Podcast appearances and mentions of robert skidelsky

Este documental fue realizado por la televisión francesa el año 2000 y ofrece un material de primera mano para comprender el fenómeno de las crisis financieras. La sombra de la crisis, al tiempo que da cuenta de la historia del siglo XX, con sus años locos, sus guerras y sus catástrofes, entrega una lúcida mirada para comprender los fenómenos económicos que originaron esa crisis. Las entrevistas a Martin Wolf, Felix Rohatin, Robert Skidelsky y Tomaso Padoa-Schioppa, entre otros, aportan sus visiones desde la historia y la política a las crisis económicas, revisando los crash bursátiles producidos desde la legendaria crisis de 1929, la madre de todas las crisis, hasta la crisis asiática de 1997.

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Levy Institute President Pavlina R. Tcherneva sits down with Lord Robert Skidelsky to discuss his new book, Mindless. Their conversation spans Skidelsky's roots in economics, his studies as biographer of John Maynard Keynes, and a revisit of the "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren." Be sure to listen and join the conversation through your favorite podcast listening service. The early application deadline for the Levy Institute Graduate Programs in Economic Theory and Policy is January 15, 2025. For more information and to start your application, please visit: https://www.bard.edu/levygrad/ Further Readings:  Levy Institute Working Paper No. 1073 "Frankenstein in Fact and Fiction" | Lecture at Bard College (View Lecture), November 19, 2024 by Robert Skidelsky Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, by Robert Skidelsky John Maynard Keynes, by Robert Skidelsky Keynes: The Return of the Master, by Robert Skidelsky What's Wrong with Economics?, by Robert Skidelsky How Much Is Enough?, by Robert Skidelsky

New books about the impact of AI on the human condition are two a penny. But it's rare to have an AI book by such a prominent author as Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and the author of the iconic three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes. In his new book Mindless, Skidelsky presents a sweeping history of our relationship with machines as way of explaining how we slide into our current conundrum with AI. While Skidelsky doesn't believe that AI offers an existential threat to us yet, he is fearful of how smart machines could ultimately threaten the human condition. And, of course, we discuss John Maynard Keynes and his (mistaken) vision of both the future of work and of humanity in a market economy.Robert Skidelsky is a member of the British House of Lords, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, and the author of a prize-winning three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes. He began his political career in the Labour party, was a founding member of the Social Democratic Party, and served as the Conservative Party's spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords until he was sacked for his opposition to NATO's 1999 bombing of Kosovo. Since 2001, he has sat in the House of Lords as an independent. He has also served as a non-executive director of the American mutual fund Janus (2001-11) and the private Russian oil company PJSC Russneft (2016-21). He is the author of The Machine Age: An Idea, a History, a Warning (Allen Lane, 2023) as well as Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of Artificial Intelligence`(2024)Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Feeling like you're constantly chasing more money? In this episode of The Finance Geeks, Warren and Paul crack the code to financial fulfilment! We delve into the "Enough" Enigma, revealing why clarity is key to achieving financial peace. Learn why knowing your desired lifestyle and values is crucial, and how Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs helps define your "enough." We'll explore the concept of lifestyle inflation and strategies to avoid the "keeping up with the Joneses" trap. Join us as we equip you with strategies to unlock financial fulfilment and build a life you truly love! ========================== Chapters: 0:00 - Intro 6:51 - Hot Off The Press 14:47 - The Focal Point: Exploring the concept of "enough" 38:50 - Two Pennies Worth 44:10 - Quotes & Anecdotes ========================== Follow us our our social media channels: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/financegeekspodcast/ X: https://twitter.com/TheFinanceGeeks YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thefinancegeeks ========================== Podcast Reference Links: Article on the Anxious generation https://www.afterbabel.com/p/its-time-to-free-the-anxious-generation Does winning the lottery ruin the lives of winners? https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2023/08/29/debunking-the-myth-the-surprising-truth-about-lottery-winners-and-life-satisfaction/?sh=648c01436ccc Jonathan Haidt on Modern Wisdom Podcast number 766 https://open.spotify.com/episode/4JVyuByH1hq9rvB9Do6kF7?si=577bc8a74a324830 British UK ISA debacle https://citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/complete-nonsense-uk-isa-risks-confusing-savers-with-complexity-aj-bell/a2439784 Future Value Calculator (website) https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/future-value-calculator.php Compound Interest Calculator (website) https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php Oura Ring (gadget) https://ouraring.com/ Scoop (Film) https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81600418 How Much is Enough? - Robert Skidelsky (book) https://amzn.eu/d/gdf87ww The Number - Lee Eisenberg (book) https://amzn.eu/d/78tM6Bn Die with Zero - Bill Perkins (book) https://amzn.eu/d/a9w0EZS The Beautiful Game (film) https://youtu.be/pXWgl7pOpMM?si=GrPxCBFuMjyb6A0i After Bable (Website) https://www.afterbabel.com/  

