Podcasts about skidelsky

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

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

In this episode, show host Gene Tunny explores the influential theories of economists Alvin Hansen, the “American Keynes", and Evsey Domar. The episode was inspired by a first edition copy of Hansen and Perloff's 1944 book “State and Local Finance in the National Economy” that Gene was gifted. It includes a handwritten inscription from Hansen to Domar, his student at Harvard. Key topics include the Keynesian IS-LM model, the secular stagnation hypothesis, and the Harrod-Domar growth model. The episode provides a rich historical context and examines the relevance of these theories to today's economic challenges.If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please email us at contact@economicsexplored.com  or send a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. What's covered in EP245Book by Alvin Hansen and Harvey Perloff on State and Local Finance in the National Economy. (0:00)Alvin Hansen's contributions to economics, including popularizing Keynes's theory and teaching influential students such as Paul Samuelson and Evsey Domar. (5:06)IS-LM model. (11:13)Keynesian economics and secular stagnation hypothesis. (17:42)Fiscal policy and its impact on the economy. (25:28)Domar's life and growth model. (32:29)Harrod-Domar model and its implications for economic policy. (39:00)Economic growth models and their limitations. (45:22)TakeawaysSecular Stagnation Hypothesis: Hansen's theory suggesting that mature economies could face prolonged periods of low growth due to structural factors.IS-LM Model: Developed by Hansen and Hicks, this model became a foundational tool in macroeconomics for analyzing the effects of fiscal and monetary policy.Fiscal Perversity Hypothesis: Hansen and Perloff's analysis showing that state and local fiscal policies can sometimes exacerbate economic downturns.Harrod-Domar Growth Model: An important Keynesian model that emphasizes the relationship between investment and economic growth, though not fully explaining long-term growth.Legacy and Influence: Both Hansen and Domar significantly shaped the development of economic theory and policy, influencing key areas such as social security and public investment strategies.Links relevant to the conversationInscription from Hansen to Domar on Gene's copy of State and Local Finance in the National Economy:https://drive.google.com/file/d/167cJbNhxBJpsKRwSYGHxbjupX1Q3Iacx/view?usp=sharingWilliam Easterly's paper on the Harrod-Domar model:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=11020Fiscal perversity papers:Fabrizio Carmignani's article “Can public expenditure stabilize output? Multipliers andpolicy interdependence in Queensland and Australia”:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0313592615300242?via%3DihubTamim Bayoumi and Barry Eichengreen's paper “Restraining Yourself: The Implications of Fiscal Rules for Economic Stabilization”:https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/024/1995/001/article-A002-en.xmlAn abridged version of Skidelsky's three-volume biography of Keynes:https://www.penguin.com.au/books/john-maynard-keynes-9780143036159Lumo Coffee promotion10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee.Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLOREDPromo code: 10EXPLORED Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show's sponsor, Gene's consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com.

Faschismus V - Oswald Mosley und die British Union of FascistsHeute werfen wir einen Blick nach England und schauen uns die Lebensgeschichte von Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley an, einem britischen Politiker, aristokratischen Faschisten und Gründer der British Union of Fascists (BUF).Weiterführende Literatur:Pugh, Martin (2005). Hurrah for the Blackshirts!: Fascists and Fascism in Britain between the Wars.Skidelsky, Robert (1969). "The Problem of Mosley: Why a Fascist Failed". Encounter. Vol. 33, no. 192. pp. 77–88.https://www.zukunft-braucht-erinnerung.de/oswald-mosley/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists---Dir gefällt der Podcast? Dann unterstütze unsere Arbeit auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/allezeitderweltWir freuen uns auch sehr, wenn du uns eine Bewertung da lässt und uns bei Twitter (https://twitter.com/allezeit_pod) & Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/@allezeitderwelt) folgst! Danke :)---Tags: Zeitgeschichte, Europa, England, Faschismus, Oswald Mosley

