Podcasts about Moral hazard

...เมื่อกลโกงมิจฉาชีพ คงไม่มีทางหมดไป และภัยทางการเงินยังคงอยู่  ...คนไทยยังเป็นหนี้เร็ว เป็นหนี้นาน บางคนเกษียณแล้วยังมีหนี้  ...โครงการ ‘คุณสู้ เราช่วย' กับ Moral Hazard   ...นโยบายการเงินไทยจะเป็นอย่างไร? บนความท้าทายโลก   สิ่งที่ ธปท. ‘คิดและทำ' คืออะไร เพื่ออนาคตการเงินของคนไทย หาคำตอบได้กับ ดร.รุ่ง มัลลิกะมาส รองผู้ว่าการ ด้านเสถียรภาพสถาบันการเงิน ธนาคารแห่งประเทศไทย (ธปท.) 0:00 Intro 1:15 เปิดรายการ 4:47 ยกระดับกวาดล้าง ‘บัญชีม้า' 13:07 ‘จุดสมดุล' ปราบปรามเข้มข้น กับความสะดวกที่น้อยลง  20:47 ต้องร่วมรับผิดชอบ เพื่อความยั่งยืน 33:01 แก้หนี้ให้ ‘คนที่สู้' ไปต่อได้ ‘คุณสู้ เราช่วย' 36:44 ‘คุณสู้ เราช่วย' กับ Moral Hazard 51:01 นโยบายการเงินไทย ในยุคทรัมป์ 2.0 52:38 เปิด ‘ทางรอด' คนไทย 58:31 สรุปบทสัมภาษณ์ ติดตามรายการ ‘NOW & NEXT THAILAND' กับ ผู้ริเริ่มแนวคิด ‘ใช้แรงทำเงิน ให้เงินทำงาน' เฟิร์น ศิรัถยา อิศรภักดี #WealthMeUp #ใช้แรงทำเงิน #ให้เงินทำงาน #NOWNEXTTHAILAND

Analysis of government efforts to eliminate wasteful spending and reduce national debt, examining past reforms, challenges, and future expectations. #Trump #Musk #DOGE

Welcome to Season 2 of the Orthobullets Podcast. Today's show is Podiums, where we feature expert speakers from live medical events. Today's episode will feature ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dr. Sigurd Berven ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and is titled ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Moral Hazard of Spine Surgery: Appropriate Use of Surgery.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Orthobullets⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on Social Media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube

