices pondérées en fonction de la capitalisation boursière qui ont des allocations importantes en actions américaines de grande capitalisation.  James Parkyn: As-tu quelque chose à souligner sur les résultats à plus long terme ?  François Doyon La Rochelle: Eh bien, pour la dernière période de 10 ans, le taux de réussite de la gestion active dans le rapport Morningstar est de 31,5 %, ce qui signifie que seulement 31,5 % des gestionnaires actifs ont pu battre leurs homologues passifs. Si on regarde les résultats sur 20 ans, le taux de réussite chute encore plus bas à 16,2 %. Dans le rapport américain SPIVA, ce que j'ai trouvé intéressant, c'est qu'il donne les points de bascule des quartiles pour les fonds d'actions aux États-Unis. Ce qu'il faut retenir ici, c'est que si vous aviez acheté un fonds indiciel S&P500 ou un fonds indiciel S&P1500, vous auriez effectivement a acheté un fonds qui s'est classé dans le premier quartile de tous les fonds actifs et passifs américains au cours des dernières périodes de 5, 10 et 20 ans.  James Parkyn: Sur la base de ces rapports, je ne pense pas qu'on va changer de sitôt notre façon d'investir.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Non aucun changement en vue, encore une fois, je pense que c'est la preuve qu'à long terme, les investisseurs qui sont disciplinés et qui privilégie la gestion passive obtiendront des meilleurs rendements que les investisseurs actifs.    Conclusion :  François Doyon La Rochelle: Merci James Parkyn d'avoir partagé ton expertise et ton savoir.  James Parkyn: il m'a fait plaisir Francois.  François Doyon La Rochelle: Hé bien c'est tout pour ce 51ième épisode de Sujet Capital!  Nous espérons que vous avez aimé.  N'hésitez pas à nous envoyer vos questions et suggestions. Vous pouvez nous joindre par courriel à sujetcapital@pwlcapital.com .  De plus, si vous aimez notre podcast, partagez-le avec votre famille et vos amis et si vous n'y êtes pas abonné, faites-le SVP.  Encore une fois, merci d'être à l'écoute et joignez-vous à nous pour notre prochain épisode qui sortira le 11 mai.  A bientôt! 

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.

Complex situations makes it challenging to become a leader that's appreciated. People and situations within an organisation set a diverse set of expectations on leadership. I've noticed that people who repeatedly provide appreciated and appropriate leadership share some common traits that distinguish them from other leaders. Besides sharing these traits I also share the most basic and useful framing of what leadership entails, that I've come across. Here's an illustration that summaries the traits I've noticed so far. In-depth article on infoQ that covers this and previous episode in writing - will be published first week of January. Some of the key people and work that has influenced my thinking and practice in the context of this episode: Klara Palmberg's doctoral thesis - Beyond Process Management Esther Derby on contextual change - 7 Rules for Positive, Productive Change Dave Snowden on context awareness and navigating complexity - Cynefin framework David Epstein on generalists strengths during complexity - Range John Kay & Mervyn King on decisions during uncertainty - Radical uncertainty Aaron Dignan on complexity conscious - Brave New Work

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

Niklas talks with Sean Pawley, CEO and Founder of Seshat Bank and Rasheed Griffith, COO and Chief Compliance Officer of Merkle Hedge.Sean has founded an API-first commercial bank for Latin America. He talks about his journey from East Africa to Central America, and how he uses the novel regulatory regime on Prospera Honduras to innovate in key areas for banking.Notably, he talks about the "Pawnbroker for All Seasons" model to risk management pioneered by Mervyn King (ex. Governor of the Bank of England) as an improvement over the "Lender of Last Resort" Model.Rasheed and Sean walk us through the most important international financial regulations such as AML-KYC laws, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Securities Laws. These are key for finance entrepreneurs to understand when starting a new company.We learn how regulatory practice is often detached from material effectiveness, and how political incentives often lead to bad regulation. Better regulations, however, are needed for some key financial innovations to flourish.Rasheed, Sean and Niklas believe startup cities like Prospera Honduras can be the innovation needed to provide more innovation-friendly regulations.We invite you to join us on our mission to build the financial and governance systems of the future together on Roatan, Honduras, a beautiful Caribbean island on November 18-20: https://infinitafund.com/fintech2022Niklas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NiklasAnzingerInfinita Fund Website: https://infinitafund.com/Discord: https://discord.gg/Z4H6UjbubK

