Podcasts about Quarterly Journal

Sabia que somos o segundo país mais desconfiado da Europa? O que diz este dado sobre a nossa realidade política e social? Neste episódio, Pedro Magalhães e Luana do Bem exploram o que a (des)confiança social revela sobre o desenvolvimento, a justiça ou a economia em Portugal, e no mundo. De acordo com o Estudo Europeu de Valores, 8 em cada 10 portugueses desconfiam de pessoas que não conhecem - um valor ultrapassado apenas pela Albânia. No extremo oposto está a Escandinávia, onde mais de 70% dos inquiridos dizem confiar nos outros.O politólogo e a humorista analisam o que acontece quando a desconfiança se instala nas relações entre cidadãos, nas instituições e no espaço público. Será que a fonte é a desigualdade económica? Ou pesa mais a herança histórica de sociedades hierarquizadas e com o poder centralizado? E porque é que a burocracia e a desconfiança andam de mãos dadas? A partir da evidência de que os países mais desenvolvidos revelam uma maior confiança social, a dupla aborda ainda possíveis soluções para combater a desconfiança – da implementação de políticas universalistas à distribuição justa e imparcial de recursos.Desconfiamos que não vai perder este [IN]Pertinente.REFERÊNCIAS E LINKS ÚTEISAGHION, P., ALGAN, Y., CAHUC, P., & SHLEIFER, A., «Regulation and distrust» (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, (125(3), 1015-1049 2010)PUTNAM, R. D., NANETTI, R. Y., & LEONARDI, R. «Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy» (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)PASSDA, «Portugal no European Social Survey: Atitudes Sociais nos Últimos 20 Anos» (2022)BIOSPedro MagalhãesInvestigador do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa. Doutorado em Ciência Política pela Ohio State University, estuda e tem publicado livros e artigos sobre temas como a opinião pública e eleições, entre outros. Luana do BemHumorista, já lançou o seu primeiro solo de Stand-Up no Youtube: «Crente». Autora do podcast "Contraluz", Luana do Bem faz também parte do painel do programa «Irritações». 

Interview recorded - 3rd of June, 2026On this episode of the WTFinance podcast I had the pleasure of welcoming on Dr Mark Thornton. Dr Mark Thornton is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and a leading voice of the Austrian School of economics, author of The Skyscraper Curse. He is one of the few economists to have warned about the housing bubble well before 2008.During our conversation we spoke about his current view on the economy, Austrian Economic Theory, the FED's betrayal, what would fix the current situation, which assets to perform and more. I hope you enjoy!0:00 - Introduction2:06 - Current view of economy6:22 - Austrian Economic Theory11:50 - Wages going up?16:11 - Recent inflation23:00 - Kevin Warsh balance sheet28:36 - Solution35:30 - Which assets to perform?42:40 - One message to takeawayMark Thornton is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and was the Peterson-Luddy Chair in Austrian Economics from 2021-2023. He hosts two podcasts, Minor Issues and Unanimity, and serves as the Book Review Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. His publications include The Economics of Prohibition (1991), Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War (2004), The Quotable Mises (2005), The Bastiat Collection (2007), An Essay on Economic Theory (2010), The Bastiat Reader (2014), and The Skyscraper Curse and How Austrian Economists Predicted Every Major Crisis of the Last Century (2018). [high-res photo]Dr. Thornton served as the editor of the Austrian Economics Newsletter and was a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Libertarian Studies and several other academic journals. He has served as a member of the graduate faculties of Auburn University and Columbus State University. He has also taught economics at Auburn University at Montgomery and Trinity University in Texas. Mark served as Assistant Superintendent of Banking and economic adviser to Governor Fob James of Alabama (1997-1999), and he was awarded the University Research Award at Columbus State University in 2002. He is a graduate of St. Bonaventure University and received his PhD in economics from Auburn University. In 2014, he debated in opposition to the “War on Drugs” at Oxford Union.Dr. Thornton has been featured in American Spectator, Barron's, Bloomberg, Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, Forbes, Investors' Business Daily, Le Monde, New York Post, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Economic Times (India), Financial Times (Norway), and Tejarat-e-Farda (Iran). He has also had regular multiple appearances on Russia Today and Press TVHis editorials and interviews have appeared in the following leading regional newspapers: Apple Daily (Hong Kong), Atlanta Constitution, Birmingham News, Business Alabama, Chicago Sun-Times, Houston Chronicle, Mobile Press Register, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, Montgomery Advertiser, New York Post, Orange County Register, Richmond Times Dispatch, Tampa Tribune, and the Washington TimesHis commentary appears regularly in the Mises Daily and the Mises Wire. He also appears regularly on Boom-Bust, RT, Butler on Business, Tom Woods Show, Thom Hartmann Show, Scott Horton Show, Press TV and Freedom Works.Dr Mark Thornton - Misses Institute - https://mises.org/X - https://x.com/DrMarkThorntonWTFinance -Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wtfinancee/Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/67rpmjG92PNBW0doLyPvfniTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wtfinance/id1554934665?uo=4Twitter - https://twitter.com/AnthonyFatseas

The fiat money system has survived the Great Inflation, the global financial crisis, and a pandemic. But can it survive digital currencies?Bitcoin and the blockchain solved a genuine problem in computer science: how to stop people spending the same money twice. Forty years of successful inflation control means central bank money is stable; that is the stability in stablecoins, attempting to solve the volatility problem. What's next? What if the unit of account itself were indexed to consumer prices? Digitalisation might finally make that approach viable at scale. Price stability, by design.Will we still need cash? Maybe not now, But if you never use it, it may not be there if the blackout comes.The research behind this episode:Stracca, Livio. 2025. Redefining the Monetary Standard in the Digital Age: Digital Innovations and the Future of Monetary Policy. Springer Nature.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Livio Stracca. 2026. "Redefining the monetary standard." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About the guestLivio Stracca is Deputy Director General for International and European Relations at the European Central Bank, where he has worked for more than two decades. His research spans monetary economics, international finance, and the implications of digitalisation for central banking, with extensive work on exchange rates, capital flows, and the architecture of the international monetary system. Research cited in this episodeThe double-spend problem. The fundamental challenge in any decentralised digital payment system: how to prevent a participant from spending the same unit of money twice when there is no trusted central authority to verify transactions. Bitcoin's 2008 white paper offered an innovative solution by making the transaction ledger public, cumulative, and computationally expensive to rewrite. The trade-off is that transparency sacrifices privacy; every transaction is visible to all participants in the network.The blockchain. A distributed ledger in which transactions are grouped into sequential blocks, each cryptographically linked to the one before. Reversing any transaction requires rewriting every subsequent block, which demands enormous computational effort. This design solves the double-spend problem in a decentralised network but makes the system slow and costly to operate at scale.The payment trilemma. A framework discussed in the episode and in Stracca's book: any digital payment system can optimise for at most two of three properties simultaneously (universal access, security against fraudulent transactions, and privacy). Cash is the only instrument that escapes the trilemma; digital systems must accept a trade-off among the three, and the choice is often made implicitly by the designer of the system rather than through democratic deliberation.Hayek, Friedrich A. 1976. Denationalisation of Money. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. The classic argument for currency competition: let currencies compete freely and the one providing the most stable prices will win. Economists, including Milton Friedman, largely rejected the proposal on the grounds that money exhibits strong network externalities; the more people use a currency, the more attractive it becomes to the next user, producing a natural tendency towards monopoly. A formal modern revisitation, finding similar conclusions, is Fernández-Villaverde, Jesús, and Daniel Sanches. 2019. "Can Currency Competition Work?" Journal of Political Economy 127 (3): 1017 to 1058.Irving Fisher's compensated dollar. A proposal published in Fisher, Irving. 1913. "A Compensated Dollar." Quarterly Journal of Economics 27 (2): 213–235 (the same year the Federal Reserve was created). Fisher argued for a dollar whose purchasing power was held constant by adjusting its gold content in line with prices. The mechanical details of his proposal are no longer relevant, but its animating idea (indexing the unit of account to a price level) has gained new plausibility in a digital context.The Unidad de Fomento. Chile's inflation-indexed unit of account, in operation since 1967 and updated daily against the consumer price index. It is used widely in long-term contracts, including mortgages, and functions as a security that can be traded. Stracca cites it as evidence that an indexed monetary standard is operationally feasible, and as a prototype for what a digital equivalent might look like at larger scale.The Great Moderation. The period of low and stable inflation in advanced economies running roughly from the mid-1980s until the inflation episode of 2021 to 2023. Economists attribute it to improved monetary policy frameworks, particularly central bank independence, inflation targeting, and (crucially, in Stracca's account) the introduction of interest on reserves, which gave central banks precise control over the short-term interest rate without draining liquidity. Stracca treats the Great Moderation as the benchmark against which any proposed reform of the monetary standard must be judged.Programmable money. A form of digital money in which payment is conditional on an independently verifiable event, potentially confirmed by a machine rather than a human intermediary. Example: a payment that executes automatically when a delivery is confirmed by a sensor. Decentralised ledgers make such conditional payments technically straightforward; traditional banking systems can approximate them but with far greater friction. Stracca notes significant enthusiasm for programmable money but also real scepticism about whether the benefits outweigh the complexity in practice.More VoxTalks Economics episodesStablecoins and Global Imbalances, Gilles Moëc explains why we can think of stablecoins as a radical macroeconomic experiment that has arrived at exactly the moment the US external position is showing signs of stress.Can blockchain decentralise money, contracts, and finance? Bruno Biais on blockchain's potential, its flaws, and its future.Do stablecoins threaten financial stability? Richard Portes thinks so.

L'investimento immobiliare, per gli amici mattone, è incontestabilmente uno dei pallini più radicati negli italiani. Ma fa bene alla nostra economia? Secondo Bloomberg, no. Quindi dissiamo Bloomberg.I consigli di oggi:Nicola: Full Swing su NetflixVittorio: Nuova stagione Machos Alpha su NetflixAlain: Adventures Unpacked con Beau Miles.

Dictionaries, textbooks, and encyclopedias routinely write in grave and solemn tones about the “industrial revolution” that reportedly “transformed” society, first in Britain and then in the rest of the globe, giving painful birth to the modern world. Everything from mystical poems to demographic statistics have been martialed to support the idea of a catastrophic upheaval and that disrupted what agrarian, medieval life of the countryside. However, nobody can quite agree on exactly when this revolution took place, and the people supposedly living in the midst of it, in Britain in the 1700s and early 1800s, never noticed that it was happening. In this first lecture, we trace the origins of the concept of the “industrial revolution” in political debates in Restoration-era France and in the philosophical ferment of the German radical press—all before the concept finally made its way back into the country where the great upheaval alegedly took place. Please join on Patreon at any level to support the podcast and hear all patron-only lectures: https://www.patreon.com/c/u5530632 Alternatively, hear all Myths of the Month lectures for one small flat fee: https://www.patreon.com/collection/2031535 Image: Print of Albion Mills on fire, by Sheppard, London, 1791 Suggested Further Reading: D.C. Coleman, “Myth, History, and the Industrial Revolution”; Anna Bezanson, “The Early Use of the Term Industrial Revolution,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 36, no. 2; Rondo Cameron, “A New View of European Industrialization”, The Economic History Review, vol. 38, no. 1; Eric Hobsbawm, “Industry and Empire: An Economic History of Britain Since 1750”

Welcome back to Scaling Theory. In this episode, I speak with Matthew O. Jackson, the William D. Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford University and an external faculty member at the Santa Fe Institute. Matthew is one of the founders of the modern economics of networks and the author of The Human Network and Social and Economic Networks.We talk about the friendship paradox, why homophily slows how fast a society learns the truth but helps niche ideas catch fire, and the gossip study where villagers in southern India proved remarkably good at naming the most central spreaders in their community. We then turn to AI agents as a different species: Turing tests on LLMs, the steerability of agent personas through system prompts, and what to make of Moltbook, the social network for AI agents.By the end, you will know why telling students how much their peers actually drink reduces binge drinking more than warning them about the dangers of alcohol, why the same network can spread a virus quickly and a belief slowly, and why AI agents change their behavior when asked to explain it.Papers and works referenced in the conversationBooksThe Human Network: How Your Social Position Determines Your Power, Beliefs, and Behaviors — Matthew O. Jackson (Pantheon, 2019). https://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/books.htmlSocial and Economic Networks — Matthew O. Jackson (Princeton University Press, 2008). https://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/books.htmlPart I — The scaling of human networks"Diffusion and Contagion in Networks with Heterogeneous Agents and Homophily" — Matthew O. Jackson and Dunia López-Pintado, Network Science 1(1), 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.0073"How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best-Response Dynamics" — Benjamin Golub and Matthew O. Jackson, Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3), 2012. https://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/homophily.pdf"Using Gossips to Spread Information: Theory and Evidence from Two Randomized Controlled Trials" — Abhijit Banerjee, Arun G. Chandrasekhar, Esther Duflo, and Matthew O. Jackson, Review of Economic Studies 86(6), 2019. https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/6/2453/5345571"Empathy and Well-Being Correlate with Centrality in Different Social Networks" — Sylvia A. Morelli, Desmond C. Ong, Rucha Makati, Matthew O. Jackson, and Jamil Zaki, PNAS 114(37), 2017. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1702155114Part II — The scaling of AI agents"Inequality's Economic and Social Roots: The Role of Social Networks and Homophily" — Matthew O. Jackson, in Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Twelfth World Congress of the Econometric Society (Cambridge University Press, 2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13016"AI Behavioral Science" — Jackson, Mei, Wang, Xie, Yuan, Benzell, Brynjolfsson, Camerer, Evans, Jabarian, Kleinberg, Meng, Mullainathan, Ozdaglar, Pfeiffer, Tennenholtz, Willer, Yang, and Ye, arXiv 2509.13323, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13323"A Turing Test of Whether AI Chatbots Are Behaviorally Similar to Humans" — Qiaozhu Mei, Yutong Xie, Walter Yuan, and Matthew O. Jackson, PNAS 121(9), 2024. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313925121

Three thousand years ago, Odysseus tied himself to a mast to resist the Sirens.  He didn't trust his willpower, so he removed the choice entirely.  Today, Owain Service, co-founder of the Behavioural Insights Team and CEO at CogCo, calls that a commitment device.  And modern evidence shows it works for everything from saving money to staying married. --- Owain's book: https://amzn.to/4smVtrP  Owain's company CogCo: https://cogco.co/  Unlock the Nudge Vaults: ⁠https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults⁠ Join 11,626 readers of my newsletter: ⁠https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list ⁠ Connect on LinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/⁠ --- Today's sources:  Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press. Ashraf, N., Karlan, D., & Yin, W. (2006). Tying Odysseus to the mast: Evidence from a commitment savings product in the Philippines. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 635–672. Behavioural Insights Team. (2013). New BIT trial results: helping people back into work. https://www.bi.team/blogs/new-bit-trial-results-helping-people-back-into-work/ Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 186–199. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. Milkman, K. (2021). How to change: The science of getting from where you are to where you want to be. Portfolio/Penguin. Olson, R. (2014, October 10). What makes for a stable marriage. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/10/10/what-makes-for-a-stable-marriage/ Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Kalyanaraman, S. (1999). Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 257–273. Service, O., & Gallagher, R. (2017). Think small: The surprisingly simple ways to reach big goals. Michael O'Mara Books.