In this episode, Liam talks to Professor Lord Robert Skidelsky, Biographer of John Maynard Keynes – the most influential economist of the 20th century.In this wide-ranging interview, Skidelsky discusses how he helped David Owen to set up the SDP in the early 1980s, how economic policymaking works and how he developed from a historian into an economist. “Britain's history was forged outside Europe, not within Europe,” Lord Skidelsky remarks, reflecting on the UK's vote to leave the EU, and why the efforts of Remain-voting MPs and peers to hold a second referendum in a bid to reverse Brexit were in his words “completely wrong”. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“Progress is the realisation of utopias” - Oscar Wilde I had an engaging conversation with Doris Viljoen and Schalk Engelbrecht. We discussed the relevance of utopian thinking with perspectives from Philosophy and Futures Studies. Doris is a senior futurist at Stellenbosch University's Institute for Futures Research (IFR) where she endeavours to interpret global as well as local trends and assess their relevance for South Africa and Africa. She has specialised skills in environmental scanning, the application of foresight methodology, scenario planning as well as strategy development.  Before joining the IFR, Doris did consulting work on feasibility and location assessment studies for large capital projects and received the top student award on the M.Phil Futures Studies programme. She has a wide range of research interests and is passionate about asking the right questions, searching for and finding relevant data as well as designing tools and techniques to facilitate thinking about plausible futures. She is well versed in multiple scenario planning techniques and has facilitated decision making teams through scenario exercises on topics ranging from infrastructure planning, higher education, and downstream metals beneficiation to the futures of work in South Africa. Doris also lectures on the academic programmes in Futures Studies at the University of Stellenbosch Business School. Her particular areas of specialty are scenario planning, organisational foresight, futures studies frameworks, tools and techniques, and managing foresight projects.  Her research towards a PhD in Futures Studies looks at the future of work, specifically focusing on non-conventional employment engagements. Schalk is an ethicist, the Chief Ethics Officer at KPMG in South Africa, and a student of philosophy. He is responsible for KPMG's internal ethics programme, and assists client companies to identify ethics risk, develop Codes of Ethics, design ethics management programmes and facilitate ethics training. Schalk is also a research associate with the Centre for Applied Ethics at Stellenbosch University. In 2010 he completed his PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on the need to revive utopian thinking in an anti-utopian age. He has presented papers at national and international conferences on topics that include "radical business ethics", "the problem of the commons in organisations", and "ethics and utopian thinking". He is published in academic and popular journals and has been an invited speaker at conferences and provincial Anti-Corruption events. Before joining KPMG Schalk lectured Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Stellenbosch and North-West University. He has lectured Business Ethics as part of the University of Stellenbosch Business School's MBA programme, and was the previous editor-in-chief of the African Journal of Business Ethics. Resources: Bellamy, E., & Beaumont, M. (2007). Looking backward, 2000-1887. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bregman, Rutger. (2017). Utopia for Realists. London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Cooke, M. (2004). Redeeming Redemption: The Utopian Dimension of Critical Social Theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 30(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453704044026 Hines, A.(2020). Utopia is a moving target: https://www.andyhinesight.com/after-capitalism/utopia-is-a-moving-target/ Huxley, A. (2007). Brave new world. Toronto: Vintage Canada. More, T., & Turner, P. (1965). Utopia. London: Penguin Books. Skidelsky, R., & Skidelsky, E. (2012). How much is enough?: Money and the good life. New York: Other Press. Tankersley, J. (2018). Reimagining Our Tomorrows: Making Sure Your Future Doesn't Suck. Unique Visions, Incorporated.

William Skidelsky is the author of Federer and Me, a story of tennis, obsession and Roger Federer for tennis fans and the general reader alike. He has been literary editor of the Observer and the New Statesman as well as deputy editor of Prospect magazine. He is now a freelance writer and regularly contributes to the Guardian, Prospect, the FT and other publications. In this episode of How Do You Do? Podcast, Ben asks William about how he spun an engaging narrative featuring @rogerfederer, his life, and the history of tennis; what it was like being in the building for the 2018 Wimbledon Final, how he processes book reviews, and more. Follow us! William Skidelsky: @willskidelsky ( https://www.instagram.com/willskidelsky/ ) How Do You Do? Podcast: *@hdydpod* ( https://www.instagram.com/hdydpod/ ) Ben Hannani: *@benhannani* ( https://www.instagram.com/benhannani/ ) Website: *www.hdydpod.com* ( https://www.hdydpod.com/ ) *"HDYD Jams" playlist* ( https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4tBdUz3kXb1T5im2CzSBUV?si=qc_DgVSCR1W65phsuv6vVQ ) on Spotify, featuring our guests' song recommendations. Follow us on Clubhouse to be notified of our live events on *How Do You Do? Pod LIVE* ( https://www.joinclubhouse.com/club/how-do-you-do-pod-live ) ** Join our *How Do You Do? Podcast group chat on Bunches* : https://bunches.app/$hdydpod