There have been two episodes lately that have sent me down a rabbit hole that I wanted to bring to your attention. Now, disclaimer: I know you people; you're busy. You listen on average to, like, 26 minutes of any given episode. So, yeah … look at me being self-aware. I say all this to say welcome to this inbetweenisode, otherwise known as The Rabbit Hole. But it's like a 20-something-minute rabbit hole, not a day-and-a-half retreat; so just be kind if you email me and tell me I forgot something or failed to dredge into a nuance or a background point. It might be that I just could not manage to pack it in. For a full transcript of this episode, click here. If you enjoy this podcast, be sure to subscribe to the free weekly newsletter to be a member of the Relentless Tribe. This rabbit hole really, really matters for anybody creating benefit design. It really matters for anybody trying to optimize the health that can be derived from said benefit design. It also probably matters for a whole lot of operational decisions involving patients or members, nothing for nothing. But it really matters for anybody trying not to, by accident, as an unintended consequence, hammer plan members or patients with some really blunt-force cost containment measures that do a lot of harm in the process of containing costs or, flip side, accidentally cost a whole lot but don't actually improve member health. Nina Lathia, RPh, MSc, PhD, kind of summed up this whole point or gave an adjacent thought really eloquently in episode 426. She said there's better or worse ways to do things and doing the worst kinds of cost containment may not actually contain costs. You squeeze a balloon, and that works great for some, like pharmacy vendors who don't really have any skin in the game. (See me using the “skin in the game” term for other people besides plan members? That's some really good foreshadowing right there, by the way.) So, squeezing the balloon works for some when they don't have skin in the game, in the place where the air goes when you squeeze the balloon—like a pharmacy vendor who makes it super unaffordable for patients to get meds so the patient doesn't take their meds and winds up in the ICU, or the patient's formerly controlled with meds condition that is now newly uncontrolled and requires all kinds of medical interventions to get said condition back under control. Like, these are the reasons and the why behind why some cost containment efforts don't actually contain costs at the plan level. But not at the vendor level. You see what I mean? Most pharmacy vendors don't get penalized if medical costs wind up going up. And I'm picking on pharmacy vendors a little bit here, but it's true for a lot of siloed entities. But, you know, balloon squeezing can also work, actually, at the plan level if where the air goes, it's to a place where the member or the patient has to pay themselves. Like, if there's a huge, I don't know, max out of pocket or deductible, does it really matter to a very mercenary plan that's running on a very short time horizon? Do they really care, that plan, if the patient's formerly controlled condition gets uncontrolled? Maybe not, I guess, as long as it doesn't cost more than the max out of pocket that the patient is on the hook for, for any given plan year. So, yeah … again, there are better or worse ways to do things; and a lot of questions kind of add up to, What kind of plan do we want to be? What are our values, and does the plan align with them? But that's not the rabbit hole I wanted to go down today—the aligning with our values rabbit hole—so let us move on. The Relentless Health Value episode that kicked off the rabbit hole for me on multiple levels was the show with Bill Sarraille (EP459) about co-pay maximizers and accumulators. And don't get me wrong, that is a complicated topic with lots of pros, lots of cons; and I am not weighing in on the inherent lawfulness or value of any of this. I am also not weighing in on the fact that there are forthright and well-run maximizers and really not good ones, which cause patients financial, for sure, and possibly clinical harm. But not talking about that right now at all. Go back and listen to the show with Bill Sarraille if you are interested. Where my “down the rabbit hole” spiral started was when I started noticing the very, very common main plan pushback that was given right out of the gate so often when talking about the problems that any given plan sponsor has with these pharma co-pay programs—that if these pharmacopeia card dollars count toward the plan deductibles, then the patient's deductible gets met and the plan member will then often overuse healthcare and cost the plan excessive dollars from that point forward. So again, if you ask any given plan sponsor what I was gonna say their main issue but a main issue that they have with these pharma co-pay programs, that's gonna be it—that if these pharma dollars count toward the plan deductible, then the patient's deductible is met and from that point henceforth, the patient goes nuts and overuses healthcare services and it costs the plan a lot of money. The second episode causing this rabbit hole to open up is the one coming up actually with Scott Conard, MD. So, check back in a couple of weeks for that one. But in the show with Dr. Conard, we get into the impact of high-deductible health plans or just big out of pockets, however they transpire in the benefit design. Both of these scenarios, by the way, the maximizer meets the deductible scenario and the very, very high-deductible plan scenario are to blame, in other words, for this rabbit hole of an inbetweenisode. So, let's do this thing. Let's talk about the moral hazard of insurance to start us off. In the context of health insurance, if you haven't heard that term moral hazard before, it's an economics term; and it is used to capture the idea that insurance coverage, by lowering the cost of care to the individual, because their plan is paying for part of said care, by lowering the cost of care to the individual, it increases healthcare use. So, you could see why this may be related to having a deductible fully paid or not. Pre-deductible, the plan is not paying for a part of said care or paying a much smaller part. And after the deductible is paid for, then the plan is paying for a much larger percentage of care. So, moral hazard kicks in bigger after the deductible is fully paid, when the plan is paying for a bigger percentage or a bigger part of the care. So, before I proceed, let me just offer again a disclaimer to the many economists who listen to this show that this is a short inbetweenisode; so I am 100% glossing over some of the points that, for sure, have a lot of nuance. For anyone who wants a thick pack of pages for background reading, I have included some links below. Because you see, a few weeks ago, my Sunday did not go as planned. And instead of running errands, I wound up reading eight papers on moral hazard. So, my lack of groceries is your gain. You're welcome. I am happy to send you these links if you really want to dig in hard on this. Okay … so, moral hazard is the concept that individuals have incentives to offer their behavior when their risk or cost is borne by others. That's the why with deductibles, actually. We gotta give patients skin in the game because once a member has their deductible paid, it's like member gone wild and they will get all manner of excessive care. Again, I hear that a lot from plan sponsors—a lot, in all kinds of contexts but almost always, again, whenever the conversation has anything to do with manufacturer co-pay card programs and a lot when it has to do with just, you know, high-deductible plans and what happens when the patient meets their deductible. Once a patient or family has a fully paid deductible, their medical trend is like a spike, I hear over and over again. And again, this is the reason why many insist—and again, no judgment here, maybe they're right, I'm just rehashing the conversation—but this is why many insist the moral hazard of letting people have their deductible paid for them by Pharma or whatever is the reason why some believe it is imperative to have maximizers or accumulators where pharma dollars can absolutely not apply to patient deductibles. Because then we have sick patients who now have their deductibles reached, who have very few financial disincentives to go seek whatever care they want. Right. Moral hazard has entered the building. I've beaten this point to death, so let's move on. One time, I asked a plan sponsor, What exactly is it that these plan members are going wild spending plan money on once their deductible gets paid off? And he said, well, you know, they go get their suspicious-looking moles checked. Did you hear that silence just now? Yeah, that was my reaction. I don't know. I would consider getting suspicious moles checked kind of high-value care. There are posters all over the place saying if you have a suspicious-looking mole, it might be melanoma. Cancer. So, you should get ahead of that before you have a metastasized cancer. I'm no doctor, but yeah, this feels like high-value care. So, let's just, in arguendo, say it is high-value care and follow this thread for a sec. Once members reach their deductible, let's say they run around and get high-value care, care they actually need but haven't gotten before because they couldn't afford it earlier or were putting it off until they saved up enough, right? Like, this is the other side of the moral hazard coin. If patients delay or abandon care—and, by the way, there was a survey (it's in the Wayne Jenkins, MD, show from a while ago [EP358])—but 46% of patients with commercial insurance these days have delayed or abandoned care due to cost. But if they delay or abandon care that is high value and medically actually necessary and they put it off or abandon that high-value care because they cannot afford said care, then yeah, we have, again, the opposite of the moral hazard problem. We have members paying a whole lot for insurance that they cannot afford to use, they're functionally uninsured, and it's not gonna end healthfully if they need high-value care and they're not getting it. It's not. Functionally uninsured patients who have chronic conditions that really should be managed will, as per evidence, wind up with health problems if those chronic conditions are not managed. I read another study about this just recently. This is why members with chronic diseases on high-deductible health plans tend to have worse health, by the way. Now, I need to say, same rules do not always apply for healthy patients who, at least at this point, don't need regular healthcare. But do keep in mind, as it comes up in the Dr. Scott Conard show, 30% of patients who think they're healthy, they feel fine—actually they are not fine and will become sick and costly in the coming years. So, yeah … tune back in for that discussion if you are interested, but you get the gist of this whole thing, right? So, that's scenario 1 as to what patients may choose to buy once they're in the moral hazard zone and have met their deductible. They go get high-value care. So, let's move on from the high-value care case study where patients reach their deductible and get high-value care or they haven't met their deductible and fail to get care they actually need. I want to circle over to the other moral hazard potential situation: patients who meet their deductible. And in this scenario, they again embark on a health system jamboree; but they don't get a whole lot of high-value care in this scenario. They run around getting all manner of all kinds of stuff that is well outside of any evidence-based pathway. Like, weird example, I went to a doctor recently asking a question about something that everyone ultimately agreed was nothing. At which point, the doctor asked if I wanted an MRI. I was like, “What?” We and everyone else just agreed this was a big nothing burger. Why would I want an MRI? Is there something else that we didn't discuss to indicate that I need imaging? Like, why are we going there? And the doc said, “Oh, well, everyone in New York City has an anxiety problem. So, I thought you might just want to get an MRI.” Yeah, low-value stuff like that is now not financially prohibitive. So, someone who had met their deductible, in a similar situation to my example, might have shrugged and said, “Sure, I do have some anxiety. Let's go get that MRI.” Or if they hadn't met their deductible, then the whole skin-in-the-game, market-driven approach may work, I guess, to prevent them from getting low-value care that was clearly excessive and pretty wasteful. So, summing up these two scenarios, the implications of the moral hazard issue are, if it's expensive, people don't do it. If it's free or cheap, they will overutilize. And the issue with both of these patient choices is, patients are not good at discerning low-value care from high-value care. And because patients are not good at discerning high-value from low-value care, moral hazard is not mitigated with any sort of binary kind of vote for moral hazard or against moral hazard types of brute-force, broad-stroke tactics. Like, say I'm a moral hazard full-on believer. I assume all or most of the care a patient will go for is low value, right? Because if I try to prevent moral hazard from happening, then by default, what I'm effectively saying is, whatever they choose to buy on the basis of moral hazard is low value. So, I make basically everything I can pretty unaffordable so as not to invoke any moral hazard. But right, the problem with that is that some of the care is actually high value. And it's also expensive for the patient, so they don't get it. And patients are harmed, and balloons might get squeezed. Or the opposite, against moral hazard, right? Like, I'm against the concept of moral hazard. I don't believe in it, so I don't set up absolutely anything to combat it. Maybe because I assume all care that a patient might want to get is actually high value and totally worth it. That's gonna be a problem for the opposite reason. Plans can waste a lot of money this way. Random example, in 2014, the Commonwealth of Virginia reported spending $586 million on unnecessary costs from low-value care. I mean, they say something like a third of all care is waste and unnecessary, so … yeah. Plan sponsors can waste a lot of money on low-value care, and a bunch of that may happen when patients have less skin in the game because they reach their deductible, as one example, and the care is not financially prohibitive and moral hazard is realized. So, yeah … as I said, a couple of weeks ago, I did not spend my Sunday as planned. I spent my Sunday reading papers about moral hazard in insurance and how financial incentives impact patient decision making. And I'm gonna repeat