Podcasts about schumpeterian

My guest today is Eric von Hippel, Professor of Technological Innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Eric is the author of numerous academic articles and books, including Free Innovation, Democratizing Innovation, and The Sources of Innovation, all published by MIT Press and available for free. Eric has accumulated over 90,000 citations on Google Scholar and has received many awards, including the Schumpeter School Prize (2017)—a particularly interesting recognition given his work on non-Schumpeterian innovation.In our conversation, Eric and I explore the role of free innovation in today's economy. Eric highlights some of his favorite examples of free innovation and discusses how, despite being developed at personal cost, it is scaling at an impressive rate. We explore the mechanisms that best enable this scaling—whether through recognition, institutional support, IP protections, or alternative incentives. By the end of this talk, you will understand what free innovation is, how it develops, and how it interacts with producer innovation.You can follow me on X (@⁠ProfSchrepel⁠) and BlueSky (@⁠ProfSchrepel⁠) to receive regular updates.References:Sources of Innovation (1988) https://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www-old/books/sources/SofI.pdfDemocratizing Innovation (2005) https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/2425023/book_9780262285636.pdfFree Innovation (2016) https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/26044/1004041.pdf

In Episode 393 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Herman Mark Schwartz, a professor in the Politics department of the University of Virginia and the author of three books on economic development, globalization, and the geopolitics of the subprime mortgage crisis. Demetri and Mark discuss an article that he recently co-authored in American Affairs about AI's potential to create a new growth wave of creative destruction that could rival or surpass those of previous innovation cycles, with enormous implications for business, society, and the role of government in the economy. They discuss what these so-called “Schumpeterian” growth waves typically look like, how they create complex interactions across all facets of the economy, and how they ultimately exhaust themselves, making room for the birth of a new innovation cycle. In the second hour, Mark and Demetri apply this framework to the growth wave that we have been living through for more or less the last 50 years and which now appears to be in the late stages of endogenous decay. They examine three scenarios for what might come next. The first is an extension of the current wave, the second is a new paradigm driven by AI as the key general-purpose technology, and the third is neither an extension of the current wave nor a transition to a new paradigm, but rather a series of crises characterized by commodity shortages, energy insecurity, political polarization, and global conflict. You can subscribe to our premium content and access our premium feed, episode transcripts, and Intelligence Reports at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you want to join in on the conversation and become a member of the Hidden Forces Genius community, which includes Q&A calls with guests, access to special research and analysis, in-person events, and dinners, you can also do that on our subscriber page at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you enjoyed listening to today's episode of Hidden Forces, you can help support the show by doing the following: Subscribe on Apple Podcasts | YouTube | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | CastBox | RSS Feed Write us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Subscribe to our mailing list at https://hiddenforces.io/newsletter/ Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou Subscribe and Support the Podcast at https://hiddenforces.io Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas Episode Recorded on 12/02/2024

Vanha raha puolustaa, uusi hyökkää. Ovatko radikaalit innovaattorit vanhan pääoman suurin kauhu? Onko suvussa kulkeva omaisuus tuomittu vajoamaan tehottomuuteen - ja onko perintövero tästä huolimatta huono idea? M&A-podcastin vieraana on elinkeinoelämän Gandalf, talousvaikuttaja Björn Wahlroos. Hän ripittää sukuyritykset ja ennustaa EU:n hajoavan 30 vuodessa. Wahlroos sanoo, että Suomi on nyt pahemmassa kriisissä kuin 1990-luvulla, mutta että Suomen talouden nousukauteen on silti olemassa valmis, valaistu polku. Kirjallisuutta: Akcigit, U. & Van Reenen, J. (toim.), alkusanat Emmanuel Macron. The Economics of Creative Destruction: New Research on Themes from Aghion and Howitt. Harvard University Press, 2023, 784 sivua. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Bergeaud, A., Blundell, R., & Hémous, D. (2019). Innovation and top income inequality. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 1-45. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., & Howitt, P. (2014). What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory?. In Handbook of economic growth (Vol. 2, pp. 515-563). Elsevier. Deming, D. J. (2017). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(4), 1593-1640. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/132/4/1593/3861633 Labatut, Benjamin: Maailman kauhea vihreys. Tammi, 2023. Maliranta, M. (2021). ”Luova tuho” talouskasvussa sekä talouskasvun tutkimuksessa ja opetuksessa. Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja, 117(3), 472-476. https://www.taloustieteellinenyhdistys.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/KAK_3_2021_WEB-142-146.pdf Maliranta, M. (2023). Luovan tuhon taloustiede – kultakaivos osaavalle talouskasvun lähteiden louhijalle. Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja, 119(4), 382-385. Wahlroos, Björn (2023). Sateentekijät. Eräänlaiset päiväkirjat 1992−2001. Otava.

What technological and societal factors led to the rise of the large corporation in 20th-century America?Richard N. Langlois is an economics professor at the University of Connecticut and the author of the book The Corporation and the Twentieth Century: The History of American Business Enterprise. His work examines the economics of organizations, business history, and theories of firm performance and innovation. Richard and Greg discuss the rise and fall of the managerial era in American corporations, common misconceptions about antitrust laws, and companies' influence on the political system. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Why does Schumpeterian innovation work?47:35: In the real world, you have to learn how to produce things. And that knowledge is private information most of the time. And so, you learn how to make a car a certain way… [48:09] So, if you're always spending your time looking for new ideas, you're not going to get good at the things you're doing, or you can focus on the things that you're doing and get good at them, but then you're going to be bad at looking around…But in the end, I think it's the case that if you get really good at one thing, like operating systems or big office computing systems, just the fact of getting good at that, it's going to make it hard for you to be good at other things, especially at other things that are different from what you're doing because there's a lot of barriers there. The threat of antitrust can influence organizational decisions34:57: The threat of antitrust or other public policies can influence organizational division decisions inside a firm, often in ways that are inefficient or that maybe aren't the best way to do things.Do big firms control the government?50:22: Companies are very good at influencing the government when some narrow thing really affects them, like a tariff on something. But influencing the government in some general way—what the results show is that companies don't care. They'll give money to whoever's going to leave them alone.On considering how exogenous factors influence organizations, not just internal factors.05:43: We need to think more about the ways in which these exogenous factors influence internal organizations instead of only thinking about organization from an internal point of view. So, how do we organize? How do we manage? How should we structure it? We also want to think about what the external constraints on organizational forms are. It may lead us to create organizational forms that aren't the kinds that we would have chosen in a perfect world.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Alfred D. Chandler Jr.Joseph SchumpeterRonald CoaseOliver WilliamsonSherman Antitrust ActThe Folklore of Capitalism by Thurman Arnold and Reeve Robert BrennerDesign Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity by Carliss Baldwin and Kim ClarkGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at University of ConnecticutRichard N. Langlois on LinkedInHis Work:The Corporation and the Twentieth Century: The History of American Business Enterprise Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy Firms, Markets and Economic Change: A dynamic Theory of Business InstitutionsOther Scholarly Articles