In this week's episode, recorded live at the UnHerd cafe in London, Nick Spencer speaks to Robert Skidelsky about his book The Machine Age: An Idea, a History, a Warning. Once upon a time, we had faith in technology. Machines would make our lives easier, simpler, more comfortable. Today… well, faith in technological fixes for our problems is on the wane. Worse, it's often replaced with fear. The companies want our data. The robots want our jobs. The government our freedoms. In his latest book, The Machine Age, Robert Skidelsky looks at humanity's long relationship with machines, exploring how we got here and what happens next. How serious is the risk of mass unemployment, a world of politicised deep-fakes, a Chinese-style social credit system? And what, if anything, can we do about them? Reading our Times is the podcast from Theos think tank that engages with the books and ideas that are shaping the world today. It is hosted by Theos' Senior Fellow, Nick Spencer. In this special live recording, Robert Skidelsky joins Nick to discuss The Machine Age: an idea, a history, a warning. Buy a copy of The Machine Age here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Machine-Age-Idea-History-Warning/dp/0241244617 ***** Like what you see? Be sure to sign up to the Theos monthly newsletter to stay up-to-date with all our content, research and events: https://confirmsubscription.com/h/d/E9E17CAB71AC7464 CONNECT WITH THEOS Twitter: https://twitter.com/Theosthinktank Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theosthinktank LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/theos---the-think-tank/ Website: https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/ CHECK OUT OUR PODCASTS The Sacred: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-sacred/id1326888108 Reading Our Times: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/reading-our-times/id1530952185

We are part of a complex technological system. We depend on this system for the way we work, the way we live, the way we think. How do we choose and regulate the technology which will help us build better futures for people, place and planet?Drawing from his new book ‘The Machine Age: An Idea, a History, a Warning', economic historian Robert Skidelsky sheds light on our fractured relationship with machines from humanity's first tools down to the present and into the future. He traces the interactions between capitalism and technology, and between science and religion in the making of the modern world.Navigating the risks and opportunities presented by technological advancement, Lord Skidelsky explores the evolution of our understanding of technology and what this means for our lives and politics.#RSATechnologyBecome an RSA Events sponsor: https://utm.guru/ueembDonate to The RSA: https://utm.guru/udNNBFollow RSA Events on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thersaorg/Follow the RSA on Twitter: https://twitter.com/theRSAorgLike RSA Events on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theRSAorg/Listen to RSA Events podcasts: https://bit.ly/35EyQYUJoin our Fellowship: https://www.thersa.org/fellowship/join

In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015)

In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015)

