Podcasts about schumpeter

Can a phone be a cow? It could in 1990s Bangladesh. This was the insight of a small number of mobile phone market pioneers who helped catalyze the spread of the greatest technological revolution in human history. Listen as George Mason University economist Philip Auerswald speaks to EconTalk's Russ Roberts about how the extension of connectivity to traditionally excluded populations led to wide-scale transformations in productivity. They discuss the role of little-known entrepreneurs such as Iqbal Quadir and innovators like Claude Shannon in bringing the mobile phone to the entire world. Other topics include William Nordhaus's paper on the cost of illumination as a powerful metric of human progress, Schumpeter's notion of innovation as new combinations, and what Auerswald calls the most important question the field of economics can ask: How much of human progress is inevitable, and how much depends on the determination of remarkable individuals?

Im Podcast mit dem Aktienspezialisten und Portfoliomanager Ingo Koczwara aus dem Hause Eyb & Wallwitz unterhalte ich mich unter anderem über Anlegerfehler, die Profis nicht machen. Welche Idee hinter ihrem vermögensverwaltenden Ansatz steht und warum sie nicht gemeinsam mit NVIDIA die SpaceX Rakete besteigen, das und noch viel mehr besprechen wir in dieser Folge. Da Ingo Koczwara zum ersten Mal bei mir zu Gast war, darf die Frage nach seiner Meinung zum Bitcoin natürlich nicht fehlen.

Il pianeta è finito. Le risorse sono limitate. L'energia non si crea dal nulla. Tutto vero. Ma da qui possiamo davvero concludere che anche la crescita economica debba essere finita? Oppure stiamo confondendo due cose diverse: la crescita materiale, cioè consumare sempre più risorse, e la crescita del valore, cioè produrre meglio, innovare, usare meno input per ottenere più benessere? E soprattutto: è vero che l'economia rifiuta l'idea di un mondo finito? O, al contrario, nasce proprio dal problema della scarsità? ### ❤️ *Sostieni il progetto*

We devote enormous time and effort to developing a research idea, crafting a research design, executing a study, and then writing and polishing a paper – only to then find out that the reviewers do not find our contribution interesting enough to publish the paper. Years of work—wasted. There must be a better way. Thankfully, Murat Tarakci has an idea - flipping the script: deal with demand uncertainty first and with empirical uncertainty second. But before you do that you still need to ask one key question: Is this project worthy of me? Tune in to find out. References Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 347–366. Fewer, T. J., & Tarakci, M. (2025). CEO Political Partisanship and Corporate Misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 357–379. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263–1278. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press. Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business Review Press. Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1043–1078. Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., Field, S., Fox, N., Haber, N. A.,. . . Errington, T. M. (2026). Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Nature, 652(8108), 143–150.

Ireland is now officially the worst country in Europe for young entrepreneurs. Just 5.1% of our 20-somethings are building their own businesses, less than half the rate in Slovakia. So what the hell happened? This week, we ask why young Irish people have stopped backing themselves, and why a country that looks rich on paper is quietly losing the very people who make economies dance. We get into the difference between wealth that's extracted (the multinationals) and wealth that's created (the Ryanairs), and why one is far more fragile than it looks. We bring in Schumpeter and Nassim Taleb, follow a hypothetical 27-year-old called Kiera as the numbers crush her before she's even begun, and ask whether Ireland has become a nation of doubters, quietly punishing anyone who dares to have a go. We float a fix: stop parking the multinational windfall in a pension fund our 25-year-olds will never see, and turn it into a startup fund they can actually use. Because without risk-takers, there's no return, and without return, there's no economy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“Liberalism was founded in the middle of the eighteenth century as a revolutionary philosophy — a philosophy that tried to subvert the old world. That set of beliefs has continued to be radical and revolutionary. When liberalism fell into decadence, it examined itself, subverted itself, and became once again a revolutionary faith.” — Adrian Wooldridge We've lost our revolutionary center. At least according to Adrian Wooldridge, the distinguished British political writer. That revolution, Wooldridge insists, is the genius of liberalism — the radical eighteenth-century ideology that shaped the modern world. Today, however, he argues in The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism, “liberalism” has become conservative, perhaps even reactionary, in its senescent infatuation with cultural identity. Meanwhile, the biggest threat to liberal individualism is big tech: fragmenting attention, spreading misinformation, manipulating choices through algorithms designed to excite emotion rather than inform reason. Rather than making us geniuses, Silicon Valley is turning all of us into idiots. To the ramparts then, Wooldridge pronounces. Liberals need to seize back the revolutionary center. Or, as Wooldridge, a Fellow of All Souls, would spell it, centre. Five Takeaways •       Erasmus and the Liberal Way of Life: Liberalism begins not as an ideology but as a way of living. Erasmus, charting a middle path between the Reformation and the counter-Reformation, offers the founding insight: a good life involves reading books, drinking wine, having discussions, and not bullying people to adopt your faith. What liberalism adds to this is intellectual skepticism — the recognition that you can't be absolutely certain of your beliefs, and therefore that power must be constrained by constitutions. When liberalism became purely associated with political philosophy, Wooldridge argues, it lost this sense of liberalism as a way of life — and that loss is part of what needs to be recovered. •       Bobo Orthodoxy and Its Wounds: The liberalism of the last forty years has been Bobo liberalism — bohemian bourgeois, David Brooks' term. Maximum individual freedom in both the marketplace and personal conduct; no judgementalism on lifestyle choices; celebration of diversity and immigration as ipso facto goods. It did a great deal of good. Gay marriage. The dismantling of corporatist economics. But it also created problems it couldn't see, because its own philosophy prevented it from acknowledging them. In Britain: the Bobo establishment's inability to confront the grooming gangs, because its multiculturalist assumptions made it terrified of accusations of racism. In America: tent cities, drug addiction, the social costs of choices that nobody felt entitled to criticize. •       Big Tech Is a Bigger Threat Than Putin: Wooldridge's most provocative claim: the biggest threat to liberalism is not Putin or Xi but the tech oligarchy. Putin is a dictator; that system will eventually collapse. But big tech is dismantling liberal individualism from within. Liberalism's foundational premise is that individuals, as the building blocks of society, must be well-informed, capable of self-control, and able to act as rational agents. What information capitalism is deliberately engineering — through algorithms designed to excite emotion, fragment attention, and spread misinformation — is the destruction of all three of those conditions. These companies need to be broken up. Not on socialist grounds. On liberal ones. •       Liberalism as Senescence: Biden and Harris: Exhibit A for the Bobo orthodoxy's exhaustion: the 2024 election. Biden, visibly too old to lead, unable to string sentences together; a whole liberal establishment around him, imprisoned by its own assumptions, running a candidate nobody could defend. Then Harris — chosen, in Wooldridge's blunt phrase, as an affirmative action candidate. The old liberal establishment — Pelosi and the rest — had been in power since the 1990s, had accrued all the defects of the establishment, and had no blueprint to address the real problems people were encountering. The last time British liberalism looked this dead was the 1890s. Then a new programme and new talent arrived: Churchill, Lloyd George, Asquith. •       The Revolutionary Center: Save Capitalism from Itself: Wooldridge's prescription is not to destroy capitalism but to reform it, as Teddy Roosevelt and Louis Brandeis did. Break up vast conglomerations of economic power. Tax inherited wealth. Recreate the conditions for a mass middle class. Brandeis's argument: if people can buy votes, you can't have democracy. If people have vast fortunes, you can't have democracy. You need to save capitalism in order to make it the best version of itself. Mill understood this too: once he saw that factory owners and workers had structurally different choices, he began supporting trade unions and moved left on economics. A radical center is not a soft center. It is a center that is willing to blow up the orthodoxies that have calcified within liberalism itself. About the Guest Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist at Bloomberg Opinion and former political editor and Bagehot, Schumpeter, and Lexington columnist at The Economist. He is the author of The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism (Pegasus Books, 2026), The Aristocracy of Talent, and Capitalism in America (with Alan Greenspan). He holds a DPhil from All Souls College, Oxford, and lives in London. References: •       The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism by Adrian Wooldridge (Pegasus Books, 2026). •       Episode 2880: Gal Beckerman on How to Be a Dissident — the companion conversation on liberalism, dissidence, and the question of the revolutionary center. •       Episode 2869: Jacob Mchangama on The Future of Free Speech — the free speech crisis that contextualises Wooldridge's argument about liberalism's lost genius. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouTube

Dans cet épisode solo, je reviens sur une position que j'ai longtemps défendue, celle de tempérer face au catastrophisme ambiant sur l'IA, et j'explique pourquoi les preuves qui s'accumulent depuis quelques mois m'obligent à regarder les choses autrement. Pas pour rejoindre la panique, mais parce qu'une position qui ne s'interroge jamais devient une posture, pas une analyse.Dans cet épisode, nous parlons de la contradiction structurelle au cœur du capitalisme numérique : l'IA générative détruit les emplois cognitifs de niveau intermédiaire, précisément ceux qui constituent la base de consommation sur laquelle repose l'économie. J'ai questionné les travaux de Nick Dyer-Witheford, Karen Hao, Emad Mostaque et Anis Rahman sur ce que ça signifie concrètement, au-delà des chiffres de Goldman Sachs et des fuites internes d'Anthropic. Et parce que je déteste laisser les gens dans un état d'impuissance intellectuelle pire qu'avant la lecture, je finis sur des exemples concrets, locaux, qui montrent qu'une autre IA est possible même si les rapports de forces sont pour l'instant très déséquilibrés. Le tout pour vous redonner envie du futur bien sur :)CITATIONS MARQUANTES"Il y a un mot pour décrire un système qui détruit méthodiquement sa propre base de clients. Ce mot n'est pas 'innovation' mais 'suicide'.""C'est la boîte qui construit les outils qui sonne elle-même l'alarme sur leur impact. Ce n'est pas un philosophe marxiste.""Ils ont entraîné leurs propres remplaçants." (sur les travailleurs d'annotation de Nairobi, Manille, Lahore)"Regarde qui te chuchote à l'oreille chaque jour, et demande-toi de qui c'est l'intérêt." (Emad Mostaque)"Une position qui ne s'interroge jamais elle-même, c'est une posture, pas une analyse."IDÉES CENTRALES 1. Le contrat de Ford est rompu, par design Henry Ford payait ses ouvriers pour qu'ils puissent acheter ses voitures : le capital paie le travail, le travail consomme, la production nourrit le capital. L'IA générative rompt ce cercle en rendant le capital structurellement indépendant du travail humain. Ce n'est pas un bug du système, c'est une conséquence logique de sa propre optimisation poussée à l'extrême. C'est important parce que cela remet en cause le mécanisme de stabilisation automatique sur lequel les démocraties libérales se sont appuyées depuis Keynes.2. L'IA s'attaque précisément aux emplois qui étaient censés être la solution Contrairement aux révolutions industrielles précédentes qui frappaient d'abord les peu qualifiés, l'IA générative cible le travail cognitif intermédiaire : analyse, rédaction, code, diagnostic, comptabilité, marketing. Ces emplois constituaient la colonne vertébrale des classes moyennes éduquées. Ce sont eux qui avaient fait les études recommandées pour s'adapter. Si eux ne peuvent pas, qui peut ?3. La disruption du mécanisme de relance économique Quand les banques centrales baissent les taux pour relancer l'emploi, les entreprises recrutent désormais des agents IA, pas des travailleurs humains. Le lien entre capital et emploi se rompt pour la première fois depuis deux siècles. Et contrairement à toutes les crises précédentes, l'IA ne devient pas moins intelligente après une récession.4. La broligarchy et la capture réglementaire Les "Magnificent Seven" contrôlent 90,2% des modèles d'IA notables mondiaux. En 2024, les entreprises privées ont investi 109 milliards de dollars dans l'IA, contre 5,3 milliards d'investissement public. Sam Altman se pose en défenseur de la régulation en public et fait du lobby pour l'affaiblir en coulisses. L'administration Trump a inclus un moratoire de dix ans sur toute régulation étatique de l'IA. C'est une capture de la démocratie, pas seulement une concentration de marché.5. L'IA coloniale et la souveraineté cognitive L'IA ne transmet pas seulement des informations, elle transmet les valeurs et le cadre moral de ceux qui l'ont construite. Quand 90% des modèles viennent de Silicon Valley, la question de la souveraineté cognitive devient aussi urgente que la souveraineté économique. Et le "colonialisme par l'IA" s'exerce aussi dans le sud global, où des travailleurs ont littéralement entraîné les outils qui ont ensuite concurrencé leur propre travail.6. L'IA-vélo contre l'IA-fusée Karen Hao propose une distinction utile : l'IA-fusée, paradigme dominant à des centaines de milliards de paramètres visant l'AGI, et l'IA-vélo, des outils à échelle humaine pour des besoins spécifiques. Les architectures techniques sont les mêmes. Ce qui diffère, c'est le principe directeur. Des exemples comme Te Hiku Media en Nouvelle-Zélande, Chattanooga dans le Tennessee ou le modèle S1 développé pour 70 dollars prouvent que le choix existe.7. La destruction créatrice a un problème de rythme L'argument de Schumpeter tient sur le fond : chaque vague technologique crée plus qu'elle ne détruit. Mais il bute sur le rythme. La machine à vapeur s'est étalée sur des décennies. L'IA générative frappe en années. Si le pouvoir d'achat des classes moyennes disparaît avant que de nouveaux emplois émergent, qui consomme les produits que les entreprises continuent de produire ?QUESTIONS DE L'ÉPISODEEst-ce que ma position rassurante sur l'IA reflétait une lecture lucide, ou était-elle aussi une façon d'éviter une conclusion que je n'avais pas envie de regarder en face ?Le capitalisme peut-il fonctionner sans consommateurs, et les consommateurs peuvent-ils exister sans travailleurs ?Qu'est-ce qui différencie fondamentalement l'IA générative des révolutions industrielles précédentes en termes d'impact sur l'emploi ?Pourquoi l'argument de la "destruction créatrice" de Schumpeter bute-t-il cette fois sur quelque chose de structurellement différent ?Comment fonctionne concrètement la capture réglementaire par les grandes entreprises tech, et qu'est-ce que l'exemple de Sam Altman révèle sur ce phénomène ?Qu'est-ce que le sort des travailleurs d'annotation du sud global dit de la nature systémique de l'IA capitaliste ?Pourquoi le mécanisme de relance économique des banques centrales risque-t-il de ne plus fonctionner dans un monde d'IA générative ?Qu'est-ce que la distinction entre "IA-fusée" et "IA-vélo" change concrètement à la façon dont on peut construire et déployer ces technologies ?Comment des initiatives locales comme Te Hiku Media ou Chattanooga incarnent-elles une alternative crédible au paradigme dominant ?Quelle est votre part personnelle dans cette reconfiguration, en tant qu'individu, professionnel, citoyen ?RÉFÉRENCES CITÉESLivres et rapportsInhuman Power : Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Capitalism de Nick Dyer-Witheford (2019, + Cybernetic Circulation Complex, 2026, Verso). Thèse centrale : l'IA comme instrument par lequel le capital se rend indépendant du travail humain. Référence tout au long du texte.The Last Economy d'Emad Mostaque (août 2025, disponible gratuitement). Fondateur de Stability AI, ex-gérant de fonds. Concept de "transition de phase" et des "mille jours". Utilisé sur la chute des coûts de l'IA et la fin du mécanisme de relance keynésien.Empire of AI : Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI de Karen Hao (2025). Journaliste, ex-MIT Technology Review. Travailleurs d'annotation, double discours sur l'AGI, distinction IA-fusée vs IA-vélo.Is Another AI Possible ? d'Anis Rahman (rapport, Annenberg School / Media Inequality & Change Center, Université de Washington, disponible gratuitement). Concentration des modèles, investissements publics vs privés, initiatives alternatives.AI Snake Oil de Narayanan et Kapoor (Princeton University Press). Cité comme référence pour "démêler le réel du fantasme dans le discours tech".Personnes et institutions citéesHenry Ford : intuition du salaire comme condition de la consommation (1914, 5 dollars/jour).Karl Marx : concept de "sujet automatique" dans les Grundrisse (vers 1850).Joseph Schumpeter : concept de "destruction créatrice".Andrew Ng (ex-Baidu, ex-Google Brain, Stanford) : formule "l'IA est la nouvelle électricité".Dario Amodei (Anthropic) : projection de 10 à 20% de chômage dans certaines catégories professionnelles sur 5 ans.Goldman Sachs : estimation de 300 millions d'emplois à plein temps à risque.FMI : 89% des emplois de services externalisés aux Philippines à haut risque d'automatisation.PwC : l'IA ajoutera 15 700 milliards de dollars au PIB mondial, 70% ira aux États-Unis et à la Chine.Amy Webb et Sam Jordan (Future Today Institute) : concept de "crédit de contribution".Les Magnificent Seven : Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla (90,2% des modèles d'IA notables).Initiatives et exemplesTe Hiku Media (radio Maori, Nouvelle-Zélande) : développement souverain d'outils IA en langue Maori, principe "kia tangata whenua".Chattanooga, Tennessee : réseau haut débit municipal, 900 communautés américaines ayant suivi.Modèle S1 (Stanford / Université de Washington) : modèle de raisonnement comparable à OpenAI pour 70 dollars de frais cloud.xAI d'Elon Musk à Memphis, Tennessee : data center dans quartier majoritairement noir, dégradation de qualité de l'air signalée.TIMESTAMPS CLÉS Note : il s'agit d'une newsletter sans timestamps réels. Les repères ci-dessous sont structurés par section éditoriale et peuvent servir de chapitres si l'épisode est enregistré.00:00 Introduction : pourquoi j'ai changé de position sur l'IA Pendant dix ans j'ai tempéré le catastrophisme. Quelque chose a changé. Des gens autour de moi perdent des contrats qu'ils avaient depuis dix ans. Je reviens sur ma posture et j'explique ce qui m'a forcé à regarder les choses autrement.06:00 La contradiction centrale : le capitalisme peut-il se passer de consommateurs ? L'intuition de Ford et pourquoi elle s'effondre. Pas de travail, pas de salaires, pas de consommation, pas de capitalisme. La vraie question n'est peut-être pas "l'IA va-t-elle tuer des emplois ?" mais "l'IA va-t-elle tuer le système qui l'a créée ?"12:00 Ce que les chiffres disent vraiment Goldman Sachs, Dario Amodei, les fuites internes d'Anthropic. Un "white-collar bloodbath" annoncé par la boîte qui construit les outils. La nature de cette vague est différente des précédentes : elle frappe d'abord les cols blancs qualifiés.20:00 Nick Dyer-Witheford et le capital qui se libère du travail "Inhuman Power" et la thèse centrale : l'IA comme instrument par lequel le capital pourrait se rendre structurellement indépendant du travail humain. Marx avait formulé ça comme une crainte théorique. On s'en approche.28:00 La fin du mécanisme keynésien de relance Quand les banques centrales baissent les taux, les entreprises recrutent des agents IA, pas des humains. Ce mécanisme qui a fonctionné pendant deux siècles risque de ne plus fonctionner du tout. Personne ne le formule clairement dans le débat public.36:00 Le sud global et l'extraction coloniale Les Philippines, le Bangladesh, les travailleurs d'annotation de Nairobi et Manille. Ils ont entraîné leurs propres remplaçants. Karen Hao et la dimension coloniale de ce modèle économique.44:00 La broligarchy et la capture réglementaire 109 milliards d'investissement privé contre 5,3 milliards publics. Sam Altman défenseur de la régulation en public, lobbyiste pour l'affaiblir en coulisses. Le moratoire de dix ans de l'administration Trump. Ce n'est pas qu'une question de marché.52:00 L'argument de Schumpeter est réel, mais il a un problème de rythme La destruction créatrice a toujours fonctionné. Mais sur des décennies, pas des années. Si le pouvoir d'achat s'effondre avant que de nouveaux emplois émergent, qui consomme la production ?60:00 L'IA-vélo contre l'IA-fusée : une autre IA est possible Te Hiku Media, Chattanooga, le modèle S1 à 70 dollars. La distinction de Karen Hao entre l'IA construite pour la performance commerciale et l'IA construite à échelle humaine pour des usages définis. Ce sont les mêmes architectures techniques.70:00 Ce que vous pouvez faire maintenant : individu, collectif, citoyen Trois niveaux d'action concrets. Parce que je déteste les textes qui laissent dans l'impuissance. Les décisions se prennent maintenant, pas dans dix ans.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Na eindeloos de beste bedrijven bestudeerd te hebben, tijd om dat eens om te draaien. Invert! Hoe falen de allerbeste bedrijven? Twee termen van twee denkers om dat beter te begrijpen in deze aflevering: creatieve destructie (Schumpeter) en disruptieve innovatie (Christensen). Relevant, zeker in tijden waarin AI alles en iedereen gaat ‘disrupten’ – als we de koersdalingen moeten geloven. Pim heeft op een bierviltje uitgerekend of Adyen nu duur of goedkoop is, en we moéten (vrij letterlijk) het over Box-3 hebben… ► Uitgebreide show notes en achtergrondinformatie: https://jongbeleggendepodcast.nl/213-disruptieve-innovatie ► Word Vriend: https://portfoliodividendtracker.com ► Updates via Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jongbeleggen ► Mijn volledige portfolio: https://app.portfoliodividendtracker.com/p/jongbeleggen 1) We maken gebruik van programmatic advertising, wat inhoudt dat we geen invloed hebben op de spots die in de podcast worden afgespeeld. Dit is vergelijkbaar met tv, YouTube, radio en de krant, uiteraard met uitzondering van de advertenties die we zelf hebben ingesproken. 2) Deze podcast is 100% expertise-vrij en alleen geschikt voor amusementsdoeleinden. De inhoud mag niet worden beschouwd als financieel advies.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ireland has spent the last two decades riding a unique position: European by treaty, American by economics, a “bridgehead” for US multinationals into the EU, and a country whose prosperity has quietly depended on America's outsized pull on global capital. But if the US and Europe drift into a real rupture, Ireland becomes the uncomfortable jockey straddling two horses heading in opposite directions. In this episode, we map the cold numbers behind Ireland's exposure, exports, FDI, and the corporate tax windfall, and then pivot to a genuinely optimistic idea: using the last of the US windfall not just to cushion the future, but to build it. Think infrastructure now, and a Schumpeter-style startup fund that turns the country into an innovation machine before the sugar daddy's money slows down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Secondo il premio Nobel per l'economia Philippe Aghion, la rinascita dell'Europa passerebbe per la "distruzione creativa" teorizzata da Schumpeter: l'Europa deve quindi prendersi dei rischi e deve deve avere il coraggio di distruggere quello che ha e di investire in cose molto più innovative, anche a rischio di fallire. Ma intanto in Europa sta accadendo un fenomeno interessante: "Va' dove ti porta l'energia". I Paesi del Nord sono la meta preferita per i data center. Promozione esclusiva per gli ascoltatori di Black Box: se apri un conto FINECO con il codice FINBLACK hai 6 mesi EXTRA di canone gratuito e 10 ordini gratuiti per investire. Per maggiori info clicca ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠qui⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://it.finecobank.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Abonnez-vous à la Newsletter : mailchi.mp/372ce005d7cc/explizik Cette semaine dans Explizik, On se fait un dernier épisode avant le break de fin d'année. Et quoi de mieux qu'un épisode essayant d'imaginer les effets à plus ou moins long terme qu'aura la musique 100% générée par IA sur l'industrie.

"Inovação não tem um corpo de conhecimento codificado. Cada profissional chega por uma porta diferente: design, marketing, tecnologia. Mas inovação é muito mais que usar a última IA da moda" No décimo quarto episódio do Hipsters.Talks, PAULO SILVEIRA, CVO do Grupo Alun, conversa com DENIS BALAGUER, diretor de inovação da EY, sobre o que realmente significa inovar em grandes corporações e por que a maioria das pessoas entende errado. Uma conversa sobre inovação corporativa, destruição criativa e por que empresas precisam se transformar radicalmente.  Prepare-se para um episódio cheio de conhecimento e inspiração!

Was genau ist eigentlich „Demokratie“? Stimmt es, dass „das Volk“ einen bestimmten Willen hat und den dann umsetzt? So ungefähr hatte Rousseau das verstanden. Der Ökonom Joseph Alois Schumpeter sagt: Dieses Verständnis ist völlig unrealistisch. Es gibt kein Gemeinwohl für alle. Stattdessen handeln in einer Demokratie eben doch Einzelne – aber mit der Unterstützung der Mehrheit. Demokratie funktioniert ähnlich wie ein Markt: Wer am besten „verkauft“, gewinnt. In dieser Episode fragen wir uns: Ist dieser Ansatz „demokratisch“ genug? Oder fehlt da etwas? Literatur: Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, Stuttgart u.a. 10. Auf. 2020

"Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary." - Austrian Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1950) The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics was recently awarded to Joel Mokyr, an economic historian at Northwestern University, Philippe Aghion, who is affiliated with universities in France and the U.K., and Peter Howitt, a professor of economics at Brown University. Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt worked together for decades to develop and publish a model that makes it possible to better understand business growth - but not just any growth. The growth fueled by Creative Destruction. Creative Destruction was first described by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942 in response to ideas from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. In fact, Marx thought, and Schumpeter agreed, that it would lead to the end of capitalism… they just didn't agree on why. In this episode of the Art of Supply podcast, Kelly Barner covers: What Creative Destruction is, and why it is no ordinary form of growth How the idea is connected to the potential end of capitalism Why it is so fascinating that this idea is being highlighted at this moment in time, with the rise of AI right before us. Links: Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement

Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani is running for mayor of New York City on what he calls an affordability agenda. He apparently does not realize that it is capitalism that makes things affordable. Socialism just makes things scarce. In this commentary we look at why Mr. Mamdani's affordability agenda is doomed to failure (and some other matters).