While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.📣📣📣 Announcement: Admissions are now open for the summer cohort of Takshashila Institution’s 12-week Graduate Certificate Programme in Public Policy. Visit takshashila.org.in/courses to find out more.  Global Policy Watch: A Short History Of The Breitbart DoctrineBringing an Indian perspective to burning global issues- RSJIn edition #117 where we covered the resignation of Pratap Bhanu Mehta, we had a polemic by Edward Skidelsky as suggested reading in our homework section. We specifically quoted this line:“The ‘woke’ left is currently pursuing this goal by way of a Gramscian “long march through the institutions” — a progressive co-option of the schools, universities, state bureaucracies and big corporations.”  What’s this ‘Gramscian long march’ that’s mentioned here? That’s the first question for this post.Separately, I was drawn to a U.S. national survey done by Cato Institute last year on freedom of expression. The results weren’t surprising to me (including the stupid graph that I have copied below from their site):“Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe. However, centrist liberals feel differently. A slim majority (52%) of liberals feel they have to self‐​censor, as do 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives. This demonstrates that political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank.”I take the ‘strong liberal’ in the US to be the progressive wing of the Democratic party. They are the ‘woke’ Skidelsky was referring to in his article. There’s no equivalent survey of this kind in India. But I would venture to suggest the “strong liberals” in India might not poll as well on speaking their minds nor would the Indian conservatives be as reticent as their American counterparts in today’s times. Based on incidents like P.B. Mehta’s resignation that seem to have become more frequent in recent years and the ‘chilling effect’ that follows, I would guess these percentages might just flip in India. Anyway, the percentages aren’t of interest to me. My interest is in the phenomenon. This dominance of one side that makes the other side self-censor themselves. What explains this? That’s the second question for this post.That Old Chestnut: The Breitbart DoctrineBoth these questions - on Gramscian long march and on self-censorship - bring me to the oft-repeated Breitbart doctrine:“Politics is downstream of culture.”That is, change the culture and sooner, politics will change. Now you’d think this was an insight that galvanised the American conservative right following the Obama takeover of the establishment. It was what got Trump into the White House with Steve Bannon in tow. That this was part of the right-wing toolkit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The left was likely the originator of the idea that culture influences politics. To understand this better, we will go through a short history of ‘manufacture of consent’ and ‘cultural hegemony’. Knowing it will help address the two questions raised at the start of this post as well. Manufacture Of ConsentThe term ‘manufacture of consent’ first appeared in Walter Lippman’s book ‘Public Opinion’ (1922). For Lippman, the world was too complex for an ordinary individual to comprehend. In order to make sense of it, people carried a mental image of the world inside their heads. These pictures were what drove groups or individuals to act in society in the name of Public Opinion. A strong democracy, therefore, needs institutions and media that help in creating the most accurate interpretations of the world in the minds of the people. But this isn’t easy. Lippman was worried democracy relied on something so irrational as a public opinion that takes shape in the minds of poorly informed and easily manipulated people. For Lippman, policymakers and experts should use narratives for ‘manufacture of consent’ among people which enables public opinion to be channelled in a manner that’s consistent with what’s good for society. Lippman believed persuasion and the knowledge of how to create consent through ‘propaganda’ will change politics in the age of mass media. As he wrote:“A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power. Within the life of the generation now in control of affairs, persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government. None of us begins to understand the consequences, but it is no daring prophecy to say that the knowledge of how to create consent will alter every political calculation and modify every political premise. Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables.” Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (1988) picked up this idea to argue media outlets are “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function.” Market forces and an entrenched establishment control the mass media which manipulates public opinion by revealing only half-truths and distorted facts that serve their interests. It manufactures consent through propaganda while keeping the ill-informed public in thrall with distractions and entertainment. Chomsky has since argued this control of mass culture through media and institutions and the ‘manufacture of consent’ is essential to the survival of capitalism.Gramsci And Cultural HegemonyWhile Lippman was writing about the need for the ‘manufacture of consent’ using culture in a capitalist democracy like America, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian neo-Marxist was thinking on similar lines in a prison in Mussolini’s Italy. Gramsci started with a simple question. Why didn’t the working class living in an oppressive regime (anything that’s non-Marxist was oppressive in his view) revolt more often when they could see clearly how badly the economic balance was tilted against them? Why didn’t the exploited rise in revolt more often?Gramsci