What are the economic and financial system early warning signs that we should heed rather than get caught up in fearmongering? When should we start to worry about ballooning budget deficits, the national debt, a currency collapse, or the stock market?Topics covered include:Signals to monitor to see if things are falling apartHow much government debt is too much and why interest rates are keyWhy central banks don't control the stock marketWhy the dollar remains dominant, and what has to change for it to plummet in valueSponsorsMoney Pickle – Schedule a free 45-minute video chat with a vetted financial advisor and ask them anything about your financial situation. Go here to schedule your free session.LinkedIn Jobs - Use this link to post your job for free on LinkedIn JobsInsiders Guide Email NewsletterGet our free Investors' Checklist when you sign up for the free Money for the Rest of Us email newsletter.Show NotesThe Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wengrow—MacmillanHow Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky—Penguin Random HouseU.S. National Deficit—Treasury.govBudget and Economic Data—Congressional Budget OfficeJapan's growing debt mountain: Crisis, what crisis? by Andrew Sharp—Nikkei AsiaThe Dollar: The World's Reserve Currency by Anshu Siripurapu and Noah Berman—Council on Foreign RelationsCurrency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves—International Monetary FundTotal credit to non-bank borrowers by currency of denomination: US dollar—BISWonking Out: The Mysteries of the Almighty Dollar by Paul Krugman—The New York TimesRevisiting the international role of the US dollar by Bafundi Maronoti—BISRelated Episodes404: Why Is the U.S. Dollar So Strong? Will It Continue?416: Your Nation's National Debt: 5 Things You Need To Know433: What Happens If The U.S. Defaults On Its Debt? Here's Why It Won'tSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How to create and sustain a life of freedom and happiness you don't want to retire from.Topics covered include:What are the physical and mental aspects of living like you are already retiredWhat is the good life, and what are the basic goods that contribute to itHow we handle time is the key to the good life and living like we are already retiredSponsorsMoney Pickle – Schedule a free 45-minute video chat with a vetted financial advisor and ask them anything about your financial situation. Go here to schedule your free session.Use code MONEY10 to get 10% off on your NAPA Autoparts online order.Insiders Guide Email NewsletterGet our free Investors' Checklist when you sign up for the free Money for the Rest of Us email newsletter.Show NotesPolitics by AristotleHow Much is Enough? Money and the Good Life by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky—Penguin Random HouseCormac McCarthy Had a Remarkable Literary Career. It Could Never Happen Now. by Dan Sinykin—The New York TimesSoloing: Realizing Your Life's Ambition by Harriet Rubin—HarperCollinsSaving Time: Discovering a Life Beyond the Clock by Jenny Odell—Penguin Random HouseAn Early Resurrection: Life in Christ Before You Die by Adam S. Miller—Deseret BookFour Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals by Oliver Burkeman—Macmillan PublishersTime SurfingRelated Episodes19: Live Like You're Already Retired117: The Retirement Journey371: Find Your Retirement Investing and Living StyleSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How we measure wealth, riches, abundance, and well-being are more important today than ever.Topics covered include:How late 18th century philosophers Adam Smith and the Earl of Lauderdale defined wealth and the role of capital. Why they worried about income inequality and excess profitsWhat led to the dramatic increase in life expectancy and wealth in the 20th and 21st centuriesHow a long life expectancy and well-being can be attained at much lower levels of wealthWhy John Maynard Keynes was right about the expansion of the economy but wrong about how many hours we would workHow the U.S. expanded its wealth relative to the rest of world, and at what costWhy natural capital should be included in measuring wealthSponsorsMoney Pickle – Schedule a free 45-minute video chat with a vetted financial advisor and ask them anything about your financial situation. Go here to schedule your free session.Brooklinen Use code DAVID20 for $20 off plus free shippingInsiders Guide Email NewsletterGet our free Investors' Checklist when you sign up for the free Money for the Rest of Us email newsletter.Show NotesAn Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith—Early Modern TextsAbout Adam Smith—Adam Smith InstituteAn Inquiry Into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth and Into the Means and Causes of Its Increase by The Earl of Lauderdale—McMaster UniversityPrinciples for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail by Ray Dalio—Simon & SchusterThe Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review—GOV.UKLess Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World by Jason Hickel—Penguin Random HouseEconomic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren by John Maynard Keynes—YaleAmerica's economic outperformance is a marvel to behold—The EconomistHow Much is Enough? Money and the Good Life by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky—Penguin Random House See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

My guest today is Rowena Birch, an Olympic and European judo champion. Rowena is also the current president of the British Judo Association. Outside of judo, Rowena has coached at elite levels across many sporting disciplines and corporate leadership. She has retrained as a financial advisor and now runs her own business. Rowena talks about how she coped with not being selected for the Barcelona Olympic games by prioritising her training and reorganising her life to maximise her focus. Self Belief and reflective self-discovery. Being in the right place and loving the sport is vitally important, as is knowing that just because you don't get instant results doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong.  The mindset of enjoying the journey. The danger of over-focusing on results instead of the process. Keeping going relies on finding ways to enjoy what you are doing. After Competition. Using the skills learned from the experience of competitive sport and applying them to coaching and revelling in an environment of learning - creating and developing new skills. Letting go of an elite sporting persona and finding a new place in the world of judo after the elite competitions. - Adjusting techniques to a new reality and accepting that your body and circumstances have changed.   Core Identity - The importance of being part of the judo community, how the core values  of honesty, integrity, courage and respect have shaped Rowena's identity embuing a passion for learning and self-development. Starting new challenges   Using the tools of being an athlete to embrace new challenges and learn new skills. Breaking new tasks into logical, systematic pieces.   References You can find out about Rowena's business here: https://partnership.sjp.co.uk/partner/goldenbirchesfinancialplanning.I chose Rowena's book: How Much is Enough: Money and the Good Life by Edward Skidelsky and Robert Skidelsky.