Deep in an Australian rainforest, surrounded by birds older than any cathedral, We unpack one of the greatest mysteries in human history, how the first people to sail across open seas, 60,000 years ago, became a civilisation that forgot how to sail. The Aboriginal Australians, the oldest continuous culture on Earth, arrived when Europe was still under ice. They built languages older than Latin, mapped deserts the size of continents, and thrived for 99.7% of Australia's human history before a single European set foot here. Then, in just decades, 90% of them were gone, wiped out not by conquest, but by microbes. From this collision of worlds, we explore what makes societies innovate, why isolation freezes progress while connection multiplies it. Drawing on Harvard anthropologist Joseph Henrich's idea of the collective brain, they trace how collaboration fuels invention, from the first tools to AI. The episode arcs from the Aboriginal sailors who crossed 100 miles of open water before anyone else, to the Nobel Prize winners studying the alchemy of innovation, and ends with Ireland's own late awakening from creative isolation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alors que le Français Philippe Aghion vient de recevoir le prix Nobel d'économie, il est temps de se pencher sur une question essentielle : qu'est-ce que l'innovation, et à quoi sert-elle vraiment ?L'innovation, moteur de croissance selon Philippe AghionPour Philippe Aghion, tout juste couronné du prix Nobel d'économie, la croissance durable ne repose ni sur le capital ni sur les ressources naturelles, mais sur l'innovation. Dans la lignée de Schumpeter, il voit dans la destruction créatrice — ce mouvement par lequel les nouvelles idées remplacent les anciennes — la clé du progrès économique et social. Mais encore faut-il savoir ce qu'on entend par innovation, et surtout comment une société choisit de la cultiver.Innover, ce n'est pas inventerOn confond souvent invention et innovation. Une invention, c'est la naissance d'une idée ou d'une technologie nouvelle — comme l'ampoule d'Edison. L'innovation, elle, transforme l'existant pour créer plus de valeur et de sens. L'imprimerie, Internet ou encore l'intelligence artificielle en sont les meilleurs exemples : ce ne sont pas de simples trouvailles, mais des révolutions d'usages qui changent durablement nos sociétés.Le progrès… et le désordreL'innovation, c'est aussi le désordre organisé. Chaque rupture technologique détruit des métiers avant d'en créer de nouveaux : c'est la fameuse destruction créatrice décrite par Schumpeter et revisitée par Philippe Aghion. Aujourd'hui, l'innovation algorithmique bouleverse non seulement l'économie, mais aussi nos relations sociales et nos imaginaires. Elle est devenue une force de transformation à l'échelle mondiale.La France, entre prudence et paralysiePendant que la Chine automatise ses ports et que d'autres pays testent les taxis autonomes, la France se perd dans la régulation et la peur du risque. Notre culture du principe de précaution bride l'audace et l'expérimentation. Pour innover, il faut oser. Replacer la science, la formation et la confiance dans l'avenir au cœur du projet collectif, comme le suggère Philippe Aghion, est plus que jamais une urgence.-----------♥️ Soutienhttps://donorbox.org/monde-numerique

In this episode of Opinionated Marketers, Kiran Kapur and Charles Nixon discuss Schumpeter's long wave theory and the cycles of creative destruction—from steam power to AI. They look at how innovation changes economies, jobs, and industries, why adaptability matters, and whether solar energy could drive the next global revolution. Read more: “4.6 Billion Years On, the Sun Is Having a Moment” – The New Yorker

Hay muchas de las cosas que proponen tanto Tuto Quiroga como Rodrigo Paz para Bolivia, que preocupan, y todavía falta mucho más de todo lo que no se ha hablado. Por cierto, hemos aprovechado de mencionar el Nobel de Economía 2025 que han recibido hoy la innovación y la destrucción creativa de Schumpeter. Adquiere mi último libro para un análisis más profundo y riguroso de la economia de Bolivia en los últimos 20 años: https://www.amazon.com/Auge-Decadencia-Bolivia-2003-Dolarizaci%C3%B3n/dp/B0FLC45VBP _______________ Encuéntrame en más redes: Web: http://riosmauricio.com​​​​ X/Twitter: https://x.com/riosmauricio​​​​ https://www.linkedin.com/in/riosmauricio/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/riosmauriciocom Patreon: https://patreon.com/riosmauricio

Il Premio Nobel per l'Economia 2025 è stato assegnato a Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion e Peter Howitt per aver spiegato la crescita economica guidata dall'innovazione e il ruolo della tecnologia. Metà premio è andata a Mokyr, della Northwestern University, per aver identificato i prerequisiti di una crescita economica duratura attraverso il progresso tecnologico; l'altra metà ad Aghion e Howitt, del Collège de France e della Brown University, per la teoria della crescita sostenuta attraverso la distruzione creativa. I tre economisti hanno dimostrato che l'innovazione può generare anche effetti negativi, che devono essere gestiti per garantire un vero progresso. Se istituzioni e società non creano le condizioni favorevoli, il rischio è la stagnazione. Mokyr, attraverso fonti storiche, ha individuato le condizioni che rendono le innovazioni autogeneranti: non basta sapere che qualcosa funziona, bisogna comprenderne il perché. Prima della rivoluzione industriale mancava questo approccio, che oggi invece è alla base della crescita economica. Aghion e Howitt, nel 1992, hanno formalizzato in un modello matematico il concetto di distruzione creativa di Schumpeter: l'innovazione è creativa perché genera valore, ma anche distruttiva perché rende obsolete le tecnologie precedenti e cambia gli equilibri del mercato.Dazi, Trump: gli Usa vogliono aiutare la Cina, non danneggiarlaProsegue la tensione commerciale tra Stati Uniti e Cina. Dopo le restrizioni di Pechino sulle terre rare e la minaccia di nuovi dazi da parte di Washington, Donald Trump ha diffuso un messaggio conciliante, affermando di voler aiutare la Cina e non danneggiarla. Tuttavia, il vicepresidente JD Vance ha ribadito che il presidente americano è pronto a ogni opzione, anche a misure drastiche, se la Cina non collaborerà. Pechino ha reagito accusando gli Stati Uniti di doppi standard e di abusare del concetto di sicurezza nazionale per giustificare misure discriminatorie, ricordando che le restrizioni americane coinvolgono circa 3.000 voci contro le 900 cinesi. La nuova ondata di dazi, fino al 100%, dovrebbe entrare in vigore entro novembre, insieme a nuove limitazioni sull'export di software sensibili. La Cina ha difeso le proprie misure di controllo sulle esportazioni come legittime e necessarie per la stabilità regionale. L'escalation segna un cambio di rotta rispetto alle recenti aperture, che avevano portato a un possibile incontro tra Trump e Xi Jinping al vertice Apec, ora in dubbio. Andiamo dietro la notizia con Alessandro Plateroti, direttore Newsmondo.itBiffi, produttività ferma da 10 anni ma Lombardia locomotivaA Milano si è svolta l'Assemblea Generale 2025 di Assolombarda, intitolata "ReThinking Industry", dedicata alla produttività e all'impatto dell'innovazione e dell'intelligenza artificiale sulle imprese. Alvise Biffi, alla sua prima assemblea da presidente, ha evidenziato come la produttività italiana sia ferma da un decennio, con una crescita media annua pari a zero, mentre l'Unione Europea e gli Stati Uniti hanno registrato progressi più sostenuti. Nonostante ciò, la Lombardia rimane la locomotiva economica del Paese, prima per imprese, occupati e Pil, concentrando gran parte della ricchezza nel quadrilatero Milano, Monza Brianza, Lodi e Pavia. Tuttavia, Biffi ha avvertito che anche la locomotiva rischia di rallentare, con una previsione di crescita del Pil lombardo dello 0,6% nel 2025 e dell'1,2% per l'area di Assolombarda. Durante l'assemblea è stato presentato il progetto "ReThinking Industry" e l'ecosistema digitale nazionale per l'industria "ForgIA", sviluppato insieme a istituzioni e centri di ricerca come l'Istituto Italiano di Intelligenza Artificiale e il Politecnico di Milano. ForgIA punta a valorizzare e condividere i dati industriali per aumentare la produttività e favorire la trasformazione digitale, nel rispetto della sovranità del dato e della collaborazione tra imprese e istituzioni. Interviene Alvise Biffi, presidente di Assolombarda.

durée : 00:58:54 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine, Bruno Baradat - Joseph Alois Schumpeter a développé une œuvre éclectique et multidisciplinaire, dans laquelle il a cherché à comprendre l'économie capitaliste en articulant une réflexion sur l'innovation et sur la monnaie. - réalisation : Françoise Le Floch - invités : Odile Lakomski-Laguerre Professeure d'économie à l'Université de Picardie-Jules Verne et chercheuse au LEFMI (Laboratoire d'Economie, Finance, Management, Innovation); Fabrice Dannequin Professeur de SES et chercheur associé au laboratoire Regards de l'Université de Reims Champagne-Ardennes

No episódio, a professora Ana Frazão entrevista Mário Luiz Possas, Professor Titular Emérito de Economia da UFRJ. Na conversa, o professor Possas esclarece o papel de Schumpeter para a economia, assim como a importância da inovação e da destruição criativa. Ao tratar da concorrência schumpeteriana, o professor Possas mostra as razões pelas quais a metodologia da economia neoclássica é incompatível com a dinamicidade dos mercados. O professor Possas ainda aborda as diferenças da economia neoschumpeteriana, bem como o papel da regulação e do Direito Antitruste. Na parte final da conversa, o professor Possas retoma um de seus famosos artigos  – A cheia do mainstream: comentário sobre os rumos da ciência econômica” - para refletir sobre as críticas à ortodoxia econômica e os rumos atuais da ciência econômica.Apresentação: Ana FrazãoProdução José Jance Marques

We leven in een tijd waarin het moeilijk is om de politiek duidelijk te maken hoe de economie werkt, vindt macro-econoom Arnoud Boot. Tegelijkertijd is er volgens hem sprake van overvloed: er is nauwelijks werkloosheid, de armoede is historisch laag, en de welvaart hoger dan ooit. ‘Soms moet het oude verdwijnen om ruimte te maken voor het nieuwe, zoals de econoom Joseph Schumpeter betoogde.’ Wat houdt zijn theorie in? Zijn werk is in de huidige omstandigheden buitengewoon relevant, veel meer dan dat van Keynes. Schumpeter gaf aan dat een maatschappij die vooruit wil, creatieve destructie nodig heeft. Dat betekent: het bestaande moet soms verdwijnen om ruimte te maken voor het nieuwe. En dat is precies waar we nu staan. We staan op een punt waar er geen werkloosheid is in Nederland. Er is eigenlijk een volledige beperking van allerlei aanbodfactoren: te weinig mensen, te weinig ruimte, et cetera. Dus er moet ruimte komen voor vernieuwing. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textTransaction costs are the friction in the gears of society, but the worst transaction costs are the ones that reflect government failure. You can see it in ever cliche about government, from the dreaded DMV lines to the passport control bottleneck. Drawing on Milton Friedman's "Barking Cats" essay from 1973, I explore why bureaucracy remains fundamentally immune to reform efforts, regardless of which political party holds power.The frustrating reality is that bureaucracies operate with completely different incentives than private businesses. While companies balance money costs against convenience to attract customers, government agencies focus solely on their budgets while taxing citizens with enormous "trouble costs." North Carolina's DMV perfectly illustrates this dysfunction—appointments require six-month waits while the state proudly touts its budget savings. Most maddening is that these aren't even genuine services, but rather artificial permission requirements the government imposes before allowing us to live our lives.This represents a textbook government failure—what economists call a Pareto inferior outcome. Most citizens would gladly pay slightly more in fees or taxes to avoid wasting hours (or months) of their lives in bureaucratic purgatory. That additional revenue could easily fund more staff and faster service. Yet the system has no mechanism to capture these preferences or respond to them.The problem isn't partisan, and it can't be fixed by shuffling leadership or staff. As Chris Rock might say about bureaucracy—"that tiger ain't go crazy, that tiger went tiger." Bureaucracy simply acts according to its nature. Reformers who believe they can fundamentally change how these institutions function are like people who want cats that bark—they fundamentally misunderstand the beast they're dealing with.Listen in for insights on why bureaucratic inefficiency persists despite our best efforts, complete with revealing (but not really funny) quotes from political thinkers ranging from Schumpeter to Trotsky. Have your own bureaucratic horror story to share? Let me know in the comments or on social media.Links:Friedman article 1973Keech and Munger article 2015Chris Rock, "Tiger!"Parkinson's LawMichael Munger: The "Trouble Tax"If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

