Podcast appearances and mentions of Thomas Piketty

So many books are published each year; few stand the test of time. Today we devote our whole show to asking which works have shaped the way we behave and how we think. Picks include “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley, “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen, “A Suitable Boy” by Vikram Seth and “Lord of the Rings” by JRR Tolkien.Full list of books mentioned in the show:The BibleThe Koran“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen “The Hunger Games” by Suzanne Collins“On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin“Il Saggiatore” by Galileo Galilei“Two New Sciences” by Galileo Galilei“Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty“Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil PostmanThe novels of Philip PullmanThe Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling“The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie“Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley“A Suitable Boy” by Vikram Seth “Lord of the Rings” by J.R.R. Tolkien “A Room of One's Own” by Virginia Woolf Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So many books are published each year; few stand the test of time. Today we devote our whole show to asking which works have shaped the way we behave and how we think. Picks include “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley, “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen, “A Suitable Boy” by Vikram Seth and “Lord of the Rings” by JRR Tolkien.Full list of books mentioned in the show:The BibleThe Koran“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen “The Hunger Games” by Suzanne Collins“On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin“Il Saggiatore” by Galileo Galilei“Two New Sciences” by Galileo Galilei“Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty“Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil PostmanThe novels of Philip PullmanThe Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling“The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie“Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley“A Suitable Boy” by Vikram Seth “Lord of the Rings” by J.R.R. Tolkien “A Room of One's Own” by Virginia Woolf Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In der neuen Speakeasy-Bar diskutieren wir zunächst über das Abstimmungsverhalten der Linken beim Rentenpaket. Interessanterweise hat die Partei nicht gegen das schwarz-rote Gesetz gestimmt, sondern sich enthalten, da man Verantwortung für Millionen Rentner übernehmen möchte, denen es ohne eine Einigung bald schlechter ergehen könnte. Aber ist das tatsächlich der einzige Grund? War es die richtige Strategie, diese Entscheidung schon drei Tage vor der Bundestagssitzung bekannt zu geben, sodass Merz doch noch eine Kanzlermehrheit organisieren konnte? Danach geht es um die Frage, wann Warnungen vor einem Rechtsruck übertrieben sind bzw. die Wirklichkeit verschleiern. Wir diskutieren ausführlich darüber, ob man die Binnenwirtschaft ankurbeln könnte und höhere Löhne die Exportnation wirklich bedrohen. Wir sprechen weiter über das Verhältnis von Liberalismus, Kapitalismus und Faschismus und beantworten eine Frage zur imperialen Lebensweise. Mehr dazu von Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt in der neuen „Wohlstand für Alle“-Speakeasy-Bar!Alle Fragen:00:20:30: Sind die Warnungen vor dem Rechtsruck übertrieben?00:30:52: Braucht es mehr Nudging in der Öffentlichkeit?00:35:00: Wie verändert die Gamification die Kriegsführung?00:43:23: Wie lassen sich die Begriffe Kapitalismus, Liberalismus und Neoliberalismus inhaltlich von einander abgrenzen?00:54:47: Wieso sprechen wir oft über den Ungleichheitsforscher Branko Milanović, aber selten über Thomas Piketty?01:03:23: Was sagen wir zu Markus Wissen und Ulrich Brand und ihrer Theorie der "imperialen Lebensweise"?01:16:05: Wie findet man seinen eigenen Zugang zur Literatur?01:22:42: Wieso will der Staat immer weiter an Sozialstandards und Löhnen kürzen? Ein Streitgespräch!01:49:35: Gibt es bald Unterrichtsmaterial zu den kleinen Holzdieben?01:50:33: Was sagen wir zum Streitgespräch zwischen Ole Liebl und Varnan?Unsere Zusatzinhalte könnt ihr bei Apple Podcasts, Steady und Patreon hören. Vielen Dank!Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/wohlstand-f%C3%BCr-alle/id1476402723Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgangSteady:https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about