the grand takeaway because this is a podcast and you might be multitasking. So, once again, here's the sum of it all: If it's expensive, people tend not to do it. If it's free or cheap, they will overutilize. And the issue with both of these patient choices is, patients are simply quite bad at distinguishing high-value care from low-value care. Once their deductibles are met, most patients will—due to moral hazard—they will, in fact, go on a spending spree; and part of what they will get done will be really, really important and necessary stuff, like getting their unusual moles looked at or their heart pain checked out or going for that follow-up visit or lab work that their doctor told them they need to come in for. And the other part of what they will do will be things that are outside the best-practice, evidence-based pathway guidelines by the length of the Appalachian Trail—you know, doing what appears to be a tour of specialty medicine physicians for unclear reasons but which lead to a cascade of testing and who knows what else. Why do they do this, these members? Do they do this on purpose? No. There is study after study that shows, again, members/patients do not, most of the time, have the chops to figure out if some medical service is high-value or low-value care. And no kidding. Most members and patients have no clinical training. They're not doctors. They're not nurses. They're not physician assistants. They're humans whose uncle died of cancer, and now they have a pain in their foot and they're convinced it's a tumor. Right? Like, do we blame them when they finally go see a doctor because they crushed their budget that particular year paying thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket for whatever earlier in the year, and now they've made it to their deductible—do we blame them for taking the very rational step of getting the most out of those thousands of dollars of sunk costs? At that point, it's a “let me get my money's worth” situation because they can't afford to do this again next year. I mean, we hire employees because they're smart and rational, and this is really actually a pretty smart and rational thing to do. It's not somebody trying to commit fraud. Okay, sure … some people are. There's always bad apples. But the vast majority are just trying to live their life and not spend all of their vacation money next year on medical services like they did this year. I'm saying all this because it's actionable, by the way. And I'm getting to that, but indulge me for like 60 more seconds because I want to acknowledge you, listeners of this show, are probably nodding along to this whole thing this whole time and thinking all of this is pretty obvious. Well, yeah … maybe. Except here's the reason I decided to do an inbetweenisode about this rabbit hole instead of doing my normal thing, which is just ranting about it over dinner for three days straight—and God bless my husband for sitting through it—is the bottom line. But the reason we are here together today is the number of emails and posts and et cetera that cross my desk where it doesn't seem like these dots have been connected on all of this or at least connected in magic marker. Like fat, indelible magic marker, which is what I think is necessary for these dots to be connected with the ones between moral hazard and patients not being able to discern high- and low-value care. There are so many ways and places these dots will show up. Like, here's another moral hazard issue with those maximizers or accumulators, which apparently are on my mind right now—the not good ones I'm talking about now, where patients find themselves on the hook for hundreds or thousands of dollars midyear if they want to pick up the meds that they've been prescribed. If you need more details on how that might happen to understand what I'm saying fully, listen to the show again a couple of weeks ago with Bill Sarraille (EP459). But even if you're a little confused, it doesn't matter because the question is this: Do we justify having programs that make drugs really expensive for patients? Do we put in place one of these pretty darn punitive types of accumulators or maximizers, right? Like, there's different kinds, and I'm talking about the punitive ones of accumulators or maximizers. Do we justify putting one of those into place and figure that if a patient really wants the med, they'll pay a whole lot of money for it? Because if they're willing to pay a whole lot of money for it, then, right? It must be high-value care, so they'll figure out how to pay for it. Keep in mind, as I said earlier, if it's expensive, people don't do it. If it's free or cheap, they will overutilize. And the issue with both of these patient choices is, patients are not good at discerning low-value care or meds from high-value care or meds. So, look, Pharma can be up to all kinds of crap, and list prices are really expensive. No arguments here. That isn't the point. The point is, What is the actual problem that we're trying to solve for, for our plan and our patients and our members? And if that problem is making sure that the right patients get the right high-value meds or care, then not letting members get co-pay assistance such that all drugs—the good ones and the too-expensive ones and the ones that we don't really want our members to take for whatever reason—if we make all of them way too expensive with a maximizer or accumulator designed to make all the drugs really expensive … dots connected. We wind up with the all-in to prevent moral hazard issue we just talked about, where patients could easily be harmed and the plan can easily get into a balloon squeezing situation. All I'm saying is that there's a big-picture view of moral hazard here that we need to be looking at and over-indexing into binary, moral hazard black and white, where we attribute malice to members, some of whom, some of the time, may actually be trying to get high-value care, or the flip side, the plan's paying too much for low-value care and causing financial difficulties and not understanding the root cause. Going black and white or over-indexing to prevent outlier kind of stuff is probably not gonna end well. Not seeking a middle way can easily result in a solution that is possibly worse than the problem. So, look, moral hazard is actually a thing. There are lots of implications to patients not being able to distinguish high-value and low-value care. But if we know this, then, philosophically at least, how do we conceptualize a solve? What should we be doing? If we're not doing black and white, what does the gray in the middle look like? Alright, we don't want to be a solution looking around for a problem. So, let's think about the problems that we want to solve for. I would start with, What's the goal? The goal of plan sponsors providing insurance most of the time is attract and retain talent. Also, I was at the HBCH (Houston Business Coalition on Health) Conference at the beginning of December 2024. And there was a poll question. There was a bunch of employers in the audience, and the poll question asked the audience, “What's your biggest plan goal this year?” Main answer by a mile: Cut costs. Okay … so, we want to attract and retain, and we want to control costs. Obviously, you can go about achieving these three things a bunch of different ways, and they will all be tradeoffs. As Luke Prettol reminded me of the other day, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. And so, with that, right now, I want to introduce the second concept that I have been ruminating over in my rabbit hole lately, that I've kind of been hinting at for this whole time. But here's a word we've been waiting for to solve all of our problems in a good kind of way, not the bad black-and-white ways that are so often either financially a problem or deploying brute force and harming patients in the name of solving something else: Pareto optimality. Pareto optimality is the state where resources are allocated as efficiently as possible so that improving one criterion will not worsen other criteria. It's essential to consider this, that Pareto optimality is the ideal we should at least be striving for when attempting to overcome any challenge but, in particular, the moral hazard issue, when we know that patients do not know what care is high value and what care is low value. Because if we don't try to at least Pareto optimize (if that's a word), if we try to fix the moral hazard problem and wind up with a new problem or new problems that might be worse than the old problem, that's not optimal. We have improved one criterion and worsened another. So, fixing the members going wild after they meet their deductible by slamming the lid on the fingers of members trying to get high-value care as well as low-value care, well … not sure about this, but I'd assume if not the attract but at least the retain criterion might be compromised by member dissatisfaction. But also, as I've said nine times, we might not actually cut costs. We might be doing a squeeze of the balloon. Especially that could be true when, as we all probably know or suspect, what's driving costs at the plan level is rising hospital prices. There's a show coming up on rising hospital prices as a primary driver of rising plan costs, and it's pretty hard to argue with. So, it's financially pretty advantageous to keep patients from needing to go to the hospital. So, yeah … I'd strongly suggest not squeezing balloons when hospitalizations are where the air goes. I'm not gonna belabor this. My only suggestion is, do the Pareto optimality math. A lot of you already are, I'm sure, and do a great job. But just for any given policy plan change, or decision, keep in mind moral hazard and then really go through the whole cascade of likely impact on other factors based on likely member/patient behavior. It's so easy to get sucked into kind of these philosophical, “those are my enemies” kinds of conversations that are actually philosophically sort of interesting, but they aren't the goal. I mean, there's always unintended consequences; but not all unintended consequences should come as some kind of, like, wild-ass surprise. They were pretty predictable, actually. Let me also mention that when considering Pareto optimal solutions, advanced primary care starts to get really compelling. It's because having a PCP team with data and a relationship to the patient helps patients stay on the high-value care bus. And that can minimize the bad that comes from lowering the barrier to care and inviting in a little bit of moral hazard. Just saying. Okay, so this has been going on a little bit longer than I had originally intended, but I do want to remind you of the so-called theory of second best. It's probably really appropriate here, and one of the reasons why I'm mentioning this and not finishing the show right now is that, in a very synchronistic moment, I was writing up my outline for this inbetweenisode and—how random is this?—Steve Schutzer, MD, wrote an email that included something about the theory of second best. Great minds and all of that. Anyway, the theory of second best is really aligned with Pareto optimality. It's just that sometimes you gotta be really practical. You gotta be a little scrappy. If you cannot achieve the best option, either because you just can't or because the best option for one thing results in too many negative consequences elsewhere, then don't do the best option. Forget it. Do the second best (ie, the theory of second best). There is nothing wrong with that. Don't be a hero. Okay, so in summary, moral hazard is actually a thing and so is the opposite; and it's even more of an impactful thing because most people cannot distinguish high-value from low-value care. And if they meet their deductible that they have paid a lot of money to reach, of course, they are going to want to try to get through their checklist of medical appointments that they have been putting off. This is not a surprise. And it's not all bad, as long as the care that they are trying to go get is high value; and that matters if we're trying to cut costs. Because to cut costs for real and not in a squeezing of the balloon way, we need to direct or limit somehow what gets done to high-value care. And we got to do that without accidentally causing other problems, meaning think through Pareto optimality and possibly consider the theory of second best. I hope this has been helpful at some level. It's helped me. I feel better having vented. Also mentioned in this episode are Nina Lathia, RPh, MSc, PhD; Bill Sarraille; Scott Conard, MD; Wayne Jenkins, MD; Houston Business Coalition on Health (HBCH); Luke Prettol; and Steve Schutzer, MD. Additional studies mentioned: Moral Hazard in Health Insurance: What We Know and How We Know It Do People Choose Wisely After Satisfying Health Plan Deductibles? Evidence From the Use of Low-Value Health Care Services Healthcare and the Moral Hazard Problem Distinguishing Moral Hazard From Access for High-Cost Healthcare Under Insurance   For more information, go to aventriahealth.com.   Each week on Relentless Health Value, Stacey uses her voice and thought leadership to provide insights for healthcare industry decision makers trying to do the right thing. Each show features expert guests who break down the twists and tricks in the medical field to help improve outcomes and lower costs across the care continuum. Relentless Health Value is a top 100 podcast on iTunes in the medicine category and reaches tens of thousands of engaged listeners across the healthcare industry. In addition to hosting Relentless Health Value, Stacey is co-president of QC-Health, a benefit corporation finding cost-effective ways to improve the health of Americans. She is also co-president of Aventria Health Group, a consultancy working with clients who endeavor to form collaborations with payers, providers, Pharma, employer organizations, or patient advocacy groups.   04:05 Where did Stacey's rabbit hole spiral start? 05:40 What is the moral hazard of insurance? 09:31 EP358 with Wayne Jenkins, MD. 12:49 Why isn't moral hazard mitigated in insurance? 18:16 EP459 with Bill Sarraille. 20:51 “How do we conceptualize a solve?” 22:24 Why should we be striving for Pareto optimality? 25:20 What is the theory of second best?   For more information, go to aventriahealth.com.   Our host, Stacey Richter, discusses considerations for #plansponsors and others. #healthcare #podcast #changemanagement #healthcareleadership #healthcaretransformation #healthcareinnovation   Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Chris Crawford, Dr Rushika Fernandopulle, Bill Sarraille, Stacey Richter (INBW41), Andreas Mang (Encore! EP419), Dr Komal Bajaj, Cynthia Fisher, Stacey Richter (INBW40), Mark Cuban and Ferrin Williams (Encore! EP418), Rob Andrews (Encore! EP415)  