“La singularidad es el momento en que una IA alcanza tal nivel de desarrollo que iguala o supera la inteligencia y capacidades humanas en todas las áreas, incluyendo la posibilidad de mejorarse a sí misma, lo cual crea un interés compuesto que incrementa de forma exponencial sus habilidades. De todas las revoluciones de la historia, la singularidad es la de mayor importancia porque tiene el potencial para ser la última. Si la humanidad es capaz de construir una IA «superinteligente» u omnipotente, su uso último será o bien ayudarnos a crear una utopía o bien el fin del mundo. Emocionante a la vez que terrorífico.” Carlos Fenollosa en La singularidad.Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores:⁠Indexa Capital⁠. Gestión pasiva en fondos indexados.No es fácil encontrar un lugar seguro para tu dinero. En un mercado lleno de productos tramposos, me gusta colaborar o poner el micro a los pocos gestores, pasivos o activos, con una propuesta honesta. La fortaleza de Indexa Capital, que entraría dentro de la gestión pasiva, es una cartera de bajo coste y diversificada. Dos de sus fundadores, Unai y François, han pasado por el podcast. Si te interesa, aquí tienes mi enlace de registro para ahorrarte la comisión sobre los primeros 15.000 euros. Son tiempos inciertos en los mercados y esto significa que debes buscar opciones serias para tu dinero. Indexa Capital es sin duda una de ellas.Patrocina Kapital. Toda la información en este link.Índice:1:30 Un botón rojo para apagar las máquinas.5:47 ¿Qué es la inteligencia artificial?16:10 Pienso, luego existo.26:15 Recuerdos antes de nacer.31:28 El experimento de la habitación china.42:48 Ilusión de autonomía.49:23 El dilema del tranvía.55:01 Los primeros empleos explican tu productividad a largo plazo.1:07:57 La destrucción creativa de Schumpeter.1:19:36 Querer aprender.1:27:42 La inteligencia artificial cambia el equilibrio de poderes.Apuntes:La singularidad. Carlos Fenollosa.La mente consciente. David Chalmers.Fundación. Isaac Asimov.MANIAC. Benjamín Labatut.El hombre bicentenario. Chris Columbus.Inteligencia artificial. Steven Spielberg.

durée : 00:58:51 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine, Bruno Baradat - Joseph Alois Schumpeter a développé une œuvre éclectique et multidisciplinaire, dans laquelle il a cherché à comprendre l'économie capitaliste en articulant une réflexion sur l'innovation et sur la monnaie. - réalisation : Françoise Le Floch - invités : Odile Lakomski-Laguerre Professeure d'économie à l'Université de Picardie-Jules Verne et chercheuse au LEFMI (Laboratoire d'Economie, Finance, Management, Innovation); Fabrice Dannequin Professeur de SES et chercheur associé au laboratoire Regards de l'Université de Reims Champagne-Ardennes

On this episode, we bring you the latest installment of Adam and Cameron's occasional series on heterodox economists. Austrian Joseph Schumpeter produced most of his work in the United States as an immigrant and a Harvard professor, beginning in the 1930s. Schumpeter popularized the term “creative destruction.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do Fartcoin, Trumpcoin, and TikTok have in common? They're all part of the new frontier where memes, tokens, and attention economics collide. This episode dives into how Trump's $60 billion crypto frenzy is more than just a bubble, it's a glimpse into a world where narratives create wealth overnight. We explore Schumpeter's innovation theory, the rise of memeonomics, and how social media oligarchs are reshaping power, regulation, and finance in real-time. Is this the ultimate bubble or the future of economics? Tune in to connect the dots and find out why the attention economy is eating the real economy alive. Join the gang! https://plus.acast.com/s/the-david-mcwilliams-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