Tuesday is the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen's birth, so today I spoke to John Mullan, professor of English Literature at UCL, author of What Matters in Jane Austen. John and I talked about how Austen's fiction would have developed if she had not died young, the innovations of Persuasion, wealth inequality in Austen, slavery and theatricals in Mansfield Park, as well as Iris Murdoch, A.S. Byatt, Patricia Beer, the Dunciad, and the Booker Prize. This was an excellent episode. My thanks to John!TranscriptHenry Oliver (00:00)Today, I am talking to John Mullen. John is a professor of English literature at University College London, and he is the author of many splendid books, including How Novels Work and the Artful Dickens. I recommend the Artful Dickens to you all. But today we are talking about Jane Austen because it's going to be her birthday in a couple of days. And John wrote What Matters in Jane Austen, which is another book I recommend to you all. John, welcome.John Mullan (00:51)It's great to be here.Henry Oliver (00:53)What do you think would have happened to Austin's fiction if she had not died young?John Mullan (00:58)Ha ha! I've been waiting all this year to be asked that question from somebody truly perspicacious. ⁓ Because it's a question I often answer even though I'm not asked it, because it's a very interesting one, I think. And also, I think it's a bit, it's answerable a little bit because there was a certain trajectory to her career. I think it's very difficult to imagine what she would have written.John Mullan (01:28)But I think there are two things which are almost certain. The first is that she would have gone on writing and that she would have written a deal more novels. And then even the possibility that there has been in the past of her being overlooked or neglected would have been closed. ⁓ And secondly, and perhaps more significantly for her, I think she would have become well known.in her own lifetime. you know, partly that's because she was already being outed, as it were, you know, of course, as ⁓ you'll know, Henry, you know, she published all the novels that were published in her lifetime were published anonymously. So even people who were who were following her career and who bought a novel like Mansfield Park, which said on the title page by the author of Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice, they knew they knew.John Mullan (02:26)were getting something by the same author, they wouldn't necessarily have known the author's name and I think that would have become, as it did with other authors who began anonymously, that would have disappeared and she would have become something of a literary celebrity I would suggest and then she would have met other authors and she'd have been invited to some London literary parties in effect and I think that would have been very interesting how that might have changed her writing.John Mullan (02:54)if it would have changed her writing as well as her life. She, like everybody else, would have met Coleridge. ⁓ I think that would have happened. She would have become a name in her own lifetime and that would have meant that her partial disappearance, I think, from sort of public consciousness in the 19th century wouldn't have happened.Henry Oliver (03:17)It's interesting to think, you know, if she had been, depending on how old she would have been, could she have read the Pickwick papers? How would she have reacted to that? Yes. Yeah. Nope.John Mullan (03:24)Ha ha ha ha ha!Yes, she would have been in her 60s, but that's not so old, speaking of somebody in their 60s. ⁓ Yes, it's a very interesting notion, isn't it? I mean, there would have been other things which happened after her premature demise, which she might have responded to. I think particularly there was a terrific fashion for before Dickens came along in the 1830s, there was a terrific fashion in the 1820s for what were called silver fork novels, which were novels of sort of high life of kind of the kind of people who knew Byron, but I mean as fictional characters. And we don't read them anymore, but they were they were quite sort of high quality, glossy products and people loved them. And I'm I like to think she might have reacted to that with her sort of with her disdain, think, her witty disdain for all aristocrats. know, nobody with a title is really any good in her novels, are they? And, you know, the nearest you get is Mr. Darcy, who is an Earl's nephew. And that's more of a problem for him than almost anything else. ⁓ She would surely have responded satirically to that fashion.Henry Oliver (04:28)Hahaha.Yes, and then we might have had a Hazlitt essay about her as well, which would have been all these lost gems. Yes. Are there ways in which persuasion was innovative that Emma was not?John Mullan (04:58)Yes, yes, yes, yes. I know, I know.⁓ gosh, all right, you're homing in on the real tricky ones. Okay, okay. ⁓ That Emma was not. Yes, I think so. I think it took, in its method, it took further what she had done in Emma.Henry Oliver (05:14)Ha ha.This is your exam today,John Mullan (05:36)which is that method of kind of we inhabit the consciousness of a character. And I I think of Jane Austen as a writer who is always reacting to her own last novel, as it were. And I think, you know, probably the Beatles were like that or Mozart was like that. think, you know, great artists often are like that, that at a certain stage, if what they're doing is so different from what everybody else has done before,they stop being influenced by anybody else. They just influence themselves. And so I think after Emma, Jane Austen had this extraordinary ⁓ method she perfected in that novel, this free indirect style of a third-person narration, which is filtered through the consciousness of a character who in Emma's case is self-deludedly wrong about almost everything. And it's...brilliantly tricksy and mischievous and elaborate use of that device which tricks even the reader quite often, certainly the first time reader. And then she got to persuasion and I think she is at least doing something new and different with that method which is there's Anne Elliot. Anne Elliot's a good person. Anne Elliot's judgment is very good. She's the most cultured and cultivated of Jane Austen's heroines. She is, as Jane Austen herself said about Anne Elliot, almost too good for me. And so what she does is she gives her a whole new vein of self-deception, which is the self-deception in the way of a good person who always wants to think things are worse than they are and who always, who, because suspicious of their own desires and motives sort of tamps them down and suppresses them. And we live in this extraordinary mind of this character who's often ignored, she's always overhearing conversations. Almost every dialogue in the novel seems to be something Anne overhears rather than takes part in. And the consciousness of a character whodoesn't want to acknowledge things in themselves which you and I might think were quite natural and reasonable and indeed in our psychotherapeutic age to be expressed from the rooftops. You still fancy this guy? Fine! Admit it to yourself. ⁓ No. So it's not repression actually, exactly. It's a sort of virtuous self-control somehow which I think lots of readers find rather masochistic about her. Henry Oliver (08:38)I find that book interesting because in Sense and Sensibility she's sort of opposed self-command with self-expression, but she doesn't do that in Persuasion. She says, no, no, I'm just going to be the courage of, no, self-command. know, Eleanor becomes the heroine.John Mullan (08:48)Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But with the odd with the odd burst of Mariannes, I was watching the I thought execrable Netflix ⁓ persuasion done about two or three years ago ⁓ with the luminous Dakota Johnson as as you know, as Anne Elliot. You could not believe her bloom had faded one little bit, I think.John Mullan (09:23)And ⁓ I don't know if you saw it, but the modus operandi rather following the lead set by that film, The Favourite, which was set in Queen Anne's reign, but adopted the Demotic English of the 21st century. similarly, this adaptation, much influenced by Fleabag, decided to deal with the challenge of Jane Austen's dialogue by simply not using it, you know, and having her speak in a completely contemporary idiom. But there were just one or two lines, very, very few from the novel, that appeared. And when they appeared, they sort of cried through the screen at you. And one of them, slightly to qualify what you've just said, was a line I'd hardly noticed before. as it was one of the few Austin lines in the programme, in the film, I really noticed it. And it was much more Marianne than Eleanor. And that's when, I don't know if you remember, and Captain Wentworth, they're in Bath. So now they are sort of used to talking to each other. And Louisa Musgrove's done her recovering from injury and gone off and got engaged to Captain Benwick, Captain Benwick. So Wentworth's a free man. And Anne is aware, becoming aware that he may be still interested in her. And there's a card party, an evening party arranged by Sir Walter Elliot. And Captain Wentworth is given an invitation, even though they used to disapprove of him because he's now a naval hero and a rich man. And Captain Wentworth and Anna making slightly awkward conversation. And Captain Wentworth says, you did not used to like cards.I mean, he realizes what he said, because what he said is, remember you eight years ago. I remember we didn't have to do cards. We did snogging and music. That's what we did. But anyway, he did not used to like cards. And he suddenly realizes what a giveaway that is. And he says something like, but then time brings many changes. And she says, she cries out, I am not so much changed.Henry Oliver (11:23)Mm. Mm, yes, yes. Yep.Yes.Cries out, yeah.John Mullan (11:50)It's absolutely electric line and that's not Eleanor is it? That's not an Eleanor-ish line. ⁓ Eleanor would say indeed time evinces such dispositions in most extraordinary ways. She would say some Johnsonian thing wouldn't she? so I don't think it's quite a return to the same territory or the same kind of psychology.Henry Oliver (12:05)That's right. Yes, yes, yeah.No, that's interesting, yeah. One of the things that happens in Persuasion is that you get this impressionistic writing. So a bit like Mrs. Elliot talking while she picks strawberries. When Lady Russell comes into Bath, you get that wonderful scene of the noises and the sounds. Is this a sort of step forward in a way? And you can think of Austen as not an evolutionary missing link as such, but she's sort of halfway between Humphrey Clinker and Mr. Jangle.Is that something that she would have sort of developed?John Mullan (12:49)I think that's quite possible. haven't really thought about it before, but you're right. think there are these, ⁓ there are especially, they're impressionistic ⁓ passages which are tied up with Anne's emotions. And there's an absolutely, I think, short, simple, but extraordinarily original one when she meets him again after eight years. And it says something like, the room was full, full of people. Mary said something and you're in the blur of it. He said all that was right, you know, and she can't hear the words, she can't hear the words and you can't hear the words and you're inside and she's even, you're even sort of looking at the floor because she's looking at the floor and in Anne's sort of consciousness, often slightly fevered despite itself, you do exactly get this sort of, ⁓ for want of a better word, blur of impressions, which is entirely unlike, isn't it, Emma's sort of ⁓ drama of inner thought, which is always assertive, argumentative, perhaps self-correcting sometimes, but nothing if not confidently articulate.John Mullan (14:17)And with Anne, it's a blur of stuff. there is a sort of perhaps a kind of inklings of a stream of consciousness method there.Henry Oliver (14:27)I think so, yeah. Why is it that Flaubert and other writers get all the credit for what Jane Austen invented?John Mullan (14:35)Join my campaign, Henry. It is so vexing. It is vexing. sometimes thought, I sometimes have thought, but perhaps this is a little xenophobic of me, that the reason that Jane Austen is too little appreciated and read in France is because then they would have to admit that Flaubertdidn't do it first, you know. ⁓Henry Oliver (14:40)It's vexing, isn't it?John Mullan (15:04)I mean, I suppose there's an answer from literary history, which is simply for various reasons, ⁓ some of them to do with what became fashionable in literary fiction, as we would now call it. Jane Austen was not very widely read or known in the 19th century. So it wasn't as if, as it were, Tolstoy was reading Jane Austen and saying, this is not up to much. He wasn't. He was reading Elizabeth Gaskell.Jane Eyre ⁓ and tons of Dickens, tons, every single word Dickens published, of course. ⁓ So Jane Austen, know, to cite an example I've just referred to, I Charlotte Bronte knew nothing of Jane Austen until George Henry Lewis, George Eliot's partner, who is carrying the torch for Jane Austen, said, you really should read some. And that's why we have her famous letter saying, it's, you know, it's commonplace and foolish things she said. But so I think the first thing to establish is she was really not very widely read. So it wasn't that people were reading it and not getting it. It was which, you know, I think there's a little bit of that with Dickens. He was very widely read and people because of that almost didn't see how innovative he was, how extraordinarily experimental. It was too weird. But they still loved it as comic or melodramatic fiction. But I think Jane Austen simply wasn't very widely read until the late 19th century. So I don't know if Flaubert read her. I would say almost certainly not. Dickens owned a set of Jane Austen, but that was amongst 350 selecting volumes of the select British novelists. Probably he never read Jane Austen. Tolstoy and you know never did, you know I bet Dostoevsky didn't, any number of great writers didn't.Henry Oliver (17:09)I find it hard to believe that Dickens didn't read her.John Mullan (17:12)Well, I don't actually, I'm afraid, because I mean the one occasion that I know of in his surviving correspondence when she's mentioned is after the publication of Little Dorrit when ⁓ his great bosom friend Forster writes to him and says, Flora Finching, that must be Miss Bates. Yes. You must have been thinking of Miss Bates.John Mullan (17:41)And he didn't write it in a sort of, you plagiarist type way, I he was saying you've varied, it's a variation upon that character and Dickens we wrote back and we have his reply absolutely denying this. Unfortunately his denial doesn't make it clear whether he knew who Miss Bates was but hadn't it been influenced or whether he simply didn't know but what he doesn't… It's the one opportunity where he could have said, well, of course I've read Emma, but that's not my sort of thing. ⁓ of course I delight in Miss Bates, but I had no idea of thinking of her when I... He has every opportunity to say something about Jane Austen and he doesn't say anything about her. He just says, no.Henry Oliver (18:29)But doesn't he elsewhere deny having read Jane Eyre? And that's just like, no one believes you, Charles.John Mullan (18:32)Yes.Well, he may deny it, but he also elsewhere admits to it. Yeah.Henry Oliver (18:39)Okay, but you know, just because he doesn't come out with it.John Mullan (18:43)No, no, it's true, but he wouldn't have been singular and not reading Jane Austen. That's what I'm saying. Yes. So it's possible to ignore her innovativeness simply by not having read her. But I do think, I mean, briefly, that there is another thing as well, which is that really until the late 20th century almost, even though she'd become a wide, hugely famous, hugely widely read and staple of sort of A levels and undergraduate courses author, her real, ⁓ her sort of experiments with form were still very rarely acknowledged. And I mean, it was only really, I think in the sort of almost 1980s, really a lot in my working lifetime that people have started saying the kind of thing you were asking about now but hang on free and direct style no forget flow bear forget Henry James I mean they're terrific but actually this woman who never met an accomplished author in her life who had no literary exchanges with fellow writersShe did it at a little table in a house in Hampshire. Just did it.Henry Oliver (20:14)Was she a Tory or an Enlightenment Liberal or something else?John Mullan (20:19)⁓ well I think the likeliest, if I had to pin my colours to a mast, I think she would be a combination of the two things you said. I think she would have been an enlightenment Tory, as it were. So I think there is some evidence that ⁓ perhaps because also I think she was probably quite reasonably devout Anglican. So there is some evidence that… She might have been conservative with a small C, but I think she was also an enlightenment person. I think she and her, especially her father and at least a couple of her brothers, you know, would have sat around reading 18th century texts and having enlightened discussions and clearly they were, you know, and they had, it's perfect, you know, absolutely hard and fast evidence, for instance, that they would have been that they were sympathetic to the abolition of slavery, that they were ⁓ sceptics about the virtues of monarchical power and clear-eyed about its corruption, that they had no, Jane Austen, as I said at the beginning of this exchange, had no great respect or admiration for the aristocratic ruling class at all. ⁓ So there's aspects of her politics which aren't conservative with a big C anyway, but I think enlightened, think, I mean I, you know, I got into all this because I loved her novels, I've almost found out about her family inadvertently because you meet scary J-Night experts at Jane Austen Society of North America conferences and if you don't know about it, they look at scants. But it is all interesting and I think her family were rather terrific actually, her immediate family. I think they were enlightened, bookish, optimistic, optimistic people who didn't sit around moaning about the state of the country or their own, you know, not having been left enough money in exes will. And...I think that they were in the broadest sense enlightened people by the standard of their times and perhaps by any standards.Henry Oliver (22:42)Is Mansfield Park about slavery?John Mullan (22:45)Not at all, no. I don't think so. I don't think so. And I think, you know, the famous little passage, for it is only a passage in which Edmund and Fanny talk about the fact it's not a direct dialogue. They are having a dialogue about the fact that they had, but Fanny had this conversation or attempt at conversation ⁓ a day or two before. And until relatively recently, nobody much commented on that passage. It doesn't mean they didn't read it or understand it, but now I have not had an interview, a conversation, a dialogue involving Mansfield Park in the last, in living memory, which hasn't mentioned it, because it's so apparently responsive to our priorities, our needs and our interests. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I think it's a it's a parenthetic part of the novel. ⁓ And of course, there was this Edward Said article some decades ago, which became very widely known and widely read. And although I think Edward Said, you know, was a was a wonderful writer in many ways. ⁓I think he just completely misunderstands it ⁓ in a way that's rather strange for a literary critic because he says it sort of represents, you know, author's and a whole society's silence about this issue, the source of wealth for these people in provincial England being the enslavement of people the other side of the Atlantic. But of course, Jane Auster didn't have to put that bit in her novel, if she'd wanted really to remain silent, she wouldn't have put it in, would she? And the conversation is one where Edmund says, know, ⁓ you know, my father would have liked you to continue when you were asking about, yeah, and she says, but there was such terrible silence. And she's referring to the other Bertram siblings who indeed are, of course, heedless, selfish ⁓ young people who certainly will not want to know that their affluence is underwritten by, you know, the employment of slaves on a sugar plantation. But the implication, I think, of that passage is very clearly that Fanny would have, the reader of the time would have been expected to infer that Fanny shares the sympathies that Jane Austen, with her admiration, her love, she says, of Thomas Clarkson. The countries leading abolitionists would have had and that Edmund would also share them. And I think Edmund is saying something rather surprising, which I've always sort of wondered about, which is he's saying, my father would have liked to talk about it more. And what does that mean? Does that mean, my father's actually, he's one of these enlightened ones who's kind of, you know, freeing the slaves or does it mean, my father actually knows how to defend his corner? He would have beenYou know, he doesn't he doesn't feel threatened or worried about discussing it. It's not at all clear where Sir Thomas is in this, but I think it's pretty clear where Edmund and Fanny are.Henry Oliver (26:08)How seriously do you take the idea that we are supposed to disapprove of the family theatricals and that young ladies putting on plays at home is immoral?John Mullan (26:31)Well, I would, mean, perhaps I could quote what two students who were discussing exactly this issue said quite some time ago in a class where a seminar was running on Mansfield Park. And one of the students can't remember their names, I'm afraid. I can't remember their identities, so I'm safe to quote them. ⁓ They're now probably running PR companies or commercial solicitors. And one of them I would say a less perceptive student said, why the big deal about the amateur dramatics? I mean, what's Jane Austen's problem? And there was a pause and another student in the room who I would suggest was a bit more of an alpha student said, really, I'm surprised you asked that. I don't think I've ever read a novel in which I've seen characters behaving so badly as this.And I think that's the answer. The answer isn't that the amateur dramatics themselves are sort of wrong, because of course Jane Austen and her family did them. They indulged in them. ⁓ It's that it gives the opportunity, the license for appalling, mean truly appalling behaviour. I mean, Henry Crawford, you know, to cut to the chase on this, Henry Crawford is seducing a woman in front of her fiance and he enjoys it not just because he enjoys seducing women, that's what he does, but because it's in front of him and he gets an extra kick out of it. You know, he has himself after all already said earlier in the novel, oh, I much prefer an engaged woman, he has said to his sister and Mrs. Grant. Yes, of course he does. So he's doing that. Mariah and Julia are fighting over him. Mr. Rushworth, he's not behaving badly, he's just behaving like a silly arse. Mary Crawford, my goodness, what is she up to? She's up to using the amateur dramatics for her own kind of seductions whilst pretending to be sort of doing it almost unwillingly. I mean, it seems to me an elaborate, beautifully choreographed elaboration of the selfishness, sensuality and hypocrisy of almost everybody involved. And it's not because it's amateur dramatics, but amateur dramatics gives them the chance to behave so badly.Henry Oliver (29:26)Someone told me that Thomas Piketty says that Jane Austen depicts a society in which inequality of wealth is natural and morally justified. Is that true?John Mullan (29:29)Ha⁓Well, again, Thomas Piketty, I wish we had him here for a good old mud wrestle. ⁓ I would say that the problem with his analysis is the coupling of the two adjectives, natural and morally right. I think there is a strong argument that inequality is depicted as natural or at least inevitable, inescapable in Jane Austen's novels.but not morally right, as it were. In fact, not at all morally right. There is a certain, I think you could be exaggerated little and call it almost fatalism about that such inequalities. Do you remember Mr. Knightley says to Emma, in Emma, when he's admonishing her for her, you know, again, a different way, terribly bad behavior.Henry Oliver (30:38)At the picnic.John Mullan (30:39)At the picnic when she's humiliatedMiss Bates really and Mr Knightley says something like if she'd been your equal you know then it wouldn't have been so bad because she could have retaliated she could have come back but she's not and she says and he says something like I won't get the words exactly right but I can get quite close he says sinceher youth, she has sunk. And if she lives much longer, will sink further. And he doesn't say, ⁓ well, we must have a collection to do something about it, or we must have a revolution to do something about it, or if only the government would bring in better pensions, you know, he doesn't, he doesn't sort of rail against it as we feel obliged to. ⁓ He just accepts it as an inevitable part of what happens because of the bad luck of her birth, of the career that her father followed, of the fact that he died too early probably, of the fact that she herself never married and so on. That's the way it is. And Mr Knightley is, I think, a remarkably kind character, he's one of the kindest people in Jane Austen and he's always doing surreptitious kindnesses to people and you know he gives the Bates's stuff, things to eat and so on. He arranges for his carriage to carry them places but he accepts that that is the order of things. ⁓ But I, you know Henry, I don't know what you think, I think reading novels or literature perhaps more generally, but especially novels from the past, is when you're responding to your question to Mr. Piketty's quote, is quite a sort of, can be quite an interesting corrective to our own vanities, I think, because we, I mean, I'm not saying, you know, the poor are always with us, as it were, like Jesus, but... ⁓ You know, we are so ⁓ used to speaking and arguing as if any degree of poverty is in principle politically remediable, you know, and should be. And characters in Jane Austen don't think that way. And I don't think Jane Austen thought that way.Henry Oliver (33:16)Yes, yes. Yeah.The other thing I would say is that ⁓ the people who discuss Jane Austen publicly and write about her are usually middle class or on middle class incomes. And there's a kind of collective blindness to the fact that what we call Miss Bates poverty simply means that she's slipping out of the upper middle class and she will no longer have her maid.