Your host, Stijn Schmitz welcomes back Dr. Mark Thornton to the show. Dr. Mark Thornton is Economist and Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute. This discussion centers on global economic disruptions, particularly in commodity markets and energy sectors, stemming from geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Dr. Thornton highlights the significant impact of potential oil and gas supply disruptions, estimating that 15-20% of global supply might be affected. Timestamps: 00:00:00 – Introduction 00:01:05 – Global Economy Uncertainty 00:04:10 – Middle East Disruption Impact 00:04:57 – Stock Market vs Oil Discrepancy 00:06:52 – Supply Chain Byproducts Effects 00:11:13 – Oil Cutoff Long-term Consequences 00:14:33 – Global Pain Points Analysis 00:22:38 – Reshoring vs Free Trade 00:31:26 – Natural Gas Opportunities North America 00:39:08 – Unleashing US Resource Potential 00:43:43 – Petrodollar System Cracks 00:50:25 – Gold Settlement Currency Role 00:56:03 – Gold & Fiat Currencies 01:02:42 – Concluding Thoughts Guest Links: Website: https://mises.org X: https://x.com/DrMarkThornton E-Mail: mailto:mthornton@mises.org YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+thornton+minor+issues Book-Hayek: https://mises.org/library/book/hayek-21st-century-essays-political-economy Dr. Mark Thornton is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and formerly held the Peterson-Luddy Chair in Austrian Economics. He hosts the podcasts Minor Issues and Unanimity and is Book Review Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. His books include The Economics of Prohibition, Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation, The Bastiat Collection, and The Skyscraper Curse. He has served on multiple editorial boards, taught economics at several universities, and worked as Assistant Superintendent of Banking and adviser to Alabama Governor Fob James. He holds degrees from St. Bonaventure University and Auburn University and has debated the “War on Drugs” at the Oxford Union. Dr. Thornton has been featured in major outlets such as The Economist, Forbes, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, along with numerous international and regional newspapers. His commentary appears regularly on the Mises Institute's platforms and on programs such as Boom-Bust, the Tom Woods Show, and the Scott Horton Show.

Keywords: Solidarity, Syria, Social Movements, Political Rhetoric, Cultural Studies. Dr. Noor Ghazal Aswad is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama. Her research bridges political communication, cultural studies, decolonial studies, and transnational liberation movements, with a focus on grassroots activism in the Middle East. Her research has appeared in Quarterly Journal of Speech, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Environmental Communication, and Presidential Studies Quarterly. Her book, Searching for Solidarity: Revolutionary Dreams and Radical Social Movements, is available now from The Ohio State University Press. For more information visit thebigrhetoricalpodast.weebly.com and follow @thebigrhet.

På 1600-talet revolutionerades vår förmåga att se saker i förstoring. Anna Blennow funderar på vilka perspektiv den inzoomande människan missar. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Varje vintereftermiddag skedde samma spektakel. En flock pilfinkar kom till vår trädgård och åt frön ur fågelmataren. Men när skymningen föll, flög en efter en upp i den höga lönnen längst bort på tomten. Där satt de sedan vända mot den nedgående solen i väster, och just när den nådde horisonten lyfte de alla på en gång och flög ut över åkrarna mot sina fjärran boplatser. En dag kom en flock trastar på besök. De satte sig också i lönnen, men i stället vända mot månen, som skör och blek hängde högt på vinterhimlen. Jag riktade kikaren mot fåglarna för att kunna urskilja dem bättre, och sedan mot himlen. Jag såg det de såg, men förstod ändå ingenting av deras samtal med månen.Fågelungar lär sig redan i boet att observera Polstjärnans läge. Det hjälper dem att etablera den inre kompass de ska använda när de blir flygfärdiga. Och inte bara fåglar, utan också fjärilar kan navigera efter stjärnhimlen, upptäckte ett forskningsprojekt vid Lunds universitet nyligen. Om det råkar vara mulet använder fjärilarna i stället jordens magnetfält för att kunna hitta vägen till platser där de aldrig förut har varit. Till och med en jordbunden liten skalbagge kan orientera sig efter universum: dyngbaggen rullar sin boll av gödsel i raka linjer utefter solens och månens positioner, och kan också använda sig av Vintergatans ljus som kompass, har forskarna visat.När jag satt vid fönstret och iakttog pilfinkarnas rörelsemönster vid samma tid dag efter dag, uppenbarade sig ett mönster som sakta men säkert skapade kunskap, även om jag inte kunde förstå det på djupet. Men samtidigt lärde jag mig, precis som fåglarna, var solen gick ned och var månen steg upp vid olika tider på året, eftersom jag ständigt befann mig på samma plats under det föränderliga himlavalvet. Det behövde jag ingen kikare för att få syn på.Det var i början av 1600-talet som förmågan att observera revolutionerades. Förvisso hade sumerer, greker, araber och galliska druider redan sedan länge iakttagit himlen och utarbetat avancerade astronomiska teorier. Men nu skulle teleskopet och mikroskopet låta människan betrakta både det som låg oändligt fjärran och riktigt nära. En glasögonmakare i Nederländerna fick patent på det första teleskopet 1608, och snart kunde det användas av samtidens astronomer. Galileo Galilei iakttog Saturnus ringar och Venus faser; Jan Hevelius studerade kometer och solfläckar tillsammans med sin hustru Elisabeth. I stora, praktfullt illustrerade volymer spreds iakttagelserna till Europas bibliotek. Stjärnglober och månglober blev både vetenskapliga hjälpmedel och estetiska statusföremål.Den svenske ämbetsmannen och författaren Schering Rosenhane var en av de som fascinerades av sin samtids upptäckter. Till sina många bibliotek beställde han glober och vetenskapliga planscher. Den kända världens gränser hade vidgats, och vyerna över dessa nyerövrade riken skulle finnas där att vila blicken på när man för ett ögonblick lyfte ögonen från det mödosamma läsandet och skrivandet. Rosenhane ägde flera viktiga verk i optik och astronomi: Jan Hevelius undersköna ”Selenographia” med de första detaljerade avbildningarna av månens yta, och Christoph Scheiners ”Rosa Ursina sive sol” om solens märkliga fläckar.När Rosenhane som ung var ute på bildningsresa i Europa var det snarare poesi och hovkultur som stod på schemat. Men nu, trettio år senare, var spelplanen en annan. Hans son Johan hade tillsammans med sina bröder sänts ut på en Grand Tour kring år 1660 till Frankrike, Holland och Tyskland. Det var den ordningsamme och flitige lillebror Johan som fick ta emot faderns oändliga listor på föremål att sända till Sverige, helst det senaste inom astronomi, litteratur och trädgårdskonst. ”Alla dessa optiska instrument får det verkligen att vattnas i munnen på mig”, skrev Schering i ett brev, ”och jag skulle så gärna själv vilja se dem – hur lycklig är du inte, som får genomsöka och lära dig allt detta. Jag hoppas att du sänder mig något sådant till våren tillsammans med fröna jag ska så i trädgården.”I nästa brev skrev Schering entusiastiskt om en komet som varit synlig på himlen – har Johan och bröderna sett den? Vad anser man på kontinenten? – men beställde också ett par ”goda glassögon för een Man af 52 Ååhr”. Han hade börjat få svårt att läsa små bokstäver. Och så ville han att sonen skulle sända honom en stjärnkikare och ett mikroskop. Men den stackars Johan hade svårt att uppfylla faderns önskningar. Kikaren försenades i frakten. Mikroskopet anlände visserligen, men besvikelsen blev stor när det packades upp. ”Ingen som hittills varit här och sett mikroskopet har kunnat använda det”, klagar fadern i breven, och ber att Johans bröder ska ”informera sig uthi microscopio”, så att de ska kunna hjälpa honom vid hemkomsten. Och när kikaren till slut kom fram, tillstötte ytterligare missnöje: den ”behagar mig inthet synnerlig, äfther han ähr gammal, och kan föga contentement mig giffwa.”Men mikroskopets öde fick faktiskt ett lyckligt slut. ”Microscopium som alldraförst kåm från Hålland, höllt iag för alldeles förloradt, emädan ingen kunde thät bruka, dock när iag war i wärrket att läggia thät i lådan att sändas tillbaka igän, fans på båthen i lådan thet minsta glaasset som i lilla ändan skulle sittia och när det bleefh adhiberat, kåmmer heela instrumentet till sith rätha bruuk.”Vad Schering Rosenhane observerade i mikroskopet och kikaren får vi inte veta.Vad var det han riktade blicken mot? Vad var det han ville förstå? Kanske var det bara fascinationen inför hur ett flugöga i förstoring innehåller ett helt universum, eller hur månens yta förändrar karaktär och blir till en suggestivt detaljerad kartbild. För med förstoringen kommer inte alltid insikt och klarhet, utan i stället en ny förundran. Robert Musil skildrar i sin essä ”Kikare” hur objekt betraktade genom kikarens runda lins blir främmande och obekanta, isolerade som de är i ”okularets glasklara ensamhet”. Det vi plötsligt ser i närbild förlorar sina proportioner och sitt sammanhang, och vi förstår inte mer, utan mindre än förut.Trots naturvetenskapens enorma framsteg, inte bara under 1600-talet, utan ända fram till vår tid, är människan bara i början av sin kunskaps bana. Jämfört med fåglar och fjärilar blir våra tillkortakommanden tydliga. Utan karta, kompass och kikare navigerar de över kontinenter och besegrar tyngdlagen i sin flykt. Inte förrän helt nyligen lyckades forskarna förstå hur det går till. Och ändå skulle vi människor aldrig kunna göra detsamma utan kostsamma och klimatbelastande redskap och hjälpmedel. Men lyfter vi blicken från de vetenskapliga rapporterna kan vi se det ske med våra egna ögon: solen går ned, månen går upp, och fåglarna högt uppe i lönnen lyfter och flyger till platser långt bortom horisonten.Anna Blennowlatinist och poetKällorStephen T. Emlen, ”Migratory Orientation in the Indigo Bunting, Passerina cyanea” (Part I-II), The Auk. A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology, 1967.https://www.lu.se/artikel/nattfjaril-anvander-stjarnor-och-magnetfalt-som-kompasshttps://www.sydsvenskan.se/skane/fyra-miljarder-fjarilar-styr-mot-bergen-med-hjalp-av-stjarnhimlen/Anna Blennow, ”Den gudomliga och mänskliga vetenskapens helgedom: Schering Rosenhane den äldres bibliotek”, i Från handskrift till digitalt kulturarv: Perspektiv på specialsamlingar, red. Henning Hansen & Peter Sjökvist, Uppsala universitet 2025, s. 35–64.Robert Musil: Kvarlåtenskap under levnaden. Översättare: Peter Handberg, Lind & Co 2026.

Welcome back to scaling theory. My guest today is ⁠Scott E. Page⁠, Distinguished University Professor of Complexity, Social Science, and Management at the University of Michigan, and an external faculty member at the Santa Fe Institute. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a recipient of the Guggenheim Fellowship. His books include The Difference, Diversity and Complexity, The Diversity Bonus, and The Model Thinker.In this episode of Scaling Theory, Scott walks us through what complexity actually is. He unpacks the difference between complicated and genuinely complex systems, explains why cognitively diverse teams systematically outperform homogeneous ones on complex tasks, and what that means for how organizations scale. We also take up path dependence, the spillover effects of overlapping games across platform ecosystems, and where complexity tools have changed real decisions in practice. We close on the single open problem whose resolution would most reshape our understanding of social systems. As you will hear, Scott's thinking is exceptionally clear. It is always a pleasure to talk with him and to listen to his insights. I hope you enjoy our discussion.You can follow me on X (@⁠ProfSchrepel⁠) and BlueSky (@⁠ProfSchrepel⁠).**BooksPage, S.E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.Page, S.E. (2011). Diversity and Complexity. Princeton University Press (Primers in Complex Systems).Page, S.E. (2018). The Model Thinker: What You Need to Know to Make Data Work for You. Basic Books.Miller, J.H. and Page, S.E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Social Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press.Peer-reviewed articlesHong, L. and Page, S.E. (2004). "Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46): 16385–16389.Page, S.E. (2006). "Path Dependence." Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1): 87–115.Page, S.E. (2007). "Type Interactions and the Rule of Six." Economic Theory, 30(2): 223–241.Bednar, J. and Page, S.E. (2007). "Can Game(s) Theory Explain Culture? The Emergence of Cultural Behavior Within Multiple Games." Rationality and Society, 19(1): 65–97.Bednar, J., Bramson, A., Jones-Rooy, A. and Page, S.E. (2010). "Emergent Cultural Signatures and Persistent Diversity: A Model of Conformity and Consistency." Rationality and Society, 22(4): 407–444.