Centrism has become an all-purpose term of abuse but what does it actually mean? And what does Centrism want? Dorian and Ian journey to the centre of the middle, dropping in on Tony Benn, William Rees-Mogg, the crises of the 70s, Trotsky, fascism, communism, Clinton, Blair, and the guillotine.… Help Ian and Dorian move NOT LEFT, NOT RIGHT, BUT FORWARD by supporting their Origin Story research on Patreon: www.Patreon.com/originstorypod –––––––– Centrism: A Reading List From Ian: The Oxford History of the French Revolution by William Doyle. The single best all-in-one history of the French revolution. And one of my favourite history books of all time – a rare instance in which the author combines pace, thoroughness and impeccable research. John Stuart Mill, Victorian Firebrand by Richard Reeves. Decent, if slightly pedestrian biography of the great liberal philosopher. John Maynard Keynes trilogy by Robert Skidelsky. The best work on Keynes. The Third Way by Anthony Giddens. Nowhere near as good as it should be, nor as I expected it to be. Surprisingly vacuous. From Dorian: The Vital Centre by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Fascinating post-war argument for the importance of the radical centre Trotsky on centrism  Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics by John Avlon. Solid history of those who sought to occupy the centre of American politics. Toward a Radical Middle by Renata Adler. New Yorker writer's 1969 manifesto for radical centrism in a fractious time. Life in the Centre by Roy Jenkins. The arch-centrist's juicy memoir. Safety First: The Making of New Labour by Paul Anderson and Nyta Mann. A first-draft history of New Labour from 1997. Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution. Satisfying BBC documentary series on iPlayer, with contributions from all the key players. –––––––– “When centrism is so hard to define, like nailing jelly to the wall, you have to ask does it even deserve to be called an ism at all?” – Ian “Trotsky says Centrism is parasitic, opportunistic, vain, uninterested in theory, and harder on the left than the right… and those criticisms are still levelled at centrists today.” – Dorian “The thing is, Centrism is often popular with voters but unpopular with people who are very interested in politics. Because it's not passionate.” – Ian  “I myself am an ideologue, an ideologue for liberalism, so it's possible I feel threatened by something which essentially isn't ideological.” – Ian  –––––––– Written and presented by Dorian Lynskey and Ian Dunt. Audio production by Alex Rees. Music by Jade Bailey. Logo art by Mischa Welsh. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Origin Story is a Podmasters production Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What does all this complaining about money and power mean, anyway? This chapter really turns the screws on economics' existential purpose. Robert Skidelsky asserts in his book What's Wrong With Economics? A Primer for the Perplexed that “the only defensible purpose of economics is to lift humanity out of poverty.” It follows that the aggressively widening disparities between rich and poor through postwar policies is an indefensible outcome. In other words, what we have done, what the Dollar has done, is wrong – if not morally then practically – and there exists no internal fix for those wrongs. In this more philosophical chapter, we explore the socio-political externalities of economics - from the correlation between minimum wage, birth rate, and childhood health outcomes, to entrenched racism and extremist partisan politics. We seek a path for economic change through non-traditional means - what can we do now?

Robert Skidelsky, FBA is a British economic historian. He is the author of a three-volume award-winning biography of British economist John Maynard Keynes. Full transcript available at: josephnoelwalker.com/skidelsky See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robert Skidelsky, FBA is a British economic historian. He is the author of a three-volume award-winning biography of British economist John Maynard Keynes. Full transcript available at: josephnoelwalker.com/skidelsky

Since the introduction of neoliberal policies under Thatcher and Reagan many countries worldwide have implemented austerity politics that dismantled social security programs by cutting public funding. Our guest today, the renowned British economist, Lord Skidelsky has argued that liberal democracy rests on a welfare state, so that austerity politics and the rise of populism in the West are interlinked. So this time we ask: can liberal democracy co-exist with a politics austerity?Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:• The Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna: IWM• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD• The Excellence Chair and Soft Authoritarianism Research Group in Bremen: WOC• The Podcast Company Earshot StrategiesFollow us on social media!• Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna: @IWM_Vienna• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentreSubscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks!BIBLIOGRAPHY• Money and Government: A challenge to mainstream economics. (2018).• Austerity vs Stimulus: The Political Future of Economic Recovery. (2017).• How Much is Enough? Money and the Good Life. (2012). Co-authored with Edward Skidelsky• Click here to find more of Robert Skidelsky’s books and publications.GLOSSARYWhat is austerity politics?(00:01:00 or p. 1 in the transcript)Austerity describes a set of economic policies, usually consisting of tax increases, spending cuts, or a combination of the two, used by governments to reduce budget deficits. The use of austerity measures during times of economic hardship has caused much controversy about their purpose and usefulness. Learn more.What is neoliberalism?(00:03:30 or p. 3 in the transcript)The term neoliberalism describes an ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital. Source.What is Thatcherism?(00:03:30 or p. 3 in the transcript)The term refers to Great Britain’s former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's policies during the 1980s. Thatcherism represents a belief in free markets and a small state, and includes the idea that industries and services should be owned by private companies, not by the state. Learn more.What is hyperglobalization?(00:03:30 or p. 3 in the transcript)The term hyperglobalization refers to the drastic increase in globalization since the 1990s.What are Keynesian economics?(00:08:30 or p. 6 in the transcript)Keynesianism refers to the economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers, especially the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending. Source.What happened in the US in the 1930s?(00:21:30 or p. 13 in the transcript)Between 1933 and 1939 (so, after the Great Depression which was a major economic crisis in 1929) then U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted the New Deal, a set of programs, reforms, and regulations with the aim of bringing immediate economic relief. Opposed to the traditional American political philosophy of laissez-faire, the New Deal generally embraced the concept of a government-regulated economy aimed at achieving a balance between conflicting economic interests. Source.What happened under Deng Xiaoping?(00:21:30 or p. 13 in the transcript)Deng Xiaoping was a Chinese communist leader who was the most powerful figure in the People’s Republic of China from the late 1970s until his death in 1997. He abandoned many communist doctrines and attempted to incorporate elements of the free-enterprise system into the Chinese economy.Under his leadership, China acquired a rapidly growing economy, rising standards of living, considerably expanded personal and cultural freedoms, and growing ties to the world economy. Deng also left in place a mildly authoritarian government that remained committed to the one-party rule even while it relied on free-market mechanisms to transform China economically. Source. Learn more.