⁓ It doesn't actually mean, she'll still be living on a lot more than a factory worker, who at that time would have been living on a lot more than an agricultural worker, and who would have been living on a lot more than someone in what we would think of as destitution, or someone who was necessitous or whatever. So there's a certain extent to which I actually think what Austin is very good at showing is the... ⁓ the dynamics of a newly commercial society. So at the same time that Miss Bates is sinking, ⁓ I forget his name, but the farmer, the nice farmer, Robert Martin, he's rising. And they all, all classes meet at the drapier and class distinctions are slightly blurred by the presence of nice fabric.John Mullan (34:24)Mr. Robert Martin. Henry Oliver (34:37)And if your income comes from turnips, that's fine. You can have the same material that Emma has. And Jane Austen knows that she lives in this world of buttons and bonnets and muslins and all these new ⁓ imports and innovations. And, you know, I think Persuasion is a very good novel. ⁓ to say to Piketty, well, there's nothing natural about wealth inequality and persuasion. And it's not Miss Bates who's sinking, it's the baronet. And all these admirals are coming up and he has that very funny line, doesn't he? You're at terrible risk in the Navy that you'd be cut by a man who your father would have cut his father. And so I think actually she's not a Piketty person, but she's very clear-eyed about... quote unquote, what capitalism is doing to wealth inequality. Yeah, yeah.John Mullan (35:26)Yes, she is indeed. Indeed.Clear-eyed, I think, is just the adjective. I mean, I suppose the nearest she gets to a description. Yeah, she writes about the classes that she knows from the inside, as it were. So one could complain, people have complained. She doesn't represent what it's like to be an agricultural worker, even though agricultural labour is going on all around the communities in which her novels are set.And I mean, I think that that's a sort of rather banal objection, but there's no denying it in a way. If you think a novelist has a duty, as it were, to cover the classes and to cover the occupations, then it's not a duty that Jane Austen at all perceived. However, there is quite, there is something like, not a representation of destitution as you get in Dickens.but a representation of something inching towards poverty in Mansfield Park, which is the famous, as if Jane Austen was showing you she could do this sort of thing, which is the whole Portsmouth episode, which describes with a degree of domestic detail she never uses anywhere else in her fiction. When she's with the more affluent people, the living conditions, the food, the sheer disgustingness and tawdryness of life in the lodgings in Portsmouth where the Price family live. And of course, in a way, it's not natural because ⁓ in their particular circumstances, Lieutenant Price is an alcoholic.They've got far too many children. ⁓ He's a useless, sweary-mouthed boozer ⁓ and also had the misfortune to be wounded. ⁓ And she, his wife, Fanny's mother, is a slattern. We get told she's a slattern. And it's not quite clear if that's a word in Fanny's head or if that's Jane Austen's word. And Jane Austen...Fanny even goes so far as to think if Mrs. Norris were in charge here, and Mrs. Norris is as it were, she's the biggest sadist in all Jane Austen's fiction. She's like sort Gestapo guard monquet. If Mrs. Norris were in charge, it wouldn't be so bad here, but it's terrible. And Jane Austen even, know, she describes the color of the milk, doesn't she? The blue moats floating in the milk.She dis- and it's all through Fanny's perception. And Fanny's lived in this rather loveless grand place. And now it's a great sort of, ⁓ it's a coup d'etat. She now makes Fanny yearn for the loveless grand place, you know, because of what you were saying really, Henry, because as I would say, she's such an unsentimental writer, you know, andyou sort of think, you know, there's going to be no temptation for her to say, to show Fanny back in the loving bosom of her family, realising what hollow hearted people those Bertrams are. You know, she even describes the mark, doesn't she, that Mr Price's head, his greasy hair is left on the wall. It's terrific. And it's not destitution, but it's something like a life which must be led by a great sort of rank of British people at the time and Jane Austen can give you that, she can.Henry Oliver (39:26)Yeah, yeah. That's another very Dickensian moment. I'm not going to push this little thesis of mine too far, but the grease on the chair. It's like Mr. Jaggers in his horse hair. Yes. That's right, that's right. ⁓ Virginia Woolf said that Jane Austen is the most difficult novelist to catch in the act of greatness. Is that true?John Mullan (39:34)Yes, yes, yes, it is these details that Dickens would have noticed of course. Yes.Yes.⁓ I think it is so true. think that Virginia Woolf, she was such a true, well, I think she was a wonderful critic, actually, generally. Yeah, I think she was a wonderful critic. you know, when I've had a couple of glasses of Rioja, I've been known to say, to shocked students, ⁓ because you don't drink Rioja with students very often nowadays, but it can happen. ⁓ But she was a greater critic than novelist, you know.Henry Oliver (39:54)Yeah.Best critic of the 20th century. Yes, yes. Yeah. And also greater than Emson and all these people who get the airtime. Yes, yes.John Mullan (40:20)You know.I know, I know, but that's perhaps because she didn't have a theory or an argument, you know, and the Seven Types, I know that's to her credit, but you know, the Seven Types of Ambiguity thing is a very strong sort of argument, even if...Henry Oliver (40:31)Much to her credit.But look, if the last library was on fire and I could only save one of them, I'd let all the other critics in the 20th century burn and I'd take the common reader, wouldn't you?John Mullan (40:47)Okay. Yes, I, well, I think I agree. think she's a wonderful critic and both stringent and open. I mean, it's an extraordinary way, you know, doesn't let anybody get away with anything, but on the other hand is genuinely ready to, to find something new to, to anyway. ⁓ the thing she said about Austin, she said lots of good things about Austin and most of them are good because they're true. And the thing about… Yes, so what I would, I think what she meant was something like this, that amongst the very greatest writers, so I don't know, Shakespeare or Milton or, you know, something like that, you could take almost a line, yes? You can take a line and it's already glowing with sort of radioactive brilliance, know, and ⁓ Jane Austen, the line itself, there are wonderful sentences.)Mr. Bennett was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humor, reserve and caprice that the experience of three and 20 years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. I mean, that's as good as anything in Hamlet, isn't it? So odd a mixture and there he is, the oddest mixture there's ever been. And you think he must exist, he must exist. But anyway, most lines in Jane Austen probably aren't like that and it's as if in order to ⁓ explain how brilliant she is and this is something you can do when you teach Jane Austen, makes her terrific to teach I think, you can look at any bit and if everybody's read the novel and remembers it you can look at any paragraph or almost any line of dialogue and see how wonderful it is because it will connect to so many other things. But out of context, if you see what I mean, it doesn't always have that glow of significance. And sometimes, you know, the sort of almost most innocuous phrases and lines actually have extraordinary dramatic complexity. but you've got to know what's gone on before, probably what goes on after, who's in the room listening, and so on. And so you can't just catch it, you have to explain it. ⁓ You can't just, as it were, it, as you might quote, you know, a sort of a great line of Wordsworth or something.Henry Oliver (43:49)Even the quotable bits, you know, the bit that gets used to explain free and direct style in Pride and Prejudice where she says ⁓ living in sight of their own warehouses. Even a line like that is just so much better when you've been reading the book and you know who is being ventriloquized.John Mullan (43:59)Well, my favourite one is from Pride and Prejudice is after she's read the letter Mr Darcy gives her explaining what Wickham is really like, really, for truth of their relationship and their history. And she interrogates herself. And then at the end, there's ⁓ a passage which is in a passage of narration, but which is certainly in going through Elizabeth's thoughts. And it ends, she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd. And I just think it's, if you've got to know Elizabeth, you just know that that payoff adjective, absurd, that's the coup de grace. Because of course, finding other people absurd is her occupation. It's what makes her so delightful. And it's what makes us complicit with her.Henry Oliver (44:48)Yeah.That's right.John Mullan (45:05)She sees how ridiculous Sir William Lucas and her sister Mary, all these people, and now she has absurded herself, as it were. So blind partial prejudice, these are all repetitions of the same thought. But only Elizabeth would end the list absurd. I think it's just terrific. But you have to have read the book just to get that. That's a whole sentence.You have to have read the book to get the sentence, don't you?Henry Oliver (45:34)Yep, indeed. ⁓ Do we love Jane Austen too much so that her contemporaries are overshadowed and they're actually these other great writers knocking around at the same time and we don't give them their due? Or is she in fact, you know, the Shakespeare to their Christopher Marlowe or however you want to.John Mullan (45:55)I think she's the Shakespeare to their Thomas Kidd or no even that's the... Yes, okay, I'm afraid that you know there are two contradictory answers to that. Yes, it does lead us to be unfair to her contemporaries certainly because they're so much less good than her. So because they're so much less good than her in a way we're not being unfair. know, I mean... because I have the profession I have, I have read a lot of novels by her immediate predecessors. I mean, people like Fanny Burnie, for instance, and her contemporaries, people like Mariah Edgeworth. And ⁓ if Jane Austen hadn't existed, they would get more airtime, I think, yes? And some of them are both Burnie and Edgeworth, for instance. ⁓ highly intelligent women who had a much more sophisticated sort of intellectual and social life than Jane Austen ⁓ and conversed with men and women of ideas and put some of those ideas in their fiction and they both wrote quite sophisticated novels and they were both more popular than Jane Austen and they both, having them for the sort of carpers and complainers, they've got all sorts of things like Mariah Regworth has some working-class people and they have political stuff in their novels and they have feminist or anti-feminist stuff in their novels and they're much more satisfying to the person who's got an essay to write in a way because they've got the social issues of the day in there a bit, certainly Mariah Regworth a lot. ⁓ So if Jane Austen hadn't come along we would show them I think more, give them more time. However, you know, I don't want to say this in a destructive way, but in a certain way, all that they wrote isn't worth one paragraph of Jane Austen, you know, in a way. So we're not wrong. I suppose the interesting case is the case of a man actually, which is Walter Scott, who sort of does overlap with Jane Austen a bit, you know, and who has published what I can't remember, two, three, even four novels by the time she dies, and I think three, and she's aware of him as a poet and I think beginning to be aware of him as a novelist. And he's the prime example of somebody who was in his own day, but for a long time afterwards, regarded as a great novelist of his day. And he's just gone. He's really, you know, you can get his books in know, Penguin and Oxford classics in the shops. I mean, it's at least in good big book shops. And it's not that he's not available, but it's a very rare person who's read more than one or even read one. I don't know if you read lots of Scott, Henry.Henry Oliver (49:07)Well, I've read some Scott and I quite like it, but I was a reactionary in my youth and I have a little flame for the Jacobite cause deep in my heart. This cannot be said of almost anyone who is alive today. 1745 means nothing to most people. The problem is that he was writing about something that has just been sort of forgotten. And so the novels, know, when Waverly takes the knee in front of the old young old pretender, whichever it is, who cares anymore? you know?John Mullan (49:40)Well, yes, but it can't just be that because he also wrote novels about Elizabeth I and Robin Hood and, you know... ⁓Henry Oliver (49:46)I do think Ivanhoe could be more popular, yeah.John Mullan (49:49)Yeah, so it's not just that this and when he wrote, for instance, when he published Old Mortality, which I think is one of his finest novels, I mean, I've read probably 10 Scott novels at nine or 10, you know, so that's only half or something of his of his output. And I haven't read one for a long time, actually. Sorry, probably seven or eight years. He wrote about some things, which even when he wrote about and published about, readers of the time couldn't have much known or cared about. mean, old mortalities about the Covenant as wars in the borderlands of Scotland in the 17th century. I mean, all those people in London who were buying it, they couldn't give a damn about that. Really, really, they couldn't. I mean, they might have recognized the postures of religious fanaticism that he describes rather well.But even then only rather distantly, I think. So I think it's not quite that. I think it's not so much ignorance now of the particular bits of history he was drawn to. I think it's that in the 19th century, historical fiction had a huge status. And it was widely believed that history was the most dignified topic for fiction and so dignified, it's what made fiction serious. So all 19th century authors had a go at it. Dickens had a go at it a couple of times, didn't he? I think it's no, yes, yes, think even Barnaby Rudge is actually, it's not just a tale of two cities. Yes, a terrific book. But generally speaking, ⁓ most Victorian novelists who did it, ⁓ they are amongst, you know, nobodyHenry Oliver (51:22)Very successfully. ⁓ a great book, great book.John Mullan (51:43)I think reads Trollope's La Vendée, you know, people who love Hardy as I do, do not rush to the trumpet major. it was a genre everybody thought was the big thing, know, war and peace after all. And then it's prestige faded. I mean, it's...returned a little bit in some ways in a sort of Hillary man, Tellish sort of way, but it had a hugely inflated status, I think, in the 19th century and that helped Scott. And Scott did, know, Scott is good at history, he's good at battles, he's terrific at landscapes, you know, the big bow wow strain as he himself described it.Henry Oliver (52:32)Are you up for a sort of quick fire round about other things than Jane Austen?John Mullan (52:43)Yes, sure, try me.Henry Oliver (52:44)Have you used any LLMs and are they good at talking about literature?John Mullan (52:49)I don't even know what an LLM is. What is it? Henry Oliver (52:51)Chat GPT. ⁓ John Mullan (53:17)⁓ God, goodness gracious, it's the work of Satan.Absolutely, I've never used one in my life. And indeed, have colleagues who've used them just to sort of see what it's like so that might help us recognise it if students are using them. And I can't even bring myself to do that, I'm afraid. But we do as a...As a department in my university, we have made some use of them purely in order to give us an idea of what they're like, so to help us sort of...Henry Oliver (53:28)You personally don't feel professionally obliged to see what it can tell you. Okay, no, that's fine. John Mullan (53:32)No, sorry.Henry Oliver (53:33)What was it like being a Booker Prize judge?heady. It was actually rather heady. Everybody talks about how it's such a slog, all those books, which is true. But when you're the Booker Prize judge, at least when I did it, you were treated as if you were somebody who was rather important. And then as you know, and that lasts for about six months. And you're sort of sent around in taxes and give nice meals and that sort of thing. And sort of have to give press conferences when you choose the shortlist. and I'm afraid my vanity was tickled by all that. And then at the moment after you've made the decision, you disappear. And the person who wins becomes important. It's a natural thing, it's good. And you realize you're not important at all.Henry Oliver (54:24)You've been teaching in universities, I think, since the 1990s.John Mullan (54:29)Yes, no earlier I fear, even earlier.Henry Oliver (54:32)What are the big changes? Is the sort of media narrative correct or is it more complicated than that?John Mullan (54:38)Well, it is more complicated, but sometimes things are true even though the Daily Telegraph says they're true, to quote George Orwell. ⁓ you know, I mean, I think in Britain, are you asking about Britain or are you asking more generally? Because I have a much more depressing view of what's happened in America in humanities departments.Henry Oliver (54:45)Well, tell us about Britain, because I think one problem is that the American story becomes the British story in a way. So what's the British story?John Mullan (55:07)Yes, yes, think that's true.Well, I think the British story is that we were in danger of falling in with the American story. The main thing that has happened, that has had a clear effect, was the introduction in a serious way, however long ago it was, 13 years or something, of tuition fees. And that's really, in my department, in my subject, that's had a major change.and it wasn't clear at first, but it's become very clear now. So ⁓ it means that the, as it were, the stance of the teachers to the taught and the taught to the teachers, both of those have changed considerably. Not just in bad ways, that's the thing. It is complicated. So for instance, I mean, you could concentrate on the good side of things, which is, think, I don't know, were you a student of English literature once?Henry Oliver (55:49)Mm-hmm.I was, I was. 2005, long time ago.John Mullan (56:07)Yes. OK.Well, I think that's not that long ago. mean, probably the change is less extreme since your day than it is since my day. But compared to when I was a student, which was the end of the 70s, beginning of the 80s, I was an undergraduate. The degree of sort of professionalism and sobriety, responsibility and diligence amongst English literature academics has improved so much.You know, you generally speaking, literature academics, they are not a load of ⁓ drunken wastrels or sort of predatory seducers or lazy, work shy, ⁓ even if they love their own research, negligent teachers or a lot of the sort of the things which even at the time I recognise as the sort of bad behaviour aspects of some academics. Most of that's just gone. It's just gone. You cannot be like that because you've got everybody's your institution is totally geared up to sort of consumer feedback and and the students, especially if you're not in Oxford or Cambridge, the students are essentially paying your salaries in a very direct way. So there have been improvements actually. ⁓ those improvements were sort of by the advocates of tuition fees, I think, and they weren't completely wrong. However, there have also been some real downsides as well. ⁓ One is simply that the students complain all the time, you know, and in our day we had lots to complain about and we never complained. Now they have much less to complain about and they complain all the time. ⁓ So, and that seems to me to have sort of weakened the relationship of trust that there should be between academics and students. But also I would say more if not optimistically, at least stoically. I've been in this game for a long time and the waves of student fashion and indignation break on the shore and then another one comes along a few years later. And as a sort of manager in my department, because I'm head of my department, I've learned to sort of play the long game.And what everybody's hysterical about one moment, one year, they will have forgotten about two or three years later. So there has been a certain, you know, there was a, you know, what, what, you know, some conservative journalists would call kind of wokery. There has been some of that. But in a way, there's always been waves of that. And the job of academics is sort of to stand up to it. and in a of calm way. Tuition fees have made it more difficult to do that I think.Henry Oliver (59:40)Yeah. Did you know A.S. Byatt? What was she like?John Mullan (59:43)I did.⁓ Well...When you got to know her, you recognized that the rather sort of haughty almost and sometimes condescending apparently, ⁓ intellectual auteur was of course a bit of a front. Well, it wasn't a front, but actually she was quite a vulnerable person, quite a sensitive and easily upset person.I mean that as a sort of compliment, not easily upset in the sense that sort of her vanity, but actually she was quite a humanly sensitive person and quite woundable. And when I sort of got to know that aspect of her, know, unsurprisingly, I found myself liking her very much more and actually not worrying so much about the apparent sort of put downs of some other writers and things and also, you know, one could never have said this while she was alive even though she often talked about it. I think she was absolutely permanently scarred by the death of her son and I think that was a, you know, who was run over when he was what 11 years old or something. He may have been 10, he may have been 12, I've forgotten, but that sort of age. I just think she was I just think she was permanently lacerated by that. And whenever I met her, she always mentioned it somehow, if we were together for any length of time.Henry Oliver (1:01:27)What's your favourite Iris Murdoch novel?John Mullan (1:01:33)I was hoping you were going to say which is the most absurd Aris Murdoch novel. ⁓ No, you're an Aris Murdoch fan, are you? Henry Oliver (1:01:38)Very much so. You don't like her work?John Mullan (1:01:59)Okay. ⁓ no, it's, as you would say, Henry, more complicated than that. I sort of like it and find it absurd. It's true. I've only read, re-read in both cases, two in the last 10 years. And that'sThat's not to my credit. And both times I thought, this is so silly. I reread the C to C and I reread a severed head. And I just found them both so silly. ⁓ I was almost, you know, I almost lost my patience with them. But I should try another. What did I used to like? Did I rather like an accidental man? I fear I did.Did I rather like the bell, which is surely ridiculous. I fear I did. Which one should I like the most?Henry Oliver (1:02:38)I like The Sea, the Sea very much. ⁓ I think The Good Apprentice is a great book. There are these, so after The Sea, the Sea, she moves into her quote unquote late phase and people don't like it, but I do like it. So The Good Apprentice and The Philosopher's Pupil I think are good books, very good books.John Mullan (1:02:40)I've not read that one, I'm afraid. Yes, I stopped at the sea to sea. I, you know, once upon a time, I'm a bit wary of it and my experience of rereading A Severed Head rather confirmed me in my wariness because rereading, if I were to reread Myris Murdoch, I'm essentially returning to my 18 year old self because I read lots of Myris Murdoch when I was 17, 18, 19 and I thought she was deep as anything. and to me she was the deep living British novelist. And I think I wasn't alone ⁓ and I feel a little bit chastened by your advocacy of her because I've also gone along with the ⁓ general readership who've slightly decided to ditch Irish Murdoch. her stock market price has sunk hugely ⁓ since her death. But perhaps that's unfair to her, I don't know. I've gone a bit, I'll try again, because I recently have reread two or three early Margaret Drabble novels and found them excellent, really excellent. And thought, ⁓ actually, I wasn't wrong to like these when I was a teenager. ⁓Henry Oliver (1:04:11)The Millstone is a great book.John Mullan (1:04:22)⁓ yes and actually yes I reread that, I reread the Garrick year, the Millstone's terrific I agree, the the Garrick year is also excellent and Jerusalem the Golden, I reread all three of them and and and thought they were very good. So so you're recommending the Philosopher's Apprentice. I'm yeah I'm conflating yes okay.Henry Oliver (1:04:31)first rate. The Good Apprentice and the Philosopher's Pupil. Yeah, yeah. I do agree with you about A Severed Head. I think that book's crazy. What do you like about Patricia Beer's poetry?John Mullan (1:04:56)⁓ I'm not sure I am a great fan of Patricia Beer's poetry really. I got the job of right, what? Yes, yes, because I was asked to and I said, I've read some of her poetry, but you know, why me? And the editor said, because we can't find anybody else to do it. So that's why I did it. And it's true that I came.Henry Oliver (1:05:02)Well, you wrote her... You wrote her dictionary of national... Yes.John Mullan (1:05:23)I came to quite like it and admire some of it because in order to write the article I read everything she'd ever published. But that was a while ago now, Henry, and I'm not sure it puts me in a position to recommend her.Henry Oliver (1:05:35)Fair enough.Why is the Dunciad the greatest unread poem in English?John Mullan (1:05:41)Is it the greatest unread one? Yes, probably, yes, yes, I think it is. Okay, it's great because, first of all, great, then unread. It's great because, well, Alexander Poet is one of the handful of poetic geniuses ever, in my opinion, in the writing in English. Absolutely genius, top shelf. ⁓Henry Oliver (1:05:46)Well, you said that once, yes.Mm-hmm. Yes, yes, yes. Top shelf, yeah.John Mullan (1:06:09)And even his most accessible poetry, however, is relatively inaccessible to today's readers, sort of needs to be taught, or at least you have to introduce people to. Even the Rape of the Lock, which is a pure delight and the nearest thing to an ABBA song he ever wrote, is pretty scary with its just densely packed elusiveness and...Henry Oliver (1:06:27)YouJohn Mullan (1:06:38)You know, and as an A level examiner once said to me, we don't set Pope for A level because it's full of irony and irony is unfair to candidates. ⁓ Which is true enough. ⁓ So Pope's already difficult. ⁓ Poetry of another age, poetry which all depends on ideas of word choice and as I said, literary allusion and The Dunciad is his most compacted, elusive, dense, complicated and bookish poems of a writer who's already dense and compact and bookish and elusive. And the Dunceyad delights in parodying, as I'm sure you know, all the sort of habits of scholarly emendation and encrustation, which turn what should be easy to approach works of literature into sort of, you know, heaps of pedantic commentary. And he parodies all that with delight. But I mean, that's quite a hard ask, isn't it? And ⁓ yeah, and I just and I think everything about the poem means that it's something you can only ever imagine coming to it through an English literature course, actually. I think it is possible to do that. I came to it through being taught it very well and, you know, through because I was committed for three years to study English literature, but it's almost inconceivable that somebody could just sort of pick it up in a bookshop and think, ⁓ this is rather good fun. I'll buy this.Henry Oliver (1:08:26)Can we end with one quick question about Jane Austen since it's her birthday? A lot of people come to her books later. A lot of people love it when they're young, but a lot of people start to love it in their 20s or 30s. And yet these novels are about being young. What's going on there?John Mullan (1:08:29)Sure, sure.Yes.I fear, no not I fear, I think that what you describe is true of many things, not just Jane Austen. You know, that there's a wonderful passage in J.M. Coetzee's novel Disgrace where the reprehensible protagonist is teaching Wordsworth's Prelude.to a group of 19 and 20 year olds. And he adores it. He's in his mid fifties. And he, whilst he's talking, is thinking different things. And what he's thinking is something that I often think actually about certain works I teach, particularly Jane Austen, which is this book is all about being young, but the young find it tedious. Only the aging.You know, youth is wasted on the young, as it were. Only the aging really get its brilliance about the experience of being young. And I think that's a sort of pattern in quite a lot of literature. So, you know, take Northanger Abbey. That seems to me to be a sort of disly teenage book in a way.It's everything and everybody's in a hurry. Everybody's in a whirl. Catherine's in a whirl all the time. She's 17 years old. And it seems to me a delightfully teenage-like book. And if you've read lots of earlier novels, mostly by women, about girls in their, you know, nice girls in their teens trying to find a husband, you know, you realize that sort ofextraordinary magical gift of sort Jane Austen's speed and sprightliness. You know, somebody said to me recently, ⁓ when Elizabeth Bennet sort of walks, but she doesn't walk, she sort of half runs across the fields. You know, not only is it socially speaking, no heroine before her would have done it, but the sort of the sprightliness with which it's described putsthe sort of ploddingness of all fiction before her to shame. And there's something like that in Northanger Abbey. It's about youthfulness and it takes on some of the qualities of the youthfulness of its heroine. know, her wonderful oscillations between folly and real insight. You know, how much she says this thing. I think to marry for money is wicked. Whoa. And you think,Well, Jane Austen doesn't exactly think that. She doesn't think Charlotte Lucas is wicked, surely. But when Catherine says that, there's something wonderful about it. There is something wonderful. You know, only a 17 year old could say it, but she does. And but I appreciate that now in my 60s. I don't think I appreciated it when I was in my teens.Henry Oliver (1:11:55)That's a lovely place to end. John Mullen, thank you very much.John Mullan (1:11:58)Thanks, it's been a delight, a delight. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