Carlota Perez is a researcher who has studied hype cycles for much of her career. She's affiliated with the University College London, the University of Sussex, The Tallinn University of Technology in Astonia and has worked with some influential organizations around technology and innovation. As a neo-Schumpeterian, she sees technology as a cornerstone of innovation. Her book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital is a must-read for anyone who works in an industry that includes any of those four words, including revolutionaries.  Connecticut-based Gartner Research was founded by GideonGartner in 1979. He emigrated to the United States from Tel Aviv at three years old in 1938 and graduated in the 1956 class from MIT, where he got his Master's at the Sloan School of Management. He went on to work at the software company System Development Corporation (SDC), the US military defense industry, and IBM over the next 13 years before starting his first company. After that failed, he moved into analysis work and quickly became known as a top mind in the technology industry analysts. He often bucked the trends to pick winners and made banks, funds, and investors lots of money. He was able to parlay that into founding the Gartner Group in 1979.  Gartner hired senior people in different industry segments to aid in competitive intelligence, industry research, and of course, to help Wall Street. They wrote reports on industries, dove deeply into new technologies, and got to understand what we now call hype cycles in the ensuing decades. They now boast a few billion dollars in revenue per year and serve well over 10,000 customers in more than 100 countries.  Gartner has developed a number of tools to make it easier to take in the types of analysis they create. One is a Magic Quadrant, reports that identify leaders in categories of companies by a vision (or a completeness of vision to be more specific) and the ability to execute, which includes things like go-to-market activities, support, etc. They lump companies into a standard four-box as Leaders, Challengers, Visionaries, and Niche Players. There's certainly an observer effect and those they put in the top right of their four box often enjoy added growth as companies want to be with the most visionary and best when picking a tool. Another of Gartner's graphical design patterns to display technology advances is what they call the “hype cycle”. The hype cycle simplifies research from career academics like Perez into five phases.  * The first is the technology trigger, which is when a breakthrough is found and PoCs, or proof-of-concepts begin to emerge in the world that get press interested in the new technology. Sometimes the new technology isn't even usable, but shows promise.  * The second is the Peak of Inflated Expectations, when the press picks up the story and companies are born, capital invested, and a large number of projects around the new techology fail. * The third is the Trough of Disillusionment, where interest falls off after those failures. Some companies suceeded and can show real productivity, and they continue to get investment. * The fourth is the Slope of Enlightenment, where the go-to-market activities of the surviving companies (or even a new generation) begin to have real productivity gains. Every company or IT department now runs a pilot and expectations are lower, but now achievable. * The fifth is the Plateau of Productivity, when those pilots become deployments and purchase orders. The mainstream industries embrace the new technology and case studies prove the promised productivity increases. Provided there's enough market, companies now find success. There are issues with the hype cycle. Not all technologies will follow the cycle. The Gartner approach focuses on financials and productivity rather than true adoption. It involves a lot of guesswork around subjective, synthetical, and often unsystematic research. There's also the ever-resent observer effect. However, more often than not, the hype is seperated from the tech that can give organizations (and sometimes all of humanity) real productivity gains. Further, the term cycle denotes a series of events when it should in fact be cyclical as out of the end of the fifth phase a new cycle is born, or even a set of cycles if industries grow enough to diverge. ChatGPT is all over the news feeds these days, igniting yet another cycle in the cycles of AI hype that have been prevalent since the 1950s. The concept of computer intelligence dates back to the 1942 with Alan Turing and Isaac Asimov with “Runaround” where the three laws of robotics initially emerged from. By 1952 computers could play themselves in checkers and by 1955, Arthur Samuel had written a heuristic learning algorthm he called “temporal-difference learning” to play Chess. Academics around the world worked on similar projects and by 1956 John McCarthy introduced the term “artificial intelligence” when he gathered some of the top minds in the field together for the McCarthy workshop. They tinkered and a generation of researchers began to join them. By 1964, Joseph Weizenbaum's "ELIZA" debuted. ELIZA was a computer program that used early forms of natural language processing to run what they called a “DOCTOR” script that acted as a psychotherapist.  ELIZA was one of a few technologies that triggered the media to pick up AI in the second stage of the hype cycle. Others came into the industry and expectations soared, now predictably followed by dilsillusionment. Weizenbaum wrote a book called Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation in 1976, in response to the critiques and some of the early successes were able to then go to wider markets as the fourth phase of the hype cycle began. ELIZA was seen by people who worked on similar software, including some games, for Apple, Atari, and Commodore.  Still, in the aftermath of ELIZA, the machine translation movement in AI had failed in the eyes of those who funded the attempts because going further required more than some fancy case statements. Another similar movement called connectionism, or mostly node-based artificial neural networks is widely seen as the impetus to deep learning. David Hunter Hubel and Torsten Nils Wiesel focused on the idea of convultional neural networks in human vision, which culminated in a 1968 paper called  "Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex.” That built on the original deep learning paper from Frank Rosenblatt of Cornell University called "Principles of Neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the Theory of Brain Mechanisms" in 1962 and work done behind the iron curtain by Alexey Ivakhnenko on learning algorithms in 1967. After early successes, though, connectionism - which when paired with machine learning would be called deep learning when Rina Dechter coined the term in 1986, went through a similar trough of disillusionment that kicked off in 1970. Funding for these projects shot up after the early successes and petered out ofter there wasn't much to show for them. Some had so much promise that former presidents can be seen in old photographs going through the models with the statiticians who were moving into computing. But organizations like DARPA would pull back funding, as seen with their speech recognition projects with Cargegie Mellon University in the early 1970s.  These hype cycles weren't just seen in the United States. The British applied mathemetician James Lighthill wrote a report for the British Science Research Council, which was published in 1973. The paper was called “Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey” and analyzed the progress made based on the amount of money spent on artificial intelligence programs. He found none of the research had resulted in any “major impact” in fields that the academics had undertaken. Much of the work had been done at the University of Edinbourgh and funding was drastically cut, based on his findings, for AI research around the UK. Turing, Von Neumann, McCarthy, and others had either intentially or not, set an expectation that became a check the academic research community just couldn't cash. For example, the New York Times claimed Rosenblatt's perceptron would let the US Navy build computers that could “walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself, and be conscious of its existence” in the 1950s - a goal not likely to be achieved in the near future even seventy years later. Funding was cut in the US, the UK, and even in the USSR, or Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic. Yet many persisted. Languages like Lisp had become common in the late 1970s, after engineers like Richard Greenblatt helped to make McCarthy's ideas for computer languages a reality. The MIT AI Lab developed a Lisp Machine Project and as AI work was picked up at other schools like Stanford began to look for ways to buy commercially built computers ideal to be Lisp Machines. After the post-war spending, the idea that AI could become a more commercial endeavor was attractive to many. But after plenty of hype, the Lisp machine market never materialized. The next hype cycle had begun in 1983 when the US Department of Defense pumped a billion dollars into AI, but that spending was cancelled in 1987, just after the collapse of the Lisp machine market. Another AI winter was about to begin. Another trend that began in the 1950s but picked up steam in the 1980s was expert systems. These attempt to emulate the ways that humans make decisions. Some of this work came out of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, pioneered by Edward Feigenbaum. Some commercial companies took the mantle and after running into barriers with CPUs, by the 1980s those got fast enough. There were inflated expectations after great papers like Richard Karp's “Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems” out of UC Berkeley in 1972. Countries like Japan dumped hundreds of millions of dollars (or yen) into projects like “Fifth Generation Computer Systems” in 1982, a 10 year project to build up massively parallel computing systems. IBM spent around the same amount on their own projects. However, while these types of projects helped to improve computing, they didn't live up to the expectations and by the early 1990s funding was cut following commercial failures. By the mid-2000s, some of the researchers in AI began to use new terms, after generations of artificial intelligence projects led to subsequent AI winters. Yet research continued on, with varying degrees of funding. Organizations like DARPA began to use challenges rather than funding large projects in some cases. Over time, successes were found yet again. Google Translate, Google Image Search, IBM's Watson, AWS options for AI/ML, home voice assistants, and various machine learning projects in the open source world led to the start of yet another AI spring in the early 2010s. New chips have built-in machine learning cores and programming languages have frameworks and new technologies like Jupyter notebooks to help organize and train data sets. By 2006, academic works and open source projects had hit a turning point, this time quietly. The Association of Computer Linguistics was founded in 1962, initially as the Association for Machine Translation and Computational Linguistics (AMTCL). As with the ACM, they have a number of special interest groups that include natural language learning, machine translation, typology, natural language generation, and the list goes on. The 2006 proceedings on the Workshop of Statistical Machine Translation began a series of dozens of workshops attended by hundreds of papers and presenters. The academic work was then able to be consumed by all, inlcuding contributions to achieve English-to-German and Frnech tasks from 2014. Deep learning models spread and become more accessible - democratic if you will. RNNs, CNNs, DNNs, GANs.  Training data sets was still one of the most human intensive and slow aspects of machine learning. GANs, or Generative Adversarial Networks were one of those machine learning frameworks, initially designed by Ian Goodfellow and others in 2014. GANs use zero-sum game techniques from game theory to generate new data sets - a genrative model. This allowed for more unsupervised training of data. Now it was possible to get further, faster with AI.  This brings us into the current hype cycle. ChatGPT was launched in November of 2022 by OpenAI. OpenAI was founded as a non-profit in 2015 by Sam Altman (former cofounder of location-based social network app Loopt and former president of Y Combinator) and a cast of veritable all-stars in the startup world that included:  * Reid Hoffman, former Paypal COO, LinkedIn founder and venture capitalist. * Peter Thiel, former cofounder of Paypal and Palantir, as well as one of the top investors in Silicon Valley. * Jessica Livingston, founding partner at Y Combinator. * Greg Brockman, an AI researcher who had worked on projects at MIT and Harvard OpenAI spent the next few years as a non-profit and worked on GPT, or Generative Pre-trained Transformer autoregression models. GPT uses deep learning models to process human text and produce text that's more human than previous models. Not only is it capable of natural language processing but the generative pre-training of models has allowed it to take a lot of unlabeled text so people don't have to hand label weights, thus automated fine tuning of results. OpenAI dumped millions into public betas by 2016 and were ready to build products to take to market by 2019. That's when they switched from a non-profit to a for-profit. Microsoft pumped $1 billion into the company and they released DALL-E to produce generative images, which helped lead to a new generation of applications that could produce artwork on the fly. Then they released ChatGPT towards the end of 2022, which led to more media coverage and prognostication of world-changing technological breakthrough than most other hype cycles for any industry in recent memory. This, with GPT-4 to be released later in 2023. ChatGPT is most interesting through the lens of the hype cycle. There have been plenty of peaks and plateaus and valleys in artificial intelligence over the last 7+ decades. Most have been hyped up in the hallowed halls of academia and defense research. ChatGPT has hit mainstream media. The AI winter following each seems to be based on the reach of audience and depth of expectations. Science fiction continues to conflate expectations. Early prototypes that make it seem as though science fiction will be in our hands in a matter of weeks lead media to conjecture. The reckoning could be substantial. Meanwhile, projects like TinyML - with smaller potential impacts for each use but wider use cases, could become the real benefit to humanity beyond research, when it comes to everyday productivity gains. The moral of this story is as old as time. Control expectations. Undersell and overdeliver. That doesn't lead to massive valuations pumped up by hype cycles. Many CEOs and CFOs know that a jump in profits doesn't always mean the increase will continue. Some intentially slow expectations in their quarterly reports and calls with analysts. Those are the smart ones.