The Trump administration’s messaging around the war with Iran feels reminiscent of stuff like … cowboy movies. And video games. And the manosphere. This hour, a look at the rhetoric around the war and where it’s all coming from. GUESTS: Casey Ryan Kelly: Professor of Rhetoric and Public Culture in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He is also Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, and author of books including Manifesting Violence: White Terrorism, Digital Culture, and the Rhetoric of Replacement Jonathan Guyer: Program Director at the Institute for Global Affairs at Eurasia Group, and a reporter and editor focused on foreign policy, national security, and the Middle East. He is host of the podcast “None of the Above” Roger Stahl: Author and Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia. He is director of the documentary Theaters of War Music featured (in order): “Hoe-Down” from Rodeo – Aaron Copland, NYO-USA, Michael Tilson Thomas You Should Have Seen the Other Guy – Nathaniel Rateliff Under My Thumb – Rolling Stones Son of Your Father – Elton John Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly Fond of Each Other – Orville Peck and Willie Nelson I Am a Rock – Simon and Garfunkel Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten: +++ Cannabis hat schlechten Einfluss aufs Gedächtnis +++ Echtes Multitasking gibt es gar nicht +++ Sexstellung von Eintagsfliegen im CT beobachtet +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:Studie zu Cannabis und Gedächtnis, Journal of Psychopharmacology, Feb. 2026Studie zu Multitasking, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Nov. 2025Studie zum Sex von Eintagsfliegen, Insect Systematics and Diversity, März 2026Studie zur Vielfalt im Denken der Chatbots, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11. März 2026Studie zu Stadt- und Landameisen, Urban Ecosystems, Jan. 2026Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

The best decision-makers aren't better at deciding. They're better at controlling when, where, and how they decide. It took me twenty years to figure that out. Most people spend that time trying harder: more discipline, more willpower, more resolve to think clearly under pressure. It doesn't work. That's when mindjacking wins. Not through force. Through the door you left unguarded. The answer isn't trying harder. It's building systems that protect your thinking before the pressure hits. By the end of this episode, you'll have four concrete strategies for doing exactly that, and a one-page system you'll build before we're done. And I have something else to share at the end. Something I've been working toward for twenty years. Let's get into it. Why Willpower Fails and Design Works Ulysses knew his ship would pass the island of the Sirens. He also knew the song was irresistible. Sailors who heard it became incapacitated and drove straight into the rocks. He didn't try to be stronger than it. He had his crew fill their ears with wax and tie him to the mast, with strict orders not to release him, no matter what he said when the music reached him. His calm self setting rules for his compromised self. That's the core of everything in this episode. These are called commitment devices. The decision gets made early, when your thinking is clear, before you're tempted to take the wrong path. Studies tracking self-imposed contracts found that when people added meaningful stakes to their commitments, their follow-through nearly doubled. Not because they became more virtuous, but because they'd taken the choice off the table at the moment they were most likely to get it wrong. Stop asking "How do I resist?" Start asking, "What can I decide now, so I don't have to decide under pressure?" Before you can build the right commitments, you need to know exactly where your thinking breaks down. Not decision-making in general. Yours. Finding Your Personal Vulnerability Think back across the last few months. Where did your thinking most clearly cost you? Some people stall. They keep researching past the point of useful information, using "I need more data" as cover for avoiding a commitment they know they need to make. Others make their worst calls at the end of long days. Saying yes when they mean no, because no requires energy they've already spent. Some get caught by urgency. A deadline appears, the pressure closes off their thinking, and they move fast. Only later do they discover the deadline was manufactured to do exactly that. Others walk into a room with a clear position and walk out agreeing with the loudest voice, unable to explain exactly when they shifted. And some defend decisions past the point where the evidence says stop, because stopping would mean admitting something about themselves they're not ready to face. Identify yours. Write it down before we go further. Your primary vulnerability is a design target, not a character flaw. You can't build around something you haven't named. Four Strategies for Protecting Your Judgment Strategy 1: Control When You Decide Every morning I put on the same thing: a black golf shirt, blue jeans, and cowboy boots. Same brands, same routine, no decisions. My wife tolerates it. I've stopped apologizing for it. It's not a fashion choice. It's a cognitive load choice. Your brain has a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day. Every trivial choice draws from the same reserve you need for the decisions that actually matter. What to wear, what to eat, which route to take. Eliminating those choices doesn't just save time. It protects the mental fuel you'll need later. Decision-making capacity isn't flat across the day. It peaks early, when you're rested and fresh. It degrades, measurably, as conditions erode. The same call made at 8 a.m. and at the end of your seventh consecutive meeting aren't equivalent. Same person, different machine. Pull up your calendar from the last two weeks. Look at when your biggest decisions actually happened. For most people, it's not in a calm moment with a clear head. It's in the hallway, on a rushed call, in the last fifteen minutes of a meeting that ran over. That's not bad luck. That's the default you haven't changed yet. Write a standing rule: no significant, hard-to-reverse commitments after a certain hour or after a certain number of back-to-back meetings without a mandatory pause. Hold it like a policy, not a preference. Because preferences are exactly what disappear under the conditions where you need them most. Strategy 2: Build Your Kitchen Cabinet One of the things I credit most for whatever success I've had in my career isn't a framework or a methodology. It's four people. I call them my kitchen cabinet. They've seen my best decisions and my worst ones. They know when I'm rationalizing. They know when I'm avoiding. And they are not afraid to call me out when I'm off the tracks. Here's what surprises people when I describe them. They're not senior executives. They're not peers from inside my industry. They don't work in any organization I've ever worked for. They're a deliberate mix: different backgrounds, different areas of expertise, different ways of seeing the world. One of them has been in my cabinet for nearly thirty years. I trust them completely, and everything we discuss stays between us. That independence is the whole point. The people inside your organization have something at stake in your decisions. Your peers have their own agendas, even when they don't mean to. Your boss has a preferred outcome. None of that makes them bad advisors. It just means they can't give you the one thing you need most when a decision gets hard: a perspective with no skin in the game. Your kitchen cabinet can. Because they have nothing to gain or lose from what you decide, they can ask the question everyone else in the room is avoiding. They can tell you what you don't want to hear. And they'll do it before you've committed, when it still matters, not after the fact, when all they can do is watch. Build yours deliberately. Four to six people is enough. Prioritize independence over seniority. Look for people who will push back, not people who will reassure. And make the relationship reciprocal. You show up for their decisions too. The cabinet only works if the trust runs both ways and the conversations stay private. You don't need them for every decision. You need them for the ones where you're most at risk of fooling yourself. Strategy 3: Write Your Position Before the Room Fills Up I've sat in enough rooms where I walked in with a clear position and walked out having said almost none of it. Not because I was wrong. Because by the time the senior voice spoke and the heads started nodding, my own analysis felt less certain than it did twenty minutes earlier. The brain doesn't just nudge your answer when social pressure arrives. It rewrites your perception. What you saw before entering the room changes to match what the room already believes, before you've consciously registered the pressure. Before any consequential group decision, write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe. What evidence supports it. What would genuinely change your mind. A note on your phone is enough. It doesn't need to be formal. It needs to be external, because your memory will quietly revise itself once the social pressure arrives. Those three sentences are a record of what you actually concluded before the room had a chance to work on you. When the discussion moves toward a position, you can then distinguish between "I'm updating because I heard something new" and "I'm caving because the silence is uncomfortable." Without that record, those two experiences feel identical in the moment, and one of them will reliably win. Strategy 4: Assume the Failure Before You Commit In August 2016, Delta Air Lines ran a routine scheduled test of the backup generator at their Atlanta data center. A transformer caught fire. Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers, improperly connected to a single power source, went dark. They couldn't fail over to backups. The servers that stayed online couldn't communicate with the ones that hadn't. The entire system collapsed: passenger check-in, baggage, websites, kiosks, and airport displays. Gone. Delta cancelled 2,100 flights over three days. $150 million in losses. Thousands of passengers slept on airport floors. The system had redundancy designed in. The backup had been tested. The specific failure mode, servers with no alternate power connection, was a known vulnerability that nobody had ever stopped to question. A year before the fire, cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem, had written a thought experiment describing almost this exact scenario. Imagine, he wrote, that an airline CEO gathered top management and asked: "Every one of our flights around the world has been cancelled for two straight days. Why?" People would think terrorism first. The real progress, Klein said, would come from mundane answers: a reservation system down, a backup that didn't activate, a cascade nobody had traced in advance. Delta built what Klein described. Without running the question that would have found it. The pre-mortem is that question. Before you commit to a significant decision, assume it's six months later, and the decision failed. Not possibly, but definitely. Then ask: What went wrong? What did you know but not say? What did someone sense but find too awkward to raise in the room? "What could go wrong?" produces hedged answers. People soften concerns to preserve harmony. "It failed. What happened?" changes the psychology entirely. You're not being negative. You're being forensic. The things that surface, the concerns that felt impolitic, the risks that seemed too small to mention, are frequently the ones that end up mattering most. Each of these four strategies is a designed defense against the same thing: the systematic capture of your judgment before you notice it happening. That's mindjacking. And now you have four ways to make it harder. But strategies only work if you remember to use them. And you won't remember. Not when you're depleted at 7pm, not when the room is staring at you, not when your identity is on the line. That's not a character flaw. That's just how it works. So we're going to take everything you just learned and put it on one page. A page you'll sign. A page you'll keep somewhere you'll actually see it. Your calm self, right now, is building the system your future self will thank you for. The people who shape outcomes consistently aren't necessarily the sharpest thinkers in the room. They're the ones whose judgment is still intact when everyone else's has degraded. That's a practice, not a talent. The full video and written deep-dive on mindjacking are linked below at philmckinney.com/mindjacking. Your Decision Constitution Remember the Ulysses insight from the beginning of this episode. Your calm self setting rules for your compromised self. That's exactly what this is. A Decision Constitution is one page. Five commitments. Written when your thinking is clear, so the version of you under pressure has something to stand on. Not a to-do list. Not a productivity hack. A contract with yourself. Here's what goes in it. Your Timing Rule. You already know that your judgment degrades as the day runs long. So name it. What are the specific conditions (time of day, number of back-to-back meetings, hours of sleep) that disqualify you from making a high-stakes, hard-to-reverse call without a mandatory pause first? Write that line. Hold it like a policy. Your Pre-Decision List. Think of the situations where you consistently make choices you later regret. The late-day request you said yes to when you meant no. The urgency that overrode your better judgment. Pick three. Write a standing rule for each, specific enough that you can invoke it without having to think. "I don't make new commitments without sleeping on it." That's a rule. "I'll try to be more careful" is not. Your Pre-Meeting Anchor. Before any meeting where a significant decision will be made, you write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe, what evidence supports it, and what would genuinely change your mind. Not in the car on the way. Before. That record is what protects your thinking from the room. Your Pre-Mortem Trigger. Name the threshold that makes a decision significant enough to require a pre-mortem. A dollar amount. An impact on more than a certain number of people. A commitment lasting longer than six months. Whatever your threshold is, write it down. Once a decision crosses it, the pre-mortem is non-negotiable. Your Kitchen Cabinet Trigger. Your cabinet is only useful if you engage them before you've decided, not after. So name the conditions that require you to bring a decision to them first. A decision that's hard to reverse. A situation where you have significant personal stakes in the outcome. A moment where you notice everyone around you wants you to decide a certain way. A decision you find yourself avoiding thinking about clearly. Any one of those is enough. Two or more is non-negotiable. Now print out your decision constitution. Sign it. Put it somewhere you'll actually see it before the moments that count. This is your Ulysses contract. Your clear-headed self, right now, is setting the terms your compromised self will have to honor when the pressure is real, and the easy path is pointing the wrong way. Closing That's Part 2 of the Thinking 101 series. Fifteen episodes. If you've been here from the beginning, you've built something real. The series has been running for 21 weeks. The show behind it has been running for 20 years. And how we got here traces back to a single conversation. Twenty years ago, a mentor of mine, Bob Davis, gave me a challenge I couldn't shake. I'd asked him how I could ever repay him for what he'd done for my career. He laughed and said I couldn't. The only option, he said, was to pay it forward. That's why this show exists. That's why it has always existed. The show was called Killer Innovations because that's what felt right in 2005. Bold, a little provocative, built for a moment when podcasting was brand new, and nobody knew what it was supposed to be. Tens of millions of downloads later, we're still here. We have regular listeners in more than 50 countries. Some of you are younger than the podcast itself. But somewhere along the way, the show became something more specific. It stopped being about innovation tips and started being about the innovation decisions that actually shape outcomes. About the patterns underneath the decisions. About the skills that matter most when the pressure is real. On March 23rd, the show's 20th anniversary, we're making major changes. The podcast. The YouTube channel. All of it. And if you have thoughts about where we've been or where we're going, I want to hear them. There's a contact form at philmckinney.com. Send me a note. I'll see you on the 23rd.   Endnotes  "their follow-through nearly doubled": Gharad Bryan, Dean S. Karlan, and Scott Nelson, "Commitment Contracts," Yale Economics Department Working Paper No. 73 / Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 980 (October 23, 2009). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1493378. The research draws on Karlan and co-founders' development of StickK.com, a commitment contract platform launched in 2008 at Yale. Platform data consistently shows that users who add meaningful stakes — financial or reputational — to their commitments achieve their goals at roughly double the rate of those who don't. The underlying mechanism was established in Karlan's earlier field research in the Philippines: Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin, "Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 2 (May 2006): 635–672. doi:10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.635. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/2/635/1884028. Pre-commitment works not by increasing virtue but by removing the decision from the moment of temptation. For accessible application, see Ian Ayres, Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (New York: Bantam, 2010), ISBN 978-0-553-80763-9. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/6794/carrots-and-sticks-by-ian-ayres/.   "a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day": Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M. Tice, "Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 5 (1998): 1252–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252. https://roybaumeister.com/1998/03/16/ego-depletion-is-the-active-self-a-limited-resource/. Also see Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (New York: Penguin, 2011). Baumeister's strength model of self-control proposes that willpower, decision-making, and self-regulation all draw from a single, depletable resource — what he termed "ego depletion." Subsequent work has debated the precise mechanism, with some researchers arguing the effect is motivational rather than metabolic. The practical implication, however, is consistent across studies: decision quality degrades as the day progresses, and the effect is most pronounced for complex, high-stakes choices. For a summary of the current scientific debate on the mechanism, see Michael Inzlicht and Brandon J. Schmeichel, "What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control," Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 5 (2012): 450–463. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168503/.   "It rewrites your perception": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/.  This fMRI study at Emory University extended Solomon Asch's classic conformity experiments by imaging participants' brains as they conformed to or resisted incorrect group answers. The key finding: when participants went along with the group, the activity appeared not in the prefrontal cortex — the seat of conscious decision-making — but in the occipital-parietal network responsible for visual and spatial perception. In other words, participants who conformed weren't consciously deciding to lie; the group had altered what they actually perceived. Standing alone, by contrast, activated the amygdala, a region associated with emotional distress — consistent with the experience of social dissent as genuinely uncomfortable rather than merely inconvenient.   "Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers": Yevgeniy Sverdlik, "Delta: Data Center Outage Cost Us $150M," Data Center Knowledge, September 8, 2016. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/outages/delta-data-center-outage-cost-us-150m.  Also see W. H. Highleyman, "Delta Air Lines Cancels 2,100 Flights Due to Power Outage," Availability Digest (September 2016). https://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/1109/delta.pdf. On the morning of August 8, 2016, a fire triggered during a routine backup generator test at Delta's Atlanta data center caused a transformer failure. Approximately 300 of Delta's 7,000 servers were improperly connected to a single power source with no alternate feed, and when that feed failed, those servers went dark. Because those servers couldn't communicate with the rest of the system, the entire network collapsed. Delta cancelled roughly 2,100 flights over three days, leaving an estimated 250,000 passengers stranded. Total losses reached $150 million.   "cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem": Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Premortem," Harvard Business Review 85, no. 9 (September 2007): 18–19. https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem.  Klein developed the pre-mortem method over several decades of applied research in naturalistic decision-making. The technique asks teams to assume, before committing to a plan, that the plan has already failed — definitively, not possibly — and then work backward to identify causes. Klein's research found that this reframing dramatically increases the willingness of team members to surface concerns they would otherwise suppress to preserve group harmony. The method has since been endorsed by Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Richard Thaler as a practical tool for reducing overconfidence in planning. For Klein's broader framework of naturalistic decision-making, see Gary Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262343251/sources-of-power/. 