durée : 00:03:21 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Un article de Paris Match revient sur la situation financière de la veuve de Johnny. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

Dans cet épisode 199 du Trio économique, Vincent présente son nouveau livre à paraître aux Presses de l'Université de Chicago. Il s'agit de l'aboutissement de ses recherches visant à déboulonner les thèses de Thomas Piketty sur les inégalités sociales. Vincent montre que, lorsqu'on tient compte de l'inflation, la période amorcée en 1870 aux États-Unis fut une ère de prospérité pour tous — contrairement à ce qu'on affirme souvent, à savoir que les pauvres se seraient appauvris tandis que les riches seraient devenus toujours plus riches.0:00 Intro et commanditaires4:05 Le prochain livre de Vincent8:02 Le premier enrichissement égalitaire11:36 La thèse généralement acceptée14:10 Tableaux sur la croissance (1870-1929)20:50 Une déflation pour les plus pauvres24:55 Geloso détruit Piketty30:50 Un économiste de gauche appuie Vincent39:45 Avec les bonnes données, le ratio diminue drastiquement42:20 L'IRS n'inspectait pas sous les 5 000 $49:44 Les revenus du bas 90 % (1870-1910)1:02:05 Conclusion

durée : 00:03:21 - L'Humeur du matin par Guillaume Erner - par : Guillaume Erner - Un article de Paris Match revient sur la situation financière de la veuve de Johnny. - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

This week, Paul and Goldy look back at the most notable economics books of the year. They discuss Ezra Klein and David Thompson's Abundance, Cory Doctorow's blistering Enshittification, Thomas Piketty's new works on inequality, Diane Coyle's fresh take on GDP, and the overlooked history behind the Garland Fund. Whether you're hunting for a holiday gift for the wonk in the family or looking to understand the ideas driving today's political economy, this episode is full of must-reads.  Must-Read Economics Books 2025 Abundance by Ezra Klein and David Thompson Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It by Cory Doctorow Equality Is a Struggle by Thomas Piketty Nature, Culture, and Inequality by Thomas Piketty Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters by Thomas Piketty and Michael J. Sandel The Measure of Progress: Counting What Really Matters by Diane Coyle The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America by John Fabian Witt Honorable Mention Ricardo's Dream: How Economists Forgot the Real World and Led Us Astray By Nat Dyer  Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies by Cesar Hidalgo  Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America by Robert Reisch  Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist Liz Pelly  Other Books Mentioned in Episode Homelessness is a Housing Problem by Greg Colburn & Clayton Page Aldern Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress--And How to Bring It Back by Marc Dunkelman Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty The Gardens of Democracy: A New American Story of Citizenship, the Economy, and the Role of Government by Nick Hanauer & Eric Liu  Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Facebook: Pitchfork Economics Podcast Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics TikTok: @pitchfork_econ YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer Substack: ⁠The Pitch⁠

durée : 00:26:18 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Benjamin Duhamel, Florence Paracuellos - "On ne sortira pas de cette situation avec des petites mesures d'ajustement", estime Thomas Piketty, économiste, directeur d'études à l'EHESS, co-coordinateur du “Rapport sur les inégalités mondiales”. Co-auteur de “Ce que l'égalité veut dire” (ed du Seuil, 2025). - invités : Thomas PIKETTY - Thomas Piketty : Économiste Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

durée : 03:58:38 - La Grande matinale - par : Sonia Devillers, Benjamin Duhamel, Florence Paracuellos, Anne-Laure Sugier - Ce matin sur France Inter, à 7h50, Jean-Pierre Farandou, Ministre du Travail et des Solidarités. À 8h20, Thomas Piketty, économiste, co-coordinateur du “Rapport sur les inégalités mondiales”. Et à 9h20, Pierre Bertinotti, Grand Maître du Grand Orient de France. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

durée : 00:26:18 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Benjamin Duhamel, Florence Paracuellos - "On ne sortira pas de cette situation avec des petites mesures d'ajustement", estime Thomas Piketty, économiste, directeur d'études à l'EHESS, co-coordinateur du “Rapport sur les inégalités mondiales”. Co-auteur de “Ce que l'égalité veut dire” (ed du Seuil, 2025). - invités : Thomas PIKETTY - Thomas Piketty : Économiste Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