Robert identifies a moral hazard in his girlfriend's date night behavior. Are you the underwriter or the salesperson in your relationship? BMFCE: Insurance producers and adjusters can earn insurance continuing education credit listening to Robert's live webinars. No test required for credit! BMFCE.com. Email your comments about the show to Robert@bmfce.com. The show is supported by Mercury Protect. Protect against those pricey unexpected auto repair headaches. Mercury offers a Monthly Vehicle Repair Plan that never expires with time or mileage. These plans include 24-hour roadside assistance and rental vehicle assistance. Mercury has been protecting vehicles since 1974, with over $6.7 billion in assets, Mercury will be there when you need them. Click for a quote!

…Covid จบแต่ Long Covid ทางการเงิน ไม่จบ! ทำคนไทยหนี้ท่วม รายได้ไม่ฟื้น ...ทางออกแก้หนี้อยู่ตรงไหน? ใครต้องลดดอกเบี้ย? พาไปหาคำตอบกับ คุณสุรพล โอภาสเสถียร ผู้จัดการใหญ่ บริษัท ข้อมูลเครดิตแห่งชาติ จำกัด 0:00 Intro 1:16 เปิดรายการ 1:22 ปัญหา ‘หนี้' ของไทยร้ายแรงขนาดไหน? 10:02 ‘กติกา' กำลังเป็นปัญหา? 15:20 ทางสู้ Long Covid ด้านการเงิน 19:00 ทางออกอยู่ตรงไหน ใครต้องลดดอกเบี้ย? 24:57 Moral Hazard กับการแก้หนี้ 28:37 แก้หนี้! ทำไมต้องใช้ ‘คนท่องยุทธจักร' 34:30 สิ่งที่ ‘ต้องทำ' ทั้งเจ้าหนี้–ลูกหนี้-ผู้กำหนดนโยบาย 39:27 ‘รายได้คนไทย' จะกลับมาได้อย่างไร? *หมายเหตุ ถ่ายทำรายการ ณ วันที่ 13 ส.ค. 2567 ติดตามรายการ ‘NOW & NEXT THAILAND' ทุกวันจันทร์ กับ ผู้ริเริ่มแนวคิด ‘ใช้แรงทำเงิน ให้เงินทำงาน' เฟิร์น ศิรัถยา อิศรภักดี #WealthMeUp #ใช้แรงทำเงิน #ให้เงินทำงาน #NOWNEXTTHAILAND

Since 2014, over 15,000 migrants have died or gone missing trying to make the voyage from the north coast of Africa to southern Europe. In response, European authorities have launched several search and rescue operations. There are few signs that migration along this deadly route is slowing down. In fact, efforts to curb migrant deaths may encourage even more migrants to make the perilous journey. In a paper in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, authors Claudio Deiana, Vikram Maheshri, and Giovanni Mastrobuoni found evidence that migrants and smugglers responded to search and rescue operations by attempting even more dangerous crossings. However, the authors still say that such operations are likely beneficial to migrants on the whole. Maheshri recently spoke with Tyler Smith about the impact of search and rescue operations on the market for smuggling along the Central Mediterranean Route and what policymakers should do to reduce migrant deaths.

Welcome back! In this latest episode, Rich and Larson are joined by Caleb Bryd to discuss the dark and growing world of IVF. Caleb is a senior litigator at Younts Law. He is a resident of Alabama and an Army veteran who deployed to Iraq in 2019. He is also a Christian, a husband, and a father. "IVF and protecting human life under the law" by Caleb Byrd: https://republicsentinel.com/articles/opinion-ivf-and-protecting-human-life-under-the-law Them Before Us: https://thembeforeus.com/home/ Follow Caleb on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CalebNByrd Subscribe on your favorite podcast app! https://gotaminute.podbean.com/

Welcome to Insurance Covered, the podcast that covers everything insurance. In this episode Peter is joined by Robert Hartwig, Associate Professor of Finance at the University of South Carolina. I this episode they discuss the concept of moral hazard in insurance. In this episode we cover:What is meant by the term moral hazard.The two forms of moral hazard.How insurers protect themselves against moral hazard.The other side of moral hazard, can it actually be a good thing as well?Insurance as an enabler, providing a financial safety net for when risk goes wrong. Links between moral hazard and the climate crisis.We hope you enjoyed this episode, if you did please subscribe to be notified when new episodes release. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Final Draft podcast is all about books, writing and literary culture. We're dedicated to exploring Australian writing, looking into the issues that drive our storytelling to discover more from the books you love. These are the stories that make us who we are. All Summer Long we are exploring great works in the Australian Classics Book Club. Today we look back to Kate Jennings' classic Moral Hazard Final Draft is produced and presented by Andrew Pople Want more great conversations with Australian authors? Discover this and many more conversations on Final Draft every week from 2ser. Get in touch with Andrew and Final Draft. We love to hear about what you're reading! Twitter Instagram Facebook

Greed and exuberance returned to Wall Street as we ended 2023 and welcomed the start of 2024. Markets are trading near all-time highs, the Fed has switched to singing a more dovish tune, and confidence in a soft landing -- or no landing -- for the economy is high. Did we manage to emerge from all the chaos and distortion of the past few years without a major reckoning? Have we dodged the bullet of recession? For answers, we're lucky to talk today with top Thoughtful Money fan-favorites Stephanie Pomboy, economic & financial analyst and publisher of the respected research firm Macro Mavens.Perhaps more than anything else, she fears our growing culture of moral hazard, metastasizing from Wall Street now into Main Street, may end up being the trigger of the next economic crisis. Follow Stephanie at https://macromavens.com/ Or on X/Twitter at @spomboy SUBSCRIBE to Adam's new Substack at https://adamtaggart.substack.com/ to get Adam's Notes for all the recent experts who have appeared on this channel #moralhazard #recession #inflation

And Eurozone inflation falls by more than expected.

Moral Hazard & Government Intervention Eric, Lila, Deven & Ethan are back to talk about what happens when you promise people free things. What happens when your own government is not congruent?  They discuss the unintended consequences of government actions and decisions. They also talk about how they are standing up and fighting for our rights. Learn what you can do to make your community a better and more affordable place.   www.RealPowerFamily.com

This week on my podcast, I read my short story “Moral Hazard,” published last month in MIT Press’s Communications Breakdown, a science fiction anthology edited by Jonathan Strahan. “Moral Hazard” is a story about inequality, fintech, and the problems of “solutionism.” I know exactly where I was the day I decided to give every homeless... more

Robert Kennedy was killed by an assassin's bullet in 1968, ending his presidential run. Had he been shot today, would he have lived? A what-if story about homicides and medical care and the moral consequences of a world where trauma surgeons have gotten really, really good at what they do. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_coleman_non_lethal_weapons_a_moral_hazard ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/135-academic-words-reference-from-stephen-coleman-non-lethal-weapons-a-moral-hazard-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/GZG6LRfkkKc (All Words) https://youtu.be/Ifn0XgKFpqo (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/exl7Fpf2m2k (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Sean Boarman is back with PTF to discuss a major turnaround in his betting fortunes and to give his thoughts on the recent NHC scandal.

Sean Boarman is back with PTF to discuss a major turnaround in his betting fortunes and to give his thoughts on the recent NHC scandal.

Today on Too Opinionated, we talk with actor/writer Byron Mann! Byron is known for his work on Wu Assassins, Skyscraper, The Big Short, Altered Carbon, The Recruit, Blood and Treasure, Little Fires Everywhere, Agents of Shield, Arrow, The Expanse, Hell on Wheels and Smallville. Byron's new rom-com The Modelizer is out now! Set in Hong Kong's high octane, ultra-rich fast-lane, The Modelizer follows Shawn Koo (Mann), son of a Chinese tycoon family, and his partner-in-clubbing Narin “Bucky” Sakpiporn (K-pop star Nichkhun), who enjoy a lavish lifestyle of parties, privilege and international model girlfriends. After a string of short-term relationships, Shawn gets a wake-up call, realizing that all the money in the world is not enough to buy the love of a woman. As he begins falling for the charming yet defiant Camila (Rayssa Bratillieri), a Brazilian model unaccustomed to his lifestyle, Shawn must change his tactics and clean up his act if he intends to win her heart.  Byron is also set to star in Showbox's Moral Hazard (working title) alongside Korean stars Yoo Hai-jin (The Night Owl) and Lee Je-hoon (Taxi Driver 2). Want to watch: YouTube Meisterkhan Pod (Please Subscribe)

Jennifer Doleac studies the economics of crime and discrimination. In July 2023, Jenn will join Arnold Ventures as the Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice. We chat about trends and causes of crime. How guns, drugs and policing interact with crime trends. …there was this huge increase in violent crime in particular in the late early eighties, early nineties. And suddenly violent crime started falling dramatically in the mid-1990s. We still aren't entirely sure why that is the case, this big mystery in the economics of crime world. But we do know that basically crime has been falling since then until very recently. So during the pandemic and since the pandemic, we've seen this big uptick in homicide and shootings, at least in the US. Again, we're not entirely sure why that change. It's kind of like trying to describe what's going on in the stock market. There are lots of sort of little blips and everything, and you can have big picture understanding of the economy and what drives growth, but not be able to predict fluctuations in the stock market. So it's similar with crime rates But overall, we're still in a place where homicide rates and violent crime rates are much lower than they were in the early to mid-nineties. So overall things have gotten much safer, especially in our big cities; we're much safer. But of course, as you said, there's a lot of variation place to place; particular neighborhoods, particular communities, they're the brunt of a lot of violent crime that is still going on. So it's a major public safety or major public problem and concern for policymakers in particular places and that has become more of a focus in recent years as homicides and shootings have gone up, which of course we're not used to after this big decline for decades... We talk about what we know of policies that work on reducing crime, and how challenging the recent uptick in crime statistics is to ideas on reforming criminal justice. We discuss alternatives to jail, and what type of interventions can work on crime, such as sentencing for misdemeanors, and access to healthcare.  Jenn explains why the “broken window” theory of crime has not really held up. The mixed studies on body cameras and how deterrents (like DNA databases and CCTV) seem to work. Jenn discusses her work suggesting some policies have had unintended consequences related to “ban the box” (where employers are not allowed to know of former convictions on initial job application), and related to her paper on the Moral Hazard of Lifesaving Innovations: Naloxone Access and Opioid Abuse (which has proved controversial in some quarters). We play overrated/underrated on: Texas, diversity and universal basic income. We end on Jenn's current projects and life advice. Transcript and video are here: https://www.thendobetter.com/arts/2023/5/8/jennifer-doleac-crime-policing-policy-podcast Jenn also hosts her own podcast:   Probable Causation, a podcast about law, economics, and crime.