I stumbled across a Gavekal Research Daily Comment over the weekend with a really interesting table that I thought we could discuss today.Gavekal Research, if you don't know it, is a financial research firm that provides analysis and insights on global economies, markets and industries. It was founded in 1999 by Charles Gave, Anatole Kaletsky, and Louis-Vincent Gave, and is headquartered in Hong Kong. It is, the internet tells me, known for its holistic approach to analysis. Holistic is one of those corporate buzzwords that I never really know what it meant. Again the internet is our friend: in the context of financial analysis, holistic analysis refers to considering a wide range of factors, such as economic, political, and behavioural, in order to gain a full understanding of market developments. It is a way of looking at the big picture rather than just focusing on specific details or individual factors.Why didn't they just say “big picture”? Such is the equivocal financial world in which we live.In any case, Louis-Vincent's Gave's report is a compelling one. He describes how, roughly every decade or so, financial markets fall in love with a new narrative. This is something we have observed many times in the column. The 1970s were all about precious metals and energy. The 1980s went to Japan. The 1990s saw tech stocks take over and the 2000s were all about natural resources and extraordinary growth in China. The 2010s were all about tech.So what about the 2020s. What are they all about?What does the next decade have in store for investors? Gave suggests that there are three narratives each with a core idea: “The opening of new markets to capitalism (Ricardian growth), technological breakthroughs (Schumpeterian growth), or the fear that in the coming years there will not be enough for everyone (the Malthusian constraint).”Each time the narrative is persuasive and rooted in some truth, which is why it takes hold, but by the end of the cycle, valuations reach such extremes that they no longer make sense, a bear market sets in and a new narrative takes over. Asset allocation is everything, I have often argued - and it has been repeatedly proven that being int he right sector is more important than individual stock selection. All you have to do is shift from narrative to narrative. A lot easier said than done of course.But here is Gave's humdinger of a table.Share this amazing article.You can see how clearly the narrative has shifted with each decade. By the end of the 1970s six of the world's largest ten companies were oil companies. By the end of the next decade, just one of them was.By the end of the 1980s, eight of the world's largest ten companies were Japanese. By the end of the following decade, just two of them were.At the turn of the century, seven of the world's largest ten companies were tech related. By the end of the following decade, just two were.At the end of the noughties, seven of the world's largest companies were natural resource companies. By the end of the following decade, not one was.2022 seems to have marked the turning point. The Covid rallies in tech were the final spike in an amazing bull market. These are all huge companies that make the foundation on which portfolios are built. But how many of 2021's top ten will be there in ten years' time? Not more than two or three I wouldn't have thought.You have to hand it to Microsoft. It's been there three decades running. Perhaps that's because, in a way, as much as it is a tech stock it is also a patent holding company. Apple has also made that list twice. So mighty are these companies and so entrenched in their monopolies, it is very hard to envisage them not being so mighty in ten years' time.  But this is the world of tech. New inventions can come along that quickly make old monopolies redundant.In that regard, I've just been playing with a new Open AI chat bot that my son, who is at University in Bristol, put me on to and it's extraordinary. It can write essays. It wrote a biog that I am now going to use on my site - and it's a better biog than I've ever had. What the impact of it might be on, say, Google, who knows? The investment landscape has changed for goodGave says waiting for the Fed to cut rates and being long the likes of Nvidia or Alphabet makes “about as much sense as sitting in Tokyo in 1992 waiting for the Bank of Japan to cut rates in order to buy Industrial Bank of Japan.”In short, we are in a transitioning phase. What does the next decade have in store for us? Elsewhere Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital also argues that we are in a “Sea Change” - only the third we have seen in his career. That the model of success for the previous cycle is not going to work this time around. He suggests that the high leverage, asset owning, low-interest rate, low yield, low inflation models of the last cycle are behind us. The general landscape is much less optimistic. He suggests that stimulative rates are not coming anytime soon and that the base rate will remain in the 2-4% range. We are now in a full-return world, not a low-return world, and investors can get good returns from credit yield instruments -  high-yielding bonds and so on.What worked before will not work now. What works now might be something that hasn't worked for a long time.Commodities could be winners Gave meanwhile suggests emerging markets and commodities. Even with a China slowdown/lockdown, the Fed tightening and a surging US dollar, the S&P Goldman Sachs Commodities Index (S&P GCSI) has still returned 27%.This will be an even better story when these forces reverse - when China opens up, the Fed stops tightening and the US dollar rolls over. The GSCI has returned 27% mostly on the back of energy. Metals have been a rather different story. But with those three reversals in place - weak dollar, no more tightening and China open - the stage is set for metals.What do you think the next decade's narrative is going to be? It's there percolating somewhere. Malthusian, Ricardian or Schumpterian?Check out special report on helium, if you haven't already, and Dr John's latest on bonds. Both for paying subscribers, there is lots of valuable info to be had.Please consider subscribing.If you are interested in buying gold bullion, my current recommended bullion dealer in the UK is The Pure Gold Company, whether you are taking delivery or storing online. Premiums are low, quality of service is high. You can deal with a human being. I have an affiliation deals with them.Have you got you Kisses on a Postcard CDs yet?This article first appeared at Moneyweek. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