Particulate matter is, Michael Greenstone argues, the greatest public health threat on the planet. Worse than HIV, cigarettes, and alcohol. The average person  loses about two years of life expectancy to it. In India, the figure is three and a half years. The solution to this problem has been tested, and it works, at least in high-income countries.Greenstone and his co-authors ran a randomised controlled trial in Surat, Gujarat: from 300 industrial plants, mostly making textiles, all burning coal, half were randomly assigned to a market where pollution permits could be bought and sold. The results: in the market, pollution fell 25%, compliance was near-perfect, and abatement costs dropped 12%. The cost-benefit ratio is as high as 200 to one. Many plants in the control group asked to be moved into the market.The research behind this episode:Greenstone, Michael, Rohini Pande, Nicholas Ryan, and Anant Sudarshan. 2025. "Can Pollution Markets Work in Developing Countries? Experimental Evidence from India." Quarterly Journal of Economics 140 (2): 1003–1060. An ungated version is available as BFI Working Paper 2025-53.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim. 2025. "Can Pollution Markets Work in Developing Countries?" VoxDev Talk (podcast).  Assign this as extra listening: the citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About Michael GreenstoneMichael Greenstone is the Milton Friedman Distinguished Service Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago, where he is the founding Director of the Energy Policy Institute at Chicago (EPIC) and the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth. His research focuses on the costs and benefits of environmental quality, including the Air Quality Life Index, which tracks the toll of particulate pollution country by country. He previously served as Chief Economist for the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama. Research cited in this episodeAir Quality Life Index (AQLI), Energy Policy Institute at Chicago. The source of the life-expectancy statistics used in this episode: particulate pollution costs the average person on Earth roughly two years of life expectancy, with India averaging three and a half years. The index tracks this burden country by country, city by city.The US sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade programme, established under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, was the canonical precedent Greenstone cited: a market that dramatically reduced acid rain in the eastern United States at costs far below pre-programme projections. He noted that the UK and EU have since built comparable CO2 markets. All have worked well. The question this experiment addressed was whether the same logic held in the developing world, where almost all the pollution now is.Emissions Market Accelerator. An independent scale-up organisation founded by Greenstone and colleagues to replicate the Gujarat model beyond the original research setting. Current pipeline: a statewide sulphur dioxide market for Maharashtra (including large power plants, not just textiles), and advanced conversations in Pakistan and Brazil. Within Gujarat, a water pollution market is also in development.More VoxDev Talks on this topicRegulating pollution in low- and middle-income countries Rohini Pande and Nicholas Ryan, two co-authors of the paper discussed in this episode, on the political economy of pollution regulation in developing countries: why enforcement is hard, and what makes it work.Air pollution and infant mortality Jennifer Burney on the health costs of particulate air pollution for young children, and what the evidence from Saharan dust patterns across Sub-Saharan Africa reveals about exposure and mortality.The Social Cost of Carbon Michael Greenstone's earlier VoxDev Talk, on how assigning a monetary value to carbon emissions can drive better policy decisions and make the case for action that regulation alone struggles to make.Related reading on VoxDevReducing air pollution: Evidence from payments to reduce crop burning in India How cash payments to farmers in northern India changed behaviour and cut the seasonal haze from crop fires that pushes Delhi's air quality to its worst each winter.Paying to pollute: How carbon offsets actually raised emissions in China A cautionary study on market-based pollution controls: when incentives point the wrong way, a market can make things worse rather than better.The effect of pollution on worker productivity: Evidence from call-centre workers in China Air pollution reduces cognitive performance and output, adding an economic productivity argument to the health case for cleaning the air.

Today on the podcast, why are more unequal neighborhoods sometimes better at promoting the collective good?A world of high inequality is, in many ways, a world in which the fortunes of the rich are detached from the welfare of the poor. It's a world in which the affluent are less reliant on public goods for securing their own safety and wellbeing. Those with money can purchase essential services – even things like security, sewage systems, or street lights – on private markets – rather than turning to the government. A highly unequal society is thus one in which the affluent may have little reason to support public infrastructure and services – or the high taxes required to finance them. It's a society, in short, that's going to have a hard time providing widespread public goods. The result can be a vicious circle – deteriorating living conditions among the poorest and growing comfort and prosperity among the better-off.But our guest today argues that things don't always have to work this way – that the consequences of inequality depend not only on who has what, but also on where. Dr. Alice Xu is an Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Policy and Practice and Department of Political Science. In her article published in the American Political Science Review – and a book project currently in progress – Alice argues that whether or not the affluent support the provision of public goods depends on patterns of residential segregation and integration. As Alice argues, when the middle and upper classes live in close proximity to the poor, their fortunes are more closely intertwined than they are in cities that are highly segregated by social class. In an integrated city, when the poor experience unsafe streets or disease-ridden sewage runoff, so too do their better-off neighbors. Alice talks to us about the in-depth, mixed method study she carried out in several cities in Brazil – one of the world's most unequal countries. We dig into how class-integrated neighborhoods sometimes escape inequality's vicious circle – as the middle and upper classes demand that the state invest more generously in urban infrastructure and services for everyone. This is work that doesn't just shed new light on the political economy of inequality but also holds important lessons for the planning and governance of the world's cities – in particular, showing just what is at stake in avoiding high levels of segregation by social class.We hope you enjoy this conversation. To stay informed about future episodes, follow us on Bluesky @scopeconditions and check out our website, scopeconditionspodcast.com, where you can also find references to all the academic works we discuss. And if you like the show, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.Now, here's our conversation with Alice Xu.Works cited in this episodeAllport, Gordon Willard, Kenneth Clark, and Thomas F. Pettigrew. The nature of prejudice. Vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954.Boustan, Leah Platt. “Was postwar suburbanization ‘white flight'? Evidence from the black migration.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125, no. 1 (2010): 417–443.Derenoncourt, Ellora. “Can you move to opportunity? Evidence from the Great Migration.” American Economic Review 112, no. 2 (2022): 369–408.Habyarimana, James, Macartan Humphreys, Daniel N. Posner, and Jeremy M. Weinstein. Coethnicity: Diversity and the dilemmas of collective action. Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.McGhee, Heather. The sum of us: What racism costs everyone and how we can prosper together. One World, 2022.Milanovic, Branko. Worlds apart: Measuring international and global inequality. Princeton University Press, 20

Michael Norton reveals the science behind rituals that can help us change the way we feel and perform.— YOU'LL LEARN — 1) What makes rituals more powerful than habits2) How rituals help you get into the zone3) Simple team rituals to build closenessSubscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1129 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT MICHAEL — Michael I. Norton is a professor at Harvard Business School. Michael's research focuses on behavioral economics and well-being, with particular attention given to happiness and spending, income inequality, the IKEA effect, and, most recently, rituals.Michael Norton's research has been published in popular media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and The New York Times, as well as academic journals like Science, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, and the American Economic Review. His “How to Buy Happiness” TED Talk has been viewed over 4 million times, and his work has been parodied by The Onion. In 2013, Norton co-authored Happy Money: The Science of Happier Spending with Elizabeth Dunn. His recent book The Ritual Effect focuses on the surprising and versatile power of rituals.• Book: The Ritual Effect: From Habit to Ritual, Harness the Surprising Power of Everyday Actions• Quiz: "Are you turning mundane moments into meaningful ones?"• Website: MichaelNorton.com— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Study: "Overearning" by Christopher K. Hsee, Jiao Zhang, Fengyan Cai, and Shirley Zhang• Book: The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World by Lewis Hyde— THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Monarch.com. Get 50% off your first year on with the code AWESOME.• Shopify. Sign up for your $1/month trial at Shopify.com/betterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Como os he comentado, en este video no hay texto descriptivo, sino una “Bibliografía Técnica” y las fuentes de referencia. 1. Volumen de los contratos: Datos BOE y Plataforma de Contratación. El INTRAS no recibe una subvención a fondo perdido, sino que factura a través de contratos menores y procedimientos negociados sin publicidad (adjudicaciones directas por razones de exclusividad técnica). Convenios Marco: Solo en la última década, el Ministerio del Interior (vía DGT) ha firmado convenios con la Universidad de Valencia para el INTRAS por valores que suman varios millones de euros. Por ejemplo, es habitual encontrar partidas anuales de entre 400.000 € y 600.000 € destinadas exclusivamente a "asesoramiento técnico" y "análisis del comportamiento del conductor". Contratos Específicos: En el histórico de adjudicaciones, aparecen contratos para el diseño de cursos de recuperación de puntos o estudios sobre distracciones con importes que oscilan entre los 60.000 € y los 120.000 € por proyecto. 2. La "exclusividad" y el “blindaje” económico Muchas de estas adjudicaciones se realizan bajo la premisa de que "solo el INTRAS tiene la capacidad técnica" para realizarlos. Esto blinda al instituto frente a la competencia de otras universidades o consultoras privadas. 3. FESVIAL: La pieza clave del puzle Luis Montoro preside además FESVIAL (Fundación Española para la Seguridad Vial). Esta es una entidad privada que actúa como puente. FESVIAL recibe patrocinios y contratos de la DGT y de empresas privadas que viven de la seguridad vial (fabricantes de radares, señalización, etc.). 4. Bases de la Teoría del "Cataclismo Sensorial". Montoro, L., et al. (Luis Montoro y equipo) (2011). "Velocidad y Seguridad Vial: Un análisis de los factores de riesgo". Cátedra de Seguridad Vial de la Universidad de Valencia / FESVIAL. (Este es el documento donde se populariza el término y las gráficas del efecto túnel que usa la DGT). INTRAS (1998). "La influencia de la velocidad en los accidentes de tráfico". Instituto Universitario de Tráfico y Seguridad Vial. (Estudio base que sirve de cimiento a las normativas actuales). 4. Neurobiología de la Percepción y Atención Mackworth, N. H. (1948). "The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search". Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. (El estudio fundamental sobre cómo la monotonía desconecta el cerebro; clave para tu argumento de los 110 km/h). Gibson, J. J. (1950). "The Perception of the Visual World". Houghton Mifflin. (Padre del concepto de "Flujo Óptico", que explica cómo percibimos el movimiento sin necesidad de nitidez periférica). Lee, D. N. (1976). "A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision". Perception. (El estudio original sobre el Factor Tau que se menciona en el guion). 5. Seguridad Vial Comparada y Estadísticas BASt (Federal Highway Research Institute of Germany). "Traffic and Accident Data: Comparative analysis of Autobahns with and without speed limits". Informes anuales (2020-2024). (Fuente oficial para demostrar que la velocidad no es el factor determinante de mortalidad en Alemania). Pau, M., & Angius, S. (2001). "Do speed bumps really decrease traffic speed? An Italian experience". Accident Analysis & Prevention. (Análisis sobre cómo los límites artificiales afectan a la atención del conductor). 6. Factores Humanos y Aviación (Carga de Trabajo) Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). "The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation". Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. (La Ley de Yerkes-Dodson, que explica el "estrés óptimo" necesario para que el cerebro rinda al máximo). Wickens, C. D. (2002). "Multiple resources and performance prediction". Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. (Sobre la carga cognitiva y cómo las pantallas táctiles son más peligrosas que la velocidad pura).

This week, scholars Lisa Marie Gring-Pemble and Martha Watson discuss their book Your Daughters Will Prophesy: Religion and Rhetoric in the Nineteenth-Century Woman's Movement. Their work explores how four 19th-century women—Jarena Lee, Sarah Moore Grimké, Lucretia Coffin Mott, and Frances Willard—used the Bible to claim their voice on the moral questions of their day. This conversation originally took place January 27, 2026 and was recorded live via Zoom. AWM PODCAST NETWORK HUB This episode is presented in conjunction with the American Writers Museum's special exhibit American Prophets: Writers, Religion, and Culture. This exhibit and programming series explores the profound ways writing reflects and influences our understanding of religion. American Prophets is now open. We hope you enjoy entering the Mind of a Writer. More about Your Daughters Will Prophesy: Caught between their identity as Christians and social norms that silenced them, American women used scripture to claim moral and then rhetorical agency. They reinterpreted familiar biblical passages, recovered previously ignored stories about women, and contested passages used to circumscribe women's activities. By strategically adopting a rhetorical posture of dissent, these women became prophetic voices in American society. In Your Daughters Will Prophesy, Lisa Marie Gring-Pemble and Martha Watson analyze the argumentative resources four women—Jarena Lee, Sarah Moore Grimké, Lucretia Coffin Mott, and Frances Willard—used to counter gendered restrictions and gain access to platform and pulpit, catalyzing what became known as the woman's movement. About the authors: LISA MARIE GRING-PEMBLE is an associate professor at George Mason University. She is author of Grim Fairy Tales: The Rhetorical Construction of American Welfare Policy, and her writing has appeared in journals, including the Quarterly Journal of Speech and Rhetoric and Public Affairs. MARTHA WATSON is author and editor of several books, including Lives of Their Own: Rhetorical Dimensions in Autobiographies of Women Activists. She is a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland.

Aktien gelten als gute Geldanlage. Aber im Wust der Tipps und Ratschläge ist man schnell lost – und nicht alle sind gut. Julian Thimme, Professor für Finance, erklärt im Vortrag die wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen fürs Anlegen und gibt Tipps. Julian Thimme ist Professor für Finance am Karlsruher Institut für Technologie. Einer seiner Forschungsschwerpunkte ist der Aktienmarkt. Seinen Vortrag "Soll ich wirklich Aktien kaufen – und wenn ja, welche?" hat er am 21. November 2025 im Rahmen der Nacht der Wissenschaft in Karlsruhe am KIT gehalten. Der Vortrag war gleichzeitig seine Antrittsvorlesung; nach sechs Jahren als Juniorprofessor am KIT wurde er im August 2025 zum W3-Professor dort ernannt. ******* +++ Deutschlandfunk Nova +++ Hörsaal +++ Vortrag +++ Wissenschaft +++ Finanzen +++ Geld +++ Altersvorsorge +++ Rente +++ Börse +++ Aktien +++ Aktientipps +++ Aktienmarkt +++ Wertpapiere +++ Traden +++ Investieren +++ Investment +++ Anlegen +++ Geldanlage +++ Gold +++ Immobilien +++ DAX +++ Kurs +++ Gewinn +++ Dividende +++ Passives Einkommen +++ Rendite +++ Sparen +++ Finfluencer +++**********In dieser Folge mit: Moderation: Katrin Ohlendorf Vortragender: Julian Thimme, Professor für Finance, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)**********Ihr hört in diesem Hörsaal:2:16 - Vortragsbeginn3:15 - Soll ich wirklich Aktien kaufen?11:51 - Welche Aktien sollte ich kaufen?26:34 - Fazit28:22 - Q & A**********Quellen aus der Folge:Anarkulova, A., Cederburg, S., & O'Doherty, M. S. (2022): Stocks for the long run? Evidence from a broad sample of developed markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 143(1), 409-433.Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001): Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261-292.Malkiel, Burton G. (1995): Returns from investing in equity mutual funds 1971 to 1991. The Journal of Finance 50(2), 549-572.Chen, A. Y., & Velikov, M. (2017): Accounting for the anomaly zoo: A trading cost perspective. Available at SSRN, 3073681.**********Mehr zum Thema bei Deutschlandfunk Nova:Wirtschaft: Wie Bitcoin das Geldsystem verändern willFinanzmärkte: Das schwierige Verhältnis zur DemokratieMaking Class: Das Wissen schwer reicher Familien**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