durée : 00:05:24 - Le Tour du monde des idées - par : Brice Couturier - L'économiste non-conformiste Robert Skidelsky prolonge la théorie keynésienne à la lumière de quelques accidents récents.

durée : 00:05:24 - Le Tour du monde des idées - par : Brice Couturier - L'économiste non-conformiste Robert Skidelsky prolonge la théorie keynésienne à la lumière de quelques accidents récents.

Keynes: The Return of the Master by Robert Skidelsky (Allen Lane, 2009) Keynesianism dominated economics and economic policy roughly between 1936 and 1973. The neoliberal crusade lead by Milton Friedman made use of the phenomenon of stagflation to demolish Keynesianism. It was swept to the margins of economic theory. It was taken over by ideas such as rational expectations, real business cycle theory, the efficient market hypothesis, and public choice theory. Two schools built on these foundations the neoclassicals and the neokeynesians (whom Joan Robinson called bastardised Keynesianism) provided theoretical backing for the bubble that produced the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Only Keynes could save the day. He had to be brought back, and is with us until today. From Obama's gigantic fiscal stimulus to the expansion of the FED's balance sheet, through Quantitative Easing in both America and in Europe, to Abenomics in Japan, and massive countercyclical demand management by the Communist Party of China, everyone is doing demand management nowadays. The Master is Back!

Robert Skidelsky

Historian Lord Robert Skidelsky reads a letter that John Maynard Keynes wrote to Friedrich Hayek about “The Road to Serfdom,” and then discusses with Rob Johnson the tense relationship between the two famous economists.

Last year, the European Union published a strategic outlook in which it reviewed China as a partner, competitor and a strategic rival, creating a lively debate about the nature of the EU-China relations. However, this outlook was designed for a pre-corona world. How has covid-19 reshaped the EU-China relations? What changes to the global order will the pandemic bring? Who will be the main actors in the international arena? In this week’s podcast Mark Leonard welcomed Lanxin Xiang, Professor in International History and Politics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva and Director of the Centre of One And One Road Studies, who shares his insights on the changing global order, China’s attitude towards the EU and the Chinese “wolf warrior diplomacy” This podcast was recorded on 20 May 2020. Bookshelf: · "John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman" by Robert Skidelsky · "The meaning of systemic rivalry: Europe and China beyond the pandemi"c by Andrew Small https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/the_meaning_of_systemic_rivalry_europe_and_china_beyond_the_pandemic · "The post-coronavirus world is already here" by Josep Borrell https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/the_post_coronavirus_world_is_already_here