I stumbled across a Gavekal Research Daily Comment over the weekend with a really interesting table that I thought we could discuss today.Gavekal Research, if you don't know it, is a financial research firm that provides analysis and insights on global economies, markets and industries. It was founded in 1999 by Charles Gave, Anatole Kaletsky, and Louis-Vincent Gave, and is headquartered in Hong Kong. It is, the internet tells me, known for its holistic approach to analysis. Holistic is one of those corporate buzzwords that I never really know what it meant. Again the internet is our friend: in the context of financial analysis, holistic analysis refers to considering a wide range of factors, such as economic, political, and behavioural, in order to gain a full understanding of market developments. It is a way of looking at the big picture rather than just focusing on specific details or individual factors.Why didn't they just say “big picture”? Such is the equivocal financial world in which we live.In any case, Louis-Vincent's Gave's report is a compelling one. He describes how, roughly every decade or so, financial markets fall in love with a new narrative. This is something we have observed many times in the column. The 1970s were all about precious metals and energy. The 1980s went to Japan. The 1990s saw tech stocks take over and the 2000s were all about natural resources and extraordinary growth in China. The 2010s were all about tech.So what about the 2020s. What are they all about?What does the next decade have in store for investors? Gave suggests that there are three narratives each with a core idea: “The opening of new markets to capitalism (Ricardian growth), technological breakthroughs (Schumpeterian growth), or the fear that in the coming years there will not be enough for everyone (the Malthusian constraint).”Each time the narrative is persuasive and rooted in some truth, which is why it takes hold, but by the end of the cycle, valuations reach such extremes that they no longer make sense, a bear market sets in and a new narrative takes over. Asset allocation is everything, I have often argued - and it has been repeatedly proven that being int he right sector is more important than individual stock selection. All you have to do is shift from narrative to narrative. A lot easier said than done of course.But here is Gave's humdinger of a table.Share this amazing article.You can see how clearly the narrative has shifted with each decade. By the end of the 1970s six of the world's largest ten companies were oil companies. By the end of the next decade, just one of them was.By the end of the 1980s, eight of the world's largest ten companies were Japanese. By the end of the following decade, just two of them were.At the turn of the century, seven of the world's largest ten companies were tech related. By the end of the following decade, just two were.At the end of the noughties, seven of the world's largest companies were natural resource companies. By the end of the following decade, not one was.2022 seems to have marked the turning point. The Covid rallies in tech were the final spike in an amazing bull market. These are all huge companies that make the foundation on which portfolios are built. But how many of 2021's top ten will be there in ten years' time? Not more than two or three I wouldn't have thought.You have to hand it to Microsoft. It's been there three decades running. Perhaps that's because, in a way, as much as it is a tech stock it is also a patent holding company. Apple has also made that list twice. So mighty are these companies and so entrenched in their monopolies, it is very hard to envisage them not being so mighty in ten years' time.  But this is the world of tech. New inventions can come along that quickly make old monopolies redundant.In that regard, I've just been playing with a new Open AI chat bot that my son, who is at University in Bristol, put me on to and it's extraordinary. It can write essays. It wrote a biog that I am now going to use on my site - and it's a better biog than I've ever had. What the impact of it might be on, say, Google, who knows? The investment landscape has changed for goodGave says waiting for the Fed to cut rates and being long the likes of Nvidia or Alphabet makes “about as much sense as sitting in Tokyo in 1992 waiting for the Bank of Japan to cut rates in order to buy Industrial Bank of Japan.”In short, we are in a transitioning phase. What does the next decade have in store for us? Elsewhere Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital also argues that we are in a “Sea Change” - only the third we have seen in his career. That the model of success for the previous cycle is not going to work this time around. He suggests that the high leverage, asset owning, low-interest rate, low yield, low inflation models of the last cycle are behind us. The general landscape is much less optimistic. He suggests that stimulative rates are not coming anytime soon and that the base rate will remain in the 2-4% range. We are now in a full-return world, not a low-return world, and investors can get good returns from credit yield instruments -  high-yielding bonds and so on.What worked before will not work now. What works now might be something that hasn't worked for a long time.Commodities could be winners Gave meanwhile suggests emerging markets and commodities. Even with a China slowdown/lockdown, the Fed tightening and a surging US dollar, the S&P Goldman Sachs Commodities Index (S&P GCSI) has still returned 27%.This will be an even better story when these forces reverse - when China opens up, the Fed stops tightening and the US dollar rolls over. The GSCI has returned 27% mostly on the back of energy. Metals have been a rather different story. But with those three reversals in place - weak dollar, no more tightening and China open - the stage is set for metals.What do you think the next decade's narrative is going to be? It's there percolating somewhere. Malthusian, Ricardian or Schumpterian?Check out special report on helium, if you haven't already, and Dr John's latest on bonds. Both for paying subscribers, there is lots of valuable info to be had.Please consider subscribing.If you are interested in buying gold bullion, my current recommended bullion dealer in the UK is The Pure Gold Company, whether you are taking delivery or storing online. Premiums are low, quality of service is high. You can deal with a human being. I have an affiliation deals with them.Have you got you Kisses on a Postcard CDs yet?This article first appeared at Moneyweek. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

In 2017 or so, people started to assert that the FAANG companies—Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google—were unstoppable juggernauts. Lately that claim has taken some hard hits, as Facebook (now Meta) and Netflix, facing stiff competition, have seen their stock prices tumble. Adam Thierer, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, joins the show to discuss how the Schumpeterian “gale of creative destruction” unseats dominant market players, why government antitrust cases so often look foolish in hindsight, and why we should celebrate innovation (spoiler: it leads to progress and human betterment). Adam also discusses his book Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments. Corbin's piece on monkeys and double pendulums—mentioned around 20:30—is “Can Experts Structure Markets? Don't Count on It.”

Originally recorded on Friday, September 17, 2021 for the CID Speaker Series, featuring ​Philippe Aghion, Professor at the College de France, at INSEAD, and at the London School of Economics. Aghion continued the conversation with our CID Student Ambassador Ana Alvarez after an appearance at the virtual CID Speaker Series event where they shared insights from his research and book, The Power of Creative Destruction. Creative destruction is the process whereby new innovations displace old technologies. This talk will use the lens of creative destruction and of the so-called Schumpeterian growth paradigm to: (i) address some main enigma in the history of economic growth; (ii) question common wisdoms on growth policy design; (iii) rethink the future of capitalism, and how to direct the power of creative destruction to achieve sustained, greener, and more inclusive prosperity. Philippe Aghion is a Professor at the College de France, at INSEAD, and at the London School of Economics, and a fellow of the Econometric Society and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. His research focuses on the economics of growth. With Peter Howitt, he pioneered the so-called Schumpeterian Growth paradigm which was subsequently used to analyze the design of growth policies and the role of the state in the growth process. Much of this work is summarized in their joint book Endogenous Growth Theory (MIT Press, 1998) and The Economics of Growth (MIT Press, 2009), in his book with Rachel Griffith on Competition and Growth (MIT Press, 2006), and in his survey “What Do We Learn from Schumpeterian Growth Theory” (joint with U. Akcigit and P. Howitt.) In 2001, Philippe Aghion received the Yrjo Jahnsson Award of the best European economist under age 45, in 2009 he received the John Von Neumann Award, and in March 2020 he shared the BBVA “Frontier of Knowledge Award” with Peter Howitt for “developing an economic growth theory based on the innovation that emerges from the process of creative destruction.”

"Schumpeter would have loved Bitcoin. He would have seen in Bitcoin a living representation of his theory of capitalism, so often quoted but rarely understood. Creative destruction is the process by which capitalism continually rejuvenates itself. It is what drives markets forwards, constantly being refreshed with new ideas that destroy extant structures and erect better ones in their stead.” - Prateek Goorha & Andy Edstrom Today we are digging into the evolution of the economy and the cycles of creative destruction that the most significant innovations create in the economic order. What is Bitcoin in this view, and how might these cycles map onto of the cycles within the Bitcoin system itself? Check out the article, plus the others mentioned in today's episode for further exploring the cycles of Bitcoin, innovation, and society: The Schumpeterian Bitcoin Cycle: https://goorha.medium.com/the-schumpeterian-bitcoin-cycle-e79543443bdf Bitcoin and the Rhythms of History - By Brandon Quittem: https://bitcoinaudible.com/bitcoin-and-the-rhythms-of-history/ Check out our amazing sponsors below that keep this show alive, and all the things made audible for your listening pleasure! • The Fold Card will get you SATS BACK on EVERYTHING! You don't want to miss this with the Fold debit card, and gift card selection on the Fold App. Everything you already buy, except with sats back! Check them out at guyswann.com/fold for 5,000 free sats for signing up. • And the BitBox02 hardware wallet for keeping those sats SAFE! You need a secure, intuitive way to hold your digital money in a digital vault. That's the BitBox02 hardware wallet. Get 5% off with discount code "GUY" at guyswann.com/bitbox Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoinaudible/message