Have you ever walked into your living room, kitchen or bedroom and completely forgotten what you went there for? It can be pretty annoying, and a little unsettling too. You might start wondering if you've got memory problems. This mental block phenomenon actually has a name: the doorway effect. It happens to most people from time to time. Through a series of studies run by Gabriel Radvansky and his colleagues at the University of Notre Dame in the USA, the doorway effect has been proved scientifically. The findings were published in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2011. Has it been studied by researchers? So what's actually going on in the brain at that specific moment? Should I be worried if it happens to me? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to more episodes, click here: ⁠⁠Will ChatGPT replace Google?⁠⁠ ⁠⁠What is the loverboy method Andrew Tate is accused of using?⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Should I buy an electric car?⁠⁠ A Bababam Originals podcast. Written and produced by Joseph Chance. First Broadcast : 27/1/2023 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Exactly 250 years ago, a rotund twenty-five year-old Boston bookseller named Henry Knox was riding his horse between Springfield and Worcester Massachusetts, on his way to George Washington's headquarters in Cambridge. Washington's ragtag, ill-equipped Continental Army had kept the British garrison under General Thomas Gage bottled up in Boston and Charlestown since the summer of 1675.  Washington had a whole load of problems, including insufficient arms for his men, many with expiring enlistments that threatened to shrink his force by half or more.  He also had almost no artillery, just 12 small cannon that Henry Knox, among others, had learned to operate while training with the local militia.  Geographically, the Boston of that era was essentially a bubble of land connected to the mainland by an incredibly narrow neck at Roxbury.  Two hills loomed over the city from across the water – Breed's Hill in Charlestown to Boston's north, which the British had captured at great cost in the summer, and Dorchester Heights, to Boston's south, which the British had not captured. This is why it was very important – world historically important – that Henry Knox, on that day exactly 250 years ago, was commanding a convoy of artillery comprising 58 pieces and weighing more than 60 tons, pulled on purpose-built sleds by teams of oxen and horses all the way from Fort Ticonderoga, 300 miles away, over rivers and the Berkshires, during the coldest winter in memory. Within just a few days those guns would be in Cambridge, and not long after that, on the sixth anniversary of the Boston Massacre, would be entrenched on Dorchester Heights and open fire on the city and ships below.  Henry Knox's big guns would drive the British from Boston, for good.               The tale of that “noble train” of artillery, as Knox famously referred to it, is one of the more astonishing stories of military innovation, indefatigable perseverance, and inspired leadership in a war that had more than its share of such moments. It was also among the most important, because it came at a desperate period when the Americans needed a victory or the entire project of the Revolution might have fallen apart. Map of Boston in 1775: Subscribe to my Substack! X – @TheHistoryOfTh2 – https://x.com/TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/HistoryOfTheAmericans Primary references for this episode (Commission earned for Amazon purchases through the episode notes on our website) William Hazelgrove, Henry Knox’s Noble Train: The Story of a Boston Bookseller’s Heroic Expedition That Saved the American Revolution Thomas M. Campeau, Major, U.S. Army, “The Noble Train of Artillery: A Study Comparison of Current Doctrinal Concepts of the Mission Command Philosophy in History.” (Master’s thesis, pdf) Alexander C. Flick, “General Henry Knox’s Ticonderoga Expedition,” The Quarterly Journal of the New York State Historical Association, April 1928.

So many women grow up hearing that we should be able to have it all, yet very few of us are ever shown what that actually looks like in real life.In this episode, Emily welcomes Corinne Lowe, an associate professor of Business Economics and Public Policy. Corinne shares insights from her book, Having It All: What Data Tells Us About Women's Lives and Getting the Most Out of Yours, which examines gender wage gaps, structural discrimination, and the pressures women face when balancing career, family, and personal life.This conversation focuses on redefining success in a way that truly fits your values, being more intentional with your time, and finding fulfillment on your own terms. You'll also come away with practical strategies for workplace negotiations, rethinking productivity, and creating a more sustainable balance between work and life.Listen and Learn: How structural barriers limit women's career and wage growth, and encourage redefining success by focusing on personal fulfillment and leveling up within those realitiesHow women face systemic workplace barriers that collectively limit their opportunities and earnings, and why addressing these issues benefits everyoneDebunking myths about women's performance, showing that traits like negotiation skill and competitiveness are not inferior, and that focusing on evidence-based skill-building is what truly drives successUnderstanding and prioritizing your own “utility function” to help women focus on what matters to them, rather than constantly comparing themselves to othersHow to rethink your career as a tool for turning time into meaningful fulfillment, balance life's chapters intentionally, and confidently understand your market value to make work serve youReclaiming your time, setting boundaries, and making intentional choices to focus on what truly brings joy and meaning to your family and life, instead of being trapped by guilt, obligation, or unrealistic expectationsReframing parenting and self-care as “human capital” investment, showing how the time and care you give to your children and to yourself is meaningful, economically valuable, and essential for long-term wellbeingResources: Having It All: What Data Tells Us About Women's Lives and Getting the Most Out of Yours: https://bookshop.org/a/30734/9781250369512Corrine's Website: https://www.corinnelow.com Connect with Corrine on Social Media: https://www.instagram.com/corinnelowphd/https://www.linkedin.com/in/corinne-lowhttps://www.facebook.com/people/Corinne-Low Read More About Corrine's Work on Substack: https://corinnelow.substack.com/ About Corinne LowCorinne Low is an Associate Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania where she teaches an award-winning class (and was named one of Poets and Quants 40 MBA Professors under 40 in 2024). Her research on the economics of gender has been published in top journals such as the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, and Journal of Political Economy. Corinne and her work have been featured in major media outlets, such as The New York Times, CBS Mornings, Forbes, New York Magazine, and The Guardian. Corinne regularly speaks to and advises firms in addition to teaching in Wharton's Executive Education programs. She is the author of Having It All: What Data Tells Us About Women's Lives and Getting the Most Out of Yours. She received her Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia University, her B.S. in Economics and Public Policy from Duke University and formerly worked for McKinsey and Company.Related Episodes:398. Finding Joy in Your Relationship with Money with Elizabeth Husserl357. Is Your Work Worth It? How to Think About Meaningful Work with Jennifer Tosti-Kharas and Christopher Wong Michaelson275. Work, Parent, Thrive with Yael Schonbrun245. Family Firm with Emily Oster206. Fair Play Part 2 with Eve Rodsky176. Fair Play with Eve Rodsky174. How to Work and Parent Mindfully with Lori Mihalich-LevinSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of MissPerceived, Professor Leah unpacks what really happens when something goes wrong with your kids and the school, coach, or doctor has to pick up the phone: who do they call first, and why is it almost always mom? Drawing on new research from the Quarterly Journal of Economics and her own mental load interviews, Leah breaks down how schools and other institutions default to mothers as the family “911 call center,” even when parents explicitly ask them to call dad instead. She explains how this constant correspondence quietly reshapes women's careers, health, and relationships, and offers practical ways dads, schools, and couples can push back on these norms so the burden is shared more fairly at homeFollow Leah: @prof.leahruppanner Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stijn Schmitz welcomes Dr. Mark Thornton to the show. Dr. Mark Thornton is Economist and Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute. The discussion centers on the current state of precious metals, monetary policy, and economic systems, with a particular focus on gold and silver’s role in the global financial landscape. Thornton argues that gold is fundamentally money, and governments have only recently forced their way into replacing commodity money with fiat currency. He suggests that the current precious metals market is still in its early stages, with central bank buying and distrust in the US dollar driving significant interest. The gold and silver markets are experiencing growing pains, with increasing investor attention and potential for further price appreciation. The conversation delves into the fundamental differences between Austrian and Keynesian economics. Thornton criticizes Keynesian economics as a state-controlled ideology that promotes government spending and manipulates interest rates, whereas Austrian economics advocates for market-driven monetary systems and private property rights. He highlights how central bank policies create economic bubbles and exacerbate wealth inequality by favoring asset-rich individuals. Thornton sees potential for a significant monetary transformation, potentially triggered by the current precious metals bull market. He believes the collision between Western and Eastern financial markets, coupled with the rise of cryptocurrencies, could lead to a fundamental restructuring of monetary systems. The possibility of a return to a gold standard or a gold-backed settlement currency is discussed as a potential future scenario. The economist also warns about potential economic bubbles in artificial intelligence and private equity, arguing that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have created unsustainable conditions across various sectors. He believes that while central banks have been able to temporarily extend economic cycles, their power is not infinite, and a significant market correction is inevitable. Thornton concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding Austrian economic principles and encourages listeners to explore the works of economists like Friedrich Hayek to gain deeper insights into monetary systems and economic dynamics. Timestamps: 00:00:00 – Introduction 00:01:19 – Gold as Money 00:04:21 – Central Bank Distrust 00:05:52 – Bull Run Early Stages 00:09:35 – Historical Parallels 1980s 00:14:15 – Return to Gold Standard 00:18:16 – Bond Markets Unraveling 00:24:07 – Austrian vs Keynesian Economics 00:31:19 – Flexible Inflation Targeting 00:33:53 – Silver Monetary Role 00:45:46 – AI Private Equity Bubbles 00:51:11 – Future Recession Outlook 00:55:41 – Concluding Thoughts Guest Links: Website: https://mises.org X: https://x.com/DrMarkThornton E-Mail: mailto:mthornton@mises.org YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+thornton+minor+issues Book-Hayek: https://mises.org/library/book/hayek-21st-century-essays-political-economy Dr. Mark Thornton is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and formerly held the Peterson-Luddy Chair in Austrian Economics. He hosts the podcasts Minor Issues and Unanimity and is Book Review Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. His books include The Economics of Prohibition, Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation, The Bastiat Collection, and The Skyscraper Curse. He has served on multiple editorial boards, taught economics at several universities, and worked as Assistant Superintendent of Banking and adviser to Alabama Governor Fob James. He holds degrees from St. Bonaventure University and Auburn University and has debated the “War on Drugs” at the Oxford Union. Dr. Thornton has been featured in major outlets such as The Economist, Forbes, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, along with numerous international and regional newspapers. His commentary appears regularly on the Mises Institute's platforms and on programs such as Boom-Bust, the Tom Woods Show, and the Scott Horton Show.

Read the full transcript here. Are stock prices set by cash flows or crowd vibes? Why do bubbles last if “smart money” can short them? What should retail traders learn from GameStop and zero-commission options? When does momentum make sense - and when does it burn you? Why don't obvious mispricings get fixed - what actually stops arbitrage? Will AI help us think clearer, or supercharge manipulation and personalized pricing? Where should regulators draw the line on gamified trading and price discrimination? Do tariffs feel good because they keep others out—even if we pay more? What does the "winner's curse" mean for auctions, IPOs, and everyday deals? How much of what we want is copied from other people, and why does that matter for markets? Alex Imas is the Roger L. and Rachel M. Goetz Professor of Behavioral Science, Economics and Applied AI and a Vasilou Faculty Scholar at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he has taught Negotiations and Behavioral Economics. Alex studies behavioral economics with a focus on cognition and mental representation in dynamic decision-making. His research explores topics related to choice under uncertainty, applied AI, discrimination, and how people learn from information. Professor Imas' work utilizes a variety of methods, including lab experiments, field experiments, analysis of observational data and theoretical modeling. His research has been published in the American Economic Review, Journal of Finance, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, and Management Science, among others. Links: The Winner's Curse Alex's personal website Alex's Twitter Staff Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead WeAmplify — Transcriptionists Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant Music Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com Affiliates Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

In this episode I'm joined by Lyman Stone and Diana Fleischman for a debate on eugenics – specifically, Diana's argument that most people support ‘negative eugenic' policies to some degree, and that governments ought to go further by encouraging the use of sterilisation or long term contraception among, for instance, drug addicts.Lyman Stone is the Director of Research of the consulting firm Demographic Intelligence, the director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, and an author on Substack - Diana Fleischman is an evolutionary psychologist, Associate Research Professor at the University of New Mexico, and author of the Dissentient Substack - https://dissentient.substack.comDiscussed in the episode:* Diana's essay ‘You're probably a eugenicist' https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist* Shor, E., & Simchai, D. (2009). Incest avoidance, the incest taboo, and social cohesion: Revisiting Westermarck and the case of the Israeli kibbutzim. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1803–1842.* Gipson, J. D., Bornstein, M., Berger, A., & Rocca, C. H. (2021). Desire to avoid pregnancy and contraceptive use among female methadone patients in Los Angeles. Contraception, 103(5), 322–327* Donohue, J. J., & Levitt, S. D. (2001). The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 379–420. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530151144050 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.louiseperry.co.uk/subscribe

This special episode of Rhetoricity features a roundtable that also serves as the "Afterwords" for a forthcoming collection entitled Rhetoric Before and Beyond Post-Truth. That collection is edited by Scott Sundvall, Caddie Alford, and Ira Allen and will be published by the University of Pittsburgh Press in 2026. The featured panelists are James Ball, Barbara Biesecker, Omedi Ochieng, Robin Reames, and Ryan Skinnell. See below for more detailed bios of the panelists. The roundtable focuses on key questions from Rhetoric Before and Beyond Post-Truth: what we mean by "post-truth," how it intersects with rhetoric, and what challenges that intersection poses for us in the world to come. James Ball is an award-winning journalist, broadcaster, and author, a fellow of the think tank Demos, and the political editor of The New European. Ball also played a key role in The Guardian's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden. He is the author of multiple books, including Post-Truth and The Tangled Web We Weave: Inside The Shadow System That Shapes the Internet. His most recent book, The Other Pandemic: How QAnon Contaminated The World was published by Bloomsbury in July 2023.  Barbara Biesecker is Professor of Rhetoric in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia and author of the recently published Reinventing World War II: Popular Memory in the Rise of the Ethnonationalist State. She is the recipient of multiple awards, including the National Communication Association's Douglas Ehninger Distinguished Rhetorical Scholar Award, the Francine Merritt Award, and the Rhetorical and Communication Theory Division's Outstanding Mentor Award and Distinguished Scholar Award.  She served as editor-in-chief of the Quarterly Journal of Speech from 2013–2016 and continues to serve on multiple editorial boards.  Omedi Ochieng specializes in Africana philosophical and intellectual thought, Black radicalism, and criticism. He is the author of two books: Groundwork for the Practice of the Good Life: Politics and Ethics at the Intersection of North Atlantic and African Philosophy and The Intellectual Imagination: Knowledge and Aesthetics in North Atlantic and African Philosophy. He is currently working on a project on Black insurgent ecology.  Robin Reames is the Culbertson Chair of Writing in the Department of English at Indiana University's College of Arts and Sciences. Her research explores the relationship between language and metaphysics in ancient Greek rhetoric. She explored aspects of this relationship in her first book, Seeming and Being in Plato's Rhetorical Theory and her book of essays Logos without Rhetoric: The Arts of Language Before Plato. She is also one of the editors of the third edition of The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Her most recent book, The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself: The Power of Rhetoric in Polarized Times is written for a general audience and introduces key concepts from the ancient rhetorical tradition that can help readers navigate today's complex and polarizing politics.  Ryan Skinnell is Professor of Rhetoric and Writing at San José State University. His current research investigates authoritarian, demagogic, and fascist rhetoric, particularly in the early 20th century, and its relationship to global politics in the 21st century. He has published six books, including Faking the News: What Rhetoric Can Teach Us About Donald J. Trump and Rhetoric and Guns. He's also published more than two dozen articles and book chapters in top scholarly journals and edited collections, as well as essays in popular press outlets including the Washington Post, Newsweek, and Salon. He is currently writing a book about Adolf Hitler's rhetoric. This episode features a clip from "Truth" by Masteredit. Episode Transcript