On the Ian King Business Podcast: retail sales rise but consumer confidence plummets - hear from the former Bank of England governor Mervyn King who blames central banks for fuelling inflation; analysis of cryptocurrency markets following a stablecoin collapse; and former Rugby World Cup winner Will Greenwood talks about celebrating young sporting talent

K ripto para düşüncesi Satoshi Nakamato'nun makalesinden hareketle bugünkü para sistemine karşı çıkan bir felsefeyi yükleniyordu. Bence de Fisher ya da Mervyn King tarafından gösterildiği gibi aşırı derecede kusurlu olan bu para sistemine karşı yerinde bir fikir olarak gelişiyordu. Diğer taraftan dijitalleşmenin ve bilgisayar teknolojilerinin sunabileceği imkânların sınırlarını genişletiyordu. Fakat geldiği yer eleştirdiği para sisteminin kendisiyle aynı yer oldu. Bu akıbette serseri kripto paraların tanıtılması birinci etkendi. Para ihracı kapitalist iştahlı bir yarışa dönüştü ve felsefeden kopuş başladı. Mesela Dogecoin radara girdi. Kapitalizmin kripto paralarla ilgili hoşlanmadığı deflasyonist karakteri bozan bir Truva attı gibi rol oynadı. İkinci etkense kullanıcıların kripto paralara yatırım aracı muamelesi yapması oldu. Kripto paralara yatırım aracıysa Sülün Osman'ın Galata Kulesi, köprü satışları vesaire çok masum. Ay'da arsa satışı mesela, epey tutarlı hatta... İş iyi bir yere doğru gitmedi. Sonra yaptırım altına girenlerin kripto paraya ilgisi kripto paraların gerçekten bir geleceği var idiyse bunu şüpheli

This week we were fortunate enough to draw on the experience of Shamik Dhar, Chief Economist of BNY Mellon Investment Management. Shamik has had a fascinating career having worked in the UK's Foreign Office advising ministers on issues such as Brexit and he was also Senior Economist within the Bank of England where he worked closely with the hugely influential Mervyn King. In this episode we discuss the horrendous war in the Ukraine, what this means for the world economy moving forwards, China's future economic relationship with the West, the global inflation problem, inverted yield curves and much, much more.   https://im.bnymellon.com/us/en/institutional/bios/shamik-dhar.jsp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ramsey_(mathematician) https://vermeerllp.com/              https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-dixey/

Lord Mervyn King is a professor of economics and law at the NYU Stern School of Business and the School of Law, and the former governor of the Bank of England. He served as Governor of the Bank of England and Chairman of its Monetary Policy Committee from 2003 to 2013. Lord King was knighted (GBE) in 2011, made a life peer in 2013, and appointed by the Queen a Knight of the Garter in 2014. Lord King's most recent book, Radical Uncertainty, co-authored with John Kay, examines rationality, decision making under uncertainty, and the flaws with modern economic thinking. The book offers a powerful critique of the current state of economic scholarship and policymaking, arguing that the field of economics has developed an overreliance on fundamentally flawed models as well as misconceptions about risk and uncertainty. In this episode, we discuss Radical Uncertainty, touching on Lord King's motivations in writing the book, its core ideas, and the implications of his critique on the future of economic policymaking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Host: Sam Lee Editor: Marko Petrovic

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.

Hosts Jonathan Ferro and Guy Johnson spoke with Mervyn King, former BOE Governor and Bloomberg Opinion Columnist, to discuss the British economy and the future of the ECB. Jon and Guy also spoke with Marcus Ashworth, Bloomberg Opinion Columnist, and Michael Regan, Senior Editor and Lead Blogger for Markets Live, to preview the week ahead.

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

The former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, talks about how the financial crisis changed the banking culture and says a market economy can't succeed with near-zero interest rates. Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP, says the uncertainty Brexit caused has been excruciating for his company. Finally, David Rubenstein, co-CEO of the Carlyle Group, defends the liberal arts education as important in business. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England, discusses the role that the House of Lords plays in the Brexit process. Catherine Mann, the OECD's chief economist, says a U.S. border tax won't achieve its aims. Finally, Howard Dean, a former Democratic presidential candidate, says Trump's health-care proposal is "pretty bad." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England, and Arabella Weir, comic actor and writer, reveal their favourite books to presenter Harriett Gilbert. Mervyn's choice is The Prince by Machiavelli. Arabella's is A Short Gentleman by Jon Canter, and Harriett chooses Love and War in the Apennines by Eric Newby. Produced by Beth O'Dea

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.