"Schumpeter would have loved Bitcoin. He would have seen in Bitcoin a living representation of his theory of capitalism, so often quoted but rarely understood. Creative destruction is the process by which capitalism continually rejuvenates itself. It is what drives markets forwards, constantly being refreshed with new ideas that destroy extant structures and erect better ones in their stead.” - Prateek Goorha & Andy Edstrom Today we are digging into the evolution of the economy and the cycles of creative destruction that the most significant innovations create in the economic order. What is Bitcoin in this view, and how might these cycles map onto of the cycles within the Bitcoin system itself? Check out the article, plus the others mentioned in today's episode for further exploring the cycles of Bitcoin, innovation, and society: The Schumpeterian Bitcoin Cycle: https://goorha.medium.com/the-schumpeterian-bitcoin-cycle-e79543443bdf Bitcoin and the Rhythms of History - By Brandon Quittem: https://bitcoinaudible.com/bitcoin-and-the-rhythms-of-history/ Check out our amazing sponsors below that keep this show alive, and all the things made audible for your listening pleasure! • The Fold Card will get you SATS BACK on EVERYTHING! You don't want to miss this with the Fold debit card, and gift card selection on the Fold App. Everything you already buy, except with sats back! Check them out at guyswann.com/fold for 5,000 free sats for signing up. • And the BitBox02 hardware wallet for keeping those sats SAFE! You need a secure, intiutive way to hold your digital money in a digital vault. That's the BitBox02 hardware wallet. Get 5% off with discount code "GUY" at guyswann.com/bitbox Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The scientific method has served us well to date. The entrepreneurial method, informed by the principles of Austrian economics, can take society much further. Dr. Saras Sarasvathy joins the Economics For Business podcast to distill the essence of the value generating and wealth producing method. Download our knowledge graphic for the Entrepreneurial Method: Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF There is an entrepreneurial method — a systematic way to achieve the unpredictable. The scientific method aims to discover universal laws that make the future predictable. If we have enough scientific understanding we can, for example, build bridges that we can predict will not collapse. We can construct an entire scientific infrastructure in our society. The entrepreneurial method aims higher, at human flourishing. It aims at discovering how we can all work together to achieve our human purpose, including new purposes that we all agree are worth achieving. We can construct an entrepreneurial structure to build a better human life and a better society. Entrepreneurs choose a control strategy that's appropriate to uncertainty. Some people fear entrepreneurship because its outcomes are uncertain. But this is worrying about the wrong things: outcomes are outside your control. Entrepreneurs are more discerning about what can be controlled: means. Dr. Sarasvathy lists several control strategies: The Bird-In-The-Hand Principle: work with what you've got and can control, which she sums up in the questions: Who Am I? What Do I Know? Whom Do I Know? What resources do I own or control now? This is the first principle of control. Affordable Loss Principle: Entrepreneurs can control their downside, making it affordable and limiting uncertainty, by asking “What one value generation project would I undertake even if I risk losing everything I invest In it?” Crazy Quilt Principle: How do entrepreneurs control the uncertain process of identifying the right partners, including hiring the right people? They don't try to predict the results of hiring and pitching. Instead, don't hire, don't ask. Just talk to people — those who fit best will self-select into your project. Lemonade Principle: Don't fear the unexpected. Welcome surprises. All unexpected happenings are opportunities and can become resources. Leverage contingency, and make lemonade out of lemons. The Pilot Is The Plane Principle: Everyone on the plane is a pilot, co-engaged in shaping history. The plane will reach a destination, the exact nature of which is unclear, and everyone on the plane contributes to getting there. There are some guidelines that entrepreneurs have established over time. Non-Predictive Action Is The Driver Everything in the entrepreneurial method is driven by action. Or, more completely, action, interaction and reaction. Things you care about, things you can actually do, things we can do together, and how we handle surprises. Interacting with the environment with a sense of purpose, and thereby changing it in some way. Even-If Thinking Our aspirations and the outcomes we experience may not be symmetrical. Not succeeding is not the same as failing. Even if a new idea does not work out, what is the worst that can happen? We shouldn't make decisions just because we can't predict the future. Embrace the unpredictable but make sure the downside is under your control. Intersubjectivity The great productivity of entrepreneurship comes from intersubjectivity — two or more people can interact and come up with something neither one had actually thought about or dealt with or considered or contemplated before. Intersubjectivity is more than interpersonal and beyond negotiation. It's a question: “I am doing this. What do you think?” The Entrepreneurial Method leads to social good and a new role for business in society. A side effect of everyone in society learning the scientific method was the emergence of the middle class, defined by income. Science brought productivity which enabled a large swath of society to earn enough money to escape poverty. Everyone was able to harness science. Let's teach everyone the entrepreneurial method. Let everyone start companies, grow companies, invest in companies, all with no thought of prediction. A middle class of business will emerge, defined not by income but by venturing. This middle class will produce more jobs and more enduring, more stable companies, embedded in strong communities, with greater well-being and less churn. The fruits of creativity take root in endurance and durability — not in Schumpeterian creative destruction — and contribute to stability and the taking on of bigger challenges. Decade after decade, the middle class of business will generate value and produce wealth, employing lots of people and educating successive generations to take the entrepreneurial method with them into a better future. Additional Resources "The Entrepreneurial Method" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF Among the innovations planned for the Economics For Business platform is a series of encapsulations of important research papers. Here is a sample: "The World-Making Scope Of The Entrepreneurial Method — An Encapsulation" By Gabriele Marasti (Original paper: "The Middle Class Of Business"): Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF2 Some links: Effectual Entrepreneurship (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_Book "What Makes Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial?" (PDF) Mises.org/E4B_131_Paper "Entrepreneurship As Method: Open Questions for an Entrepreneurial Future" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_Article

The scientific method has served us well to date. The entrepreneurial method, informed by the principles of Austrian economics, can take society much further. Dr. Saras Sarasvathy joins the Economics For Business podcast to distill the essence of the value generating and wealth producing method. Download our knowledge graphic for the Entrepreneurial Method: Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF There is an entrepreneurial method — a systematic way to achieve the unpredictable. The scientific method aims to discover universal laws that make the future predictable. If we have enough scientific understanding we can, for example, build bridges that we can predict will not collapse. We can construct an entire scientific infrastructure in our society. The entrepreneurial method aims higher, at human flourishing. It aims at discovering how we can all work together to achieve our human purpose, including new purposes that we all agree are worth achieving. We can construct an entrepreneurial structure to build a better human life and a better society. Entrepreneurs choose a control strategy that's appropriate to uncertainty. Some people fear entrepreneurship because its outcomes are uncertain. But this is worrying about the wrong things: outcomes are outside your control. Entrepreneurs are more discerning about what can be controlled: means. Dr. Sarasvathy lists several control strategies: The Bird-In-The-Hand Principle: work with what you've got and can control, which she sums up in the questions: Who Am I? What Do I Know? Whom Do I Know? What resources do I own or control now? This is the first principle of control. Affordable Loss Principle: Entrepreneurs can control their downside, making it affordable and limiting uncertainty, by asking “What one value generation project would I undertake even if I risk losing everything I invest In it?” Crazy Quilt Principle: How do entrepreneurs control the uncertain process of identifying the right partners, including hiring the right people? They don't try to predict the results of hiring and pitching. Instead, don't hire, don't ask. Just talk to people — those who fit best will self-select into your project. Lemonade Principle: Don't fear the unexpected. Welcome surprises. All unexpected happenings are opportunities and can become resources. Leverage contingency, and make lemonade out of lemons. The Pilot Is The Plane Principle: Everyone on the plane is a pilot, co-engaged in shaping history. The plane will reach a destination, the exact nature of which is unclear, and everyone on the plane contributes to getting there. There are some guidelines that entrepreneurs have established over time. Non-Predictive Action Is The Driver Everything in the entrepreneurial method is driven by action. Or, more completely, action, interaction and reaction. Things you care about, things you can actually do, things we can do together, and how we handle surprises. Interacting with the environment with a sense of purpose, and thereby changing it in some way. Even-If Thinking Our aspirations and the outcomes we experience may not be symmetrical. Not succeeding is not the same as failing. Even if a new idea does not work out, what is the worst that can happen? We shouldn't make decisions just because we can't predict the future. Embrace the unpredictable but make sure the downside is under your control. Intersubjectivity The great productivity of entrepreneurship comes from intersubjectivity — two or more people can interact and come up with something neither one had actually thought about or dealt with or considered or contemplated before. Intersubjectivity is more than interpersonal and beyond negotiation. It's a question: “I am doing this. What do you think?” The Entrepreneurial Method leads to social good and a new role for business in society. A side effect of everyone in society learning the scientific method was the emergence of the middle class, defined by income. Science brought productivity which enabled a large swath of society to earn enough money to escape poverty. Everyone was able to harness science. Let's teach everyone the entrepreneurial method. Let everyone start companies, grow companies, invest in companies, all with no thought of prediction. A middle class of business will emerge, defined not by income but by venturing. This middle class will produce more jobs and more enduring, more stable companies, embedded in strong communities, with greater well-being and less churn. The fruits of creativity take root in endurance and durability — not in Schumpeterian creative destruction — and contribute to stability and the taking on of bigger challenges. Decade after decade, the middle class of business will generate value and produce wealth, employing lots of people and educating successive generations to take the entrepreneurial method with them into a better future. Additional Resources "The Entrepreneurial Method" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF Among the innovations planned for the Economics For Business platform is a series of encapsulations of important research papers. Here is a sample: "The World-Making Scope Of The Entrepreneurial Method — An Encapsulation" By Gabriele Marasti (Original paper: "The Middle Class Of Business"): Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF2 Some links: Effectual Entrepreneurship (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_Book "What Makes Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial?" (PDF) Mises.org/E4B_131_Paper "Entrepreneurship As Method: Open Questions for an Entrepreneurial Future" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_Article