In this episode of Smart Energy Voices, host Debra Chanil presents a special double header from the recent SED Forum Fall, examining how recent U.S. policy changes are reshaping the clean energy landscape. Stanley Reynolds, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Arizona, unpacks the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) and its reversal of key Inflation Reduction Act incentives. He outlines the bill's potential economic impacts, including higher energy costs and reduced investment, while also pointing to reasons for optimism like competitiveness in the renewables space and continued innovation. Peter Kelly-Detwiler, Principal at NorthBridge Energy Partners, continues the discussion with insights on navigating this environment. He highlights the industry's resilience, the growing role of breakthrough technologies like geothermal and modular nuclear, and strategies for energy buyers to adapt amid uncertainty and opportunity. You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in… Overview of the One Big Beautiful Bill and its economic impacts (03:16) Key provisions of the OBBB, including rescinded IRA funds (04:09) Forecasts for energy prices, investment, and jobs (10:45) Opportunities in renewables, innovation, and state-level policy (13:01) Arizona as a case study for policy impacts and opportunities (15:55) Status of major offshore and onshore projects post-OBBB (20:08) Emerging technologies like advanced geothermal (25:04) Rising electricity demand from data centers and electrification (30:14) On-site generation and geothermal systems as near-term solutions (34:38) Legal, ESG, and financial considerations for energy buyers (38:10) For full episode show notes, click here. Connect with Stanley Reynolds On LinkedIn Stanley Reynolds joined the University of Arizona after earning a doctorate in Economics from Northwestern University. He has served as Economics Department Head and Vice Dean of the Eller College of Management at U. of Arizona. His areas of expertise include energy economics, environmental economics, and industrial organization. His research has been published in leading economics journals such as Econometrica, Quarterly Journal of Economics, and the Rand Journal of Economics. His current research examines the economics of grid-scale energy storage, the impact of environmental policy on energy markets, and integration of renewable energy into the electric grid. Connect with Peter Kelly-Detwiler On LinkedIn Peter Kelly-Detwiler has 30 years of experience in the electric energy industry, with much of his career in competitive power markets. He's currently a leading consultant in the electric industry, providing strategic advice to clients and investors, helping them to navigate the rapid evolution of the electric power grid. Mr. Kelly-Detwiler offers numerous keynotes and workshops on a wide range of topics. He has also written widely on energy issues for Forbes.com and GE, with over 300 articles to his credit. His book on the transformation of electric power markets – “The Energy Switch” – was published by Prometheus Books in June of 2021. Connect With Smart Energy Decisions Smart Energy Decisions Follow us on LinkedIn Subscribe to Smart Energy Voices on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Android, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn Radio, aCast, PlayerFM, iHeart Radio If you're interested in participating in the next Smart Energy Decision Event, visit smartenergydecisions.com or email our Community Development team at attend@smartenergydecisions.com

Martín A. Rossi is Professor of Economics and Vice Rector at San Andrés University, with a PhD from Oxford. His work has been published in in leading academic journals such as Quarterly Journal of Economics, Review of Economic Studies, American Economic Review: Insights, Economic Journal, Review of Economics and Statistics, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Journal of Public Economics, and Journal of Development Economics. Beyond academia, Martín served as Secretary of Deregulation in Argentina's Ministry of Deregulation and State Transformation under President Javier Milei, contributing to efforts to reduce bureaucracy and promote economic freedom. A competitive tennis player in his youth, he brings personal insights from the sport to discussions on discipline and motivation. As a father of two daughters, Martín balances his high-profile career with family life, offering grounded perspectives on raising resilient children in a challenging economic landscape. As an advisor to governments in Latin America and Africa, as well as international organizations like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and UNICEF, Martín contributes to evidence-based policies on education, health, and youth development, emphasizing incentives, family involvement, and public interventions for positive outcomes.ParentShift course 30% OFF with the code "TRIBE". Link below: ParentShift (English): https://www.hernanchousa.com/courses/parentshift?ref=c23daa Entrena Tu Legado (Spanish): https://www.hernanchousa.com/courses/entrenatulegado?ref=c23daaTake a look at Martin's work on his website  https://sites.google.com/a/udesa.edu.ar/mrossi/home?authuser=0You can explore more of Hernan's work on his website, https://www.hernanchousa.com/Music Production by Sebastian Klauer

Warum rast unser Herz, bevor wir Angst haben? Warum spüren manche Menschen ihren Körper so genau – und andere fast gar nicht? In dieser Folge tauchen Leon und Atze in die Welt der Interozeption ein – dem verborgenen Sinn, mit dem wir unser Inneres wahrnehmen. Fühlt euch gut betreut Leon & Atze Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/leonwindscheid/ https://www.instagram.com/atzeschroeder_offiziell/ Mehr zu unseren Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/betreutesfuehlen Tickets: Atze: https://www.atzeschroeder.de/#termine Leon: https://leonwindscheid.de/tour/ Empfehlungen Betreutes Fühlen – Folge zu Alexithymie (vom 12.03.2024) „Warum fühle ich nichts?“ In dieser Folge sprechen Leon und Atze darüber, warum manche Menschen Schwierigkeiten haben, ihre eigenen Gefühle wahrzunehmen und auszudrücken. Lisa Feldman Barrett – Wie Gefühle entstehen Ein faszinierendes Buch einer der bekanntesten Emotionsforscherinnen unserer Zeit. Barrett zeigt darin, dass Gefühle keine festen Programme sind, sondern vom Gehirn konstruiert werden. Quellen Desmedt, O., Luminet, O., Walentynowicz, M., & Corneille, O. (2023). The new measures of interoceptive accuracy: A systematic review and assessment. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 153, 105388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105388 Ditzer, J., Woll, C. F. J., Burger, C., Ernst, A., Böhm, I., Garthus-Niegel, S., & Zietlow, A. L. (2025). A meta-analytic review of child maltreatment and interoception. Nature Mental Health, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00456-w Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068 Garfinkel, S. N., Gould van Praag, C. D., Engels, M., Watson, D., Silva, M., Evans, S. L., ... & Critchley, H. D. (2021). Interoceptive cardiac signals selectively enhance fear memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(6), 1165–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000967 Garfinkel, S. N., Manassei, M. F., Hamilton-Fletcher, G., In den Bosch, Y., Critchley, H. D., & Engels, M. (2016). Interoceptive dimensions across cardiac and respiratory axes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1708), 20160014. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0014 Garfinkel, S. N., Minati, L., Gray, M. A., Seth, A. K., Dolan, R. J., & Critchley, H. D. (2014). Fear from the heart: Sensitivity to fear stimuli depends on individual heartbeats. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(19), 6573–6582. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3507-13.2014 Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion, 13(3), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032135 Interoception: The mysterious inner sense driving your emotions. (2024, March 22). BBC Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240322-interoception-the-mysterious-inner-sense-driving-your-emotions Khalsa, S. S., Adolphs, R., Cameron, O. G., Critchley, H. D., Davenport, P. W., Feinstein, J. S., ... & Zucker, N. (2018). Interoception and mental health: A roadmap. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(6), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004 Murphy, J., Brewer, R., Plans, D., Khalsa, S. S., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2020). Testing the independence of self-reported interoceptive accuracy and attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819879826 Nord, C. L., Dalmaijer, E. S., Armstrong, T., Baker, K., & Dalgleish, T. (2021). A causal role for gastric rhythm in human disgust avoidance. Current Biology, 31(3), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.10.087 Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 Redaktion: Julia Ditzer Produktion: Murmel Productions

When we discuss artificial intelligence, what metaphors do we use to illustrate what we mean? Is artificial intelligence some sort of robot—like Ultron—or is it an organism—like a beehive? What happens to our expectations, our thinking, and our conclusions when we change these metaphors, say, from an entitative metaphor (say, an agent) to a relational metaphor (say, belonging to our work network)? We discuss these points with and who wrote a very interesting paper on how management scholars think about artificial intelligence.   Episode reading list Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2025). Rethinking How We Theorize AI in Organization and Management: A Problematizing Review of Rationality and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Management Studies, . Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg's Argument for Integrative Reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290-1304. Berente, N. (2020). Agile Development as the Root Metaphor for Strategy in Digital Innovation. In S. Nambisan, K. Lyytinen, & Y. Yoo (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Innovation (pp. 83-96). Edward Elgar. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. Jarrahi, M. H., & Ritala, P. (2025). Rethinking AI Agents: A Principal-Agent Perspective. California Management Review Insights, . Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). Scandinavian Institutionalism – a Case of Institutional Work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 178-204). Cambridge University Press. Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia-Unity in Plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 135-186. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond ‘the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737-1765. Brunsson, N. (2003). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press. Floyd, C., Mehl, W.-M., Reisin, F.-M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1989). Out of Scandinavia: Alternative Approaches to Software Design and System Development. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(4), 253-350. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. The Oxford and Cambridge Review, November 1909, .   

An absorbing conversation featuring Colin Camerer (CASBS fellow, 1997-98), among the world's most accomplished scholars in both behavioral economics and neuroeconomics, with economist Stephanie Wang (2024-25). Camerer discusses his groundbreaking work on the neuroeconomics of self-control and habit formation; offers insights on generating ideas for, building, then scaling behavioral models; and explains why neuroscience remains a wide-open field awaiting the contributions of so-far mostly reluctant economists and other social scientists.COLIN CAMERER: Caltech faculty page | Camerer research group | on Google Scholar | Wikipedia page | bio at the Decision Lab | bio at MacArthur Foundation | STEPHANIE WANG: Pitt faculty page | Personal website | on Google Scholar | CASBS bio |Works discussed or mentioned in this episode:C. Camerer, Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press, 2003.C. Camerer, "Can Asset Markets Be Manipulated? A Field Experiment with Racetrack Betting," Journal of Political Economy, 1998.C. Camerer, et al., "The Golden Age of Social Science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021.C. Camerer, et al., "A Neural Autopilot Theory of Habit: Evidence from Consumer Purchases and Social Media Use," Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2024.S. Wang, C. Camerer, et al., "Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Toward Losses in a Representative Sample," Review of Economic Studies, 2025.F. Ramsey, "Truth and Probability" (1926), published in F. Ramsey, The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays (1931)U. Malmendier, S. Nagel, "Depression Babies: Do Macroeconomic Experiences Affect Risk Taking?" Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2011.M. Cobb, The Idea of the Brain: The Past and Future of Neuroscience, Basic Books, 2020.M. Gaetani, "CASBS in the History of Behavioral Economics," CASBS website, 2018.Also of interest:S. Wang, et al., eds., "Mindful Economics: A Special Issue in Honor of Colin Camerer," Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, forthcoming.  Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford UniversityExplore CASBS: website|Bluesky|X|YouTube|LinkedIn|podcast|latest newsletter|signup|outreach​Human CenteredProducer: Mike Gaetani | Audio engineer & co-producer: Joe Monzel |

This show has been flagged as Explicit by the host. Quick-Glance Summary I walk you through an MIT experiment where 54 EEG-capped volunteers wrote essays three ways: pure brainpower, classic search, and ChatGPT assistance. Brain-only writers lit up the most neurons and produced the freshest prose; the ChatGPT crowd churned out near-identical essays, remembered little, and racked up what the researchers dub cognitive debt : the interest you pay later for outsourcing thought today. A bonus “switch” round yanked AI away from the LLM devotees (cue face-plant) and finally let the brain-first team play with the toy (they coped fine), proving skills first, tools second. I spiced the tale with calculator nostalgia, a Belgian med-exam cheating fiasco, and Professor Felienne's forklift-in-the-gym metaphor to land one mantra: *scaffolds beat shortcuts*. We peeked at tech “enshittification” once investors demand returns, whispered “open-source” as the escape hatch, and I dared you to try a two-day test—outline solo, draft with AI, revise solo, then check what you still remember. Net takeaway: keep AI on a leash; let thinking drive, tools navigate . If you think I'm full of digital hot air, record your own rebuttal and prove it. Resources MIT study MIT Media Lab. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt. https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/ Long term consequences (to be honest - pulled these from another list, didn't check all of them) Clemente-Suárez, V. J., Beltrán-Velasco, A. I., Herrero-Roldán, S., Rodriguez-Besteiro, S., Martínez-Guardado, I., Martín-Rodríguez, A., & Tornero-Aguilera, J. F. (2024). Digital device usage and childhood cognitive development: Exploring effects on cognitive abilities. Children , 11(11), 1299. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11592547/ Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F., & Meyerhoff, H. S. (2021). Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 74(9), 1477–1496. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8358584/ Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research , 2(2), 140–154. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462 Zhang, M., Zhang, X., Wang, H., & Yu, L. (2024). Understanding the influence of digital technology on cognitive development in children. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences , 5, 100224. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266724212400099X Risko, E. F., & Dunn, T. L. (2020). Developmental origins of cognitive offloading. Developmental Review , 57, 100921. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32517613/ Ladouceur, R. (2022). Cognitive effects of prolonged continuous human-machine interactions: Implications for digital device users. Behavioral Sciences , 12(8), 240. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10790890/ Wong, M. Y., Yin, Z., Kwan, S. C., & Chua, S. E. (2024). Understanding digital dementia and cognitive impact in children and adolescents. Neuroscience Bulletin , 40(7), 628–635. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11499077/ Baxter, B. (2025, February 2). Designing AI for human expertise: Preventing cognitive shortcuts. UXmatters . https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2025/02/designing-ai-for-human-expertise-preventing-cognitive-shortcuts.php Tristan, C., & Thomas, M. (2024). The brain digitalization: It's all happening so fast! Frontiers in Human Dynamics , 4, 1475438. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-dynamics/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2024.1475438/full Sun, Z., & Wang, Y. (2024). Two distinct neural pathways for mechanical versus digital memory aids. NeuroImage , 121, 117245. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924004683 Ahmed, S. (2025). Demystifying the new dilemma of brain rot in the digital era. Contemporary Neurology , 19(3), 241–254. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11939997/ Redshaw, J., & Adlam, A. (2020). The nature and development of cognitive offloading in children. Child Development Perspectives , 14(2), 120–126. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdep.12532 Geneva Internet Platform. (2025, June 3). Cognitive offloading and the future of the mind in the AI age. https://dig.watch/updates/cognitive-offloading-and-the-future-of-the-mind-in-the-ai-age Karlsson, G. (2019). Reducing cognitive load on the working memory by externalizing information. DIVA Portal . http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1327786/FULLTEXT02.pdf Monitask. (2025). What is cognitive offloading? https://www.monitask.com/en/business-glossary/cognitive-offloading Sharma, A., & Watson, S. (2024). Human technology intermediation to reduce cognitive load. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , 31(4), 832–841. https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/31/4/832/7595629 Morgan, P. L., & Risko, E. F. (2021). Re-examining cognitive load measures in real-world learning environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 91(3), 993–1013. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12729 Podcast episodes that inspired some thoughts Felien Hermans (NL) Tech won't save us Screenstrong Families Provide feedback on this episode.