It's easy to be pessimistic about inequality. We know it has increased dramatically in many parts of the world over the past two generations. No one has done more to reveal the problem than Thomas Piketty. Now, in this surprising and powerful new work, Piketty reminds us that the grand sweep of history gives us reasons to be optimistic. Over the centuries, he shows, we have been moving toward greater equality. In A Brief History of Equality (Harvard UP, 2022), Piketty guides us with elegance and concision through the great movements that have made the modern world for better and worse: the growth of capitalism, revolutions, imperialism, slavery, wars, and the building of the welfare state. It's a history of violence and social struggle, punctuated by regression and disaster. But through it all, Piketty shows, human societies have moved fitfully toward a more just distribution of income and assets, a reduction of racial and gender inequalities, and greater access to health care, education, and the rights of citizenship. Our rough march forward is political and ideological, an endless fight against injustice. To keep moving, Piketty argues, we need to learn and commit to what works, to institutional, legal, social, fiscal, and educational systems that can make equality a lasting reality. At the same time, we need to resist historical amnesia and the temptations of cultural separatism and intellectual compartmentalization. At stake is the quality of life for billions of people. We know we can do better, Piketty concludes. The past shows us how. The future is up to us. Javier Mejia is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Political Science Department at Stanford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

It's easy to be pessimistic about inequality. We know it has increased dramatically in many parts of the world over the past two generations. No one has done more to reveal the problem than Thomas Piketty. Now, in this surprising and powerful new work, Piketty reminds us that the grand sweep of history gives us reasons to be optimistic. Over the centuries, he shows, we have been moving toward greater equality. In A Brief History of Equality (Harvard UP, 2022), Piketty guides us with elegance and concision through the great movements that have made the modern world for better and worse: the growth of capitalism, revolutions, imperialism, slavery, wars, and the building of the welfare state. It's a history of violence and social struggle, punctuated by regression and disaster. But through it all, Piketty shows, human societies have moved fitfully toward a more just distribution of income and assets, a reduction of racial and gender inequalities, and greater access to health care, education, and the rights of citizenship. Our rough march forward is political and ideological, an endless fight against injustice. To keep moving, Piketty argues, we need to learn and commit to what works, to institutional, legal, social, fiscal, and educational systems that can make equality a lasting reality. At the same time, we need to resist historical amnesia and the temptations of cultural separatism and intellectual compartmentalization. At stake is the quality of life for billions of people. We know we can do better, Piketty concludes. The past shows us how. The future is up to us. Javier Mejia is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Political Science Department at Stanford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

It's easy to be pessimistic about inequality. We know it has increased dramatically in many parts of the world over the past two generations. No one has done more to reveal the problem than Thomas Piketty. Now, in this surprising and powerful new work, Piketty reminds us that the grand sweep of history gives us reasons to be optimistic. Over the centuries, he shows, we have been moving toward greater equality. In A Brief History of Equality (Harvard UP, 2022), Piketty guides us with elegance and concision through the great movements that have made the modern world for better and worse: the growth of capitalism, revolutions, imperialism, slavery, wars, and the building of the welfare state. It's a history of violence and social struggle, punctuated by regression and disaster. But through it all, Piketty shows, human societies have moved fitfully toward a more just distribution of income and assets, a reduction of racial and gender inequalities, and greater access to health care, education, and the rights of citizenship. Our rough march forward is political and ideological, an endless fight against injustice. To keep moving, Piketty argues, we need to learn and commit to what works, to institutional, legal, social, fiscal, and educational systems that can make equality a lasting reality. At the same time, we need to resist historical amnesia and the temptations of cultural separatism and intellectual compartmentalization. At stake is the quality of life for billions of people. We know we can do better, Piketty concludes. The past shows us how. The future is up to us. Javier Mejia is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Political Science Department at Stanford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

It's easy to be pessimistic about inequality. We know it has increased dramatically in many parts of the world over the past two generations. No one has done more to reveal the problem than Thomas Piketty. Now, in this surprising and powerful new work, Piketty reminds us that the grand sweep of history gives us reasons to be optimistic. Over the centuries, he shows, we have been moving toward greater equality. In A Brief History of Equality (Harvard UP, 2022), Piketty guides us with elegance and concision through the great movements that have made the modern world for better and worse: the growth of capitalism, revolutions, imperialism, slavery, wars, and the building of the welfare state. It's a history of violence and social struggle, punctuated by regression and disaster. But through it all, Piketty shows, human societies have moved fitfully toward a more just distribution of income and assets, a reduction of racial and gender inequalities, and greater access to health care, education, and the rights of citizenship. Our rough march forward is political and ideological, an endless fight against injustice. To keep moving, Piketty argues, we need to learn and commit to what works, to institutional, legal, social, fiscal, and educational systems that can make equality a lasting reality. At the same time, we need to resist historical amnesia and the temptations of cultural separatism and intellectual compartmentalization. At stake is the quality of life for billions of people. We know we can do better, Piketty concludes. The past shows us how. The future is up to us. Javier Mejia is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Political Science Department at Stanford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

#KöşedekiKitapçı'da

[English follows Dutch] Wie heeft werkelijk de macht in onze economie? Geven burgers zelf nog vorm aan de samenleving, of zijn we gedegradeerd tot passieve consumenten? Filosoof Lisa Herzog toont aan dat onze ongelijke economie een groot gevaar vormt voor de democratie. Luister naar hoe we volgens Herzog de democratie kunnen redden, door de economie te veranderen. De voertaal is Engels. Lisa Herzog's nieuwste boek, 'De democratische markt', werd door Thomas Piketty aangeprezen als ‘Een geweldig boek en een must-read!' How to Save Democracy? | Lezing en gesprek met filosoof Lisa Herzog en politicoloog Gaard Kets Maandag 6 oktober 2025 | 20.00 – 21.30 uur | LUX, Nijmegen Radboud Reflects en Hotspot Sustainable Democracy Lees het verslag: https://www.ru.nl/services/sport-cultuur-en-ontspanning/radboud-reflects/nieuws/how-to-save-democracy-lezing-en-gesprek-met-filosoof-lisa-herzog-en-politicoloog-gaard-kets Bekijk de video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HD0cbo6Tk&t=313s Like deze podcast en abonneer je op dit kanaal. Bekijk ook de agenda voor nog meer verdiepende lezingen: www.ru.nl/radboudreflects Wil je geen enkele verdiepende lezing missen? Schrijf je dan in voor de nieuwsbrief: www.ru.nl/rr/nieuwsbrief ENGLISH Who truly holds power in our economy? Do citizens still shape society—or have we been reduced to passive consumers? Philosopher Lisa Herzog argues that our unequal economy poses a serious threat to democracy. Learn from Herzog how we can save democracy—by transforming the economy. Monday, 6 October 2025 | 20:00 – 21:30 hrs | LUX, Nijmegen | Radboud Reflects and Hotspot Sustainable Democracy Read the review: https://www.ru.nl/en/services/sport-culture-and-recreation/radboud-reflects/news/how-to-save-democracy-lecture-and-conversation-with-philosopher-lisa-herzog-and-political-scientist-gaard-kets Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HD0cbo6Tk&t=313s Never want to miss a podcast again? Subscribe to this channel! Also don't forget to like this podcast. Radboud Reflects organizes public lectures and courses about current affairs. Check our website for upcoming in-depth lectures: www.ru.nl/radboudreflects Do you want to stay up to date about our activities? Please sign in for the English newsletter: www.ru.nl//rr/newsletter

Recently, Bethany and Luigi joined economist and wealth inequality expert Branko Milanovic in front of a live audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival to explore how capitalism, democracy, and income inequality interact. Together, the three discussed the pervasiveness of income inequality around the world, its connections with democracy and political stability, if the inequality that really matters is that between countries, and if capitalism and democracy aren't as intricately connected as we thought. As a scholar of China's economic system, Milanovic discussed how much of the country's success can even be attributed to capitalism. In the process, the three unpacked if capitalist societies, particularly in the West, are able to address the very inequality they have produced. Are there free-market mechanisms to correct for inequality or does there need to be government intervention? If income inequality poses a dire threat to democracy, what should capitalists do to preserve the institutions that enabled their wealth in the first place?Read a book review of Branko Milanovic's Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War and how his analysis of class and inequality applies to contemporary America, written by former ProMarket student editor Surya GowdaAlso mentioned: Revisit our episode with Thomas Piketty on creating a more equal society and with Martin Wolf: Is Capitalism Killing Democracy?Also revisit our episodes with Sen. Phil Gramm and Matthew Desmond on Poverty in America: Terrible Scourge or a Measurement Error? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

durée : 00:38:02 - L'Invité(e) des Matins - par : Astrid de Villaines, Yoann Duval - Alors que les députés examinent le projet de loi de finances 2026, les affrontements ne portent plus sur les questions de société, mais sur des équations budgétaires : taxe Zucman, surtaxe sur les grandes entreprises, Pacte Dutreil, gel du barème de l'impôt sur le revenu… - réalisation : Félicie Faugère - invités : Thomas Piketty Économiste; Xavier Jaravel Économiste français

durée : 02:22:41 - Les Matins - par : Astrid de Villaines, Yoann Duval - - réalisation : Félicie Faugère