American healthcare is well known for its extreme cost and worst outcomes among industrialized (such as the 38 OECD member) countries, and beyond that to be remarkably opaque. The high cost of prescription drugs contributes, and little has been done to change that except for the government passing the Affordable Insulin Now Act at the end of 2022, enacted in 2023. But in January 2022 Mark Cuban launched Cost Plus Drugs that has transformed how many Americans can get their prescriptions filled at a fraction of the prevailing prices, bypassing pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that control 80% of US prescriptions. That was just the beginning of a path of creative destruction (disruptive innovation, after Schumpeter) of many key components American healthcare that Cuban is leading, with Cost Plus Marketplace, Cost Plus Wellness and much more to come. He certainly qualifies as a master disrupter: “someone who is a leader in innovation and is not afraid to challenge the status quo.” Below is a video clip from our conversation dealing with insurance companies. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The current one is here. If you like the YouTube format, please subscribe! The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Transcript with External links to Audio (00:07):Hello, it's Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I have our special phenomenal guest today, Mark Cuban, who I think you know him from his tech world contributions and Dallas Mavericks, and the last few years he's been shaking up healthcare with Cost Plus Drugs. So Mark, welcome.Mark Cuban (00:25):Thanks for having me, Eric.Eric Topol (00:27):Yeah, I mean, what you're doing, you've become a hero to millions of Americans getting them their medications at a fraction of the cost they're used to. And you are really challenging the PBM industry, which I've delved into more than ever, just in prep for our conversation. It's just amazing what this group of companies, namely the three big three CVS Caremark, Optum of UnitedHealth and Express Scripts of Cigna with a market of almost $600 billion this year, what they're doing, how can they get away with all this stuff?Inner Workings of Pharmacy Benefit ManagersMark Cuban (01:03):I mean, they're just doing business. I really don't blame them. I blame the people who contract with them. All the companies, particularly the bigger companies, the self-insured companies, where the CEO really doesn't have an understanding of their healthcare or pharmacy benefits. And so, the big PBMs paid them rebates, which they think is great if you're a CEO, when in reality it's really just a loan against the money spent by your sickest employees, and they just don't understand that. So a big part of my time these days is going to CEOs and sitting with them and explaining to them that you're getting ripped off on both your pharmacy and your healthcare side.Eric Topol (01:47):Yeah, it's amazing to me the many ways that they get away with this. I mean, they make companies sign NDAs. They're addicted to rebates. They have all sorts of ways a channel of funds to themselves. I mean, all the things you could think of whereby they even have these GPOs. Each of these companies has a group purchasing organization (I summarized in the Table below).Mark Cuban (02:12):Yeah, which gives them, it's crazy because with those GPOs. The GPO does the deal with the pharmacy manufacturer. Then the GPO also does the deal with the PBM, and then the PBM goes to the self-insured employer in particular and says, hey, we're going to pass through all the rebates. But what they don't say is they've already skimmed off 5%, 10%, 20% or more off the top through their GPO. But that's not even the worst of it. That's just money, right? I mean, that's important, but I mean, even the biggest companies rarely own their own claims data.Mark Cuban (02:45):Now think about what that means. It means you can't get smarter about the wellness of your employees and their families. You want to figure out the best way to do GLP-1s and figure out how to reduce diabetes, whatever it may be. You don't have that claims data. And then they don't allow the companies to control their own formularies. So we've seen Humira biosimilars come out and the big PBMs have done their own version of the biosimilar where we have a product called Yusimry, which is only $594 a month, which is cheaper than the cheapest biosimilar that the big three are selling. And so, you would think in a normal relationship, they would want to bring on this new product to help the employer. No, they won't do it. If the employer asks, can I just add Cost Plus Drugs to my network? They'll say no, every single time.Mark Cuban (03:45):Their job is not to save the employer money, particularly after they've given a rebate. Because once they give that loan, that rebate to the employer, they need to get that money back. It's not a gift. It's a loan and they need to have the rebates, and we don't do rebates with them at all. And I can go down the list. They don't control the formula. They don't control, you mentioned the NDAs. They can't talk to manufacturers, so they can't go to Novo or to Lilly and say, let's put together a GLP-1 wellness program. All these different things that just are common sense. It's not happening. And so, the good news is when I walk into these companies that self-insured and talk to the CEO or CFO, I'm not asking them to do something that's not in their best interest or not in the best interest of the lives they cover. I'm saying, we can save you money and you can improve the wellness of your employees and their families. Where's the downside?Eric Topol (04:40):Oh, yeah. Yeah. And the reason they can't see the claims is because of the privacy issues?Mark Cuban (04:46):No, no. That's just a business decision in the contract that the PBMs have made. You can go and ask. I mean, you have every right to your own claims. You don't need to have it personally identified. You want to find out how many people have GLP-1s or what are the trends, or God forbid there's another Purdue Pharma thing going on, and someone prescribing lots of opioids. You want to be able to see those things, but they won't do it. And that's only on the sponsor side. It's almost as bad if not worse on the manufacturer side.Eric Topol (05:20):Oh, yeah. Well, some of the work of PBMs that you've been talking about were well chronicled in the New York Times, a couple of major articles by Reed Abelson and Rebecca Robbins: The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs and The Powerful Companies Driving Local Drugstores Out of Business. We'll link those because I think some people are not aware of all the things that are going on in the background.Mark Cuban (05:39):You see in their study and what they reported on the big PBMs, it's crazy the way it works. And literally if there was transparency, like Cost Plus offers, the cost of medications across the country could come down 20%, 30% or more.Cost Plus DrugsEric Topol (05:55):Oh, I mean, it is amazing, really. And now let's get into Cost Plus. I know that a radiologist, Alex Oshmyansky contacted you with a cold email a little over three years ago, and you formed Cost Plus Drugs on the basis of that, right?Mark Cuban (06:12):Yep, that's exactly what happened.Eric Topol (06:15):I give you credit for responding to cold emails and coming up with a brilliant idea with this and getting behind it and putting your name behind it. And what you've done, so you started out with something like 110 generics and now you're up well over 1,200 or 2,500 or something like that?Mark Cuban (06:30):And adding brands. And so, started with 111. Now we're around 2,500 and trying to grow it every single day. And not only that, just to give people an overview. When you go to www.costplusdrugs.com and you put in the name of your medication, let's just say it's tadalafil, and if it comes up. In this case, it will. It'll show you our actual cost, and then we just mark it up 15%. It's the same markup for everybody, and if you want it, we'll have a pharmacist check it. And so, that's a $5 fee. And then if you want ship to mail order, it's $5 for shipping. And if you want to use our pharmacy network, then we can connect you there and you can just pick it up at a local pharmacy.Eric Topol (07:10):Yeah, no, it's transparency. We don't have a lot of that in healthcare in America, right?Mark Cuban (07:15):No. And literally, Eric, the smartest thing that we did, and we didn't expect this, it's always the law of unintended consequences. The smartest thing we did was publish our entire price list because that allowed any company, any sponsor, CMS, researchers to compare our prices to what others were already paying. And we've seen studies come out saying, for this X number of urology drugs, CMS would save $3.6 billion a year. For this number of heart drugs at this amount per year, for chemotherapy drugs or MS drugs this amount. And so, it's really brought attention to the fact that for what PBMs call specialty drugs, whether there's nothing special about them, we can save people a lot of money.Eric Topol (08:01):It's phenomenal. As a cardiologist, I looked up a couple of the drugs that I'm most frequently prescribed, just like Rosuvastatin what went down from $134 to $5.67 cents or Valsartan it went down from $69 to $7.40 cents. But of course, there's some that are much more dramatic, like as you mentioned, whether it's drugs for multiple sclerosis, the prostate cancer. I mean, some of these are just thousands and thousands of dollars per month that are saved, brought down to levels that you wouldn't think would even be conceivable. And this has been zero marketing, right?Mark Cuban (08:42):Yeah, none. It's all been word of mouth and my big mouth, of course. Going out there and doing interviews like this and going to major media, but it's amazing. We get emails and letters and people coming up to us almost single day saying, you saved my grandma's life. You saved my life. We weren't going to be able to afford our imatinib or our MS medication. And it went from being quoted $2,000 a month to $33 a month. It's just insane things like that that are still happening.Eric Topol (09:11):Well, this is certainly one of the biggest shakeups to occur in US healthcare in years. And what you've done in three years is just extraordinary. This healthcare in this country is with its over 4 trillion, pushing $5 trillion a year of expenditure.[New CMS report this week pegs the number at $4.867 trillion for 2023]Mark Cuban (09:30):It's interesting. I think it's really fixable. This has been the easiest industry to the disrupt I've ever been involved in. And it's not even close because all it took was transparency and not jacking up margins to market. We choose to use a fixed margin markup. Some choose to price to market, the Martin Shkreli approach, if you will. And just by being transparent, we've had an impact. And the other side of it is, it's the same concept on the healthcare side. Transparency helps, but to go a little field of pharmacy if you want. The insane part, and this applies to care and pharmacy, whatever plan we have, whether it's for health or whether it's for pharmaceuticals, there's typically a deductible, typically a copay, and typically a co-insurance.Insurance CompaniesMark Cuban (10:20):The crazy part of all that is that people taking the default risk, the credit risk are the providers. It's you, it's the hospital, it's the clinics that you work for. Which makes no sense whatsoever that the decisions that you or I make for our personal insurance or for the companies we run, or if we work for the government, what we do with Medicare or Medicare Advantage, the decisions we all make impacts the viability of providers starting with the biggest hospital systems. And so, as a result, they become subprime lenders without a car or a house to go after if they can't collect. And so, now you see a bunch of people, particularly those under the ACA with the $9,000, the bronze plans or $18,000 out-of-pocket limits go into debt, significant medical debt. And it's unfortunate. We look at the people who are facing these problems and think, well, it must be the insurance companies.Mark Cuban (11:23):It's actually not even the insurance companies. It's the overall design of the system. But underneath that, it's still whoever picks the insurance companies and sets plans that allow those deductibles, that's the core of the problem. And until we get to a system where the providers aren't responsible for the credit for defaults and dealing with all that credit risk, it's almost going to be impossible to change. Because when you see stories like we've all seen in news of a big healthcare, a BUCA healthcare (Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Aetna/CVS) plan with all the pre-authorizations and denials, typically they're not even taking the insurance risk. They're acting as the TPA (third party administrator) as the claims processor effectively for whoever hired them. And it goes back again, just like I talked about before. And as long as CMS hires or allows or accepts these BUCAs with these plans for Medicare for the ACA (Affordable care Act), whatever it may be, it's not going to work. As long as self-insured employers and the 50 million lives they cover hire these BUCAs to act as the TPAs, not as insurance companies and give them leeway on what to approve and what to authorize and what not to authorize. The system's going to be a mess, and that's where we are today.Academic Health System PartnershipsEric Topol (12:41):Yeah. Well, you've been talking of course to employers and enlightening them, and you're also enlightening the public, of course. That's why you have millions of people that are saving their cost of medications, but recently you struck a partnership with Penn Medicine. That's amazing. So is that your first academic health system that you approached?Cost Plus MarketplaceMark Cuban (13:00):I don't know if it was the first we approached, but it was certainly one of the biggest that we signed. We've got Cost Plus Marketplace (CPM) where we make everything from injectables to you name it, anything a hospital might buy. But again, at a finite markup, we make eight and a half percent I think when it's all said and done. And that saves hospital systems millions of dollars a year.Eric Topol (13:24):Yeah. So that's a big change in the way you're proceeding because what it was just pills that you were buying from the pharma companies, now you're actually going to make injectables and you're going to have a manufacturing capability. Is that already up and going?Mark Cuban (13:39):That's all up and going as of March. We're taking sterile injectables that are on the shortage list, generic and manufacturing them in Dallas using a whole robotics manufacturing plant that really Alex created. He's the rocket scientist behind it. And we're limited in capacity now, we're limited about 2 million vials, but we'll sell those to Cost Plus Marketplace, and we'll also sell those direct. So Cost Plus Marketplace isn't just the things we manufacture. It's a wide variety of products that hospitals buy that we then have a minimal markup, and then for the stuff we manufacture, we'll sell those to direct to like CHS was our first customer.Eric Topol (14:20):Yeah, that's a big expansion from going from the pills to this. Wow.Mark Cuban (14:24):It's a big, big expansion, but it goes to the heart of being transparent and not being greedy, selling on a markup. And ourselves as a company, being able to remain lean and mean. The only way we can sell at such a low markup. We have 20 employees on the Cost Plus side and 40 employees involved with the factories, and that's it.Eric Topol (14:46):Wow. So with respect to, you had this phenomenal article and interview with WIRED Magazine just this past week. I know Lauren Goode interviewed you, and she said, Mark, is this really altruistic and I love your response. You said, “how much f*****g money do I need? I'm not trying to land on Mars.” And then you said, “at this point in my life, it's just like more money, or f**k up the healthcare industry.” This was the greatest, Mark. I mean, I got to tell you, it was really something.Mark Cuban (15:18):Yeah.Eric Topol (15:19):Well, in speaking of that, of course, the allusion to a person we know well, Elon. He posted on X/Twitter in recent days , I think just three or four days ago, shouldn't the American people be getting their money's worth? About this high healthcare administration costs where the US is completely away from any other OECD country. And as you and I know, we have the worst outcomes and the most costs of all the rich countries in the world. There's just nothing new here. Maybe it's new to him, but you had a fabulous response on both X and Bluesky where you went over all these things point by point. And of course, the whole efforts that you've been working on now for three years. You also mentioned something that was really interesting that I didn't know about were these ERISA lawsuits[Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974.] Can you tell us about that?ERISA LawsuitsMark Cuban (16:13):Yeah, that's a great question, Eric. So for self-insured companies in particular, we have a fiduciary responsibility on a wellness and on a financial basis to offer the members, your employees and their families the best outcomes at the best price. Now, you can't guarantee best outcomes, but you have to be able to explain the choices you made. You don't have to pick the cheapest, but again, you have to be able to explain why you made the choices that you did. And because a lot of companies have been doing, just like we discussed earlier, doing deals on the pharmacy side with just these big PBMs, without accounting for best practices, best price, best outcomes, a couple companies got sued. Johnson and Johnson and Wells Fargo were the first to get sued. And I think that's just the beginning. That's just the writing on the wall. I think they'll lose because they just dealt with the big pharmacy PBMs. And I think that's one of the reasons why we're so busy at Cost Plus and why I'm so busy because we're having conversation after conversation with companies and plenty of enough lawyers for that matter who want to see a price list and be able to compare what they're paying to what we sell for to see if they're truly living up to that responsibility.Eric Topol (17:28):Yeah, no, that's a really important thing that's going on right now that I think a lot of people don't know about. Now, the government of the US think because it's the only government of any rich country in the world, if not any country that doesn't negotiate prices, i.e., CMS or whatever. And only with the recent work of insulin, which is a single one drug, was there reduction of price. And of course, it's years before we'll see other drugs. How could this country not negotiate drugs all these years where every other place in the world they do negotiate with pharma?Mark Cuban (18:05):Because as we alluded to earlier, the first line in every single pharmaceutical and healthcare contract says, you can't talk about this contract. It's like fight club. The number one rule of fight club is you can't talk about fight club, and it's really difficult to negotiate prices when it's opaque and everything's obfuscated where you can't really get into the details. So it's not that we're not capable of it, but it's just when there's no data there, it's really difficult because look, up until we started publishing our prices, how would anybody know?Mark Cuban (18:39):I mean, how was anybody going to compare numbers? And so, when the government or whoever started to negotiate, they tried to protect themselves and they tried to get data, but those big PBMs certainly have not been forthcoming. We've come along and publish our price list and all that starts to change. Now in terms of the bigger picture, there is a solution there, as I said earlier, but it really comes down to talking to the people who make the decisions to hire the big insurance companies and the big PBMs and telling them, no, you're not acting in your own best interest. Here's anybody watching out there. Ask your PBM if they can audit. If you can audit rather your PBM contract. What they'll tell you is, yeah, you can, but you have to use our people. It's insane. And that's from top to bottom. And so, I'm a big believer that if we can get starting with self-insured employers to act in their own best interest, and instead of working with a big PBM work with a pass-through PBM. A pass-through PBM will allow you to keep your own claims, own all your own data, allow you to control your own formulary.Mark Cuban (19:54):You make changes where necessary, no NDA, so you can't talk to manufacturers. All these different abilities that just seem to make perfect sense are available to all self-insured employers. And if the government, same thing. If the government requires pass-through PBMs, the price of medications will drop like a rock.Eric Topol (20:16):Is that possible? You think that could happen?Mark Cuban (20:19):Yes. Somebody's got to understand it and do it. I'm out there screaming, but we will see what happens with the new administration. There's nothing hard about it. And it's the same thing with Medicare and Medicare Advantage healthcare plans. There's nothing that says you have to use the biggest companies. Now, the insurance companies have to apply and get approved, but again, there's a path there to work with companies that can reduce costs and improve outcomes. The biggest challenge in my mind, and I'm still trying to work through this to fully understand it. I think where we really get turned upside down as a country is we try to avoid fraud from the provider perspective and the patient perspective. We're terrified that patients are going to use too much healthcare, and like everybody's got Munchausen disease.Mark Cuban (21:11):And we're terrified that the providers are going to charge too much or turn into Purdue Pharma and over-prescribe or one of these surgery mills that just is having somebody get surgery just so they can make money. So in an effort to avoid those things, we ask the insurance companies and the PBMs to do pre-authorizations, and that's the catch 22. How do we find a better way to deal with fraud at the patient and provider level? Because once we can do that, and maybe it's AI, maybe it's accepting fraud, maybe it's imposing criminal penalties if somebody does those things. But once we can overcome that, then it becomes very transactional. Because the reality is most insurance companies aren't insurance companies. 50 million lives are covered by self-insured employers that use the BUCAs, the big insurance companies, but not as insurance companies.Eric Topol (22:07):Yeah, I was going to ask you about that because if you look at these three big PBMs that control about 80% of the market, not the pass-throughs that you just mentioned, but the big ones, they each are owned by an insurance company. And so, when the employer says, okay, we're going to cover your healthcare stuff here, we're going to cover your prescriptions there.Mark Cuban (22:28):Yeah, it's all vertically integrated.Mark Cuban (22:36):And it gets even worse than that, Eric. So they also own specialty pharmacies, “specialty pharmacies” that will require you to buy from. And as I alluded to earlier, a lot of these medications like Imatinib, they'll list as being a specialty medication, but it's a pill. There's nothing special about it, but it allows them to charge a premium. And that's a big part of how the PBMs make a lot of their money, the GPO stuff we talked about, but also forcing an employer to go through the specialty mail order company that charges an arm and the leg.Impact on Hospitals and ProceduresEric Topol (23:09):Yeah. Well, and the point you made about transparency, we've seen this of course across US healthcare. So for example, as you know, if you were to look at what does it cost to have an operation like let's say a knee replacement at various hospitals, you can find that it could range fivefold. Of course, you actually get the cost, and it could be the hospital cost, and then there's the professional cost. And the same thing occurs for if you're having a scan, if you're having an MRI here or there. So these are also this lack of transparency and it's hard to get to the numbers, of course. There seems to be so many other parallels to the PBM story. Would you go to these other areas you think in the future?Mark Cuban (23:53):Yeah, we're doing it now. I'm doing it. So we have this thing called project dog food, and what it is, it's for my companies and what we've done is say, look, let's understand how the money works in healthcare.Mark Cuban (24:05):And when you think about it, when you go to get that knee done, what happens? Well, they go to your insurance company to get a pre-authorization. Your doctor says you need a knee replacement. I got both my hips replaced. Let's use that. Doctor says, Mark, you need your hips replaced. Great, right? Let's set up an appointment. Well, first the insurance company has to authorize it, okay, they do or they don't, but the doctor eats their time up trying to deal with the pre-authorization. And if it's denied, the doctor's time is eaten up and an assistance's time is eaten up. Some other administrator's time is eaten up, the employer's time is eaten up. So that's one significant cost. And then from there, there's a deductible. Now I can afford my deductible, but if there is an individual getting that hip replacement who can't afford the deductible, now all of a sudden you're still going to be required to do that hip replacement, most likely.Mark Cuban (25:00):Because in most of these contracts that self-insured employers sign, Medicare Advantage has, Medicare has, it says that between the insurance company and the provider, in this case, the hospital, you have to do the operation even if the deductibles not paid. So now the point of all this is you have the hospital in this case potentially accumulating who knows how much bad debt. And it's not just the lost amount of millions and millions and billions across the entire healthcare spectrum that's there. It's all the incremental administrative costs. The lawyers, the benefits for those people, the real estate, the desk, the office space, all that stuff adds up to $10 billion plus just because the hospitals take on that credit default risk. But wait, there's more. So now the surgery happens, you send the bill to the insurance company. The insurance company says, well, we're not going to pay you. Well, we have a contract. This is what it says, hip replacement's $34,000. Well, we don't care first, we're going to wait. So we get the time value of money, and then we're going to short pay you.Mark Cuban (26:11):So the hospital gets short paid. So what do they have to do? They have to sue them or send letters or whatever it is to try to get their money. When we talk to the big hospital systems, they say that's 2%. That's 2% of their revenue. So you have all these associated credit loss dollars, you've got the 2% of, in a lot of cases, billions and billions of dollars. And so, when you add all those things up, what happens? Well, what happens is because the providers are losing all that money and having to spend all those incremental dollars for the administration of all that, they have to jack up prices.Eric Topol (26:51):Yeah. Right.Mark Cuban (26:53):So what we have done, we've said, look for my companies, we're going to pay you cash. We're going to pay you cash day one. When Mark gets that hip replacement, that checks in the bank before the operation starts, if that's the way you want it. Great, they're not going to have pre-authorizations. We're going to trust you until you give us a reason not to trust you. We're not short paying, obviously, because we're paying cash right there then.Mark Cuban (27:19):But in a response for all that, because we're cutting out all those ancillary costs and credit risk, I want Medicare pricing. Now the initial response is, well, Medicare prices, that's awful. We can't do it. Well, when you really think about the cost and operating costs of a hospital, it's not the doctors, it's not the facilities, it's all the administration that cost all the money. It's all the credit risks that cost all the money. And so, if you remove that credit risk and all the administration, all those people, all that real estate, all those benefits and overhead associated with them, now all of a sudden selling at a Medicare price for that hip replacement is really profitable.Eric Topol (28:03):Now, is that a new entity Cost Plus healthcare?Mark Cuban (28:07):Well, it's called Cost Plus Wellness. It's not an entity. What we're going to do, so the part I didn't mention is all the direct contracts that we do that have all these pieces, as part of them that I just mentioned, we're going to publish them.Eric Topol (28:22):Ah, okay.Mark Cuban (28:23):And you can see exactly what we've done. And if you think about the real role of the big insurances companies for hospitals, it's a sales funnel.Getting Rid of Insurance CompaniesEric Topol (28:33):Yeah, yeah. Well, in fact, I really was intrigued because you did a podcast interview with Andrew Beam and the New England Journal of Medicine AI, and in that they talked about getting rid of the insurers, the insurance industry, just getting rid of it and just make it a means test for people. So it's not universal healthcare, it's a different model that you described. Can you go over that? I thought it was fantastic.Mark Cuban (29:00):Two pieces there. Let's talk about universal healthcare first. So for my companies, for our project dog food for the Mark Cuban companies, if for any employee or any of the lives we cover, if they work within network, anybody we have the direct contract with its single-payer. They pay their premiums, but they pay nothing else out of pocket. That's the definition of single-payer.Eric Topol (29:24):Yeah.Mark Cuban (29:25):So if we can get all this done, then the initial single-payers will be self-insured employers because it'll be more cost effective to them to do this approach. We hope, we still have to play it all through. So that's part one. In terms of everybody else, then you can say, why do we need insurance companies if they're not even truly acting as insurance companies? You're not taking full risk because even if it's Medicare Advantage, they're getting a capitated amount per month. And then that's getting risk adjusted because of the population you have, and then there's also an index depending on the location, so there's more or less money that occurs then. So let's just do what we need to do in this particular case, because the government is effectively eliminating the risk for the insurance company for the most part. And if you look at the margins for Medicare Advantage, I was just reading yesterday, it's like $1,700 a year for the average Medicare Advantage plan. So it's not like they're taking a lot of risk. All they're doing is trying to deny as many claims as they can.Eric Topol (30:35):Deny, Deny. Yeah.Mark Cuban (30:37):So instead, let's just get somebody who's a TPA, somebody who does the transaction, the claims processing, and whoever's in charge. It could be CMS, can set the terms for what's accepted and what's denied, and you can have a procedure for people that get denied that want to challenge it. And that's great, there's one in place now, but you make it a little simpler. But you take out the economics for the insurance company to just deny, deny, deny. There's no capitation. There's no nothing.Mark Cuban (31:10):The government just says, okay, we're hiring this TPA to handle the claims processing. It is your job. We're paying you per transaction.Mark Cuban (31:18):You don't get paid more if you deny. You don't get paid less if you deny. There's no bonuses if you keep it under a certain amount, there's no penalties If you go above a certain amount. We want you just to make sure that the patient involved is getting the best care, end of story. And if there's fraud involved as the government, because we have access to all that claims data, we're going to introduce AI that reviews that continuously.Mark Cuban (31:44):So that we can see things that are outliers or things that we question, and there's going to mean mistakes, but the bet was, if you will, where we save more and get better outcomes that way versus the current system and I think we will. Now, what ends up happening on top of that, once you have all that claims data and all that information and everybody's interest is aligned, best care at the best price, no denials unless it's necessary, reduce and eliminate fraud. Once everybody's in alignment, then as long as that's transparent. If the city of Dallas decides for all the lives they cover the 300,000 lives they cover between pharmacy and healthcare, we can usually in actuarial tables and some statistical analysis, we can say, you know what, even with a 15% tolerance, it's cheaper for us just to pay upfront and do this single-pay program, all our employees in the lives we cover, because we know what it's going to take.Mark Cuban (32:45):If the government decides, well, instead of Medicare Advantage the way it was, we know all the costs. Now we can say for all Medicare patients, we'll do Medicare for all, simply because we have definitive and deterministic pricing. Great. Now, there's still going to be outlier issues like all the therapies that cost a million dollars or whatever. But my attitude there is if CMS goes to Lilly, Novo, whoever for their cure for blindness that's $3.4 million. Well, that's great, but what we'll say is, okay, give us access to your books. We want to know what your breakeven point is. What is that breakeven point annually? We'll write you a check for that.Eric Topol (33:26):Yeah.Mark Cuban (33:27):If we have fewer patients than need that, okay, you win. If we have more patients than need that, it's like a Netflix subscription with unlimited subscribers, then we will have whatever it is, because then the manufacturer doesn't lose money, so they can't complain about R&D and not being able to make money. And that's for the CMS covered population. You can do a Netflix type subscription for self-insured employers. Hey, it's 25 cents per month per employee or per life covered for the life of the patent, and we'll commit to that. And so, now all of a sudden you get to a point where healthcare starts becoming not only transparent but deterministic.Eric Topol (34:08):Yeah. What you outline here in these themes are extraordinary. And one of the other issues that you are really advocating is patient empowerment, but one of the problems we have in the US is that people don't own their data. They don't even have all their data. I expect you'd be a champion of that as well.Mark Cuban (34:27):Well, of course. Yeah. I mean, look, I've got into arguments with doctors and public health officials about things like getting your own blood tested. I've been an advocate of getting my own blood tested for 15 years, and it helped me find out that I needed thyroid medication and all of these things. So I'm a big advocate. There's some people that think that too much data gives you a lot of false positives, and people get excited in this day and age to get more care when it should only be done if there are symptoms. I'm not a believer in that at all. I think now, particularly as AI becomes more applicable and available, you'll be able to be smarter about the data you capture. And that was always my final argument. Either you trust doctors, or you don't. Because even if there's an aberrational TSH reading and minus 4.4 and it's a little bit high, well the doctor's going to say, well, let's do another blood test in a month or two. The doctor is still the one that has to write the prescription. There's no downside to trusting your doctor in my mind.Eric Topol (35:32):And what you're bringing up is that we're already seeing how AI can pick up things even in the normal range, the trends long before a clinician physician would pick it up. Now, last thing I want to say is you are re-imagining healthcare like no one. I mean, there's what you're doing here. It started with some pills and it's going in a lot of different directions. You are rocking it here. I didn't even know some of the latest things that you're up to. This seems to be the biggest thing you've ever done.Mark Cuban (36:00):I hope so.Mark Cuban (36:01):I mean, like we said earlier, what could be better than people saying our healthcare system is good. What changed? That Cuban guy.Eric Topol (36:10):Well, did you give up Shark Tank so you could put more energy into this?Mark Cuban (36:16):Not really. It was more for my kids.Eric Topol (36:19):Okay, okay.Mark Cuban (36:20):They go hand in hand, obviously. I can do this stuff at home as opposed to sitting on a set wondering if I should invest in Dude Wipes again.Eric Topol (36:28):Well, look, we're cheering for you. This is, I've not seen a shakeup in my life in American healthcare like this. You are just rocking. It's fantastic.Mark Cuban (36:37):Everybody out there that's watching, check out www.costplusdrugs.com, check out Cost Plus Marketplace, which is business.costplusdrugs.com and just audit everything. What I'm trying to do is say, okay, if it's 1955 and we're starting healthcare all over again, how would we do it? And really just keep it simple. Look to where the risk is and remove the risk where possible. And then it comes down to who do you trust and make sure you trust but verify. Making sure there aren't doctors or systems that are outliers and making sure that there aren't companies that are outliers or patients rather that are outliers. And so, I think there's a path there. It's not nearly as difficult, it's just starting them with corporations, getting those CEOs to get educated and act in their own best interest.Eric Topol (37:32):Well, you're showing us the way. No question. So thanks so much for joining, and we'll be following this with really deep interest because you're moving at high velocity, and thank you.**************************************************Thank you for reading, listening and subscribing to Ground Truths.If you found this fun and informative please share it!All content on Ground Truths—its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts, are free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary. All proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. I welcome all comments from paid subscribers and will do my best to respond to each of them and any questions.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and to Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.FootnoteThe PBMS (finally) are under fire—2 articles from the past week Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textOriginally broadcast: February 27, 2024Discover how the 2024 US presidential election could transform the regulatory landscape for mergers, antitrust enforcement, and foreign investment. With the prospect of President Joe Biden facing off against former President Donald Trump, this episode unpacks the economic policies and national security priorities of these political titans. Milbank partners Adam DiVincenzo and John Bain join host Allan Marks to provide a sharp analysis of how both administrations have wielded the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), particularly in relation to China, and what that means for foreign investment strategies moving forward.As we navigate the intricate balance between market power, innovation, and regulation, learn how historical antitrust measures influence modern policies. Our conversation draws on the insights of economists like Schumpeter and Arrow to understand the role of large companies in fostering or stifling innovation. We explore the complex interplay of regulatory bodies like the FTC and DOJ in shaping market competition and how geopolitical considerations can impact merger activities. This episode offers a comprehensive look at how shifting political landscapes and economic strategies are poised to redefine the future of business.We also delve into the nuances of antitrust laws and market strategies, exploring how proposed bans and historical perspectives like the Sherman Act inform current debates. The discussion reflects on Robert Bork's theory of consumer welfare, questioning its relevance today. Learn how administrations may continue to leverage robust antitrust tools and how geopolitical tensions with countries like Russia and China could impact merger regulations. From ESG initiatives to strategies for navigating CFIUS reviews, we provide the insights you need to understand the forces shaping tomorrow's corporate environment.For more information and insights, follow us on social media and podcast platforms, including Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, iHeart, Google and Audible.Disclaimer