In a surprising move, the Biden administration has implemented a new rule that punishes people with high credit scores. Under this new rule, those with good credit will have to pay higher fees on their mortgage payments to subsidize people who have not maintained good credit. This decision has been met with criticism from many economists, including Stephen Moore, a distinguished fellow in economics at the Heritage Foundation. Steve Moore joins the Annie Frey Show today and calls the rule an extreme example of income redistribution and the height of stupidity. He argues that the rule will create a moral hazard problem, where people are rewarded for bad behavior. Moore also believes that this new rule will lead to another financial crisis, similar to what happened during the 2008 housing crisis.   © 2023 KFTK (Audacy). All rights reserved. | iStock / Getty Images Plus

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 13:37) Morally Bankrupt Regimes Act Repressively: Why Russia Arrested a Reporter from the Wall Street Journal Last WeekJournalist's arrest threatens reporting from Russia by Associated Press (David Bauder)Russia Takes a Journalist Hostage by Wall Street Journal (The Editorial Board)Part II (13:37 - 17:44) Echoes of the Great Terror of the Stalin Era: Russian Father Arrested for Thought Crimes—Thought Crimes Found in the Art of His 13-Year-Old DaughterA Child's Drawing, a Dad's Antiwar Posts, and Russia's Latest Orphan by New York Times (Valerie Hopkins)Part III (17:44 - 25:54) Moral Hazard is a Risk for All: For example, How the Biden Administration is Rewarding Bad BehaviorThe Moral Hazard of Joe Biden's Presidency by Wall Street Journal (Daniel Henninger)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

What happened at SVB? Is our banking system in crisis? What are we to make of our economy? Ajay Shah and Mohit Satynanand join Amit Varma in episode 323 of The Seen and the Unseen to tackle these complicated questions and more. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Ajay Shah (Twitter, Substack) and Mohit Satyanand (Twitter, Substack). 2. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ajay Shah: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 3. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Mohit Satyanand: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 4.  Ajay Shah on currencies and crypto (1, 2, 3), an RBI misstep, the third globalisation, NBFCs and banks (1, 2), digital payments, the resolution corporation (1, 2), interest rate mismatch, voting in the MPC, the importance of low and stable inflation and the mispricing of risks. 5. Two Economic Crises (2008 & 2019) — Episode 135 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Mohit Satynanand). 6. The State of Our Economy -- Episode 252 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Puja Mehra and Mohit Satyanand). 7. The Importance of Finance -- Episode 125 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ajay Shah). 8. The Art and Science of Economic Policy — Episode 154 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vijay Kelkar & Ajay Shah). 9. In Service of the Republic — Vijay Kelkar & Ajay Shah. 10. Josh Felman Tries to Make Sense of the World -- Episode 321 of The Seen and the Unseen. 11. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 12. The Forgotten Greatness of PV Narasimha Rao — Episode 283 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vinay Sitapati). 13. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 14. The Long Road From Neeyat to Neeti — Episode 313 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Pranay Kotasthane and Raghu S Jaitley). 15. Elite Imitation in Public Policy — Episode 180 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Alex Tabarrok). 16. Premature Imitation and India's Flailing State — Shruti Rajagopalan & Alexander Tabarrok. 17. Public Opinion — Walter Lippman. 18. The World Outside and the Pictures in our Heads — Walter Lippman. 19. Watching the Wheels -- John Lennon. (Amit also loves Chris Cornell's version.) 20. You're Missing — Bruce Springsteen. 21. The End of Silicon Valley (Bank) -- Ben Thompson on Stratechery. 22. This Banking Crisis Won't Wreck the Economy -- Tyler Cowen. 23. SVB Took the Wrong Risks -- Matt Levine. 24. Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market -- Walter Bagehot. 25. Moral Hazard and the Cantillon Effect. 26. Beware of the Useful Idiots — Amit Varma. 27. The Use of Knowledge in Society — Friedrich Hayek. 28. Austrian Economics: An Introduction -- Steven Horwitz. 29. Friedrich Hayek: The ideas and influence of the libertarian economist -- Eamonn Butler. 30.The End of History? — Francis Fukuyama's essay. 31. The End of History and the Last Man — Francis Fukuyama's book. 32. Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology -- Chris Miller. 33. The Double ‘Thank-You' Moment — John Stossel. 34. Why Pramila Devi Uses Her Chappals Sparingly -- Sayantan Bera. 35. Where Are the Customers' Yachts? -- Fred Schwed Jr. 36. South India Would Like to Have a Word — Episode 320 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Nilakantan RS). 37. Jimi Hendrix on YouTube Music, Spotify and Wikipedia. 38. Neil Young on YouTube Music, Spotify and Wikipedia. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘The Madness of Money' by Simahina.

This is the 3rd in a 5-part series with commodities broker and small business owner, Carley Garner, co-owner of DeCarley Trading based in Las Vegas, USA. In this episode of the podcast, Carley explains the term "Moral Hazard" and how to manage our risk ahead of a potential financial crisis as small business owners.Connect with Carley on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carleygarner/ Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/decarleytrading/ Website here: https://decarleytrading.com/ ***Disclaimer***No information in this podcast is tailored toward your specific business or financial situation and should not be taken as advice or consulting. Please contact a consultant within the coffee industry to assist with your specific needs. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

This is the 3rd in a 5-part series with commodities broker and small business owner, Carley Garner, co-owner of DeCarley Trading based in Las Vegas, USA. In this episode of the podcast, Carley explains the term "Moral Hazard" and how to manage our risk ahead of a potential financial crisis as small business owners.Connect with Carley on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carleygarner/ Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/decarleytrading/ Website here: https://decarleytrading.com/ ***Disclaimer***No information in this podcast is tailored toward your specific business or financial situation and should not be taken as advice or consulting. Please contact a consultant within the coffee industry to assist with your specific needs. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Bea speaks with Salonee Bhaman about how struggles over housing and healthcare were linked in the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in New York, and what lessons we can draw from this history for single payer, long covid, and more. As always, support Death Panel at www.patreon.com/deathpanelpod Find our book Health Communism here: www.versobooks.com/books/4081-health-communism Read Salonee's article (gated access) "For a Few Months of Peace: Housing and Care in the Early AIDS Crisis" here: https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-8841694 Death Panel merch here (patrons get a discount code): www.deathpanel.net/merch

This week's theme on the Retirement Quick Tips Podcast is: Why Banks Are Going Bust & What To Do About It   Today I'm talking about the problem with bank bailouts and moral hazard, and how stoping a contagion in the banking system today leads to more problems in the future because of moral hazard.    On Sunday, March 12th, regulators announced that they would give depositors of Silicon Valley Bank access to their funds, not just those that were covered by FDIC insurance. This is important because roughly 97% of all deposits at SVB were not covered by the FDIC insurance limit, and the millions of dollars that some depositors had a SVB would have been reduced to $250,000 overnight.    Since regulators stepped in to back all deposits, the next question is:Are all uninsured deposits now covered by government guarantees?   No. The regulators said they were making an exception for SVB and Signature (which also collapsed at the same time as SVB).  If you recall from September 2008, it was the government's refusal to bailout Lehman Bros after their collapse, that is widely accepted as the tipping point of the Global Financial Crisis. But 6 months prior to that, Bear Stearns collapsed and was bailed out.  So its likely that Lehman, AIG, and other troubled banks with garbage balance sheets assumed that they could be bailed out too. And if they made that assumption, they would have been slow to act. It's possible that Lehman could have found a buyer as things started to head south to prevent a bankruptcy. And they certainly would have taken on less risk with their CredDefSwaps and other risky investments if they didn't have the backstop of the government.  This played out the same way for SVB. By the time SVB tried raising capital to keep things afloat, it was too little too late, and it was too far gone.  When the regulators step in it's controversial, because it creates what is known as a “moral hazard”. It's like the parents who will always bail their kids out no matter what. When the kids know this, they feel untouchable and certain kids will take advantage of the situation by doing crazy and stupid stuff and feel invincible all the while. Well as you and I both know, that behavior, if it continues will catch up to you someday with often catastrophic consequences.   That's moral hazard, and the same is true for banks if the government will always backstop them in a crisis. They and their customers have no incentive to manage their risk or act prudently, because Daddy Government will always step in and save the day. That poor incentive structure and the risky behavior encourages is scary when the US Financial system is put to the test as a result.  Banks and regulators should have learned more from the 2008 financial crisis, but SVB is proving that's not always the case. Especially in the banking world, where it seems like the management made poor decisions and mistakes. These mistakes were in plain view of regulators months ago when they started racking up the losses, but nothing was done about it, and here we are today.  So when you once again have regulators stepping in to backstop all deposits, unfortunately no one learns from their mistakes and we can expect more of the same in the future.  That's it for today. Thanks for listening! My name is Ashley Micciche and this is the Retirement Quick Tips podcast.     ---------- >>> Subscribe on Apple Podcasts: httpstr://apple.co/2DI2LSP >>> Subscribe on Amazon Alexa: https://amzn.to/2xRKrCs >>> Visit the podcast page: https://truenorthra.com/podcast/  ---------- Tags: retirement, investing, money, finance, financial planning, retirement planning, saving money, personal finance

The recent failure of Silicon Valley Bank harkened back to the dark days of 2008. Meanwhile, despite losing to Pratt & Whitney more than a decade ago in the battle to supply the engine for the F-35 jet fighter, Washington is suddenly abuzz about a General Electric effort to revive their alternate engine.  TCS Senior Policy Analysts Wendy Jordan and Josh Sewell join Steve Ellis for a discussion about Moral Hazard and the old budget watchdog adage, "No matter how wasteful, no bad idea is ever truly dead in Washington, especially when there are billions of dollars on the line. You have to kill, kill, kill until it's dead, dead, dead.”