La Ciudad de México se convirtió en el refugio de miles de haitianos que encontraron una segunda oportunidad en esta desmesurada capital de 20 millones de habitantes. Descubrieron que aquí sería posible cumplir el sueño americano sin tener que llegar a Estados Unidos. Lo llaman “el sueño mexicano”. Este reportaje realizado por Ubaldo Bravo acaba de obtener una Mención honorífica en la XV Bienal Internacional de Radio de México en la categoría Podcast periodístico de migración. “No necesitan llegar a Estados Unidos para cumplir su sueño”, dice con tono de seguridad Don Peter refiriéndose a sus compatriotas haitianos. Él llegó a México en 2023 y un año y medio después ya festejaba el primer aniversario de su negocio. “Empezar siempre no es fácil, pero después de un año se va a acostumbrar a la cultura y se va pa' lante”, afirma.Su nombre completo es Peterson Dattus, pero sus clientes y amigos le dicen Don Peter, además de que sus negocios lucen este nombre. La apacible atmósfera de su tienda tapizada de trenzas afro, licores de coco y animada por una clientela haitiana que habla en creole (el principal idioma de Haití) contrasta con el caótico y estridente ambiente de la alcaldía donde nos encontramos, Tláhuac, al sur de Ciudad de México. Y como suena una pegajosa canción haitiana que invita a bailar al visitante, es fácil imaginarse que así es la vida en el Caribe haitiano. Mientras nos muestra sus diversos y coloridos productos, Don Peter nos explica que muchos de sus compatriotas decidieron quedarse en México porque consideraban que hay muchas oportunidades, desde la escuela gratuita para los niños hasta la posibilidad de estudiar la universidad y, por supuesto, trabajo. Él, por ejemplo, se siente muy orgulloso por lo que ha logrado en tan poco tiempo, pues a finales de 2024 ya estaba abriendo un segundo negocio, un restaurante de comida haitiana justo a la vuelta del primero. “Todo va bien gracias a Dios, y gracias a México por las oportunidades que me da”, comenta.La invención del sueño mexicanoLas autoridades mexicanas se vieron sorprendidas cuando México se convirtió en el destino de miles de migrantes porque hasta antes de la pandemia se le consideraba un país de origen y de tránsito hacia Estados Unidos. La diplomacia mexicana informó a finales de 2024 que la comunidad haitiana es una de las más numerosas con cerca de 100.000 haitianos instalados en el país y la mayoría viviría en Ciudad de México, cerca de 45.000, según la prensa local.“¡Fue un choque!”, cuenta Michel Cortés al recordar el día en que vio por primera vez a un grupo de haitianos a las afueras del centro cultural donde les brinda clases gratuitas de español. “Yo creo que ellos nos veían como raro y nosotros a ellos”, agrega.Los capitalinos ya se habían familiarizado con las caravanas de migrantes iniciadas en 2018, que eran pasajeras, pero nunca habían visto tantos improvisados y prolongados campamentos como los que acapararon sus banquetas, plazas y parques en los tiempos de Covid. Llegó un momento en que los albergues ya no podían atender a tanta necesidad, y los migrantes encontraron refugio al sur de la capital, donde la vida es más económica. Con lonas de viejas campañas electorales alzaron tiendas que apenas los protegían de las frías noches del altísimo altiplano mexicano, que se encuentra a 2.240 metros sobre el nivel del mar, y de los ardientes rayos de sol del mediodía, y para bañarse asistían a regaderas que los locales les rentaban en sus domicilios. En estos campamentos vivían médicos, cargadores, taxistas, profesoras, estilistas… haitianas y haitianos de todos los horizontes que en un principio sólo estaban de paso, pero que años después México se convertiría en su segundo hogar.Su presencia causaba malestar para muchos lugareños que se quejaban de que no podían caminar por las banquetas, de que las autoridades no les brindaban sanitarios y de que se sentían inseguros con estos nuevos vecinos. Tiempo después muchos comprenderían que habían sido injustos tratándolos de delincuentes como algunos estadounidenses lo hacen con los mexicanos en Estados Unidos. Con su llegada, los mexicanos aprendieron de golpe que Haití era el país más pobre del continente americano y que huían de su isla porque había sido azotada por varias tragedias. Primero por el terremoto del 12 de enero de 2010 que le quitó la vida a más de 280 000 personas, y luego por la ola de violencia desatada tras el asesinato del presidente Jovenel Moïse, el 7 de julio de 2021, incontrolable hasta nuestros días y que obligó a más de un millón de haitianos a dejar su domicilio (la población de Haití es de poco más de 11,5 millones).“Todo el mundo quiere huir del país porque está cansado. Todos los días hay balazos p'arriba, p'abajo… Todo el mundo si sale de Haití no piensa regresar”, cuenta Don Peter, triste y enfurecido. Además de la violencia que reina en aquel país caribeño, los mexicanos supieron de la espinosa relación entre Haití y Francia cuando el presidente galo, Emanuel Macron, insultó a los dirigentes haitianos llamándolos "idiotas" por haber destituido a un exministro, Garry Conille, que él apoyaba. Aquella frase le dio la vuelta al mundo el 21 de noviembre de 2024. Varios especialistas reaccionaron recordándole a Macron que parte de la desgracia de los haitianos se explica por la injusta deuda que los excolonos franceses les impusieron tras su independencia, en 1804. El famoso economista francés, Thomas Piketty, explica en su libro Capital e ideología que en 1825 Haití aceptó un préstamo de 150 millones de francos de oro (que equivaldrían a unos 40 billones de euros hoy en día) de la Caja de Depósitos y Consignaciones (Caisse des dépôts et consignations), una institución francesa existente hasta nuestros días. Sabiendo que ese monto sería imposible de pagar, pero con tal de que no los invadieran nuevamente, los haitianos se resignaron a pagar cada año, y de manera indefinida, un monto que cubría únicamente los intereses y que equivaldría al 15% de su producción anual. Aunque fue renegociada y saldada en 1950, los 125 años de deuda habrían impedido el desarrollo de Haití y por lo cual, dice Piketty, Francia debería reconocer su responsabilidad y pagar una indemnización. El conjunto de tragedias, pobreza y violencia empujó a los haitianos a un éxodo que nadie sabe cuándo ni cómo terminará. La pandemia de Covid los había detenido en México, pero en 2023 banquetas, plazas y parques recobraron su imagen original, ya olvidada por algunos. Las condiciones habían cambiado para seguir hacia Estados Unidos.Unos lo hacían de manera legal, con la cita de la extinta aplicación CBP One creada por Joe Biden para controlar el ingreso de migrantes, otros continuaban arriesgando sus vidas en las peligrosas rutas del Río Bravo y del desierto, y muchos otros, miles, comenzaron a rentar cuartos, departamentos y hasta casas porque durante estos años habían encontrado que aquí era posible cumplir el sueño americano.El plan B“La situación en Haití sigue muy inestable, y aunque México también tiene sus dificultades es un país mucho más seguro, mucho más estable que Haití”, explica el encargado de la Organización para Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE), Thomas Liebig.Nos recibió en sus oficinas en París para comprender por qué en su reporte sobre migraciones de 2024 la OCDE posiciona a México en el sexto lugar de los países con más solicitudes de asilo, detrás de Estados Unidos, Alemania, España, Canadá y Francia en respectivo orden. “¡Es sorprendente la dinámica migratoria de México! Vemos cifras de más del doble [que en tiempos] de la pandemia”, resalta.En 2022 el Gobierno mexicano registró 118.756 solicitudes de asilo (17 mil eran de haitianos); en 2023 fueron 140.980 solicitudes (44 mil eran de haitianos), y en 2024 disminuyeron a 78.975 peticiones (10.853 eran de haitianos). En estos años la comunidad haitiana aparece en los primeros lugares junto con la cubana, la venezolana y la hondureña. “Lo importante es decir que México se ha convertido en un país acogedor de migrantes. No solamente es un país emisor de migrantes, sigue siendo un país de tránsito, pero también un país acogedor de flujos migratorios como se ven en esas cifras”, asegura Liebig. La institución mexicana encargada de atender las solicitudes de asilo es la Comisión Mexicana para Ayudas a Refugiados y a la que los migrantes llaman por sus siglas, la COMAR. Tiene oficinas en diferentes partes del país, incluidas ciudades cercanas a las fronteras como Tijuana y Ciudad Juárez en el norte, y Tapachula y Tuxtla Gutiérrez en el sur. Nosotros visitamos las oficinas de Ciudad de México que se encuentran en la sureña Alcaldía de Iztapalapa, conocida por concentrar barrios de haitianos. Al salir de la estación de metro Escuadrón 201, la más cercana a la COMAR, nos encontramos con Andy, un joven haitiano quien nos permite conversar con él a pesar de que lo agarramos en la hora sagrada de los alimentos.“Aquí estamos tratando de acostumbrarnos con la comida. Nuestra comida es diferente y es mejor”, nos dice soltando una risa e invitándonos a sentarnos en su mesa en un puesto de comida de tacos y hamburguesas. Le preguntamos si tiene algún inconveniente con el picante mexicano. “El de nosotros es un poquito más fuerte, pero es casi lo mismo”, responde.“¿Vinieron a la COMAR a hacer algún trámite?”: “Sí”, contesta. “Estamos en trámite porque como usted sabe lo primero que uno debe de hacer es legalizarse en un país donde piense que tiene un futuro, porque nuestro futuro es vivir en México”; detalla. Andy nos explica que la solicitud de asilo puede durar medio año, y mientras tanto debe venir cada 10 días a firmar un documento para comprobar su presencia en México. Lleva tres meses en este procedimiento. “En máximo seis meses nos van a dar una respuesta, sea negativa o positiva, sé que máximo son seis meses”, afirma. “¿Usted consideraría que México es el país de las segundas oportunidades?”, preguntamos. “Para nosotros… para mí…bueno… para mí sí, porque mi sueño era vivir y llegar aquí en México. Ahora estamos aquí y esperamos lo que Dios diga. Creo que para Dios no hay nada imposible. Creo que todo va a estar bien… todo va a estar bien…”, responde.Para otros migrantes México no es el destino principal, sino el plan B. Una joven haitiana nos contó que ella dejó Chile para llegar a Estados Unidos, pero que con el regreso de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca considera quedarse en México. “Ahorita estoy en trámite para obtener asilo o la residencia definitiva. Después de eso ya veré si sigo intentando pasar o no”, dice.El país es de quien lo trabajaA las afueras de la COMAR nos encontramos con un comerciante haitiano que vende paté, las empanadas tradicionales de Haití. Un cubano se acerca a preguntarle que de qué están rellenas y él le responde que de “huevo cocido, pollo, tomate y cebolla”. “No solamente huelen rico, también saben ricas”, así seduce a su cosmopolita clientela. Su nombre es Ernso, llegó a México en abril de 2024 y en diciembre de ese mismo año obtuvo el estatus de refugiado que le brinda los mismos derechos que a un ciudadano mexicano, pero no votar. “Para mí fue muy fácil y rápido”, nos confía. “Estuve en Chile casi siete años y no he tenido [el permiso de residencia]. Tenía todos los requisitos que me han pedido allá pa' tener la credencial de allá y no he podido porque la forma en que lo hacen está muy complicada, pero aquí, en México, es como diez veces más fácil que allá, en Chile”, cuenta.Afirma que no piden “casi nada. Si tienes tu pasaporte vienes con tu pasaporte, [incluso] si no tienes con qué identificarte, vienes. A mí me dieron la entrevista 45 días después de que la solicité. El 3 de octubre [fue la entrevista], y me dieron la resolución el 5 de diciembre. Ahora estoy con el estatus de persona refugiada”, agrega.“Te preguntan que por qué dejaste tu país, por qué estás en México y todo eso. La entrevista dura una hora. Y para las preguntas tienes traductor, tienes una persona ahí para traducir. Tú hablas en tu idioma”, detalla.“¿Y cómo fue que desde Chile llegaste hasta México?”, le preguntamos. “Es un trayecto muy duro, muy complicado. Hay varias formas, pero para mí fue el trayecto del Darién [la peligrosa selva entre Colombia y Panamá]. Había que cruzar todos los países: Chile, Perú, Ecuador, Colombia, hasta Guatemala y llegar hasta la capital [de México]”, cuenta.“El Darién fue duro. Yo no me metí por Tapachula, me metí por Tenosique, y de Tenosique a aquí es peor que Darién porque si te encuentra la migración te puede regresar hasta la frontera. Y también es mucho gasto, porque cobran bastante para llegar hasta aquí. No es un viaje directo hasta la ciudad, puro transporte. Fue duro. Viajando de la frontera a la capital casi es un sueño. Nunca sabes lo que va a pasar. Hay secuestro. Te quitan dinero. Hay violación. Te golpean”, continúa. Ernso nos cuenta su dolorosa y complicada travesía en un impecable español porque comenzó a aprenderlo en República Dominicana, donde vivió antes de intentar el sueño chileno. Nos dice que un momento clave de su historia en México apareció cuando encontró la organización Casa Refugiados: “Ellos me explican los apoyos que tienen para personas refugiadas y de ahí dije ‘ya, llegué a mi país' porque siempre esperaba vivir en un país así”.Días después esta organización apoyada por el Alto Comisionado de Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR) nos abre sus puertas para detallarnos la orientación que brindan a los migrantes. Nos recibe Gabriela Pérez Guerra, periodista nicaragüense que dejó su país en 2018 debido a la insoportable represión instaurada por el presidente Daniel Ortega. Aquí es la encargada de la educación para la paz.Nos cita en un céntrico parque de la Ciudad de México, en la colonia Roma, donde tienen un pequeño centro cultural que están restaurando. En una de las paredes se puede leer “Hagan por los demás todo lo que les gustaría que hicieran por ustedes”. “Esta es la frase de oro. Todos necesitamos ser abrazados, todos tenemos vulnerabilidades, todos tenemos algo que nos duele, pero también todos tenemos cosas lindas y la necesidad de vivir en paz”, dice.Tras contarle la historia de Enrso, nos cuenta que ella también había sido orientada por Casa Refugiados. “La información es clave para tener ejercicio a derechos y a obligaciones en este país”, destaca. Las personas que llegan aquí siguen “La Ruta Humanitaria”, como lo llaman al proceso de acompañamiento que consiste, primeramente, en escuchar las necesidades de cada persona. Les brindan alimento, alojamiento o atención psicológica si la requieren. Luego les proponen una entrevista con un acompañante humanitario y es en ese momento les indican los pasos a seguir si desean pedir refugio en México.  “La gente debe saber cuáles son sus derechos, a dónde acudir, cómo quejarte, cómo proteger tu dignidad. Todas esas cosas también son parte de un proceso de integración, pero que nosotros queremos que escale a inclusión: tengo derecho porque soy un ser humano”, concluye.El hábil vendedor haitiano que nos habló de Casa Refugiados nos asegura que ya se siente “medio mexicano” y que quiere estudiar y hacer más negocios. ‘Yo creo que vamos a tener más entrevistas porque en México, lo prometo, lo voy a hacer en grande”, dice, y así nos despedimos.Siempre la misma historiaUn haitiano perdió un brazo en su trabajo en la primavera de 2024. Se lo cortó una máquina. La empresa no hizo nada por él, pero sí la comunidad haitiana que lanzó una campaña de ayuda en las redes sociales. “El compatriota sigue viviendo de manera muy triste porque no es lo que esperaba”, lamenta el presidente de la Diáspora haitiana en México, Frisnel Joseph, y asegura que los migrantes irregulares son las primeras víctimas de la explotación laboral. “Siempre les decimos que tengan sus papeles en regla porque si llega a pasar algo, como un accidente, la empresa no te va a respaldar… La mayoría de las empresas aquí tienen su propia ley”, añade.Además de exhibir la negligencia de las autoridades mexicanas para investigar las injusticias laborales, Frisnel también expone las desigualdades salariales entre personas legales e ilegales. Pone como ejemplo el trabajo informal en el concurrido mercado de La Merced donde es fácil encontrarse con migrantes provenientes de América Latina, pero también de África, en la clandestinidad.    “A quien tiene papel no le dan trabajo porque es más provechoso darle trabajo a alguien que es ilegal. Las empresas dicen, ‘a quien no tiene papel le doy 100 pesos al día (cerca de 5 euros)', pero el que tiene papel va a decir ‘el salario mínimo es de 300 y tantos pesos al día, me tiene que pagar el salario legal'. Eso pasa también en los Estados Unidos y en muchas otras partes”, explica.Frisnel nos cuenta que su asociación busca una cita con la presidenta de México, Claudia Sheinbaum, para exponerle estas injusticias. De concretarse, le pedirán que cree una asistencia especial para migrantes irregulares víctimas de explotación laboral.“Los migrantes no son asesinos, no son criminales, son personas que buscan una vida mejor. Son personas que en sus propios países han encontrado muchas dificultades, y Haití no es el único país que está pasando por esta situación. Los migrantes vienen a hacer crecer la economía. Los migrantes buscan un refugio en el mundo”, afirma.El “sueño mexicano” de los haitianos es también el sueño de miles de mexicanos, no sólo en Estados Unidos sino en su propio país: quieren justicia, seguridad y condiciones de trabajo que les permitan vivir en paz. Pero también es el sueño de millones de migrantes en todo el mundo que un día guardaron su vida en una mochila y se fueron sin saber cuándo regresarán. O si regresarán.