Grace Blakeley on the hidden planning at the heart of capitalism, monopoly power and democratic planning as an alternative. Democratic Planning Research Platform: www.planningresearch.net Shownotes Blakeley, G. (2024). Vulture capitalism: Corporate crimes, backdoor bailouts, and the death of freedom. Simon and Schuster. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Vulture-Capitalism/Grace-Blakeley/9781982180850 Blakeley, G. (2020). Stolen: How to Save the World from Financialization. Repeater Books. https://repeaterbooks.com/product/stolen-how-to-save-the-world-from-financialisation Blakeley, G. (2021). The Corona Crash: How the Pandemic Will Change Capitalism. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2723-the-corona-crash Blakeley, G. (2021). STOLEN - So retten wir die Welt vor dem Finanzkapitalismus. Brumaire Verlag. https://brumaireverlag.de/Grace-Blakeley-Stolen Devine, P. (1988). Democracy and Economic Planning: The Political Economy of a Self-Governing Society. Polity Press. https://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9780745603943 Masters, B., & Thiel, P. (2014). Zero to one: Notes on start ups, or how to build the future. Random House. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/234730/zero-to-one-by-peter-thiel-with-blake-masters/ Phillips, L., & Rozworski, M. (2019). The People's Republic of Walmart. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-the-people-s-republic-of-walmart Von Hayek, F. (2007). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents – The Definitive Edition. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Road-to-Serfdom-Text-and-Documents-The-Definitive-Edition/Caldwell-Hayek/p/book/9780415755320 Harvey, D. Reading Marx's Capital (Free online course). http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ Foster, J. B. (2018) 'What Is Monopoly Capital?', in: Monthly Review (online): https://monthlyreview.org/2018/01/01/what-is-monopoly-capital/ Rikap, C. (2021). Capitalism, power and innovation: Intellectual monopoly capitalism uncovered. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-Power-and-Innovation-Intellectual-Monopoly-Capitalism-Uncovered/Rikap/p/book/9780367750299 Alami, I., & Dixon, A. D. (2024). The spectre of state capitalism. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-spectre-of-state-capitalism-9780198925194?cc=us&lang=en& Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge. https://periferiaactiva.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/joseph-schumpeter-capitalism-socialism-and-democracy-2006.pdf Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Penguin Books. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/grundrisse.pdf   Further Future Histories Episodes on Related Topics S02E10 | Aaron Benanav on Associational Socialism and Democratic Planning https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e10-aaron-benanav-on-associational-socialism-and-democratic-planning/ S02E11 | James Muldoon on Platform Socialism https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e11-james-muldoon-on-platform-socialism/ S02E47 | Matt Huber on Building Socialism, Climate Change & Class War https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e47-matt-huber-on-building-socialism-climate-change-class-war/ S01E58 | Jasper Bernes on Planning and Anarchy https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e58-jasper-bernes-on-planning-and-anarchy/ S02E09 | Isabella M. Weber zu Chinas drittem Weg: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e09-isabella-m-weber-zu-chinas-drittem-weg/ S02E33 | Pat Devine on Negotiated Coordination: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e33-pat-devine-on-negotiated-coordination/ S02E19 | David Laibman on Multilevel Democratic Iterative Coordination: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e19-david-laibman-on-multilevel-democratic-iterative-coordination/   S03E03 | Planning for Entropy on Sociometabolic Planning: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e03-planning-for-entropy-on-sociometabolic-planning/   Future Histories Contact & Support If you like Future Histories, please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Contact: office@futurehistories.today Twitter: https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories   Tags #GraceBlakeley, #JanGroos, #CapitalistPlanning, #MarketPower, #DemocraticAlternatives, #Monopolies, #FreeMarkets, #EconomicDemocracy, #Socialism, #PlatformCapitalism, #FutureHistories, #PatDevine, #PeterThiel, #VultureCapitalism, #PoliticalEconomy, #EconomicJustice, #Socialism, #PostCapitalism, #GreenNewDeal, #ClimateJustice, #FinanceCapitalism, #PublicOwnership, #WelfareState, #LabourMovement, #EconomicDemocracy, #WorkingClass, #DebtCrisis, #Redistribution, #ProgressivePolitics, #Stolen, #futurehistoriesinternational, #FutureHistoriesInternational  