Michael Rectenwald discusses his newly founded Anti-Zionist America PAC (AZAPAC) which exists to end America's political, financial, and military entanglement with Israel. He explains what has gone wrong with Zionist influence, how its mask has come off under the Trump administration, the attack on civil liberties, the devastation of Gaza, and more. He also gives an update on where we're at with the globalist project for a technocratic world state. Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rumble / Substack / YouTube Geopolitics & Empire · Michael Rectenwald: Disentangling the Zionist Lobby Through AZAPAC #572 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics easyDNS (15% off with GEOPOLITICS) https://easydns.com Escape The Technocracy (15% off with GEOPOLITICS) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics Expat Money Summit 2025 (20% off VIP with EMPIRE) https://2025.expatmoneysummit.com PassVult https://passvult.com Sociatates Civis https://societates-civis.com StartMail https://www.startmail.com/partner/?ref=ngu4nzr Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites Michael Rectenwald https://www.michaelrectenwald.com AZAPAC https://www.aza-pac.com Substack https://mrectenwald.substack.com X https://x.com/RecTheRegime About Michael Rectenwald Dr. Michael Rectenwald is the author of twelve books, including The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda (Jan. 2023), Thought Criminal (Dec. 2020); Beyond Woke (May 2020); Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom (Sept. 2019); Springtime for Snowflakes: “Social Justice” and Its Postmodern Parentage (an academic's memoir, 2018); Nineteenth-Century British Secularism: Science, Religion and Literature (2016); Academic Writing, Real World Topics (2015, Concise Edition 2016); Global Secularisms in a Post-Secular Age (2015); Breach (Collected Poems, 2013); The Thief and Other Stories (2013); and The Eros of the Baby-Boom Eras (1991). (See the Books page.) Michael was a distinguished fellow at Hillsdale College and a Professor of Liberal Studies and Global Liberal Studies at NYU. He also taught at Duke University, North Carolina Central University, Carnegie Mellon University, and Case Western Reserve University. His scholarly and academic essays have appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Academic Questions, Endeavour, The British Journal for the History of Science, College Composition and Communication, International Philosophical Quarterly, the De Gruyter anthologies Organized Secularism in the United States and Global Secularisms in a Post-Secular Age, and the Cambridge University Press anthology George Eliot in Context, among others (see the Academic Scholarship page). He holds a Ph.D. in Literary and Cultural Studies from Carnegie Mellon University, a Master's in English Literature from Case Western Reserve University, and a B.A. in English Literature from the University of Pittsburgh. (See his C.V. for details.) Michael's writing for general audiences has appeared on The Mises Institute Wire, Newsweek, The Epoch Times, RT.com, Campus Reform, The New English Review, The International Business Times, The American Conservative, Quillette, The Washington Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, CLG News, LotusEaters.com, Chronicles, and others. (See the Essays and Presentations page.) Michael has appeared on major network political talk shows (Tucker Carlson Tonight, Tucker Carlson Originals, Fox & Friends, Fox & Friends First, Varney & Company, The Ingraham Angle, Unfiltered with Dan Bongino, The Glenn Beck Show), on syndicated radio shows (Coast to Coast AM, Glenn Beck, The Larry Elder Show, and many others),

In de beleidsarme Miljoenennota die afgelopen week op Prinsjesdag is gepresenteerd, heeft het demissionaire rompkabinet een voorproefje gegeven van de politieke plannen voor komend jaar – in het geval deze bewindslieden nog enige tijd relevant in functie blijven.‘Maar eigenlijk ben ik heel enthousiast,’ zegt macro-econoom Arnoud Boot, die de luisteraar om meerdere redenen oproept vooral zelf de Miljoenennota te gaan lezen. ‘Het zijn 80 pagina’s, met plaatjes, en het is goed te doen.’ Waar komt dat enthousiasme dan vandaan, Arnoud? In de samenvatting van de Miljoenennota staan drie opmerkingen waar ik het graag over wil hebben. De eerste gaat over de koopkracht, die zich positief ontwikkelt door het kabinetsbeleid en doordat de lonen harder stijgen dan de inflatie. Maar dat komt ook door de brandstofaccijns, waar anderhalf miljard euro naartoe gaat. Daardoor stijgt de koopkracht met 1,3 procent in plaats van 1 procent. Tegelijkertijd is het openbaar vervoer al duurder dan autorijden, en toch gaat er extra geld naar de auto. Dat is eigenlijk een slecht idee. Maar het zorgt toch voor een koopkrachtverbetering? Als je met geld smijt, werkt dat op korte termijn heel goed. Kijk maar naar Engeland, de Verenigde Staten en Frankrijk. Als je de begrotingstekorten buiten beschouwing laat, ziet het er op de korte termijn heel redelijk uit. Daarom lijken we een beetje op Frankrijk. Op korte termijn doet Frankrijk het helemaal niet zo slecht, maar we weten dat het land structureel in de problemen zit. Maar het begrotingstekort komt uit op 2,9 procent. Dat valt toch wel mee? Dat is het tweede punt waar ik op wil wijzen. Het kabinet zegt dat het met het oog op toekomstige uitdagingen een gezonde begroting achterlaat. Maar dat is flauw, want ze negeren juist die toekomstige uitdagingen. En desondanks komen ze nog steeds uit op een tekort van 2,9 procent. We moeten bovendien nog maar zien wat het daadwerkelijk wordt, want de economie is overbelast en wie weet wat er straks gebeurt met het nieuwe kabinet. Deze cijfers kunnen zo weer het raam uit. Daarnaast – en dat is punt drie – spreekt het kabinet van een gedekte begroting, zowel aan de uitgaven- als aan de inkomstenkant. Maar dat is vreemd, want er ís een tekort van 2,9 procent. In de Miljoenennota wordt ook verwezen naar de Raad van State, waarom? Het ministerie van Financiën, oftewel het kabinet, is door de Raad van State gevraagd eens na te denken over de toekomstige structuur van de Nederlandse economie. Dat is buitengewoon interessant. Traditioneel zijn overheidsinvesteringen gericht op machines, gebouwen, wegen, infrastructuur. Maar tegenwoordig gaat het om kennis en onderwijs. Wat zijn de gevolgen als er zoveel wordt bezuinigd op die terreinen? Daarbij verwijst het kabinet ook naar een artikel uit 1956 van econoom Robert Solow, die in 1987 de Nobelprijs ontving. En het mooie is: de lezer van de digitale Miljoenennota kan doorklikken naar dat artikel, een prachtige bijdrage in het Quarterly Journal of Economics uit 1956. Dat verhaal is na 70 jaar nog steeds relevant, omdat economie natuurlijk niet gisteren is uitgevonden. Uit de inzichten van toen kunnen we nog altijd veel leren. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we talk with Matt Notowidigdo about negotiating. Matt is a Professor of Economics at Chicago Booth. He holds a BS in economics, a BS in computer engineering, a MEng in computer science, and a PhD in economics. He is currently a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, and he is a co-editor at American Economic Journal - Economic Policy Notowidigdo and an Associate Editor at the Quarterly Journal of Economics.Sebastian Tello-Trillo is an Associate Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia.Alex Hollingsworth is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Ohio State University.Henry Morris is our main editor. He is a student at the University of Virginia studying computer science and mathematics. or of Economics at the O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs in Indiana University.In this episode we discussed:Matt's structured approach to managing no more than six projects at a timeTime management with kids and boundaries after tenureInstitutional differences in how research and teaching loads are supportedWhy lunchtime culture matters for faculty communityA crash course on academic job market negotiations

On the latest episode of Minor Issues, Mark Thornton takes a provocative look at America's path toward hyperinflation. Mark walks through Mises's three stages of inflation, contending the US is moving from complacency to active flight from cash, and he ties today's risks to sanctions policy, BRICS efforts to bypass SWIFT with gold-leaning systems, and foreign central banks rotating from Treasuries into gold. At home, Mark sees households hedging with real estate, older savers turning to precious metals, and younger investors to crypto: classic signs of eroding demand for dollars.Additional Resources"The Gold-Silver Ratio” (Minor Issues Podcast, Episode 119) : https://mises.org/MI_119"Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System" by Mark Thornton (Book review, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics): https://mises.org/MI_136_A"Exorbitant Privilege Gained and Lost: Fiscal Implications” by Zefeng Chen, Zhengyang Jiang, Hanno Lustig, Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, and Mindy Xiaolan (Journal of Political Economy): https://mises.org/MI_136_BThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Hayek for the 21st Century. Get your free copy at https://mises.org/IssuesFreeBe sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

On this Live Greatly podcast episode, Kristel Bauer sits down with Corinne Low PhD, Wharton economist, mother, and author of Having It All: What Data Tells Us About Women's Lives and Getting the Most Out of Yours.  Kristel and Corinne discuss some key contributors feeding into frustrations and overwhelm in navigating work/life as well as insights into ambition, goals, fulfillment and work-life balance. Tune in now!  Key Takeaways From This Episode: Some common frustrations working mothers are facing Reframing what work is really about Tips to redesign work and life to support more fulfillment  Insights into ambition Research into what women are looking for in the workplace How women are looking for predictability and structure in the workplace ABOUT CORINNE LOW  PH.D Corinne Low is an Associate Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on the economics of gender and discrimination and has been published in top journals such as the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, and Journal of Political Economy. She was named one of Poets and Quants 40 MBA Professors under 40 in 2024. Her first book, Having It All, is forthcoming with Flatiron in September 2025. Corinne and her work have also been featured by major popular media outlets, including Forbes, Vanity Fair, The LA Times, and NPR. Corinne is the co-creator of the Incentivized Resume Rating method for measuring hiring discrimination, and regularly speaks to and works with firms looking to improve their hiring and retention practices. She has spoken to and advised firms like Google, IFM Investors, Uber, Activision Blizzard, and Amazon Web Services, in addition to teaching in Wharton's Executive Education programs. She has given talks to top academic institutions like Harvard University, Stanford University, and Oxford, as well as to organizations like the New York Federal Reserve, Brookings, and the US Department of Labor.   She received her Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia University, her B.S. in Economics and Public Policy from Duke University, and formerly worked for McKinsey and Company. Outside of work, she is the co-founder and volunteer executive director for Open Hearts Initiative, a New York City based non-profit that aims to combat the homelessness crisis through pro-housing neighborhood organizing. Connect with Corinne Order Having It All: What Data Tells Us About Women's Lives and Getting the Most Out of Yours  Website: https://www.corinnelow.com/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/corinnelowphd/  Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/corinne-low-64a0741b4/  About the Host of the Live Greatly podcast, Kristel Bauer: Kristel Bauer is a corporate wellness and performance expert, keynote speaker and TEDx speaker supporting organizations and individuals on their journeys for more happiness and success. She is the author of Work-Life Tango: Finding Happiness, Harmony, and Peak Performance Wherever You Work (John Murray Business November 19, 2024). With Kristel's healthcare background, she provides data driven actionable strategies to leverage happiness and high-power habits to drive growth mindsets, peak performance, profitability, well-being and a culture of excellence. Kristel's keynotes provide insights to “Live Greatly” while promoting leadership development and team building.   Kristel is the creator and host of her global top self-improvement podcast, Live Greatly. She is a contributing writer for Entrepreneur, and she is an influencer in the business and wellness space having been recognized as a Top 10 Social Media Influencer of 2021 in Forbes. As an Integrative Medicine Fellow & Physician Assistant having practiced clinically in Integrative Psychiatry, Kristel has a unique perspective into attaining a mindset for more happiness and success. Kristel has presented to groups from the American Gas Association, Bank of America, bp, Commercial Metals Company, General Mills, Northwestern University, Santander Bank and many more. Kristel has been featured in Forbes, Forest & Bluff Magazine, Authority Magazine & Podcast Magazine and she has appeared on ABC 7 Chicago, WGN Daytime Chicago, Fox 4's WDAF-TV's Great Day KC, and Ticker News. Kristel lives in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida area and she can be booked for speaking engagements worldwide. To Book Kristel as a speaker for your next event, click here. Website: www.livegreatly.co  Follow Kristel Bauer on: Instagram: @livegreatly_co  LinkedIn: Kristel Bauer Twitter: @livegreatly_co Facebook: @livegreatly.co Youtube: Live Greatly, Kristel Bauer To Watch Kristel Bauer's TEDx talk of Redefining Work/Life Balance in a COVID-19 World click here. Click HERE to check out Kristel's corporate wellness and leadership blog Click HERE to check out Kristel's Travel and Wellness Blog Disclaimer: The contents of this podcast are intended for informational and educational purposes only. Always seek the guidance of your physician for any recommendations specific to you or for any questions regarding your specific health, your sleep patterns changes to diet and exercise, or any medical conditions.  Always consult your physician before starting any supplements or new lifestyle programs. All information, views and statements shared on the Live Greatly podcast are purely the opinions of the authors, and are not medical advice or treatment recommendations.  They have not been evaluated by the food and drug administration.  Opinions of guests are their own and Kristel Bauer & this podcast does not endorse or accept responsibility for statements made by guests.  Neither Kristel Bauer nor this podcast takes responsibility for possible health consequences of a person or persons following the information in this educational content.  Always consult your physician for recommendations specific to you.

In this episode – recorded prior to Trump's announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel – Calvin and Alex unpack the alarming reality of US strikes on Iran, recently announced by President Trump on June 21, and the ensuing escalation of tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran. We situate these recent events within decades of neoconservative influence and prior escalations, including the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani by US Forces (which we covered back in Episode 31), as well as Israel's “pre-emptive” strikes against Iran in 2024 and earlier in June 2025.We historicize the current conflict by highlighting the success of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in preventing escalation, contrasting it with Trump's abandonment and the Democrats' failure to defend it, and debunk media narratives about Iran's nuclear ambitions, confirming Iran's compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We then dissect the propagandistic pro-war rhetoric that has been employed most recently, such as Trump's bizarre Truth Social posts announcing the "very successful attack," and exposing the dangerous slippages between US and Israeli foreign policy, evidenced by Senator Ted Cruz's admissions on a recent episode of Tucker Carlson's show.Finally, drawing on rhetorical scholars such as Jeffrey Tulis and Gordon Mitchell, we explore the libidinal urges driving contemporary presidential rhetoric and US war policy, and how intelligence is manipulated through "Team B intelligence coups," raising concerns about reliance on foreign intelligence like the Mossad. We conclude with a resolute call (echoing our earlier episode) for "No war with Iran," urging public dissent against these increasingly reckless and dangerous decisions.Works and concepts cited in this episode:Curtis, A. (2002). The Century of the Self. London, UK: BBC Four.Daly, C. (2017). How Woodrow Wilson's Propaganda Machine Changed American Journalism. Smithsonian Magazine. Esfandiari, S. (2020, 6 Jan.). Iran can't hit back over Soleimani's killing because America has only fictional heroes like SpongeBob SquarePants, a prominent cleric said. Business Insider.Flanagan, J. C. (2004). Woodrow Wilson's" Rhetorical Restructuring": The Transformation of the American Self and the Construction of the German Enemy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 7(2), 115-148.Haar, R. (2010). Explaining George W. Bush's adoption of the Neoconservative agenda after 9/11. Politics & Policy, 38(5), 965-990.IAEA Director General. (2024, 19 Nov.). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). [IAEA report raising concerns about Iran's stockpile of “60% enriched” uranium]Mitchell, G. R. (2006). Team B intelligence coups. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92(2), 144-173.Oddo, J. (2014). Intertextuality and the 24-hour news cycle: A day in the rhetorical life of Colin Powell's UN address. Michigan State University Press.Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. University of Notre Dame Press.Porter, G. (2014, 16 Oct.). When the Ayatollah said no to nukes. Foreign Policy.Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon.Tulis, J. K. (1987, 2017). The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton University Press.