Londinium Chronicles Part 3 Audio Sept 28.mp3 HEADLINE: How to Move the Billionaires: War, Leveling, and the Failure of Reform SPEAKERS: Germanicus and Gaius 200 WORD SUMMARY: The speakers address the internal crisis within "Fortress America": the modern-day Palatine Hill, represented by the billionaires who are untouchable and above the law. Gaius cites economist Thomas Piketty, highlighting the "gigantic" wealth amassed by the super-rich. Germanicus asserts that the only guaranteed pathway to practical leveling—bringing the super-rich back down—is through war, whether external conflict or civil war. He explains that upheaval is necessary because the rate of return on investments consistently outpaces inflation, creating extraordinary wealth imbalance. World War II and the Great Depression were instruments of leveling in the US, creating the middle class and a more cohesive society. Today, US society is highly bifurcated, with the top 7-8% of the population holding 60% of the nation's wealth. Germanicus suggests that the populares committed to radical change are not the conventional "socialist" progressives (who are "parasites" of the state), but groups motivated by non-material goals. Both speakers emphatically agree that the problem of wealth inequality and the power of the Palatine will not be solved by reforms, calling reform a "misdirection." They conclude that maintaining the "status quo" means they are deeply "in trouble." 1790 SULLA'S PROSCRIPTIONS

Coen van de Ven van De Groene Amsterdammer zat er vier jaar bovenop. De worstelingen van GroenLinks en Partij van de Arbeid met elkaar, met zichzelf, de kiezer, hun leden en hun verleden, idealen en toekomst legde hij nauwkeurig vast. Hij sprak met grote namen en onzichtbare krachten. Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger duiken met hem in zijn nieuwe boek 'Een links verhaal', met de ondertitel 'Hoe GroenLinks en de PvdA ondanks alles één werden'. Ze gaan samen naar een volkstuintje, naar meet-ups, naar Pekela, naar eindeloze procedurecongressen, formatietafels en weerbarstig ‘Havana aan de Waal’. Lees ook (in De Groene): Op zoek naar bestaansrecht. De toekomst van een linkse fusiepartij (24 september 2025) *** Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show! Beveilig je online leven met Surfshark VPN! Ga naar https://surfshark.com/betrouwbarebronnen of gebruik de code BETROUWBAREBRONNEN voor 4 extra maanden Surfshark. Geld-terug-garantie van 30 dagen inbegrepen. Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend een mailtje en wij zoeken contact. *** Wat de fusie het lastigst maakte en ook na de eenwording het meest riskant blijft, is Van de Ven inmiddels wel duidelijk. De culturen van de twee partijen zijn boeiend, maar staan vaak diametraal tegenover elkaar. Ook als ze het inhoudelijk overal over eens lijken. Veel GroenLinksers zijn stiekem verliefd op 'oppositie voeren'. Tegendraadse dromers zonder to do-lijstje, want macht geeft maar vuile handen. In de PvdA kennen ze het adagium van de Duitse zusterpartij: 'Opposition ist Mist'. “Als GroenLinksers een boek lezen, dan wordt de wereld dat boek. Bij sociaaldemocraten zit veel meer de traditie van: de wereld is geen boek, maar een bibliotheek", zegt een PvdA-denker. Het maakt de ene partij gevoelig voor nieuwe sfeer en thema's, zoals de bevlieging voor Thomas Piketty of Bernie Sanders, en de andere partij minder beweeglijk, maar daarmee wel meer geworteld. Zo voelden velen bij GroenLinks meer voor samengaan met D66, terwijl bij de PvdA Lodewijk Asscher de SP erbij wilde. Anders hoefde het voor hem niet. Cruciaal noemt Van de Ven de worsteling in de fase tussen de kabinetsformaties van 2017 en 2021. De PvdA versleet toen drie aanvoerders, terwijl GroenLinks ervoer dat ook de succesvolle 'Jessias' geen linkse renaissance kon opleveren. En hoe Jesse Klaver Asscher politiek liet vallen, was geen ingreep die in de PvdA snel vergeten zou worden. De lakmoesproef kwam in 2021. VVD-leider Mark Rutte en CDA-aanvoerder Wopke Hoekstra wilden GroenLinks serieuze macht en veel geld voor klimaatbeleid bieden, maar niet met de getalsmatig niet nodige PvdA erbij. Tenzij ze samen een fractie zouden vormen. Voor zo’n snelle fusie schrok de PvdA op de valreep terug. "Ik heb het verpest", wist fractieleider Lilianne Ploumen. Toch brak GroenLinks het gezamenlijk perspectief niet af. De voortdurende lobby van onderop door leden verenigd in RoodGroen betaalde zich uit. Oppositie van mastodonten uit het verleden bleek te zwak. Met dank aan de snelle val van het kabinet-Schoof is de fusie nu niet meer terug te draaien. Maar een écht ‘Verenigd Links' is het niet, want de twee samengevoegde constructieve, vooruitstrevende partijen – bij de verkiezingen van 2025 voor de tweede keer onder lijsttrekker Frans Timmermans - vertegenwoordigen lang niet het hele progressieve en linkse spectrum. De vraag is nu of GroenLinks-PvdA zich ontwikkelt als partij waarin linksheid zuiverheid betekent of als partij waarin progressiviteit ook ruimte voor de ander betekent. Het beste dat de gefuseerde partij kan overkomen en het slechtste ligt electoraal niet eens zo ver uit elkaar, blijkt uit Van de Vens analyse. Zo is zijn boek onbedoeld een spannende thriller. *** Verder luisteren 480 - De dilemma's van links https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/365fbba7-cf8c-42e5-bcf9-95bb1c189826 195 - PvdA en CDA: ooit dominante machtspartijen, nu grote verliezers. Hoe komt dat? En hoe nu verder? https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/6461c66f-14a8-4022-937d-103409993472 170 - Waarom linkse samenwerking altijd weer mislukt https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/83df8a23-7eb1-4a7e-ac01-8cdf7866eee8 123 – Hoe de PvdA in de greep kwam van het neoliberalisme https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/4fbb87cc-6d18-45db-82c1-d43b2a11065b 331 – De Groenen 40 jaar: van ‘narrenschip’ naar solide regeringspartij https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/17af7e16-d605-4cf0-bdb4-49e14e4f5daa 372 - Nieuwe partijen als Nederlandse traditie - en de afgrond die altijd weer dreigt https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/c866168f-2eeb-4a1b-a1e4-649ab9e0a4ba 34 - Lodewijk Asscher over zijn PvdA https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/2e71b88f-0513-4c5b-8726-3a231d47d6a7/ 244 - Frans Timmermans over klimaatbeleid, geopolitiek en weerbare democratie https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/d1961e80-ac0d-4f56-8004-786246ca8114 474 – Joop van den Berg: “De democratie is in groot gevaar. Je moet niet denken: het loopt wel los" https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/cc04f1a0-75fa-4300-9ba6-a40b893f4c03 330 – Politieke paradoxen. Lessen uit de kabinetsformatie van 2021 https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/ba698432-f0d7-4c55-97d8-d6f06e036849 64 - Wim Kok, een leven op eigen kracht - gesprek met biograaf Marnix Krop https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/44962077-a973-4459-969c-812d1efac686 En Coen van de Ven samen met Jan Tromp 367 - Wantrouwen in de wandelgangen: het Binnenhof van moederschoot naar betonnen bunker https://art19.com/shows/betrouwbare-bronnen/episodes/f2403017-3ad0-48b9-a715-eef90b4cfbea *** Tijdlijn 00:00:00 – Deel 1 00:31:36 – Deel 2 01:07:22 – Deel 3 01:35:54 – EindeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

L'émission 28 minutes du 26/09/2025 Ce vendredi, Renaud Dély décrypte l'actualité en compagnie de nos clubistes : Isabelle Saporta, essayiste et éditorialiste, Nesrine Slaoui, écrivaine et journaliste, et Philippe Manière, essayiste et Président-confondateur de Vae Solis Communications, ainsi que le dessinateur de presse Pascal Gros. Faut-il priver de droits civiques les grandes fortunes qui fuiraient la France ?  Les mesures budgétaires du nouveau Premier ministre Sébastien Lecornu, dont le gouvernement n'est pour l'heure pas encore formé, sont très attendues, notamment sur la question de la taxation des ultra-riches. Cette problématique est au cœur du débat fiscal depuis la proposition de l'économiste Gabriel Zucman de mettre en place un impôt plancher de 2 % sur les patrimoines de plus de 100 millions d'euros. Derrière la taxe Zucman, se cache un autre débat : que faire face aux menaces de départ du territoire national des grandes fortunes françaises ? Le député de la Somme, François Ruffin, a évoqué cette semaine sur RMC la possibilité d'une “privation des droits civiques" de ceux qui quitteraient la France. L'économiste Thomas Piketty est, lui aussi, allé dans le sens de mesures coercitives, dans une interview pour l'agence de presse “Bloomberg” : “Si vous ne payez pas, vous vous mettez dans la même situation que toute personne qui décide de ne pas payer ses impôts. Vos avoirs peuvent être gelés, vous pouvez être arrêté à l'aéroport. C'est la vie des gens normaux.”5 ans ferme pour Nicolas Sarkozy : État de droit protecteur ou oppresseur ?  Jeudi 25 septembre, l'ancien président de la République Nicolas Sarkozy a été condamné à 5 ans de prison ferme pour “association de malfaiteurs” dans le procès sur le financement libyen de sa campagne présidentielle de 2007. Cette condamnation est assortie d'un mandat de dépôt à effet différé avec exécution provisoire, impliquant son incarcération prochaine. Nicolas Sarkozy sera donc convoqué le 13 octobre devant le Parquet national financier pour connaître les modalités de son incarcération. À la sortie du tribunal, l'ancien chef de l'État a fustigé cette décision, qu'il qualifie d'“une gravité extrême pour l'État de droit”. “S'ils veulent absolument que je dorme en prison, je dormirai en prison. Mais la tête haute. Je suis innocent”, a-t-il ajouté. Ce serait la première fois dans l'histoire de la Cinquième République qu'un président est emprisonné. Nous recevons l'historien et écrivain Bruno Fuligni qui publie “Voyage en France australe”, aux éditions Allary. Bruno Fuligni embarque le lecteur à la découverte de ces terres lointaines dont la simple évocation fait rêver : les îles Crozet, Kerguelen, Amsterdam, Saint-Paul, ou encore leurs cousines tropicales les îles Éparses. Ce voyage s'opère aussi dans le temps car Bruno Fuligni est le premier à avoir pu consulter les archives historiques de ces territoires. “La plus grande arnaque jamais menée contre le monde.” Voici les mots choisis par Donald Trump pour qualifier le changement climatique, à la tribune des Nations unies. Lors d'un discours prononcé mercredi soir par visioconférence, Xi Jinping, le président chinois a pris le contre-pied du président américain en affirmant, lui, que la Chine réduirait ses émissions nettes de gaz à effet de serre de 7 à 10 % d'ici 2035. C'est le duel de la semaine de Frédéric Says. C'est l'histoire d'une panne d'escalator devenue un incident diplomatique. Avant de prononcer son discours à l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU, l'escalier mécanique emprunté par Donald Trump et son épouse Melania Trump s'est arrêté, déclenchant la colère du président américain. La Maison Blanche a dénoncé un sabotage. C'est le point com de Marjorie Adelson.Enfin, ne manquez pas la Une de l'hebdomadaire italien “L'Espresso” sur Vladimir Poutine, les photos de la semaine soigneusement sélectionnées par nos invités, ainsi que Le Monde des choses, la nouvelle chronique de David Castello-Lopes !28 minutes est le magazine d'actualité d'ARTE, présenté par Élisabeth Quin du lundi au jeudi à 20h05. Renaud Dély est aux commandes de l'émission le vendredi et le samedi. Ce podcast est coproduit par KM et ARTE Radio. Enregistrement 26 septembre 2025 Présentation Renaud Dély Production KM, ARTE Radio

French economist Thomas Piketty says a proposal for a 2% wealth tax at the center of France’s budget uproar is necessary but insufficient to address the country’s fiscal challenges. He spoke Caroline Hepker on Bloomberg Radio about inequality, economics, and his views on billionairesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ce mercredi, sur Europe 1, Olivier Babeau s'intéresse à la bataille de Thomas Piketty pour l'égalité avec notamment la mise en place de la taxe Zucman qui vise à taxer les patrimoines les plus fortunés. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Tous les matins, Arnaud Demanche pirate le Face à Face. L'humoriste anticipe et détourne l'interview à venir de l'invité politique d'Apolline de Malherbe.

Tous les matins, Arnaud Demanche pirate le Face à Face. L'humoriste anticipe et détourne l'interview à venir de l'invité politique d'Apolline de Malherbe.