argued a capitalist state had two overlapping spheres that helped it to thrive. There was the ‘political society’ that ruled through coercion and control of means of production which was visible to all. But there was also the ‘civil society’ that ruled through consent and control of minds. The civil society was the public sphere of ideas and beliefs that were shaped through the church, media or universities. To him, the capitalist state was successful in ‘manufacturing consent’ among people through the ‘cultural hegemony’ it set up through its control of the public sphere. People living in such societies didn’t question their position or their exploitation because they thought this was the ‘natural state’ of existence. The cultural hegemony was so complete and overpowering that there could hardly be any mobilisation of people against the ‘political society’ which ruled through coercion. The minds of the people were brainwashed through propaganda. Gramsci, therefore, concluded that for the struggle (or revolution) to take over means of production to even begin, the people will have to win the war over cultural hegemony. He used the WW1 terms that were in vogue then. For the war of manoeuvre (that is a direct attack over the enemy) to be successful, it has to be preceded by the war of position (digging trenches and cutting off enemy lines etc). The people will have to win the war of ideas and beliefs by creating their own cultural hegemony and taking over the public sphere through control of religious institutions, media and universities. This is the ‘Gramscian march’ that Skidelsky referred to in his article.This was a far-reaching idea about how the nature of power had changed in a world where universities and mass media shaped people’s thinking. The power of engineering consent using culture is the first step to launch a successful attack over an existing power structure. While Garmsci used neo-Marxian terms to expound his ideas, the broader implications of his argument were clear. In short: establishing cultural hegemony is the first step to winning the minds and eventually, the votes of people (we are talking of democracy here). Over time, this hegemony in the public sphere will earn you the long-term consent of the people who will consider it their ‘natural state’. Self-censorship will follow as an outcome of this hegemony. That addresses the second question on why people self-censor themselves.Over a hundred years since Lippman first wrote about ‘manufacture of consent’, the idea that politics is downstream of culture has only acquired greater currency in a saturated media space that all of us inhabit now. The left and the right have both acquired the toolkits to fight this ‘war of position’ in various democracies around the world. In the US, it is ‘woke left’ on a supposed Gramscian march today. In India, I suspect, the shoe is on the other foot. But the march is definitely on.India Policy Watch: Mandal AgainInsights on burning policy issues in India- Pranay KotasthaneA Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is set to announce its judgment on the Maratha quota case. Amongst other issues, the court will decide on the question if state governments can breach the 50 per cent reservation ceiling. This 50 per cent limit comes from the Indra Sawhney judgment of 1993, which legally upheld the recommendations of the Mandal Committee Report. Legal issues aside, today’s political reality makes this judgment even more riveting. Perhaps all political parties appear to be in favour of going beyond this 50 per cent limit, although in different ways. The NDA government has already increased reservations to ~60 per cent in central-government jobs, central-government educational institutions, and private educational institutions through the 103rd constitutional amendment in 2019. The additional 10 per cent seats are now meant to be reserved for economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens not already benefiting from reservation. In other words, this quota is for persons from non-SC, non-ST, non-OBC classes, as long as their earning is below a defined income threshold. On the other hand, many caste-based and one-caste-dominated political parties are in favour of breaching the 50 per cent ceiling in order to extend or increase quotas for their caste base. The gap between the court-prescribed ceiling and the political reality has become unsustainable. To use a Ravi Shastri phrase, “something’s gotta give”. Not to forget, that 50 per cent ceiling number itself is quite contrived. Read what the Indra Sawhney case judgment says:Just as every power must be exercised reasonably and fairly, the power conferred by Clause (4) of Article 16 should also be exercised in a fair manner and within reasonably limits - and what is more reasonable than to say that reservation under Clause (4) shall not exceed 50% of the appointments or posts, barring certain extra-ordinary situations as explained hereinafter. From this point of view, the 27% reservation provided by the impugned Memorandums in favour of backward classes is well within the reasonable limits. Together with reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it comes to a total of 49.5%. Beneath the legalese, observe the narrative power of numbers at play. Any measured phenomenon creates implicit norms of what is “too high” or “too low”. The 50 per cent limit seems intuitively “just right” or “balanced” — half of the seats have quotas while the other half doesn’t. This powerful narrative largely survived for over 25 years but seems to be falling apart now. And so it appears that reservations have ceased to be a means to correct for inadequate representation of certain disadvantaged sections. Instead, reservations have become springboards for all groups to demand proportional representation. The implicit norm now is that the State