Har du nogensinde tænkt over, hvad økonomi er for en videnskab? Hvordan opstod den, og hvem var dens grundlæggere? Eller har du interesseret dig for moderne diskussioner om samfundet, herunder ulighed, ressourceforbrug eller konkurrence? Hvis dette er tilfældet, er økonomiens teorihistorie vigtig og nyttig for dig. Den type af diskussioner er nemlig mindst lige så gammel som den økonomiske videnskab selv, og du vil i dens rødder også finde rødderne til de moderne argumenter. I dagens afsnit skal vi tale om en baron. En baron der af mange anses som det 20. århundredes største økonom, nemlig John Maynard Keynes. Vi kommer til at beskæftige os med ham ift. ham som person og hans tid. Keynes var en kompleks og spændende herre som udover økonomi havde stor passion for kulturliv, aktiehandel og politik, men måske også var en anelse for blåøjet i hans fokusering på den korte bane. Derfor vil vi også beskæftige os med hans kritikere, såsom Hayek, Buchanan og Friedman.  Der er meget mere at vide om Keynes og til de særligt interesserede, har min dygtige underviser Professor Caldwell disse noter: The literature on Keynes is gargantuan; one is tempted to paraphrase Mill on value theory and say that, as far as our knowledge of Keynes is concerned, nothing remains for the present or any future author to clear up. There is first of all The Collected Writings of John Maynard Xeynes, Austin Robinson and Donald Moggridge, eds., 30 volumes (London: Macmillan [for the Royal Economic Society], 1971-89). Confident of their value Keynes seems to have written every thought down, preserving them in notes stuck on a spike on his desk, in diaries and in letters to others. Thus The Collected Writings, in addition to eleven volumes containing all of Keynes' major published writings, include two devoted to correspondence and thirteen covering other "activities." Especially important are volumes 13, 14 and 29 (the last a supplement necessitated by the discovery, in the winter of 1975-76 at Keynes's summer house in Tilton, of a laundry hamper full of papers) on the development and defense of The Treatise on Money and The General Theory. This huge primary source has been a gold mine for Keynes scholars. Even so, the editors have been criticized on occasion for their selectivity, and an additional multi-volume work edited by Rod O'Donnell entitled The Collected Philosophical and Other Writings of J.M. Keynes is now underway.  The starting point in the secondary literature was once Roy Harrod's long (656 pages), eloquent and nuanced paean, The Life of John Maynard Keynes (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1951; N.Y.: Norton, 1982) and Seymour Harris, ed. The New Economics. Keynes' Influence on Theory and Public Policy (N.Y.: Knopf, 1947), the latter a collection of essays by many major economists of the day.  More recently two impressive works have appeared. D.E. Moggridge's (941 pp.) Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (London: Routledge, 1992) is somewhat dry, but comprehensive, and as an economist he is in the position to comment upon a half a century of economists' writings on Keynes, and Keynes' own writings on economics. The historian Robert Skidelsky's three volume life of Keynes is comprehensive and beautifully written: John Maynard Keynes. Hopes Betrayed 1883-1920, Volume 1 (N.Y.: Viking, [1983], 1986),  JMK: The Economist as Saviour 1920-1937, Volume 2 (London: Macmillan, 1992), andJMK. Fighting for Britain, 1937-46 Volume 3 (London: Macmillan, 2000). For a one volume treatment that condenses the three, see Skidelsky's John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman (London: Penguin, 2005). Two comprehensive collections of articles on Keynes are John Maynard Keynes: Critical Assessments, ed. John C. Wood, 4 volumes (London: Croom Helm, 1983), which includes the major articles (150 of...

Helen Lewis meets the distinguished economist Robert Skidelsky, who's been asked by the Shadow Chancellor to lead an inquiry into a four-day working week. Lord Skidelsky is a biographer of John Maynard Keynes, who predicted we'd be working 15 hours a week by 2030. So what has happened to the Keynesian dream? And, as he approaches his 80th birthday, why is Lord Skidelsky still working so hard? Producer: Chris Ledgard

The Institute for Government was delighted to welcome Robert Skidelsky, author of Money and Government: A Challenge to Mainstream Economics, for an in conversation event with Gemma Tetlow, Chief Economist, Institute for Government. They discussed key themes from the book, including the damage that bad economics can do to politics and how good economics can strengthen the democratic centre. This was followed by an audience Q&A. Robert Skidelsky is Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick. He was made a life peer in 1991 and a Fellow of the British Academy in 1994.

Not long ago, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton said there was no more point in arguing with globalisation than the weather: it was an unstoppable wind of change. No longer. It has spun into reverse. Dani Rodrik joins Tom Clark and explains why good economics always made hyper-globalisation a dubious proposition. Meanwhile, Keynes biographer Robert Skidelsky reappraises the record of one thoughtful globaliser: Gordon Brown. And feminist Lynne Segal takes on another sell from the economics profession: the “happiness industry." See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Second debate in the St Paul's Institute series, held in conjunction with CCLA, entitled 'The City and the Common Good: What kind of City do we want?' held at St Paul's Cathedral on 7th May 2013.

Tom Keene and David Gura talk to Robert Skidelsky, a historian & House of Lords member, about Donald Trump's economic plan, which Skidelsky says is broadly a fiscal stimulus package. Then, Luigi Zingales, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says Trump's inexperience means he will depend heavily on his advisers. Also, former Minneapolis Fed President Gary Stern says the Fed will be cautious about placing any bets until they understand what fiscal policies will actually be implemented. Finally, former ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet says Trump's victory and Brexit are signs of people's anxiety. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Tom Keene and David Gura talk to Robert Skidelsky, a historian & House of Lords member, about Donald Trump's economic plan, which Skidelsky says is broadly a fiscal stimulus package. Then, Luigi Zingales, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says Trump's inexperience means he will depend heavily on his advisers. Also, former Minneapolis Fed President Gary Stern says the Fed will be cautious about placing any bets until they understand what fiscal policies will actually be implemented. Finally, former ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet says Trump's victory and Brexit are signs of people's anxiety.