Alf is Italian but is coming today from the Netherlands. He and Jason talk about some of the factors that contributed to the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis. They discuss the moral hazard involved, mismanaged portfolios and the lack of proper risk management- factors that culminated on the banks demise, making investors question whether this will spark a broader banking meltdown. Key Takeaways: Jason's editorial 1:21 Hope you enjoyed last episode 2:03 Listen to Jason's “10 commandments of successful investing”: Thou shalt maintain control! 4:38 Housing inventory keeps falling- where's the crash? 7:10 Almost 25% of mortgages are 3% or lower 8:19 On to our guest with a deep dive into the current banking crisis Alfonso Peccatiello interview 9:14 Alf, coming from the Netherlands 10:03 3 Bank collapses; a summary of what really happened 13:42 US Banks loan-to-deposit ratios 16:06 Moral Hazard and a mismanaged portfolio 19:16 Big banks hedge interest rate risks- NOT SVB 22:28 Lax regulatory and accounting laws in the US for small banks 23:34 Who benefited from the collapse 24:36 Securities portfolio mix as of December 31, 2022;  distinguishing between small and highly regulated banks 29:29 SVB ‘woke' programs and the lack of proper risk management 30:39 Bank failures 2001 to 2023; are more bank collapses coming 31:56 At risk: the real estate market; unaffordable housing leads to more renters 34:50 Compared to what 37:43 The booming labor market 39:02 Credibility & central banks; Blackstone & KKR, Jerome Powell & Paul Volcker 44:25 There is no distressed home owner 48:10 Institutional investors- what their capital stack or debt structure is like 49:32 Step up your macro game  https://www.themacrocompass.com   Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank continues to ripple across banking and tech. Today, three indicators on the fallout, including what's next for some startup CEOs and why you might be hearing the term, moral hazard. And we talk about the other bank failure that's been overshadowed by SVB, New York-based Signature Bank.For sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator from Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.

Americans are "taught" that government regulations (beyond the punishment of force or fraud) are necessary. Yet, the more government "rules" there are (and there are more than can even be enforced) the more the citizens find out that the regulations are largely an illusion. Whether it's "vaccines" or banking, or any other major debacle; it's time to put an end to the tool that Big Corporations use to create extraordinary advantages for themselves. It's time that Big Corporations have no choice but to compete in a free market. Unlike politicians and bureaucrats, the free market can't be bribed, bought or lobbied. Big Corporations hate the free market, and they're very pleased that the average American is "taught" to hate it too.

Part of the government’s rescue actions amid the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank was the establishment of a new Fed emergency lending program for banks in crisis. According to analyst Joseph Wang, the program could incentivize riskier behavior at banks. Credit Suisse, one of the world’s largest banks, has been extended a lifeline by the Swiss central bank. And, Biden administration has proposed stricter standards to regulate so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

Part of the government’s rescue actions amid the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank was the establishment of a new Fed emergency lending program for banks in crisis. According to analyst Joseph Wang, the program could incentivize riskier behavior at banks. Credit Suisse, one of the world’s largest banks, has been extended a lifeline by the Swiss central bank. And, Biden administration has proposed stricter standards to regulate so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

Alf is Italian but is coming today from the Netherlands. He and Jason talk about some of the factors that contributed to the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis. They discuss the moral hazard involved, mismanaged portfolios and the lack of proper risk management- factors that culminated on the banks demise, making investors question whether this will spark a broader banking meltdown. Key Takeaways: Jason's editorial 1:21 Hope you enjoyed last episode 2:03 Listen to Jason's “10 commandments of successful investing”: Thou shalt maintain control! 4:38 Housing inventory keeps falling- where's the crash? 7:10 Almost 25% of mortgages are 3% or lower 8:19 On to our guest with a deep dive into the current banking crisis Alfonso Peccatiello interview 9:14 Alf, coming from the Netherlands 10:03 3 Bank collapses; a summary of what really happened 13:42 US Banks loan-to-deposit ratios 16:06 Moral Hazard and a mismanaged portfolio 19:16 Big banks hedge interest rate risks- NOT SVB 22:28 Lax regulatory and accounting laws in the US for small banks 23:34 Who benefited from the collapse 24:36 Securities portfolio mix as of December 31, 2022;  distinguishing between small and highly regulated banks 29:29 SVB ‘woke' programs and the lack of proper risk management 30:39 Bank failures 2001 to 2023; are more bank collapses coming 31:56 At risk: the real estate market; unaffordable housing leads to more renters 34:50 Compared to what 37:43 The booming labor market 39:02 Credibility & central banks; Blackstone & KKR, Jerome Powell & Paul Volcker 44:25 There is no distressed home owner 48:10 Institutional investors- what their capital stack or debt structure is like 49:32 Step up your macro game  https://www.themacrocompass.com   Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com

Alf is Italian but is coming today from the Netherlands. He and Jason talk about some of the factors that contributed to the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis. They discuss the moral hazard involved, mismanaged portfolios and the lack of proper risk management- factors that culminated on the banks demise, making investors question whether this will spark a broader banking meltdown. Key Takeaways: Jason's editorial 1:21 Hope you enjoyed last episode 2:03 Listen to Jason's "10 commandments of successful investing": Thou shalt maintain control! 4:38 Housing inventory keeps falling- where's the crash? 7:10 Almost 25% of mortgages are 3% or lower 8:19 On to our guest with a deep dive into the current banking crisis Alfonso Peccatiello interview 9:14 Alf, coming from the Netherlands 10:03 3 Bank collapses; a summary of what really happened 13:42 US Banks loan-to-deposit ratios 16:06 Moral Hazard and a mismanaged portfolio 19:16 Big banks hedge interest rate risks- NOT SVB 22:28 Lax regulatory and accounting laws in the US for small banks  23:34 Who benefited from the collapse 24:36 Securities portfolio mix as of December 31, 2022;  distinguishing between small and highly regulated banks 29:29 SVB 'woke' programs and the lack of proper risk management 30:39 Bank failures 2001 to 2023; are more bank collapses coming 31:56 At risk: the real estate market; unaffordable housing leads to more renters 34:50 Compared to what 37:43 The booming labor market  39:02 Credibility & central banks; Blackstone & KKR, Jerome Powell & Paul Volcker 44:25 There is no distressed home owner 48:10 Institutional investors- what their capital stack or debt structure is like 49:32 Step up your macro game  https://www.themacrocompass.com   Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com

In this week's episode, Ricardo talks about moral hazards. He exemplifies the recent collapse of the North American financial system when the Silicon Valley Bank closed its doors. From then on, a debate arose about the extent to which the government should interfere, with the emergence of moral hazard, because if the government helps, other banks will also have this right. Bank executives will assume riskier operations, and investors will be less demanding of the banks with which they do business. From the perspective of projects, we can experience the same situation; that is, we risk more when we think there will be fewer consequences if the risk materializes. If nothing occurs when a supplier is late, he will not be incentivized to provide on time. The issue is that we do not know exactly what transpired with the delivery, and if we punish this supplier, we face the danger of other vendors refusing to do business with our company. This is the principle of asymmetric information; we know less about the impact and probability of the risk occurring than the supplier does. And there is no mathematical solution to this impasse; it all depends on human expertise to comprehend the issue and choose the least risky option. Listen to the podcast to know more.

In this episode, Alex starts by discussing how Mike Pence finally did the bare minimum over the weekend. At an elite media dinner, Pence finally condemned what happened on January 6th, said history would hold Trump accountable, and seemed to critisize Tucker Carlson for trying to whitewash 1/6. Alex laughs at Pence's late and cowardly stance. For the rest of the episode, Alex talks about the collapse of three banks over the last week. These banks were Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate (an institution heavily exposed to cryptocurrency), and Signature Bank in New York. While reports show that 89% of $200 billion of deposits at SVB were not insured (the FDIC only insures up to $250,000), the Fed and the Biden administration promised that all depositers would have access to their funds by this week. Alex discusses his concerns about this precedent. While this was not technically a bailout, and there are reasonable arguments about why these tech start-ups needed access to their money, Alex things banks like SVB were under-regulated and allowed to act carelessly. He goes into moral hazard, loostening of the Dodd Frank Act, and why interest rate hikes could have made this issue worse. 

Join Eric, @WesMoss365, @TimAndrewsHere, @Autopritts, @JaredYamamoto, @EnglishNick67, and Greg as they chat about the collapse of SVB, the stupid Oscars, dumb stoves, and much more! “Brought to you by Findlay Roofing”

More on the bank failures and the fallout.

More on the bank failures and the fallout.