needs to enable representation of groups in educational institutions and government jobs according to their proportion in the population; the question of historical disadvantage has been relegated to an incidental criterion. Moreover, the general equilibrium effect of quotas is that group identities have become sharper and more powerful. Is there another way out?There is no doubt that a republic founded in a society with a long history of systematic discrimination will inevitably resort to some affirmative action. But is there a way out beyond caste-based reservations? Nitin Pai and I had proposed one such alternative a couple of years ago in FirstPost:Consider this thought experiment. There are no predetermined quotas for any posts. Positions are filled only based on a composite score of all applicants. The composite score is a combination of two measures. The first is an inequityscore — calculated to compensate for the relative disadvantage faced by an applicant.The second measure strictly represents an applicant’s ability to be effective for the position they are applying for. Selection is on the basis of the composite score. No seats are reserved and yet the score allows for addressing multidimensional inequity much better than current methods.The inequity score can be used to indicate relative disadvantage along several dimensions: individual, social and geographic. Different factors can be assigned different weightages. For instance, given the salience of caste in the Indian social context, the greater the disadvantage a community faces, the higher the weightage.In addition, we can incorporate other parameters into the inequity score — parents’ level of education, income levels, rural upbringing, or even childhood nutritional deficiencies. Currently, our system of quota-based allocations does not account for non-caste disadvantages that have a disproportionate impact on life outcomes.A national commission for equity can be formed to propose and review parameters and their weightages within a cooperative federal framework. It doesn’t have to be one-size-fits-all solution. States can assign their own factors and weightages according to the local conditions.The second measure — an effectiveness score — can then be kept completely independent of equity considerations. It can take the form of a test, an interview or any other indicator to assess candidates’ ability to perform the job they have applied for. Information about the inequity scores can be masked from evaluators of the effectiveness score.By filling positions based on a sum of the two scores, it becomes possible to be more comprehensive in addressing social inequities while also creating stronger incentives for an individual pursuit of excellence.Satish Deshpande and Yogendra Yadav had proposed a similar model for higher education way back in 2006:An evidenced-based model addressing multiple sources of group and individual disadvantages helps to de-essentialise identity markers such as caste or religion; that is, it provides a rational explanation why specific castes or communities are entitled to compensatory discrimination and undermines attitudes that treat such entitlements as a “birth right”.In essence, this solution tries to solve for both “merit” and “disadvantage”. The opponents of reservation claim that quotas directly undermine efficiency and merit. The proponents of quotas on the other hand find the notion of merit completely odious. They argue on these lines: Efficiency of administration in the affairs of the Union or of a State must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people. In contrast to quotas, the composite score solution acknowledges that some assessment of “merit” is inescapable, even desirable. But it also doesn't ignore the problem that disadvantaged individuals face. Hence, we believe it is a better solution than quotas.In edition#72, we discussed a framework on “nine competing visions of equality” only to reiterate Deborah Stone’s insightful conclusion:“equality often means inequality, and equal treatment often means unequal treatment. The same distribution may look equal or unequal, depending on where you focus.”Essentially, any distribution, however equalising it is in one respect, can be charged as being unequal on another parameter. What matters far more is whether a distribution is perceived as being fair or not. As Starmans et al write:… humans naturally favour fair distributions, not equal ones, and that when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality In the Indian context, quotas come with charges of unfairness. It is time to look beyond them. PS: A commonplace assertion that “the constitution imagined reservations to last only for ten years at the outset” is a myth. This 10-year clause was meant to apply to reservations of seats for SC/ST groups in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies. There was no such 10-year limit on reservations in jobs and educational institutions under articles 15(4) and 16(4). I too believed in this urban myth having read it being regurgitated in countless opinion pieces. Hat-tip to an alert Puliyabaazi listener for updating my priors. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Video] "The Big Idea" - a half-hour interview between Noam Chomsky and British journalist Andrew Marr, first aired by the BBC in February 1996. A great interview where Andrew Marr is completely convinced he’s not taken in by the propaganda while Chomsky is sure he is! [Podcast] A Puliyabaazi episode discussing the nine competing visions of equality[Article] Alexander Lee on redesigning India’s reservation system[Article] Satish Deshpande traces the history of reservation policies[Article] Pratap Bhanu Mehta on how the open category is slowly becoming a reserved category through other means Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