The scientific method has served us well to date. The entrepreneurial method, informed by the principles of Austrian economics, can take society much further. Dr. Saras Sarasvathy joins the Economics For Business podcast to distill the essence of the value generating and wealth producing method. Download our knowledge graphic for the Entrepreneurial Method: Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF There is an entrepreneurial method — a systematic way to achieve the unpredictable. The scientific method aims to discover universal laws that make the future predictable. If we have enough scientific understanding we can, for example, build bridges that we can predict will not collapse. We can construct an entire scientific infrastructure in our society. The entrepreneurial method aims higher, at human flourishing. It aims at discovering how we can all work together to achieve our human purpose, including new purposes that we all agree are worth achieving. We can construct an entrepreneurial structure to build a better human life and a better society. Entrepreneurs choose a control strategy that's appropriate to uncertainty. Some people fear entrepreneurship because its outcomes are uncertain. But this is worrying about the wrong things: outcomes are outside your control. Entrepreneurs are more discerning about what can be controlled: means. Dr. Sarasvathy lists several control strategies: The Bird-In-The-Hand Principle: work with what you've got and can control, which she sums up in the questions: Who Am I? What Do I Know? Whom Do I Know? What resources do I own or control now? This is the first principle of control. Affordable Loss Principle: Entrepreneurs can control their downside, making it affordable and limiting uncertainty, by asking “What one value generation project would I undertake even if I risk losing everything I invest In it?” Crazy Quilt Principle: How do entrepreneurs control the uncertain process of identifying the right partners, including hiring the right people? They don't try to predict the results of hiring and pitching. Instead, don't hire, don't ask. Just talk to people — those who fit best will self-select into your project. Lemonade Principle: Don't fear the unexpected. Welcome surprises. All unexpected happenings are opportunities and can become resources. Leverage contingency, and make lemonade out of lemons. The Pilot Is The Plane Principle: Everyone on the plane is a pilot, co-engaged in shaping history. The plane will reach a destination, the exact nature of which is unclear, and everyone on the plane contributes to getting there. There are some guidelines that entrepreneurs have established over time. Non-Predictive Action Is The Driver Everything in the entrepreneurial method is driven by action. Or, more completely, action, interaction and reaction. Things you care about, things you can actually do, things we can do together, and how we handle surprises. Interacting with the environment with a sense of purpose, and thereby changing it in some way. Even-If Thinking Our aspirations and the outcomes we experience may not be symmetrical. Not succeeding is not the same as failing. Even if a new idea does not work out, what is the worst that can happen? We shouldn't make decisions just because we can't predict the future. Embrace the unpredictable but make sure the downside is under your control. Intersubjectivity The great productivity of entrepreneurship comes from intersubjectivity — two or more people can interact and come up with something neither one had actually thought about or dealt with or considered or contemplated before. Intersubjectivity is more than interpersonal and beyond negotiation. It's a question: “I am doing this. What do you think?” The Entrepreneurial Method leads to social good and a new role for business in society. A side effect of everyone in society learning the scientific method was the emergence of the middle class, defined by income. Science brought productivity which enabled a large swath of society to earn enough money to escape poverty. Everyone was able to harness science. Let's teach everyone the entrepreneurial method. Let everyone start companies, grow companies, invest in companies, all with no thought of prediction. A middle class of business will emerge, defined not by income but by venturing. This middle class will produce more jobs and more enduring, more stable companies, embedded in strong communities, with greater well-being and less churn. The fruits of creativity take root in endurance and durability — not in Schumpeterian creative destruction — and contribute to stability and the taking on of bigger challenges. Decade after decade, the middle class of business will generate value and produce wealth, employing lots of people and educating successive generations to take the entrepreneurial method with them into a better future. Additional Resources "The Entrepreneurial Method" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF Among the innovations planned for the Economics For Business platform is a series of encapsulations of important research papers. Here is a sample: "The World-Making Scope Of The Entrepreneurial Method — An Encapsulation" By Gabriele Marasti (Original paper: "The Middle Class Of Business"): Mises.org/E4B_131_PDF2 Some links: Effectual Entrepreneurship (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_Book "What Makes Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial?" (PDF) Mises.org/E4B_131_Paper "Entrepreneurship As Method: Open Questions for an Entrepreneurial Future" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_131_Article

On this episode of Fault Lines, host Shane Stranahan is joined by producer Austin Pelli to talk about the mass land purchases from Blackwater Real Estate, the effects of Covid on the mindset of the upper middle class, the allegations against Dianne Morales, notable remarks from the G7 meeting in Cornwall, the future state of Israel after the ousting of Benjamin Netanyahu, and an analysis of propaganda and public resilience against national narratives.Guests:Mark Frost - Economist, professor, consultant, drummer, eagle scout, marine, capitalist, Schumpeterian and 'recovering' libertarian | Blackwater Real Estate Purchases & Covid Squeeze on the Upper Middle ClassChris Smalls - Activist and organizer known for staging a walkout on Amazon | Falling Out with Dianne Morales Peter Oliver - EU corresponded for RT International | Resolutions From the G7 MeetingMiko Peled - Human Rights Activist and Author | Israel post Netanyahu Noam Chomsky - American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activistIn the first hour Shane Stranahan and Austin Pelli talked with Mark Frost about the buying tactics of Blackwater Real Estate and the wealthy in the country being able to secure their wealth with minimal work in return.In the second hour Fault Lines was joined by Chris Smalls regarding the recent allegations against Dianne Morales. We were also joined by Peter Oliver who helped showcase some of the highlights from the G7 summit meeting in Cornwall. Finally, Miko Peled also came on the show to talk about the governing state of Israel now that Netanyahu has been voted out.In the third hour we were joined by famed linguist and political activist and intellectual Professor Noam Chomsky to discuss how propaganda works, how the state responds to pushback against its narratives, and the treatment of public intellectuals over the 20th century.