'That's how capitalism works,' Biden says of SVB, Signature Bank investors who lost money in failed banks https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/thats-how-capitalism-works-biden-says-of-svb-signature-bank-investors-who-lost-money-in-failed-banks/ar-AA18yY23 Everyone Is Learning the Wrong Lessons From the Silicon Valley Bank Collapse https://reason.com/2023/03/13/everyone-is-learning-the-wrong-lessons-from-the-silicon-valley-bank-collapse/?utm_medium=email SVB's Lobby Groups Fought Proposal To Bolster Deposit Insurance https://www.levernews.com/svbs-lobby-groups-fought-proposal-to-bolster-deposit-insurance/ Elizabeth Warren: Silicon Valley Bank Is Gone. We Know Who Is Responsible. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/opinion/elizabeth-warren-silicon-valley-bank.html Links: http://gml.bio.link This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.  Give online therapy a try at Betterhelp.com/gml and get on your way to being your best self.  Join the private discord & chat during the show! joingml.com Invest in your future & your human capital today  natescrashcourse.com   Like our intro song? https://www.3pillmorning.com Advertise on our podcast! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The plan to minimize the losses of Silicon Valley Bank's failure will induce more bad behavior and make it harder to argue against bailouts for other Americans and businesses.  Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we discuss the importance of voting with your wallet, how Bitcoin will impact the size of the Government, the moral hazard of CBDCs, and how to prepare yourself for an uncertain future. George Gammon is an entrepreneur and investor who has years of experience investing across multiple countries.// GUEST // George's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@GeorgeGammon/George's Twitter: https://twitter.com/GeorgeGammon/// SPONSORS // iCoin Hardware Wallet (use discount code BITCOIN23): https://www.icointechnology.com/Ledn: https://www.ledn.io/CrowdHealth: https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/breedloveWasabi Wallet: https://wasabiwallet.io/Join Me At Bitcoin 2023 in Miami (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://b.tc/conference/LMNT: https://drinklmnt.com/breedloveCasa (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://keys.casa/Bitcoin Apparel (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://thebitcoinclothingcompany.com/ Feel Free Tonics (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://botanictonics.comThe Carnivore Bar: https://shorturl.at/cqCQV // OUTLINE // 00:00:00 - Coming up 00:01:38 - Intro 00:03:11 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with The iCoin Hardware Wallet 00:04:08 - Do More with Your Digital Assets with Ledn 00:04:53 - Introducing George Gammon 00:05:14 - Voting with Ballots vs. Voting with Wallets 00:14:48 - Defining The Overgrowth of Government 00:17:38 - How Bitcoin Will Impact the Size of the Government 00:27:08 - Hidden Inflation Problems 00:33:35 - What's Happening in Turkey 00:35:57 - Exported Purchasing Power Debasement 00:38:25 - Financial Incentives to Get Out of The Fiat System 00:44:53 - Getting Ahead of the Herd Mentality 00:47:32 - The Hurdles and Incentives For Bitcoin and Gold 00:58:07 - Everybody Has a Different Portfolio 01:03:44 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth 01:04:45 - A Bitcoin Wallet with Privacy Built-In: Wasabi Wallet 01:05:21 - A Chance To Win Discounted Tickets to The Bitcoin 2023 Conference and 10M SATS 01:06:17 - Replenish Your Body's Electrolytes with LMNT 01:07:08 - Hold Bitcoin in the Most Secure Custody Model with Casa 01:07:56 - The Moral Hazard of CBDCs and Fiat Currencies 01:14:26 - The Draconian Central Bank Ledger System 01:25:34 - How CBDCs Will Be Implemented 01:38:57 - Planning for Escaping the System 01:48:53 - The Good News for the People 01:57:39 - Planting the Seed Locally 02:05:33 - Where to Find George's Work// PODCAST //Podcast Website: https://whatismoneypodcast.com/Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/25LPvm8...RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/MLdpYXYI// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL // Bitcoin: 3D1gfxKZKMtfWaD1bkwiR6JsDzu6e9bZQ7 Sats via Strike: https://strike.me/breedlove22Sats via Tippin.me: https://tippin.me/@Breedlove22Dollars via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/RBreedloveDollars via Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Robert-Breedlove-2The "What is Money?" Show Patreon Page: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=32843101// WRITTEN WORK // Medium: https://breedlove22.medium.com/ Substack: https://breedlove22.substack.com/ // SOCIAL // Breedlove Twitter: https://twitter.com/Breedlove22WiM? Twitter: https://twitter.com/WhatisMoneyShowLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/breedlove22/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breedlove_22/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@breedlove22All My Current Work: https://vida.page/breedlove22

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 402. This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “Inflation, Money, and the State,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 7–8, 2023); my talk was "Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, Parallels and Death in a Bitcoin World." Previous appearance: KOL371 | Austrian Economics Discord Conference: Law, Decentralized and Centralized. My talk below: https://youtu.be/Uvi05GJE5LM   Final trailer: https://youtu.be/890corLQKFM Original trailer: https://youtu.be/AgsocsxhIws For last year's, see: “Law: Decentralized and Centralized,” Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022) [KOL371]. Related material: Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality Theodore Dalrymple, "Inflation's Moral Hazard" Guido Hülsmann, The Ethics of Money Production Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, ch. 1 and TSC, p. 27, on the negative effects of inflation on character Jeffrey Tucker, How the End of Negative Interest Rates Affects Your Life ((Generations over hundreds and thousands of years have been acculturated to believe that good things come to those who wait. Sacrifice some now and you earn greater rewards later. Study hard for the exam and you get an A. Study hard for all exams and you graduate with honors. Graduate with honors and you have a better chance of getting a good-paying job.So on it goes with the whole of life. The more you defer your consumption and indulgence in the here and now, and think about the future, the better off you will be. That presumption is naturally built into the financial system. The yield curve in normal times provides a higher payout in the future than it does in the present. It teaches us to defer consumption, forgoing whatever joy there is in the present, in favor of great reward down the line.Again, in normal times, that means that savers win in the long run. Keep socking money away in the bank rather than taking that extra vacation, give it a few years, and you have a solid nest egg.All of economics is supposed to work this way. The guy alone on the island who wants to catch more fish needs to spend a day or two making a net but in order to afford that time away from scooping up fish as he sees them, he needs to save up food to live on while he constructs his capital goods. )) Kinsella, “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010),  (( Longer version: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 )) on negative effects of uncertainty (( Negative Effects of UncertaintyLegislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have."There is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system."Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time-preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 402. This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “Inflation, Money, and the State,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 7–8, 2023); my talk was "Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, Parallels and Death in a Bitcoin World." Previous appearance: KOL371 | Austrian Economics Discord Conference: Law, Decentralized and Centralized. My talk below: https://youtu.be/Uvi05GJE5LM   Final trailer: https://youtu.be/890corLQKFM Original trailer: https://youtu.be/AgsocsxhIws For last year's, see: “Law: Decentralized and Centralized,” Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022) [KOL371]. Related material: Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality Theodore Dalrymple, "Inflation's Moral Hazard" Guido Hülsmann, The Ethics of Money Production Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, ch. 1 and TSC, p. 27, on the negative effects of inflation on character Jeffrey Tucker, How the End of Negative Interest Rates Affects Your Life ((Generations over hundreds and thousands of years have been acculturated to believe that good things come to those who wait. Sacrifice some now and you earn greater rewards later. Study hard for the exam and you get an A. Study hard for all exams and you graduate with honors. Graduate with honors and you have a better chance of getting a good-paying job.So on it goes with the whole of life. The more you defer your consumption and indulgence in the here and now, and think about the future, the better off you will be. That presumption is naturally built into the financial system. The yield curve in normal times provides a higher payout in the future than it does in the present. It teaches us to defer consumption, forgoing whatever joy there is in the present, in favor of great reward down the line.Again, in normal times, that means that savers win in the long run. Keep socking money away in the bank rather than taking that extra vacation, give it a few years, and you have a solid nest egg.All of economics is supposed to work this way. The guy alone on the island who wants to catch more fish needs to spend a day or two making a net but in order to afford that time away from scooping up fish as he sees them, he needs to save up food to live on while he constructs his capital goods. )) Kinsella, “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010),  (( Longer version: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 )) on negative effects of uncertainty (( Negative Effects of UncertaintyLegislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have."There is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system."Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time-preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty,

Ryan takes on a question from a listener in Australia about the gambling aspects of trading in the stock market (or crypto, forex, or any other trading vehicle for that manner) and whether it may in fact be a moral hazard to engage in. Whiskey: Shinobu Japanese Whiskey Be sure to check out my Swing-Trading offering through Patreon that goes hand-in-hand with my podcast, offering all of the research, charts and technical analysis on the stock market and individual stocks, not to mention my personal watch-lists and regular updates on the most popular stocks, including FAANG stocks, Microsoft and Tesla. This is provided each and every week! Check it out now at: www.swingtradingthestockmarket.com