Hariette Skidelsky’s Romanian grandmother added more water to the soup pot to stretch her recipe everytime she had a new child. As the next generations prospered, the soup grew robust — filled with chicken, vegetables, and matzo balls. That was, until Harriette tried to make it. 

Gordon Brewer in conversation with Keynesian economist Lord Skidelsky.

I had an engaging conversation with Schalk Engelbrecht. We discussed ethics in the time of COVID-19.  Schalk is an ethicist, the Chief Ethics Officer at KPMG in South Africa, and a student of philosophy. He is responsible for KPMG's internal ethics programme, and assists client companies to identify ethics risk, develop Codes of Ethics, design ethics management programmes and facilitate ethics training. Schalk is also a research associate with the Centre for Applied Ethics at Stellenbosch University. In 2010 he completed his PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on the need to revive utopian thinking in an anti-utopian age. He has presented papers at national and international conferences on topics that include "radical business ethics", "the problem of the commons in organisations", and "ethics and utopian thinking". He is published in academic and popular journals and has been an invited speaker at conferences and provincial Anti-Corruption events. Before joining KPMG Schalk lectured Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Stellenbosch and North-West University. He has lectured Business Ethics as part of the University of Stellenbosch Business School's MBA programme, and was the previous editor-in-chief of the African Journal of Business Ethics. Notes & Resources: Defining Ethics: “Rules for the human zoo” - Peter Sloterdijk Dictionary definition: “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation”, “a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values” - Merriam-Webster Dictionary. The Framework: Key point: Context matters. The framework for being ethical has stayed the same, but the content has changed (changes over time) – for example, comparing ethics in the Victorian era and the era of climate change. Main ethics theories/frameworks: Deontology (Duty) Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) (Maximising happiness for the world) Virtue Ethics (character) Also see: Blackburn, S. (2002) Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oxford.co.za/book/9780192853776-being-good-p-a-short-introduction-to-ethics#.XsowcGgzbIU Bregman, R., & Manton, E. (2018). Utopia for realists. New York: Bloomsbury. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/utopia-for-realists-9781408893210/ Bregman, R., & Manton, E. (2020). Humankind: A Hopeful History. New York: Bloomsbury. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/humankind-9781408898932/ Dalio, R. (2017). Principles: Life and Work. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2017. https://www.principles.com/ Painter-Morland, M., & Ten Bos, R. (Eds.). (2011). Business Ethics and Continental Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139013338 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/business-ethics-and-continental-philosophy/34A80BD91724193969CA10EF86D675A4#fndtn-information Rachels, J. & Rachels, S. The elements of moral philosophy (9th Edition), New York: McGraw-Hill https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/elements-moral-philosophy-rachels-rachels/M9781259914256.html Raworth, K. (2017) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-century Economist. London: Random House. https://www.kateraworth.com/ Skidelsky, R., & Skidelsky, E. (2013). How much is enough? Money and the good life. Penguin Random House. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/216918/how-much-is-enough-by-robert-skidelsky-and-edward-skidelsky/ Van Niekerk, A.A. (2002) Can more Business Ethics Teaching Halt Corruption in Companies? Ethics thought pieces, The Ethics Institute. Available Online: https://www.tei.org.za/index.php/resources/articles/business-ethics/2219-can-more-business-ethics-teaching-halt-corruption-in-companies-prof-anton-a-van-niekerk Van Niekerk, A.A. (2011) Ethics theories and the principalist approach in bioethics. In Medical Ethics, Law and Human Rights: A South African Perspective, ed. K. Moodley. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. https://www.vanschaiknet.com/book/view/394

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

The severity of the Great Financial Crisis took economists by surprise, particularly the ones who believed that markets were largely stable and self-regulating. So why did so many eminent thinkers get it so wrong? On this week's episode of Odd Lots, we speak with Lord Robert Skidelsky, an economic historian who is known for being the pre-eminent biographer of John Maynard Keynes. Skidelsky is the author of the new book “Money and Government: The Past and Future of Economics”, and he tells us why economists' failure to understand what money is has been so detrimental to their understanding of the world.

Charles Peabody, Portales Partners LLC President, recaps U.S. bank earnings with us. Lord Robert Skidelsky, House of Lords Member, says David Cameron landed the U.K. in the Brexit mess without adequate preparation. Chuck Robbins, Cisco Chairman and CEO, says the migration to cloud is driving their growth. Baroness Helena Kennedy, House of Lords Member, says the DUP have Theresa May "by the tail" over the Northern Ireland border agreement.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Charles Peabody, Portales Partners LLC President, recaps U.S. bank earnings with us. Lord Robert Skidelsky, House of Lords Member, says David Cameron landed the U.K. in the Brexit mess without adequate preparation. Chuck Robbins, Cisco Chairman and CEO, says the migration to cloud is driving their growth. Baroness Helena Kennedy, House of Lords Member, says the DUP have Theresa May "by the tail" over the Northern Ireland border agreement. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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