Tom Keene and Michael McKee bring you the best in economics, finance, investment and international relations. Today in Surveillance, they talk to economic historian Robert Skidelsky about what went wrong with the economic crash; the Fed with PIMCO's Jerome Schneider; and game theory and central banks with Bloomberg View Columnist Mohamed El-Erian. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Tom Keene and Michael McKee bring you the best in economics, finance, investment and international relations. Today in Surveillance, they talk to economic historian Robert Skidelsky about what went wrong with the economic crash; the Fed with PIMCO's Jerome Schneider; and game theory and central banks with Bloomberg View Columnist Mohamed El-Erian.

Lord Robert Skidelsky dissects the recent political economic trajectory of Britain and other parts of Europe. Robert Skidelsky is the author of many books, but is renowned for his epic and acclaimed three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, published over the period from 1983 to 2000. The books won several prizes. More recently in 2009, amidst the current crisis, he published Keynes: The Return of the Master. His latest book, published in 2012 and entitled How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life, was co-authored with his son Edward. He continues to write regularly in newspapers and magazines all over the world. Robert Skidelsky was born in Manchuria, of British parents with Russian ancestry. He read history at Oxford and became a research fellow of Nuffield College. In 1978 he was appointed to a Chair at the University of Warwick and remained there as Professor of Political Economy until his retirement. He is also currently Andrew D. White Professor-at-Large at Cornell University. Filmed at the Octagon Centre at the University of Sheffield on the 19th May 2015.

Turning Points for Civilisation As part of a series of events selected by Richard Sennett exploring key ideas that have shaped humanity, this session discusses the idea and profound impact of capitalism. New York University sociologist Saskia Sassen and Paola Subacchi, research director in international economics at Chatham House, are joined by professor of political economy at Warwick University, Robert Skidelsky, in an event chaired by the manager of Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, James Anderson. Part of our Guest Selector: Richard Sennett series of events.

As part of a series of events examining the key ideas that have shaped the human race, sociologist Saskia Sassen, research director in international economics at Chatham House Paola Subacchi and professor of political economy Robert Skidelsky joined James Anderson, manager of Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, to explore the profound and far-reaching effects of capitalism on humanity. Recorded live at the 2014 Edinburgh International Book Festival.

Leading economist Lord Robert Skidelsky says it's the opposite of economics that makes us human: following our hearts and intuitions, rather than our heads.

The truimph of Neoliberal economics in the post Recession world. Laurie Taylor talks to US Professor of Economics, Philip Mirowski, about his analysis of why neoliberalism survived, and even prospered, in the aftermath of the financial meltdown of 2008. Although it was widely asserted that the economic convictions behind the disaster would be consigned to history, Mirowski says that the opposite is the case. He claims that once neoliberalism became a Theory of Everything, providing a revolutionary account of self, knowledge, markets, and government, it was impossible to falsify by data from the 'real' economy. Neoliberalism, he suggests, wasn't dislodged by the recession because we have internalised its messages. Have we all, in a sense, become neoliberals, inhabiting "entrepreneurial" selves which compel us to position ourselves in the market and rebrand ourselves daily? Also, why do work almost as hard as we did 40 years ago, despite being on average twice as rich? Robert Skidelsky, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy, suggests an escape from the work and consumption treadmill. Producer: Jayne Egerton.

On April 10, 2013, Liberty Fund and Butler University sponsored a symposium, "Capitalism, Government, and the Good Society." The evening began with solo presentations by the three participants--Michael Munger of Duke University, Robert Skidelsky of the University of Warwick, and Richard Epstein of New York University. (Travel complications forced the fourth invited participant, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, to cancel.) Each speaker gave his own interpretation of the appropriate role for government in the economy and in our lives. This was followed by a lively conversation on the topic moderated by Russ Roberts of Stanford University, host of the weekly podcast, EconTalk. A video of the event along with other materials is available at http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/09/capitalism_gove.html .

On April 10, 2013, Liberty Fund and Butler University sponsored a symposium, "Capitalism, Government, and the Good Society." The evening began with solo presentations by the three participants--Michael Munger of Duke University, Robert Skidelsky of the University of Warwick, and Richard Epstein of New York University. (Travel complications forced the fourth invited participant, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, to cancel.) Each speaker gave his own interpretation of the appropriate role for government in the economy and in our lives. This was followed by a lively conversation on the topic moderated by Russ Roberts of Stanford University, host of the weekly podcast, EconTalk. A video of the event along with other materials is available at http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/09/capitalism_gove.html .