First it was getting colder, now it's getting hotter. wHiCh oNe iS iT?!BONUS EPISODES available on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/deniersplaybook) SOCIALS & MORE (https://linktr.ee/deniersplaybook) CREDITS Created by: Rollie Williams, Nicole Conlan & Ben BoultHosts: Rollie Williams & Nicole ConlanExecutive Producer: Ben Boult Editors: Laura Conte & Gregory HaddockResearcher: Carly Rizzuto Art: Jordan Doll Music: Tony Domenick Special Thanks: The Civil Liberties Defense CenterSOURCESAnother Ice Age? (1974, June 24). Time; TIME USA. Banerjee, N., Song, L., & Hasemyer, D. (2015, September 16). Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago. Inside Climate News. C-Span. (2020). President Trump: “I don't think science knows, actually.” YouTube. Callendar, G. S. (1938). The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 64(275), 223–240. Charlson, R. J., Schwartz, S. E., Hales, J. M., Cess, R. D., Coakley, J. A., Hansen, J. E., & Hofmann, D. J. (1992). Climate Forcing by Anthropogenic Aerosols. Science, 255(5043), 423–430. Charlson, R. J., Vanderpol, A. H., Waggoner, A. P., Covert, D. S., & Baker, M. B. (1976). The Dominance of Tropospheric Sulfate in Modifying Solar Radiation. Radiation in the Atmosphere, 32. National Research Council. (1979). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. The National Academies Press. ExxonMobil. (2001, July 10). Media Statement - Global Climate Change. Perma.cc. Foote, E. N. (1856). Circumstances Affecting the Heat of Sun's Rays. American Journal of Art and Science, 2nd Series, XXII(LXVI), 382–383. Global Climate Change. (2003, July 31). C-SPAN. Goldmacher, S. (2017, May 15). How Trump gets his fake news. POLITICO. Joe Rogan Experience #1928 - Jimmy Corsetti & Ben van Kerkwyk. (2023, January 18). JRE Podcast. NASA. (2022, January 29). World of Change: Global Temperatures. Earth Observatory. Newsweek's “Global Cooling” Article From April 28, 1975. (1975, April 28). Scribd. O'Rourke, C., & PolitiFact. (2019, May 23). No, a Time magazine cover didn't tell readers “how to survive the coming Ice Age.” PolitiFact; Poynter Institute. Peake, B. (2020, September 1). In Search Of The Coming Ice Age ... With Leonard Nimoy (1978). YouTube. Peterson, T. C., Connolley, W. M., & Fleck, J. (2008). THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325–1338. The Global Warming Survival Guide. (2007, April 9). TIME. The Learning Network. (2020, April 30). What's Going On in This Graph? | Global Temperature Change. The New York Times. Trump, D. J. (2013, July 31). Twitter. Walsh, B. (2013, June 6). Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age. TIME. Wikipedia Contributors. (2019, August 16). Global cooling. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation. 1977 “coming ice age” Time magazine cover is a fake. (2019, December 16). Climate Feedback. 1997 Exxon's Lee Raymond Speech at World Petroleum Congress. (1997, October 13). Climate Files. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Vous entrez dans une pièce, puis… trou noir. Vous restez planté là, incapable de vous rappeler ce que vous étiez venu y chercher. Cette expérience troublante a un nom : le "doorway effect", ou effet de la porte. Ce phénomène cognitif décrit la tendance de notre cerveau à oublier une intention en franchissant une limite physique comme une porte. Ce n'est ni rare, ni anodin, et des recherches scientifiques commencent à percer les mystères de ce curieux mécanisme.Une transition qui perturbe la mémoireLe doorway effect a été mis en évidence par Gabriel Radvansky, professeur de psychologie cognitive à l'Université de Notre-Dame (Indiana, États-Unis). Dans une étude publiée en 2011 dans The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Radvansky et ses collègues ont montré que franchir une porte diminue la performance mnésique pour des tâches basées sur des intentions immédiates.Dans l'expérience, les participants devaient transporter des objets virtuels d'une table à une autre dans un environnement en 3D, soit dans la même pièce, soit en passant par une porte. Résultat : le simple fait de passer par une porte entraînait une baisse significative du souvenir de l'objet transporté, comparé à ceux restés dans la même pièce.Pourquoi ? Radvansky propose une explication fondée sur la théorie de la mémoire événementielle. Selon ce modèle, notre cerveau structure l'information en unités appelées "événements", qui sont souvent délimitées par des changements perceptifs ou contextuels — comme le franchissement d'une porte. Passer d'une pièce à l'autre constitue un "nouvel événement", et notre cerveau, pour maintenir un flux cognitif efficace, archive l'information précédente au profit de la nouvelle situation.Une économie cognitive adaptativeCette fragmentation n'est pas un bug de notre cerveau, mais une fonction adaptative. En recontextualisant l'information au fil de nos déplacements, nous limitons la surcharge cognitive et améliorons notre efficacité dans des environnements complexes. Toutefois, cela implique un coût : les intentions non réalisées risquent d'être temporairement égarées, jusqu'à ce que des indices contextuels (revenir dans la pièce d'origine, par exemple) les réactivent.D'autres études confirment l'effetD'autres travaux, notamment une étude menée par Peter Tse à Dartmouth College, suggèrent que les "switchs de contexte" — pas seulement physiques, mais aussi mentaux — peuvent fragmenter notre mémoire de travail. Ainsi, ouvrir un nouvel onglet sur son ordinateur ou regarder son téléphone pourrait produire un effet similaire.En conclusionLe "doorway effect" révèle à quel point notre mémoire est sensible au contexte. Bien loin d'être un simple oubli, ce phénomène illustre la manière dynamique et structurée dont notre cerveau gère l'information en mouvement. La prochaine fois que vous resterez interdit dans l'embrasure d'une porte, rappelez-vous : ce n'est pas de la distraction, c'est de la science. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Hi, and welcome to The Long View. I'm Dan Lefkovitz, strategist for Morningstar Indexes. Our guest this week is Daniel Rasmussen. He's the founder and portfolio manager of Verdad Advisors, a hedge fund. Before starting Verdad, Dan worked at Bain Capital Private Equity and Bridgewater Associates. He's a member of the investment committee of the trustees of donations of the Episcopal Church and he's a contributor to The Wall Street Journal. Dan is author of the new book, The Humble Investor: How to find a winning edge in a surprising world. His earlier book was American Uprising: The Untold Story of America's Largest Slave Revolt. Dan holds a bachelor's from Harvard and an MBA from Stanford. Dan, thanks so much for joining us on The Long View.BackgroundBioVerdadThe Humble Investor: How to find a winning edge in a surprising worldAmerican Uprising: The Untold Story of America's Largest Slave RevoltForecasting“Waves in Ship Prices and Investment,” by Sam Hanson and Robin Greenwood, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2014.Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction, by Philip Tetlock“Gaining Edge by Forecasting Volatility and Correlations,” by Dan Rasmussen, Chris Satterthwaite, and Lionel Smoler Schatz, verdadcap.com, Oct. 30, 2023.Value Investing“Where the Value Investing Strategy Still Works,” by Dan Rasmussen, ft.com, May 23, 2024.“Factors from Scratch: A Look Back, and Forward, at How, When and Why Factors Work,” by Chris Meredith, Jesse Livermore, and Patrick O'Shaughnessy, osam.com, May 2018.“The Size Factor: Small Caps Are Trading at the Steepest Discount to Large Caps in Decades,” by Dan Rasmussen and Brian Chingono, verdadcap.com, Aug. 22, 2022.“The Small Cap Amplifier,” by Dan Rasmussen and Brian Chingono, verdadcap.com, Oct. 21, 2024.“Explaining International Valuations,” by Dan Rasmussen, verdadcap.com, Jan. 27, 2025.Private Credit and High Yield“The ‘Fool's Yield' of Private Credit,” by Jamie Powell, ft.com, Jan. 28, 2020.“Sizing Private Equity Allocations,” by Dan Rasmussen, verdadcap.com, May 13, 2024.“The Best Macro Indicator: Why You Should Be Following High-Yield Spreads,” by Dan Rasmussen, verdadcap.com, May 17, 2021.Crisis Investing“Crisis Investing in Europe: The Unlikely Winners in the Most Difficult Times,” by Dan Rasmussen and Brian Chingono, verdadcap.com, May 16, 2022.“EM Crisis Investing, A Deeper Dive: Understanding the Factors at Play in Emerging Markets,” by Verdad Research, verdadcap.com, May 3, 2022.

My guest for today's program and next week is Greg Sheryl. He's a longtime writer for the apologetics publication The Quarterly Journal that is produced by Personal Freedom Outreach.

My guest for today's program and next week is Greg Sheryl. He's a longtime writer for the apologetics publication The Quarterly Journal that is produced by Personal Freedom Outreach.

My guest for today's program and next week is Greg Sheryl. He's a longtime writer for the apologetics publication The Quarterly Journal that is produced by Personal Freedom Outreach.

Jon Hartley and Robert Barro discuss Robert's career in economics including his long list of famous students, and research on Ricardian equivalence, fiscal theory of the price level, government spending multipliers, business cycles and the legacy of New Keynesian modeling, economic growth, political economy, the interplay between religion and economics, and much more. Recorded on March 18, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Robert J. Barro is a Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a B.S. in physics from Caltech. Barro is co-editor of Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics and has been President of the Western Economic Association and Vice President of the American Economic Association. He was a viewpoint columnist for Business Week from 1998 to 2006 and a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 1998. He has written extensively on macroeconomics and economic growth. Recent research involves rare macroeconomic disasters, corporate tax reform, religion & economy, empirical determinants of economic growth, and economic effects of public debt and budget deficits. Recent books include The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging (with Rachel M. McCleary), Economic Growth (2nd edition, with Xavier Sala-i-Martin), Nothing Is Sacred: Economic Ideas for the New Millennium, Determinants of Economic Growth, and Getting It Right: Markets and Choices in a Free Society. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon also is the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

My guest for today's program and next week is Greg Sheryl. He's a longtime writer for the apologetics publication The Quarterly Journal that is produced by Personal Freedom Outreach.

Murphy recently squared off against Nathan Tankus in a ZeroHedge debate focusing on Austrian economics vs. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Jonathan Newman watched the debate and selected three clips highlighting key areas of dispute. Jonathan and Bob elaborate on the issues and anticipate possible MMT replies.Bob's ZeroHedge Debate with Nathan Tankus: Mises.org/HAP484aBob and Jonathan's Tag-Team Mises University Lecture on MMT: Mises.org/HAP484bBob's Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics Paper on The Deficit Myth: Mises.org/HAP483cWilliam Hutt's The Theory of Idle Resources: Mises.org/HAP484dUse code Action25 to get 10% off your ticket to Educating for Liberty Mises Circle in Tampa on February 22: Mises.org/Tampa25The Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

The public often imagines corporations as self-contained actors that provide a set of goods and services to consumers. Underpinning this image have been ideas of ownership, rights to capital and intellectual property, and corporate responsibility to stakeholders including consumers, workers, and shareholders. But what if almost everything we are told about the essence of the firm is wrong? So writes Sir John Kay, a British economist, corporate director, and longstanding fellow of St John's College (Oxford) in his new book, The Corporation in the 21st Century.The book revolves around contrasts between historical conceptions of corporations, capitalism, and contemporary practices. Kay writes, “A central thesis of [this] book is that business has evolved, but the language that is widely used to describe business has not.” In the 19th and 20th centuries, firms could be defined in terms of their control over material forms of productive capital (factories, steel foundries, railways, etc.) Socioeconomic critiques of capitalism, most prominently from Karl Marx, often centered on firms' control of the means of production. Kay contends that firms today access productive capital as a service. For example, Amazon does not own its warehouses but rents them from another firm. Kay writes that today's corporations and capitalism “[have] very little to do with ‘capital' and nothing whatsoever to do with any struggle between capitalists and workers to control the means of production.”Kay joins Luigi and Bethany to discuss the implications of this evolution in firms' relation to capital: Why is it important to capitalism that its biggest firms no longer own their means of production? Why does the language used to describe this matter? What do Apple's manufacturing facilities, Amazon's warehouses, and TikTok's algorithms tell us about our notions of business ownership? How have these changes to capitalism redefined the struggle between the owners of capital, managers, workers, and consumers? In the process, Kay, Luigi, and Bethany explore the failures of capitalism and imagine what could and should be the purpose of the 21st-century corporation.Show Notes:Read an excerpt from the book (published by Yale University Press) on ProMarketIn Bethany and Luigi's closing discussion of Kay's book, Luigi cites several articles he has published on the topic, which we have linked below for the listener's reference. In this past scholarship, Luigi studies how a firm and its operations often intertwine with other firms to form an ecosystem, and it is only through this ecosystem that value is created. Apple and Foxconn provide one example. Legally, they are distinct firms, yet Luigi contends they can be understood as elements of an ecosystem that creates value. Hence, it is sometimes productive to think beyond legal boundaries to consider how multiple firms may compose such a value-creating ecosystem in practice. Within the Apple/Foxconn ecosystem, Apple has a significant influence in dictating terms for Foxconn. Further, if Apple has such dominating power over its suppliers, then Apple could be said to have market power that raises antitrust concerns, which are less obvious if we take the legal boundaries of firms as the correct method of conceptualizing them.Zingales, L., 2000. In search of new foundations. The Journal of Finance, 55(4), pp.1623-1653.Rajan, R.G. and Zingales, L., 1998. Power in a Theory of the Firm. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), pp.387-432.Rajan, R.G. and Zingales, L., 2001. The firm as a dedicated hierarchy: A theory of the origins and growth of firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3), pp.805-851.Zingales, L. (1998) Corporate Governance. In: Newman, P., Ed., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, Palgrave Macmillan, London.Lancieri, F., Posner, E.A. and Zingales, L., 2023. The Political Economy of the Decline of Antitrust Enforcement in the United States. Antitrust Law Journal, 85(2), pp.441-519.