When markets are dynamic, it's important that firms become dynamic too. Listening and understanding what's going on in the environment, outlining what the opportunities are, what the threats are is extremely important. Host Greg LaBlanc and Organizational Economist, David Teece unpack his Dynamic Capabilities Framework.In this episode, David and Greg tackle the importance of making sense of the organization's learning, formulating a view of what this means for your investment behavior, quickly deciding and investing behind those opportunities, or protecting against those threats. When the economic and entrepreneurial activities revolve around innovation and market power, these things will help firms pivot quickly.Tune in to the end as they talk about the Schumpeterian model and what Neo-Brandesian can learn from an innovative and entrepreneurial-centric economy. Make sure you're all ears to understand the basic assumptions of the dynamic capabilities framework. Pick up ideas on how your organization's core competencies can be used to modify short-term competitive positions, later on using them to build a longer-term competitive advantage.Episode Quotes:What are Dynamic Capabilities?“I've found it useful to begin describing dynamic capabilities by telling you what it's not. First of all, it's a capability but there are ordinary capabilities, which we all know: we can walk, we can talk, and organizations can do certain things. Those very important capabilities. If there are other kinds that result in you getting everyday work done, it's ordinary capabilities. When it's about change and when it's about actually figuring out what the next big thing is and effectuating change, that's a capability that I call dynamic.”On R&D and Capturing Value Within Firms:“If you're really an innovative firm there's enormous spillovers that are being produced and the capturing value approach which I've developed is about how do you capture the biggest share of the spillovers. Because that way, you get the rewards higher and you can continue to invest more in research and development and in discovery. And this is another area where I think economics has not paid sufficient attention. There's a sort of assumption that if you invent something everything's patentable and protectable when it's not.”Why is doing the best form of learning?“I do think that in a world of deep uncertainty, you're never going to know the answer through market research. You never gonna know the answer with certainty at any point in time. So you've got to start and that's the whole lean startup idea. In doubt, do. Why? Because you'll learn and then you can adjust and pivot.”Show Links:David Teece Official Dynamic Capabilities WebsiteDavid Teece on LinkedInDavid Teece Profile on U.C. Berkeley Haas School of BusinessOrder Book: Competing Through Innovation: Technology Strategy and Antitrust PoliciesOrder Bool: Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic ManagementOrder Book: Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy DimensionsOrder Book: Economic Performance and the Theory of the Firm: Selected Papers of David J. TeeceOrder Book: Strategy, Technology and Public Policy: v. 2: Selected Papers of David J.TeeceOrder Book: The Multinational Corporation and the Resource Cost of International Technology Transfer

On today's episode of Fault Lines, host Shane Stranahan and guest co-host Garland Nixon discussed a variety of topics, including Trump and Biden heading to Pennsylvania for 9/11, Latin American foreign policy, sanctions against Iran, and how algorithms relate to politics. GUESTSLeo Flores - Political Analyst and Latin America Campaign Coordinator at Code Pink | Good Neighbors or the Monroe DoctrineDaniel Lazare - Journalist, author of several books about the US Constitution and American urban policy | Sanctions Against IranMark Frost - Economist, professor, consultant, drummer, Eagle Scout, Marine, capitalist, Schumpeterian, recovering libertarian | Politics and AlgorithmsIn the first hour, Shane and Garland discussed the economic consequences of the COVID-19 response and whether or not Trump is to blame. Then the hosts were joined by Leo Flores, who spoke about a letter he co-wrote to Medea Benjamin urging the Biden and Trump campaigns to adopt a good neighbor policy with Latin America. He talked about the history of ‘gunboat” diplomacy by the United States in the Caribbean and Latin America and said that he and Medea wanted to lay out a positive vision for what US policy could look like. He cited the writings of figures like anti-war General Smedley Butler and said it's a shame that politics have come down to a pure power grab for the region and that voters in Florida have too much interest. He also discussed the problems with US militarizing the police in Latin America to fight drugs, and used recent rioting in Columbia as an example and said the drug war has been a disaster for the region. In the second hour, Garland and Shane talked to Daniel Lazare, and they discussed the dysfunction in American politics and sanctions against Iran. Lazare used the blaming Iran for the 9/11 terror attack as an example and pointed out how both Democrats and Republicans do it. He discussed the formalistic and stylized disclosure in Congressional debates and how Americans eschew debate and don't often consider the information outside of very narrow confines. Daniel discussed how the United States policy of imposing sanctions has backfired and how the U.S. sanctions were repudiated by the United Nations. Daniel said that the United States policy is actually making the Iranian regime look good and said that the anti-Shah movement resulted in the religious coup in the 1970s.In the third hour, Shane and Garland were joined by Mark Frost, and they discussed the role of outlying information in algorithms and how that relates to US politics, particularly to the Black Lives Matter protests, which he said have been taken over by white thugs. He named several possible causes of the riots: Donald Trump, Ted Wheeler, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the educational system, and things George Bush did. Then he talked about how he was skeptical of the Iraq invasion when it happened because he had been studying these types of algorithms. They also discussed distribution of land, property rights, and government-imposed shutdowns.

Tuloerot ovat poliittisen keskustelun suosituin lyömäase. Vasen puoli ei tiedä mitä oikea selittää, ja samaan aikaan oikeiden ihmisten oikeat ongelmat jäävät yleistävän kinaamisen alle. Talouspoliittinen podcast A/M palaa kesätauolta ja palauttaa järjen tuloeropuheisiin. Matti Apunen ja Mika Maliranta paljastavat miten innovaatiot liittyvät asiaan ja miksi rikasta ei aina pidä lyödä. A/M kertoo myös, osuiko keväällä muotoiltu valtion koronatuki maaliin. Pelastuivatko työpaikat vai oliko tuloksena väärän joukon tekohengitys? Lisäksi mukana on keittiöfilosofinen keskustelu pizzan muodosta. Materiaalia: Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Bergeaud, A., Blundell, R. ja Hémous, D. (2019), "Innovation and top income inequality", The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 1-45. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Hyytinen, A. ja Toivanen, O. (2018). On the Returns to Invention within Firms: Evidence from Finland. Kokouspaperi, AEA Papers and Proceedings. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N. ja Stepner, M. (2020), "How did covid-19 and stabilization policies affect spending and employment? a new real-time economic tracker based on private sector data", National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 0898-2937.  Autor, D., Cho, D., Crane, L. D., Goldar, M., Lutz, B., Montes, J., et al. (2020), "An Evaluation of the Paycheck Protection Program Using Administrative Payroll Microdata", Working Paper, MIT July. Jones, C. I. ja Kim, J. (2018), "A Schumpeterian model of top income inequality", Journal of Political Economy, 126(5), 1785-1826. Toivanen, O. ja Väänänen, L. (2016), "Education and Invention", The Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(2), 382-396. Kalevi Sorsa Säätiö: Eriarvoisuuden tila Suomessa 2020 EVA: Me olemme keskiluokka (pdf) EMBA News – Korona-kriisi ja yrittäjyys

For today's episode, we discuss urban planning with Alain Bertaud, senior research scholar at NYU's Marron Institute and the author of Order without Design: How Markets Shape Cities. Our conversation covers many subtopics under the central theme of the processes that allow cities to come into being and be maintained. Cities – healthy ones at least – are in essence the products of spontaneity, compositions of ever-changing movements dictated by the connections between the people who live in them, and we consider how planning can accommodate this reality. One of Alain's central hypotheses is that labor markets are the foundation of cities and the idea that good transport and service-based approaches to planning will produce healthier labor markets. This idea penetrates much of the conversation with Alain today and we hear his thoughts on topics like which cities had labor markets and which didn't, why some cities die and others keep surviving, why some shape history and others don't, the best ancient cities, and how one might approach the construction of a master-planned city. We consider two models that mayors could follow, that of the janitor and that of the CEO, with one focusing on service and the other, a grand vision. We consider which of these two models best serve cities concerning their fundamentally spontaneous nature. Alain also weighs in on the idea of negative property rights, Haussmannian and Schumpeterian approaches to planning, and the future of transportation in relation to a city's ability to develop organically. We wrap our conversation up with a focus on charter cities, looking at how to fill up a space that is not a destination in and of itself yet. Catch our conversation today for wide-ranging and incisive observations on the nature of cities with our wonderful guest. Key Points From This Episode: •   A definition of labor markets as places of freedom to select your job or employee. •   The idea that labor markets are the foundation of cities. •   Examples of cities not based on labor markets where workers had no choice regarding work. •   A planning error: placing housing next to jobs, thus threatening the labor market. •   US and Chinese cluster cities/fragmented labor markets; integrating them using transport. •   The limits of the bus/drive/subway system to cope with urban sprawl. •   Getting past oversimplified understandings of cities having one industry like tech or finance. •   A conception of a mayor's job as being to enable rather than direct a city's labor market. •   How land use is not recycled in non-labor market cities in China and the Soviet Union. •   New transport models like Uber and Hyperloop, which have the power to change future cities. •   Whether coronavirus' high toll on dense places will stop them from existing in the future. •   A consumer's right to make tradeoffs between commute time and floor space area. •   The best ancient cities and Alain's belief that different cities are preferable to different people. •   Important contributions Haussmann made to Paris' navigability, notwithstanding his motives. •   Freedom, exchange, commerce, and why some cities produce a higher cultural output. •   An argument for having large municipalities for coordinating efforts more effectively. •   Paralysis caused by a dilution of property rights and elevation of negative property rights. •   Pros and cons of China's good technicians operating within a command economy. •   Why informal economies exist and how some have been absorbed by formal ones. •   Reasons why some cities collapse: bad management, changing trade routes, and more. •   Alain's book's Support this podcast