On April 10, 2013, Liberty Fund and Butler University sponsored a symposium, "Capitalism, Government, and the Good Society." The evening began with solo presentations by the three participants--Michael Munger of Duke University, Robert Skidelsky of the University of Warwick, and Richard Epstein of New York University. (Travel complications forced the fourth invited participant, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, to cancel.) Each speaker gave his own interpretation of the appropriate role for government in the economy and in our lives. This was followed by a lively conversation on the topic moderated by Russ Roberts of Stanford University, host of the weekly podcast, EconTalk. A video of the event along with other materials is available at http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/09/capitalism_gove.html .

Why do we work so hard, and should we? These are the questions that Robert and Edward Skidelsky explore in their thought provoking book How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life (Other Press, 2012). Their answer to the first question is (to put it in my own words) that we don’t know any better. Our competitive capitalist culture has taught us to work hard so we can earn more. Further, it has taught us that earning more will be “happier.” It won’t, say the Skidelskys. Their answer to the second question is “no,” full stop. What we should do instead is take advantage of our remarkable wealth, work less,  and live the good life. What is the “good life?” Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why do we work so hard, and should we? These are the questions that Robert and Edward Skidelsky explore in their thought provoking book How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life (Other Press, 2012). Their answer to the first question is (to put it in my own words) that we don’t know any better. Our competitive capitalist culture has taught us to work hard so we can earn more. Further, it has taught us that earning more will be “happier.” It won’t, say the Skidelskys. Their answer to the second question is “no,” full stop. What we should do instead is take advantage of our remarkable wealth, work less,  and live the good life. What is the “good life?” Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why do we work so hard, and should we? These are the questions that Robert and Edward Skidelsky explore in their thought provoking book How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life (Other Press, 2012). Their answer to the first question is (to put it in my own words) that we don’t know any better. Our competitive capitalist culture has taught us to work hard so we can earn more. Further, it has taught us that earning more will be “happier.” It won’t, say the Skidelskys. Their answer to the second question is “no,” full stop. What we should do instead is take advantage of our remarkable wealth, work less,  and live the good life. What is the “good life?” Listen in and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To coincide with the release of her new book, "Grand Pursuit: the Story of Economic Genius", reviewed in this December's "Finance and Development" magazine, we interview author Sylvia Nasar and historian Robert Skidelsky on a key figure of modern economics, John Maynard Keynes.

Robert Skidelsky, noted biographer of John Maynard Keynes and author (with his son Edward) of the recently published How Much is Enough, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about materialism, growth, insatiability, and the good life. Skidelsky argues that we work too hard and too long. He argues that the good life has more leisure than we currently consume and that public policy should be structured to discourage work in wealthy countries where work can still be uninspiring. Skidelsky criticizes the discipline of economics and economists for contributing to an obsession with growth to the detriment of what he says are more meaningful and life-enhancing policy goals.

Robert Skidelsky, noted biographer of John Maynard Keynes and author (with his son Edward) of the recently published How Much is Enough, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about materialism, growth, insatiability, and the good life. Skidelsky argues that we work too hard and too long. He argues that the good life has more leisure than we currently consume and that public policy should be structured to discourage work in wealthy countries where work can still be uninspiring. Skidelsky criticizes the discipline of economics and economists for contributing to an obsession with growth to the detriment of what he says are more meaningful and life-enhancing policy goals.

Robert Skidelsky, noted biographer of John Maynard Keynes and author (with his son Edward) of the recently published How Much is Enough, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about materialism, growth, insatiability, and the good life. Skidelsky argues that we work too hard and too long. He argues that the good life has more leisure than we currently consume and that public policy should be structured to discourage work in wealthy countries where work can still be uninspiring. Skidelsky criticizes the discipline of economics and economists for contributing to an obsession with growth to the detriment of what he says are more meaningful and life-enhancing policy goals.

What is the good life? Philip is joined in the studio by the commentators Robert Skidelsky, Owen Jones and Jamie Whyte, the classicist, Edith Hall, the philosopher, Mark Vernon and the Benedictine Monk, Father Bede Hill to discuss the question. In this discussion Philip Dodd and his guests consider how an idea that began with Aristotle as an ethical quest can have evolved in the 21st century into unbridled consumerism.

Political economist Robert Skidelsky has completed the third and final volume of his biography of John Maynard Keynes. It is called "John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain 1937-1946". In it he paints a vivid portrait of this brilliant economist and his impact on economics and the world economy. (Originally aired January 2007)

Political economist Robert Skidelsky has completed the third and final volume of his biography of John Maynard Keynes. It is called "John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain 1937-1946". In it he paints a vivid portrait of this brilliant economist and his impact on economics and the world economy. (Originally aired January 2007)