On October 8, the Boris Kagarlitsky International Solidarity Campaign held an online conference on “Boris Kagarlitsky and the Challenges of the Left.” Although Kagarlitsky is serving a five-year sentence in a Russian penal colony, he has just published a book called The Long Retreat: Strategies to Reverse the Decline of the Left. The conference addressed Kagarlitsky's wide-ranging analysis of the left's dilemmas in the face of multiple global crises, including the rise of right-wing authoritarianism. We will bring the whole conference to Jacobin Radio with a stellar lineup of international scholars and activists.Today we hear the panel “Imperialism(s) Today,” looking at the nature of imperialism historically and in the present. Robert Brenner begins with the theory of imperialism from before WWI through the post-war period and up to the present, essentially arguing that in the present period of American hegemony, imperialism is the weapon of weaker powers. Ilya Matveev follows by examining three theorists of imperialism—Lenin, Schumpeter, and Mearsheimer—and looks at the Russian case through the lens of their different theories. Hanna Perekhoda, originally from Donetsk in the contested Donbas region, examines Putin's view of Ukraine as a creation by Russia's enemies. According to Putin, Lenin's support of the self-determination of Ukraine divided Russia, preventing it from becoming a leading power in the world. For proponents of this view, Russian sovereignty is under threat so long as Ukraine exists.Jacobin Radio with Suzi Weissman features conversations with leading thinkers and activists, with a focus on labor, the economy, and protest movements. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Découvrez comment la technologie transforme notre travail et notre rapport au travail.Durant tout l'été, profitez de nos REMIX ! Aujourd'hui : Laëtitia Vitaud (enregistré en juillet 2023)Laëtitia Vitaud est une spécialiste du futur du travail, elle est présidente du cabinet de conseil Cadre Noir, rédactrice en chef Welcome to the Jungle, conférencière, autrice (notamment En finir avec la productivité (2022), intervenante à HEC, Sciences Po, Dauphine et membre de l'Institut Montaigne.De l'impact de l'économie à la tâche sur la valeur du travail à la possibilité de la fin du travail tel que nous le connaissons aujourd'hui, la technologies impact et influence notre quotidien professionnel en venant questionner la pertinence de la fameuse "destruction créatrice" de Schumpeter. Les thèmes de cet épisode :Schumpeter a-t-il toujours raison ?Notre rapport à la valeur travailLa fin du travail tel qu'on l'a connu ? ---

In the 2nd episode of "Hammer Time" Ralph speaks about the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, his views on JD Vance as the VP pick, and why Joseph Schumpeter, not Karl Marx, should be the most influential economist of our time. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the1020/support

In unserem neuesten Video beleuchten wir die unterschiedliche wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Europa und den USA und geben euch wertvolle Einblicke, die euch bei euren Anlageentscheidungen unterstützen können. Johannes Mayr, Chefvolkswirt der Vermögensverwaltung Eyb & Wallwitz, erkennt einen grundlegenden Wandel in unserem Wirtschaftssystem – und nicht unbedingt zum Guten. Eine Wirtschaftspolitik, die jede Krise mit Unmengen an staatlichem Kapital abfedern möchte, sei weder tragbar noch sinnvoll, warnt der Experte. Doch wie können wir diese Herausforderungen überwinden? Welche Rolle spielen die Zentralbanken, insbesondere die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) und die Federal Reserve (Fed) in den USA? Mayr argumentiert, dass mehr Schöpferische Zerstörung nach Schumpeter in unserer Wirtschaftspolitik nötig wäre, um den Wirtschaftszyklen wieder mehr Schwung zu verleihen. Doch das ist noch nicht alles! Wir werfen auch einen Blick auf die geopolitischen Überlegungen und die langfristigen Auswirkungen globaler Konflikte auf den Handel und das wirtschaftliche Wachstum. Welche Rolle spielt die bevorstehende US-Präsidentschaftswahl? Und wie können wir die langfristigen Implikationen geopolitischer Verschiebungen in unsere Anlagestrategien einbeziehen?

The only way to “coast” is when you're going downhill. Even on a plateau, you have to pedal to keep moving. However, there is a way to “coast uphill.” To succeed, businesses must keep growing. And to keep growing, they must innovate. No business can grow simply by solving problems and “fixing” things (or, worse, blaming people). Problem-solving keeps you afloat, but it doesn't raise the water level or get you into a boat. There are three kinds of innovation, and we speak in this session about what they are, why they are important, and who exemplifies them. As social proof, we discuss avatars in these areas, from the Wright Brothers to Fred Smith and Jeff Bezos. Innovation is not the result of “skunk works,” outdoor experiences, or building sand castles. It is the result of a constant focus on improvement, finding promoting actions to enable it, and exploitative actions to capitalize on it. There was only running, no passing in football, until someone decided to try throwing the ball. The high jump was a standard competition with inches of difference until Dick Fosbury decided to jump over the bar head and back first, which everyone now does at much higher levels. How much more exciting is basketball with the advent of the three-point line? Schumpeter called innovation “creative destruction.” And I call it “applied creativity.” Learn why herein.

We are seeing Joseph Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction at work in higher education. The shake-up will continue.Original Article: Creative Destruction in American Higher Education: Schumpeter in Action

We are seeing Joseph Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction at work in higher education. The shake-up will continue.Original Article: Creative Destruction in American Higher Education: Schumpeter in Action

On this weeks Huddle +, Kevin welcomes back to the show, founder of View From The Peak, Paul Krake. They discuss the evolving landscape of AI, the energy transition, and the innovative fuel sources that could support it. Follow Paul on Substack:  https://www.twitter.com/Viewfromthepeak *Got questions for Kevin and Patrick? Submit your questions to: nostupidquestions@markethuddle.com Visit our merch store!!! https://www.themarkethuddlemerch.com/ To receive our emails with the charts and links each week, please register at: https://markethuddle.com/

Russell Sobel is a Professor of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the Baker school of Business at The Citadel and he just put out a new book with the Fraser Institute, The Essential Joseph Schumpeter. He has also written an introductory economics textbook and many, many papers on the economics of entrepreneurship. Today, we talk about what an entrepreneur is, what institutions ---both cultural and governmental --- uplift entrepreneurs, and why we want more entrepreneurs. He explains the work of the economist Joseph Schumpeter, walking us through his views on entrepreneurship to his pessimistic view that capitalism necessarily ends in socialism. We talk about ways to prevent that, if indeed we are on that path. Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Paolo Perulli"Anime creative"Da Prometeo a Steve JobsEdizioni il Mulinowww.mulino.itChi sono i creativi nell'epoca della conoscenza? Un viaggio nel tempo e nello spazio per capire come la creatività ha dato forma al mondo.Chi sono i creativi oggi, da dove vengono? Questo libro li colloca in una precisa genealogia: sono gli eredi di Prometeo e Faust, dell'uomo creatore di Nietzsche e dell'imprenditore innovativo di Schumpeter, delle avanguardie europee novecentesche e della grande migrazione in America, fino ai tecnologi visionari della Silicon Valley. In epoca recente, siamo rapidamente passati dall'uomo creatore, che inventa opere d'arte e d'ingegno singolari e risponde solo a sé stesso, alla classe creativa, che innova disegnando prodotti per i mercati da cui noi tutti dipendiamo. I creativi non sono una categoria privilegiata, piuttosto sono portatori di una condizione dello spirito che produce effetti universali e può dare speranza al mondo. Tuttavia, oggi non sanno di appartenere a tale tradizione e mancano di un canone. Come evitare che questa massima diffusione della creatività si trasformi in banalità, in serialità, nel vuoto creativo?Paolo Perulli, sociologo dell'economia, ha insegnato nelle Università del Piemonte Orientale, Venezia, Cambridge (Usa), Parigi, Lugano. Tra i suoi volumi «Terra mobile» (Einaudi, 2014), «Il debito sovrano. La fase estrema del capitalismo» (La Nave di Teseo, 2020). Per Il Mulino ha pubblicato «Nel 2050. Passaggio al nuovo mondo» (2021).IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarewww.ilpostodelleparole.itDiventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.

Dans cet épisode, l'économiste libéral progressiste Nicolas Bouzou fait bouillir nos cerveaux. Cette véritable tornade intellectuelle avec une plume trempée se fait remarquer lors de ses passages dans Le Figaro, Les Échos, et des face-à-face épiques dans des émissions comme "C dans l'air". Nicolas sait comment secouer le cocotier des conventions. Fondateur d'Asterès, il ne se contente pas de théoriser : il met aussi la main à la pâte. Nicolas se revendique libéral progressiste, un combattant pour l'équilibre, cherchant sans cesse à marier liberté individuelle et progrès social, assez loin des sentiers battus du libertarianisme ou du conservatisme poussiéreux. Pour lui, “la décroissance est une ineptie” et l'IA est un accélérateur pour l'humanité. Innover, c'est la nature de l'homme. Auteur de "Homo Sanitas", "La comédie (in)humaine" co-écrit avec Julia de Funès, "La France d'à peu près", et plus récemment, “La civilisation de la peur”, ses nombreux essais invitent à un réveil collectif. Nicolas Bouzou nous embarque dans sans sa pensée libérale progressiste et ouvre notre réflexion sur des sujets brûlants : L'économie peurs dans la civilisation occidentale (les médias marchands de peur, la menace de la technologie, la peur du migrant…) La méfiance de la France vis-à-vis de la mondialisation Décroissance et décarbonisation Préparez-vous pour un échange captivant qui explore comment l'IA va redéfinir notre civilisation, du travail à l'écologie en passant par la santé, les médias et l'éducation. TIMELINE : 00:00:00 - Qui est Nicolas Bouzou 00:15:30 - Libéralisme, néolibéralisme, et libertarianisme 00:33:30 - Comment les échelles de valeurs expliquent les disparités de régime entre les pays ? 00:38:00 : Pourquoi l'Europe est le “paradis du Terre” ? 00:40:00 : Les dysfonctionnements des services publics 00:47:00 : La menace de l'IA effraye les professions 00:59:10 : Faut-il vraiment avoir peur de l'IA ? 01:09:15 : Décarbonisation, décroissance et malthusianisme 01:32:00 La peur de l'étranger 01:47:20 : La surinformation et les marchands de peur 02:11:40 : La puissance des livres 02:32:00 : Le livre qui va sauver l'humanité 02:40:00 : Pourquoi la France a peur de la mondialisation ? 02:45:51 : Son échange avec l'enfant qu'il était Avec Nicolas nous avons cité d'anciens épisodes de GDIY : #327 Laurent Alexandre #256 Alain Weill #49 Joël Dicker #175 Maurice Levy Avec Nicolas, nous avons parlé de : Libéralisme, néolibéralisme, et libertarianisme (en France et dans le monde) Les peurs dans la civilisation occidentale (les médias marchands de peur, la menace de la technologie, la peur du migrant…) Les régimes politiques : théocratie, démocratie, régimes autoritaires Arcade IA Alexis De Tocqueville, Raymond Aron, Jean-François Revel, Karl Popper, Jacques Chaban-Delmas, Schumpeter, Thomas Malthus Soumission de Michel Houellebecq Les médias aujourd'hui Décroissance et décarbonisation Le monde de l'édition et de la lecture La France au centre de la mondialisation Nicolas vous recommande de lire : Comédie Inhumaine avec de Funes La civilisation de la Peur de Nicolas Bouzou Choisir, la liberté de Fernando Sapater La musique du générique vous plaît ? C'est à Morgan Prudhomme que je la dois ! Contactez-le sur : https://studio-module.com. Vous souhaitez sponsoriser Génération Do It Yourself ou nous proposer un partenariat ? Contactez mon label Orso Media via ce formulaire.