In this episode I talk to Gary Bradski about the creation of OpenCV, Willow Garage, and how to get around institutional roadblocks. Gary is perhaps best known as the creator of OpenCV - an open source tool that has touched almost every application that involves computer vision - from cat-identifying AI, to strawberry-picking robots, to augmented reality. Gary has been part of Intel Research, Stanford (where he worked on Stanley, the self driving car that won the first DARPA grand challenge), Magic Leap, and started his own Startups. On top of that Gary was early at Willow Garage - a private research lab that produced two huge innovations in robotics: The open source robot operating system and the pr2 robot. Gary has a track record of seeing potential in technologies long before they appear on the hype radar - everything from neural networks to computer vision to self-driving cars.  Key Takeaways Aligning incentives inside of organizations is both essential and hard for innovation. Organizations are incentivized to focus on current product lines instead of Schumpeterian long shots. Gary basically had to do incentive gymnastics to get OpenCV to exist. In research organization there's an inherent tension between pressure to produce and exploration. I love Gary's idea of a slowly decreasing salary. Ambitious projects are still totally dependent on a champion. At the end of the day, it means that every ambitious project has a single point of failure. I wonder if there's a way to change that. Notes Gary on Twitter The Embedded Vision Alliance Video of Stanley winning the DARPA Grand Challenge A short history of Willow Garage  

Slavo Radosevic (UCL) XV Industrial Development and Policy (IDP) Lecture Abstract: The EU Smart Specialization is probably currently the biggest experiment in the world in innovation/industrial policy. The talk will position EU smart specialization within the context of the six other newly emerged approaches to industrial and innovation policy. They all share the idea that the ultimate constraints to growth are unknown, and all try to address the issues related to the specialization choices, as well as the challenges of technology upgrading and innovation-based growth. Within this context, EU smart specialization is defined as the EU’s version of a new industrial innovation policy. The talk will also summarizes key policy messages based on the comparative assessment of the EU smart specialization including lessons for non-EU economies. Speaker biography: Slavo Radosevic is Professor of Industry and Innovation Studies at the UCL where he has also been acting director of School of Slavonic and East European Studies. He had worked at University of Sussex SPRU as a researcher (1993-1999) and before that as a researcher in Croatia. His main research interests are in science, technology, industrial change, foreign direct investments and innovation policy in Europe, with particular reference to central and eastern Europe (CEE). He has published extensively in international journals in these areas and has edited several volumes on these issues. He favours empirically oriented and policy relevant research projects, based on neo- Schumpeterian economics. He acts as an expert for the EC, OECD, UNESCO, UNIDO, World Bank, UNECE and Asian Development Bank and several governments in CEE. He also had significant policy- making experience in Croatia and ex-Yugoslavia at the highest policy level. He is a special advisor to the EC DG Commissioner for Regional and Urban Policy. He is visiting professor at Higher School of Economics St Petersburg. Organiser: Industrial Development and Policy Research Cluster Speaker(s): Slavo Radosevic (UCL), Antonio Andreoni (SOAS) Event Date: 22 November 2017 Released by: SOAS Economics Podcast

America Is Being Taken Away From You. By a Predatory Ruling Class that has no respect for you, your family, your job, your country, your Constitution -- and which has thoroughly "rigged" the system against the Middle Class. How long will the "nice" people of America allow this to go on? Time for some Schumpeterian "creative destruction"? We consider Professor Angelo Codevilla's statements on America at the "threshold of a revolution" brought about by "ruling class malfeasance, combined with insult." Meanwhile, Trump goes to Gettysburg. We visit with paterfamilias John Andrews on Hillary Clinton's "brownshirt" tactics and wild Russian conspiracy theories. Was the 1960 election stolen from Nixon? Also, notes on the increasing importance of our Second Amendment. Plus, a conversation with Jan Cook of Colorado Women For Trump. With Listener Calls and Music via Fleetwood Mac, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the Beatles Live at Hollywood Bowl.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Part of the USC METRANS Transportation Research Seminar Series. METRANS' mission is to solve transportation problems of large metropolitan regions through interdisciplinary research, education and outreach. Speaker: Peter Gordon Emeritus Professor, USC Price Peter Gordon, Ph.D., holds a joint appointment with the Department of Economics. His research interests include topics in applied urban and regional economics. Professor Gordon has participated in the development and application of the Southern California Planning Model (SCPM), which has been used to forecast the economic costs of various policies and natural events. Professor Gordon’s recent work concerns the interaction of urban settlement patterns and travel demand. He has consulted for a number of international agencies, government departments, and private groups. Most people now carry the equivalent of a supercomputer in their pocket. The impacts on people's everyday activities are easily seen. What about the impacts of cheap and easy electronic communications on location choice and cities? We focus on recent data for U.S. workers who do most of their work at home. Does occupation explain their choice? Does urban form matter? Do local planning policies? Our main interest is the nature of information exchange. We expect that codified information and tacit information are treated very differently. Lots of information exchange involves tacit information. Agglomeration (and cities and distance) are not ending or dying. The biggest question in economics is still the one Adam Smith asked over 200 years ago: Why are some countries rich and why are some poor? What accounts for their economic growth differences? “Once you start thinking about them [international differences in living standards], it's hard to think about anything else" Robert Lucas (2002). Growth is the most powerful anti-poverty device. Cities must be part of the story. We owe our prosperity to Smithian exchange and Schumpeterian entrepreneurialism. Both involve the formation of complex supply chains. Both are facilitated by the evolution of Coasian transactions costs. This involves the evolution of cities and networking opportunities. Spatial organization is part of industrial organization. Labor and capital move to cities for reasons of transaction cost economies. There are concurrently economies from externalities internalized. Cities compete. Successful cities manage to make significant economies available to very large numbers of people and firms. Jane Jacobs noted that continuous and profitable interactive opportunities must be available; this is how people in cities interact and learn from each other. “Their intricate order – a manifestation of the freedom of countless numbers of people to make and carry out countless plans – is in many ways a wonder” Jane Jacobs (1961).

Professor Rae relates Marxist theories of monopoly capitalism to Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction. Both Marx and Schumpeter agree that capitalism is a system that is "incapable of standing still," and is always revising (or revolutionizing) itself. Professor Rae critiques Marxist determinism and other features of Marx's theories. To highlight Schumpeterian creative destruction, Professor Rae uses examples from technological revolutions in energy production since water-powered mills. Marx's labor theory of value is discussed. Professor Rae highlights aspects overlooked by Marx, including supply and demand for labor, labor quality, and the role of capital in economic growth. Professor Rae also notes problems with Marx's predictions, including the prediction that the revolution will occur in the most advanced capitalist economies. Professor Rae also discusses Marx's theory of the universal class, the end of exploitation, and the withering away of the state.

Professor Rae relates Marxist theories of monopoly capitalism to Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction. Both Marx and Schumpeter agree that capitalism is a system that is "incapable of standing still," and is always revising (or revolutionizing) itself. Professor Rae critiques Marxist determinism and other features of Marx's theories. To highlight Schumpeterian creative destruction, Professor Rae uses examples from technological revolutions in energy production since water-powered mills. Marx's labor theory of value is discussed. Professor Rae highlights aspects overlooked by Marx, including supply and demand for labor, labor quality, and the role of capital in economic growth. Professor Rae also notes problems with Marx's predictions, including the prediction that the revolution will occur in the most advanced capitalist economies. Professor Rae also discusses Marx's theory of the universal class, the end of exploitation, and the withering away of the state.