Hey smarties! We're on a break for the holidays and revisiting some favorite episodes from 2022. We want to say a big thank-you for being part of the “Make Me Smart” family this year — every voicemail, question and donation made a huge difference. None of us is as smart as all of us, and we couldn't do this show without you. There's still time to help Marketplace reach its end-of-year fundraising goal. If you can, please donate here. Thanks, happy holidays and we'll see you in the new year. As the threat of climate change grows, expect to hear more about solar geoengineering. It came up during our recent episode with sci-fi author Neal Stephenson, and it involves spraying tiny particles into the stratosphere to deflect the sun's rays away from the Earth and cool the planet. “It's a pretty old idea and it has run into such opposition, in terms of research, that we have yet to have any rigorous tests of whether it is even, you know, remotely possible,” said Elizabeth Kolbert, a climate journalist and author of “Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future.” Critics still believe the risks outweigh potential benefits, but that hasn't stopped others from supporting the idea as a potential solution to our climate woes. On the show today, the promise and peril of solar geoengineering. In the News Fix, we'll discuss a historic settlement between Sandy Hook families and gun manufacturer Remington Arms. Also, we'll explain why billionaire philanthropists are a social policy issue. Then we'll hear from listeners about last week's episode on the NFL racial discrimination lawsuit, and we'll have an answer to the Make Me Smart question that will teach you something about weather forecasting! Here's everything we talked about today: “Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come to Study It.” from The New York Times “Why a landmark experiment into dimming the sun got canceled” from Grist Plaintiffs say they have a settlement agreement with the maker of the gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting from Connecticut Public Radio “U.S. Producer-Price Inflation Stays Hot, Reinforcing Fed's Plan to Start Raising Rates” from Bloomberg “Elon Musk Gave $5.7 Billion of Tesla Shares to Charity Last Year” from The Wall Street Journal How to Become a National Weather Service Storm Spotter

Hey smarties! We're on a break for the holidays and revisiting some favorite episodes from 2022. We want to say a big thank-you for being part of the “Make Me Smart” family this year — every voicemail, question and donation made a huge difference. None of us is as smart as all of us, and we couldn't do this show without you. There's still time to help Marketplace reach its end-of-year fundraising goal. If you can, please donate here. Thanks, happy holidays and we'll see you in the new year. As the threat of climate change grows, expect to hear more about solar geoengineering. It came up during our recent episode with sci-fi author Neal Stephenson, and it involves spraying tiny particles into the stratosphere to deflect the sun's rays away from the Earth and cool the planet. “It's a pretty old idea and it has run into such opposition, in terms of research, that we have yet to have any rigorous tests of whether it is even, you know, remotely possible,” said Elizabeth Kolbert, a climate journalist and author of “Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future.” Critics still believe the risks outweigh potential benefits, but that hasn't stopped others from supporting the idea as a potential solution to our climate woes. On the show today, the promise and peril of solar geoengineering. In the News Fix, we'll discuss a historic settlement between Sandy Hook families and gun manufacturer Remington Arms. Also, we'll explain why billionaire philanthropists are a social policy issue. Then we'll hear from listeners about last week's episode on the NFL racial discrimination lawsuit, and we'll have an answer to the Make Me Smart question that will teach you something about weather forecasting! Here's everything we talked about today: “Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come to Study It.” from The New York Times “Why a landmark experiment into dimming the sun got canceled” from Grist Plaintiffs say they have a settlement agreement with the maker of the gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting from Connecticut Public Radio “U.S. Producer-Price Inflation Stays Hot, Reinforcing Fed's Plan to Start Raising Rates” from Bloomberg “Elon Musk Gave $5.7 Billion of Tesla Shares to Charity Last Year” from The Wall Street Journal How to Become a National Weather Service Storm Spotter

In this year-end Strategist's Corner podcast, Rob Almeida and Chief Economist Erik Weisman discuss how most market and economic forecasts in 2022 were wrong and what the next business cycle could bring for risk assets over the next 2 to 3 years.   (00:24) - Chapter 1 - Episode Overview (00:49) - Chapter 2 - Economic Forecasting: Hubris or Confidence? (04:34) - Chapter 3 - Be Careful of What You Think You Know (06:45) - Chapter 4 - Potential Effects of a Paradigm Shift (11:01) - Chapter 5 - Risk Assets in the Next Business Cycle (15:08) - Chapter 6 - Central Banks and Moral Hazard (17:28) - Chapter 7 - Looking Beyond 2023 (21:44) - Chapter 8 - Reads and Thoughts to Close 2022     This material is intended for investment professional use only and not intended for retail investors.­ ­ The views expressed are those of the speaker and are subject to change at any time. These views are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a recommendation to purchase any security, or as an offer of securities or investment advice. No forecast can be guaranteed. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please keep in mind that a sustainable investing approach does not guarantee positive results and all investments, including those that integrate ESG considerations into the investment process, carry a certain amount of risk including the possible loss of the principal amount invested. Distributed by: U.S. – MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS Investment Management and MFS Fund Distributors, Inc.; Latin America – MFS International Ltd.; Canada – MFS Investment Management Canada Limited. No securities commission or similar regulatory authority in Canada has reviewed this communication; Note to UK and Switzerland readers: Issued in the UK and Switzerland by MFS International Limited, a private limited company registered in England and Wales with the company number 03062718, and authorised and regulated in the conduct of investment business by the UK Financial Conduct Authority. MIL UK, an indirect subsidiary of MFS®, has its registered office at One Carter Lane, London, EC4V 5ER. Note to Europe readers: Issued in Europe by MFS Investment Management S.à r.l. – authorized under Luxembourg law as a management company for Funds domiciled in Luxembourg and which both provide products and investment services to institutional investors and is registered office is at S.a r.l. 4 Rue Albert Borschette, Luxembourg L-1246. Tel: 352 2826 12800. This material shall not be circulated or distributed to any person other than to professional investors and should not be relied upon or distributed to persons where such reliance or distribution would be contrary to local regulation; Singapore – MFS International Singapore Pte. Ltd.; Australia/New Zealand - MFS International Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services licence number 485343. MFS Australia is regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.; Hong Kong - MFS International Limited, a private limited company licensed and regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. MIL HK is approved to engage in dealing in securities and asset management regulated activities and may provide certain investment services to "professional investors" as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance.; For Professional Investors in China – MFS Financial Management Consulting Co., Ltd. 2801-12, 28th Floor, 100 Century Avenue, Shanghai World Financial Center, Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone, 200120, China, a Chinese limited liability company registered to provide financial management consulting services.; Japan - MFS Investment Management K.K., is registered as a Financial Instruments Business Operator, Kanto Local Finance Bureau No.312, a member of the Investment Trust Association, Japan and the Japan Investment Advisers Association. As fees to be borne by investors vary depending upon circumstances such as products, services, investment period and market conditions, the total amount nor the calculation methods cannot be disclosed in advance. All investments involve risks, including market fluctuation and investors may lose the principal amount invested. Investors should obtain and read the prospectus and/or document set forth in Article 37-3 of Financial Instruments and Exchange Act carefully before making the investments.­ Unless otherwise indicated, logos, product and services names are trademarks of MFS and its affiliates and may be registered in certain countries.

On today's episode of Empire, Joe Lallouz, Head of Coinbase Cloud, joins Jason and Santiago to discuss how Coinbase Cloud is building the AWS of crypto. Coinbase Cloud is building blockchain infrastructure and APIs that abstract the complexities of staking, data access, deployment and more. Joe explains the challenges of building in crypto, how Coinbase Cloud is taking on this challenge, and why developer tooling is critical for rapid innovation. We then discuss the importance of crypto's low switching costs, proof-of-stake systems, Lido's staking dominance, and Coinbase's approach to MEV. Blockchain infrastructure isn't the hot topic on Crypto Twitter, but it's the base layer of the entire ecosystem and will soon be a primary talking point. Don't miss this fantastic conversation to stay ahead of the blockchain infrastructure narrative! - - Follow Jason: https://twitter.com/JasonYanowitz Follow Joe: https://twitter.com/JoeLallouz Subscribe To Our YouTube Channel: https://tinyurl.com/4fdhhb2j Subscribe on Apple Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/mv4frfv7 Subscribe on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/wbaypprw -- ParaSwap: If you want to make a swap at the best price across the DeFi market, check out paraswap.io. ParaSwap's state-of-the-art algorithm beats the market price across all major DEXs and brings you the most optimized swaps with the best prices and lowest slippage. -- (00:00) Introduction (01:27) The AWS of Crypto (10:57) The Multichain Thesis (16:24) Bundling and Unbundling in Web3 (21:56) The Magic of Low Switching Costs (28:11) Move Fast and Don't Break Things (33:48) Building The Secure Foundation (35:19) Is Coinbase a Bridge? (37:27) Paraswap Ad (38:35) Is Lido a Threat to ETH? (45:40) A Coinbase ETH Staking Derivative (48:16) How Coinbase Approaches MEV (51:43) MEV's Moral Hazard (55:19) Blockchain On Demand (59:38) Why ApeCoin Doesn't Need Its Own Chain (1:03:11) Every Company Will Be a Crypto Company (1:06:08) Segments Ripe For Innovation -- Disclaimer: Nothing said on Empire is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Santiago, Jason, and our guests may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.