Concept forgé par le penseur et économiste Joseph Aloïs Schumpeter, la « destruction créatrice » désigne un processus lié à l'innovation technologique. (Vous le savez) Nombreux sont les métiers qui ont subitement disparu, au cours de l'Histoire. En effet, de nos jours, nous ne trouvons plus de cocher, de maréchal-ferrant, ou encore de rémouleur, alors que ces professions étaient encore très répandues il y a encore quelques siècles. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Concept forgé par le penseur et économiste Joseph Aloïs Schumpeter, la « destruction créatrice » désigne un processus lié à l'innovation technologique. (Vous le savez) Nombreux sont les métiers qui ont subitement disparu, au cours de l'Histoire. En effet, de nos jours, nous ne trouvons plus de cocher, de maréchal-ferrant, ou encore de rémouleur, alors que ces professions étaient encore très répandues il y a encore quelques siècles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TS Eliot wrote a very pithy essay, The Idea of A Christian Society which addresses something of what we have been talking about for several months: what is a civilization, and what must we do to retain it? Director Hodges and Ben Cumming discuss Eliot's essay, and consider definitions of some of the terms found in Schumpeter's book on Communism and Capitalism.

If you ever downloaded online videos since the year 2000, this man is who you should thank! This week I'm speaking with technologist and philosopher Jordan Hall (formerly Jordan Greenhall). Jordan was a founder of numerous early-internet companies including video codec company DivX. However, I got to know him through his contributions to a community known as “Game B”, which seeks to understand how human civilization can transform itself into a more sustainable, anti-rivalrous, win-win dynamic. Today's conversation is a philosophical and technical dive into the anthropological drivers of competition, complexity, centra and decentralization, and the role of AI in shaping a more Game B future.    JORDAN'S BIOGRAPHY: Jordan is now in his seventeenth year of building disruptive technology companies. First as an early employee crafting strategy and product for MP3.com, then at InterVU (acquired by Akamai) and then finally in 2000 launching and leading the online digital video revolution as founder and CEO of DivX. After somewhat successfully navigating two financial crises and an IPO (and going down in flames at Stage6), he left the helm at DivX to return his attention to the big picture. He tried his hand at capitalism – combining Angel investment at the sharp edge of the Schumpeter wave — with participation in a number of think tanks and institutes; most notably, the Aspen Institute and the Santa Fe Institute where he served on the Board of Trustees for five sweet years. This exposure led him to the conclusion that humanity is in the midst of a world historical transition which will likely kill all of us (see Mad Max) but just might end in a truly amazing future (see Star Trek). Getting there is going to require many things of us – most notably a significant upgrade of our individual and collective capacity for thought and action.   CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction 01:26 Childhood Games & Competition 07:14 Evolutionary Reason for Positive Externalities when Competing 11:45 What is Game B 26:42 Cybernetic control structures and the Culture Wars 32:10 Capitalism and Communism as two sides of the same coin 35:03 Why Game A is self-terminating 53:10 How to move toward a Game B society 58:50 How individuals can move towards Game B 01:03:18 The Hyperconversation and Collective Insight 01:06:10 Creating the next Collective Intelligence 01:10:10 How to protect against bad actors 01:18:35 How to cultivate more of a Game B lifestyle 01:30:35 Mental resilience against doom and negativity 01:38:20 AI as a tool against Moloch 01:42:27 What's next?   RELEVANT LINKS: ♾️  The Game B Wiki ♾️  Jordan Hall's Blog ♾️  The Secrets of Our Success - Joseph Heinrich ♾️  Understanding the Blue Church ♾️  Collective Insight Practices - Bonnitta Roy ♾️  The Medium is the Message - Marshall Mcluhan   CREDITS: ♾️  Hosted by: Liv Boeree ♾️  Produced & Edited by: Raymond Wei ♾️  Audio Mix by: Keir Schmidt

Hour 1 of the Thursday edition of The Armstrong & Getty Show features bit o' Schumpeter.  Plus--Joe deviates from Mailbag, Jack ponders the question of Biden's mental health as a national crisis & how Baltimore's public schools are failing the student.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 1 of the Thursday edition of The Armstrong & Getty Show features bit o' Schumpeter. Plus, Joe deviates from Mailbag, Jack ponders the question of Biden's mental health as a national crisis & how Baltimore's public schools are failing the student.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

مدرسهٔ آنلاین نزدیکتر حمایت من در سایت حامی ‌باش کانال یوتوب من برای آموزش زبان   ترجمه شفاهی : مصطفی شالچی Joe Dassin - L'été indien (1975)   II. TROIS ANS PLUS TARD À FORMENTERA   46. Jour J – 7 Casa Le Moult. Me voici à Formentera pour finir ce roman. Ce sera le dernier de la trilogie Marronnier (dans le premier, je tombais amoureux ; dans le second, je me mariais ; dans le troisième, je divorce et retombe amoureux. La boucle est bouclée). On a beau essayer d'innover dans la forme (mots étranges, anglicismes, tournures bizarroïdes, slogans publicitaires, etc.) comme dans le fond (nightclubbing, sexe, drogue, rock'n roll…) on se rend vite compte que tout ce qu'on voudrait, c'est écrire un roman d'amour avec des phrases très simples – bref, ce qu'il y a de plus difficile à faire. J'écoute le bruit de la mer. Je ralentis enfin. La vitesse empêche d'être soi. Ici les journées ont une durée lisible dans le ciel. Ma vie parisienne n'a pas de ciel. Pondre une accroche, faxer un article, répondre au téléphone, vite, courir de réunion en réunion, déjeuner sur le pouce, vite, vite, se grouiller en scooter pour arriver en retard à un cocktail. Mon existence absurde méritait bien un coup de frein. Se concentrer. Ne faire qu'une seule chose à la fois. Caresser la beauté du silence. Profiter de la lenteur. Entendre le parfum des couleurs. Tous ces trucs que le monde veut nous interdire. Tout est à refaire. Il faut tout réorganiser dans cette société. Aujourd'hui ceux qui ont de l'argent n'ont pas de temps, et ceux qui ont du temps n'ont pas d'argent. Échapper au travail est aussi difficile qu'échapper au chômage. L'oisif est l'ennemi public numéro un. On attache les gens avec l'argent : ils sacrifient leur liberté pour payer leurs impôts. Il devient de plus en plus évident que l'enjeu du siècle prochain sera de supprimer la dictature de l'entreprise. Formentera, petite île… Satellite d'Ibiza dans la constellation des Baléares. Formentera, c'est la Corse sans les bombes, Ibiza sans les boîtes, Moustique sans Mick Jagger, Capri sans Hervé Vilard, le Pays basque sans la pluie. Soleil blanc. Promenade en Vespa. Chaleur et poussière. Fleurs desséchées. Mer turquoise. Odeur des pins. Chant des grillons. Lézards trouillards. Moutons qui font mêêê. — Il n'y a pas de « mais », leur rétorque-je. Soleil rouge. Gambas a la plancha. Vamos a la playa. Lune orange. Gin con limon. Je cherchais l'apaisement, c'est ici, où il fait trop chaud pour écrire de longues phrases. On peut être en vacances ailleurs que dans le coma. La mer est remplie d'eau. Le ciel bouge sans cesse. Les étoiles filent. Respirer de l'air devrait toujours être une occupation à plein temps. C'est l'histoire d'un type qui s'enferme tout seul sur une île pour terminer un bouquin qui ne s'appelle pas Paludes. Le type mène une vie de dingue, cela lui fait tout drôle de se retrouver livré à lui-même, dans la nature, sans télévision, ni téléphone. À Paris, il est pressé, joue les dynamiques, ici ne bouge pas de la journée, se promène le soir, toujours seul. Barnabooth à Florence, Byron à Venise, le panda du zoo de Vincennes sont ses modèles. La seule personne à qui il dise bonjour est la serveuse de San Francesco. Le type porte une chemise noire, un Jean blanc, des Tod's. Boit des pastis et des gin-limon. Bouffe des chips et des tortillas. N'écoute qu'un seul disque : La Sonate à Kreutzer par Arthur Rubinstein. Hier on l'aurait même aperçu applaudir un but français dans le match France-Espagne, ce qui est de mauvais goût, mais courageux, quand on est le seul Français dans un bistrot, en Espagne, sur un port. Si vous croisiez ce type, vous penseriez sans doute : « Mais que fout ce con de Parisien à la Fonda Pepe hors saison ? » Cela me chagrine un peu, vu que le type en question, c'est moi. Alors, mettez-la un peu en veilleuse, merci. Je suis l'ermite qui sourit au vent tiède.   Dans une semaine cela fera trois ans que je vis avec Alice.     47.Jour J – 6 Bon, d'accord, quand Alice a quitté Antoine, puis quand nous avons déménagé pour vivre ensemble rue Mazarine (la rue où Antoine Blondin est mort), je ne vous cache pas qu'il m'arrivait d'être pris d'angoisse. Le bonheur est bien plus effrayant que le malheur. D'avoir obtenu ce que je désirais le plus au monde me combla de joie, et simultanément, me plongea dans le doute. Referais-je les mêmes erreurs ? N'étais-je qu'un romantique cyclique ? Maintenant qu'elle était là, en voulais-je vraiment ? Deviendrais-je trop tendre ? M'arrivait-il de m'ennuyer avec elle ? Quand est-ce que j'arrêterais de me prendre la tête, bordel de merde ? Antoine voulait me tuer, la tuer, se tuer. Notre couple se bâtissait sur les cendres d'un double divorce, comme s'il fallait se repaître de deux sacrifices humains pour construire un nouvel amour. Schumpeter appelait cela la « destruction créatrice », mais Schumpeter était économiste, et les économistes sont rarement des sentimentaux. Nous avons détruit deux mariages pour rester unis, tel le blob qui absorbe ses victimes pour s'agrandir. Le bonheur est une chose si monstrueuse que, si vous n'en crevez pas vous-même, il exigera de vous au moins quelques assassinats.   Jean-Georges est venu me rejoindre à Formentera. Ensemble, nous refaisons le monde, puis rendons visite aux poissons sous la mer. Il rédige une pièce de théâtre, et boit donc autant que moi.   Poème à lire en état d'ivresse : À Formentera Tu fermenteras.   Nous croisons de vieux couples de hippies défoncés, qui sont restés ensemble, ici, depuis les années soixante. Comment ont-ils fait pour tenir si longtemps ? J'en ai les larmes aux yeux. Je leur achète de l'herbe. Avec Jean-Georges, nous picolons dans les troquets, en jouant au billard. Il me raconte ses amours. Il vient de rencontrer la femme de sa vie, il est heureux, pour la première fois. — Aimer : nous ne vivons pour rien d'autre, dit-il. — Et faire des enfants ? — Pas question ! Donner naissance à quelqu'un dans un monde pareil ? Criminel ! Egoïste ! Narcissique ! — Moi, les femmes, je leur fais mieux qu'un enfant : je leur fais un livre, proclame-je en levant le doigt. Nous jetons des œillades à la serveuse. Elle est à croquer, porte un boléro, sa peau mate est légèrement duveteuse, grands yeux noirs, se tient cambrée, farouche comme une squaw. — Elle ressemble à Alice, dis-je. Si je couchais avec elle, je serais quand même fidèle. Alice est restée à Paris, et viendra me rejoindre ici dans une semaine.   Dans six jours cela fera trois ans que je vis avec elle.      

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is creating one of the worst disruptions to the supply of wheat since the first world war. As prices spike, the damage from this shock will ripple right across the world⁠—affecting corn, vegetable oil, fertilisers and many other agricultural products. Can other countries fill the shortfall and who will be worst affected? Henry Tricks, our Schumpeter columnist, asks The Economist's Matthieu Favas and Charlotte Howard how serious a food crisis the world is facing.Sign up for our new weekly newsletter dissecting the big themes in markets, business and the economy at economist.com/moneytalks For full access to print, digital and audio editions, subscribe to The Economist at www.economist.com/podcastoffer See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.