I denne episode af Sange om Merværdi snakker værterne Lasse Skou Lindstad og Alex Arash Sand Alsing Kalaee om to rapporter, der berører fortidens og nutidens imperialisme. Først kigger de på Thomas Piketty og Gastón Nievas working paper “Unequal exchange and north-south relations: Evidence from global trade flows and the world balance of payments 1800-2025”, der viser hvordan det globale nord har udbyttet og begrænset udviklingsmulighederne for det globale syd. Herefter vender de blikket mod imperialismen nuværende form med en rapport om det vestligt-støttede folkedrab i Gaza. Francesca Albanese, der er FN's menneskerettighedsrapportør i Israel/Palæstina, har skrevet ”From economy of occupation to economy of genocide”, der dokumenterer hvordan dele af erhvervslivet understøtter og tjener penge på folkemord. Hun nævner bl.a. at danske Mærsk spiller en afgørende rolle i at foretage våbentransport fra USA til Israel, og hun opfordre til omgående sanktioner mod Israel samt retsforfølgelse af erhvervsledere og virksomheder for brud på menneskerettighederne. Links til rapporterne: Piketty og Nievas Working Paper om det ulige bytte mellem det globale nord og globale syd: https://wid.world/document/unequal-exchange-and-north-south-relations-evidence-from-global-trade-flows-and-the-world-balance-of-payments-1800-2025-world-inequality-lab-working-paper-2025-11/ Rapport fra menneskerettighedsrapportør Francesca Albanese om folkedrabets økonomi: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/a-hrc-59-23-from-economy-of-occupation-to-economy-of-genocide-report-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-palestine-2025/

Des lectures pour la pause estivale Pour cet épisode spécial pause estivale, trois personnalités recommandent un livre qui a compté pour eux, une lecture qui les a un jour bouleversés, retournés, démystifiés et qui pourrait aussi nous faire du bien avant de redémarrer une vie normale à la rentrée. Nabil Wakim est journaliste au Monde. Il produit l'excellent podcast Chaleur Humaine, consacré aux enjeux du réchauffement climatique et aux solutions qui s'offrent à nous. Pour élever le niveau et enfin tout piger à la taxe anti-charbon, aux moules de rivières et à Thomas Piketty. Né au Liban de parents arabophones, il est également l'auteur de L'Arabe pour tous et du film Mauvaise langue où il essaie de comprendre pourquoi les enfants d'immigrés issus de pays arabes ne parlent pas la langue de leurs parents. Christine van Geen est l'autrice de l'essai Allumeuse : genèse d'un mythe. On l'a entendue dans l'épisode de Vivons heureux avant la fin du monde « Le mythe de l'allumeuse ». Elle est également enseignante, agrégée de philosophie et fan inconditionnelle de Jane Austen.Marie Pavlenko écrit des romans et de la poésie. Dans l'épisode « Comment parler de l'effondrement avec nos enfants », elle revenait sur son roman Quand le désert disparaitra, une dystopie captivante où les arbres ont disparu de la planète. Pour cet été, elle nous conseille d'emporter un peu de poésie québécoise dans la valise. Ouvrages cités par les intervenants :- Barbara Kingsolver, Dans la lumière, (trad. de l'anglais par Martine Aubert) Ed. Rivages, 2013.- Jane Austen, Orgueil et Préjugés (trad. de l'anglais par Pierre Goubert) Ed. Gallimard, 2007 (publication originale 1813)- Raison et Sentiments (trad. de l'anglais par Pierre Goubert) Ed. Gallimard, 2024 (publication originale 1811). - Emma (trad. de l'anglais par Pierre Goubert) Ed. Gallimard, 2015 (publication originale 1815- Persuasion (trad. de l'anglais par Pierre Goubert) Ed. Gallimard, 2025 (publication originale 1817). - Louise Dupré, Exercice de joie, Ed. Bruno Doucey, 2022.Pour aller plus loin :Quelques romans de Marie Pavlenko : - Et le désert disparaîtra, Flammarion Jeunesse, 2020, Grand Prix SGDL du Roman Jeunesse 2020 - Je suis ton soleil, Flammarion Jeunesse, 2017 - Un si petit oiseau, Flammarion Jeunesse, 2019, Prix Jeune adulte Babelio 2019 - Traverser les montagnes et venir naître ici, Les escales, 2024 Enregistrements Juillet 2025 Entretiens et prise de son Delphine Saltel Montage Delphine Saltel et Mina Souchon Accompagnement éditorial Mina Souchon Lectures Mickael Liot Sabine Zovighian Réalisation Annabelle Brouard Mixage Annabelle Brouard Illustration Yasmine Gateau Production ARTE Radio

My returning guest is Catherine Liu. We discuss the crisis of elite academies, the influence of Foucault, a certain Twitter controversy, Thomas Piketty's concept of the Merchant Right, the transformation of the artworld under neoliberalism and much more. You can get access to the full catalog for Doomscroll and more by becoming a paid supporter: www.patreon.com/joshuacitarella joshuacitarella.substack.com/subscribe

Question:What would have happened to Europe in the past two and a half centuries if it hadn't plundered the global south? What would have happened if Europeans had paid for the labour of Africans instead of stealing it? What would have happened if they had purchased cotton, tea, spices and other commodities at a price that reflected the labour used to produce it? Answer: Europe would be one of the poorer regions of the worldThomas Piketty, the world renowned economist and author of Capital in the 21st Century has produced a new study of the economic dynamics of 19th and 20th Century imperialism. You can access it here*****STOP PRESS*****I only ever talk about history on this podcast but I also have another life, yes, that of aspirant fantasy author and if that's your thing you can get a copy of my debut novel The Blood of Tharta, right here:Help the podcast to continue bringing you history each weekIf you enjoy the Explaining History podcast and its many years of content and would like to help the show continue, please consider supporting it in the following ways:If you want to go ad-free, you can take out a membership hereOrYou can support the podcast via Patreon hereOr you can just say some nice things about it here Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

高雄美術特區3-4房全新落成，《惟美術》輕軌C22站散步即到家，近鄰青海商圈，卡位明星學區，徜徉萬坪綠海。 住近美術館，擁抱優雅日常，盡現驕傲風範！美術東四路29號 07-553-3838 https://sofm.pse.is/7m4234 --

Tầm nhìn Kinh tế Đạo đức của Giáo hoàng Francis - Một Lời Kêu Gọi Cải Cách Hệ ThốngGiáo hoàng Francis không chỉ là một lãnh đạo tôn giáo mà còn là một nhà phê bình sắc sảo về hệ thống kinh tế toàn cầu. Với góc nhìn từ Mỹ Latinh, ngài chỉ trích chủ nghĩa tư bản hiện đại vì đã đánh mất la bàn đạo đức, đặt lợi nhuận trên con người và dẫn đến bất bình đẳng, nghèo đói, cùng suy thoái môi trường. Thay vì bác bỏ hoàn toàn chủ nghĩa tư bản, ngài kêu gọi tái định hướng kinh tế dựa trên nền tảng đạo đức, nhấn mạnh rằng kinh tế không chỉ là kỹ thuật mà là một hệ thống phản ánh các giá trị nhân văn.Giáo hoàng Francis gọi hệ thống kinh tế hiện nay là “một nền kinh tế loại trừ và bất bình đẳng” – một hệ thống “giết chết” khi phục vụ lợi ích của một số ít thay vì cộng đồng. Từ trải nghiệm ở Argentina, ngài chứng kiến sự tàn khốc của bất công kinh tế: cộng đồng tan rã, bất bình đẳng gia tăng, và các tệ nạn xã hội lan rộng. Ngài chỉ trích sự tập trung của cải, cho rằng thị trường, thay vì tạo ra giá trị chung, đang trở thành công cụ bóc lột. Quan điểm này thách thức các giả định tân cổ điển về tính tự điều chỉnh của thị trường, khẳng định rằng nghèo đói và bất công là “tội lỗi cấu trúc” cần được sửa chữa.Trong thông điệp Laudato Si', Giáo hoàng Francis gắn kết kinh tế với sinh thái, coi suy thoái môi trường là hệ quả tất yếu của một nền kinh tế biến thiên nhiên thành hàng hóa và bỏ rơi người nghèo. Ngài gọi Trái Đất là “người nghèo bị ngược đãi nhất”, nhấn mạnh rằng kinh tế và sinh thái là hai mặt của trách nhiệm đạo đức. Cách tiếp cận này không chỉ phê phán mô hình tăng trưởng vô hạn mà còn kêu gọi một nền kinh tế tôn trọng cả con người lẫn thiên nhiên.Giáo hoàng Francis không dừng lại ở phê bình mà đưa ra tầm nhìn về một nền kinh tế dựa trên đoàn kết, công lý và quản lý sinh thái. Hội nghị Kinh Tế của Francesco năm 2020 là minh chứng cho nỗ lực này, khuyến khích các nhà kinh tế đặt câu hỏi cơ bản: “Chúng ta muốn loại thị trường nào, và vì ai?”. Ngài kêu gọi tái thiết hệ thống kinh tế từ nền tảng đạo đức, thay vì chỉ sửa chữa bề mặt. Các đề xuất cụ thể bao gồm từ bỏ độc quyền sở hữu trí tuệ trong y tế (như vắc-xin COVID-19) và xóa nợ cho các nước đang phát triển, xem đó là vấn đề công lý hơn là từ thiện.Tầm nhìn của Giáo hoàng Francis không phải là một sáng tạo riêng lẻ mà nằm trong truyền thống tư tưởng kinh tế nhân văn. Ngài chia sẻ quan điểm với các nhà kinh tế như Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, và Thomas Piketty, những người nhấn mạnh công lý, năng lực con người, và quản trị dân chủ trong kinh tế. Ngay cả Adam Smith, với lời cảnh báo về sự đồng cảm và lòng tin, được ngài viện dẫn để nhắc nhở rằng kinh tế phải phục vụ lợi ích chung. Quan điểm này bác bỏ ý tưởng về kinh tế “trung lập giá trị”, khẳng định mọi chính sách đều phản ánh một hệ giá trị đạo đức.Là tiếng nói cho Thế giới phía Nam, Giáo hoàng Francis đã trở thành một lực lượng đạo đức toàn cầu, nhắc nhở thế giới rằng kinh tế tồn tại để phục vụ con người và phẩm giá. Di sản của ngài nằm ở việc đặt nền móng cho một hệ thống tài chính quốc tế công bằng hơn, thông qua các sáng kiến như Ủy ban Năm Thánh. Trong bối cảnh khủng hoảng toàn cầu, thông điệp của ngài mang tính cấp bách: kinh tế cần được “cứu chuộc” bằng cách đặt công lý, đoàn kết và trách nhiệm sinh thái làm trung tâm. Thách thức đặt ra là liệu thế giới có sẵn sàng đáp ứng lời kêu gọi tái định hình này hay không.Tầm nhìn kinh tế đạo đức của Giáo hoàng Francis là một lời cảnh tỉnh mạnh mẽ, thách thức các nhà kinh tế và lãnh đạo toàn cầu nhìn nhận lại mục đích của kinh tế. Bằng cách kết nối bất công kinh tế, suy thoái môi trường và trách nhiệm đạo đức, ngài không chỉ phê phán mà còn truyền cảm hứng cho một mô hình kinh tế nhân văn hơn. Trong một thế giới đối mặt với bất bình đẳng và biến đổi khí hậu, thông điệp của ngài không chỉ là lý thuyết mà là kim chỉ nam cho hành động, hướng tới một tương lai công bằng và bền vững. To hear more, visit changngocgia.substack.com

Marc Cantavella es asesor fiscal. Empezó su carrera como asalariado pero a raíz de una conversación con amigos identificó un side project que merecía la pena explorar. Ahora desde su firma Relocate&Save trabaja para proteger el capital de sus clientes. Israel Kirzner definió al empresario como aquel que está alerta a las oportunidades que ofrece el mercado. Un empresario, desde la perspectiva austríaca de la economía, mantiene los ojos abiertos en un mundo en constante cambio. Eso es lo que hizo Marc.Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores:⁠⁠UTAMED⁠⁠. La universidad online del siglo XXI⁠⁠.UTAMED, la universidad oficial y online de la Fundación Unicaja, nace para romper las barreras que durante décadas han limitado el acceso a la educación y la cultura. Con exámenes 100 % online y financiación sin intereses, ofrecemos una formación accesible, flexible y comprometida con el presente. Porque hoy ya no basta con obtener un título: en UTAMED te preparamos para trabajar desde el primer año. Lo hacemos junto a la empresa, adaptando los contenidos académicos a sus demandas reales, para que nuestros estudiantes adquieran las competencias más valoradas en el mercado laboral. Por ser oyente de este podcast, tienes un descuento del 30% en todo el catálogo de grados y másteres, oficiales y propios.La casa ESE⁠. ¿Cómo quieres vivir?Aquí de vuelta los pesaos queridos amigos de La casa ESE. Buscando la forma de seguir inventando cosas ya inventadas hemos creado mapadecasas.com, allí tendréis la oportunidad de encontrar, más que vuestra futura casa, vuestra futura vida. Sí, es muy ambicioso. En Madrid, por ejemplo, vamos a crear un conjunto residencial donde además de habitar, podamos llevar un poquito del Mediterráneo moral. No sólo una casa, sino un lugar que tenga zonas verdes, espacios comunitarios y hasta un edificio que pueda hacer las veces de coworking entre otras cosas. A 30 minutos de Madrid y buscando gente afín al mundo tecnológico, al emprendimiento, al marketing y a la cultura. Visita la propuesta de Distrito ESE.Patrocina Kapital. Toda la información en este link.Índice:2:30 Networking en Andorra.4:55 Emprender es de pijos.11:44 A taste of freedom can make you unemployable.19:49 Spanish pickpockets operating in this area.30:03 La curva de Laffer.44:13 ¿Qué hay detrás del capital?51:17 Anticipando el futuro exit tax.1:00:16 Aranceles de Trump.1:08:21 ¿Soy suficiente rico para marcharme?1:11:53 Andorra para los andorranos.1:19:13 Llamémosle competencia, no dumping fiscal.1:26:54 Mil historias de mil clientes.1:36:13 La paradoja del inmigrante clarividente.1:50:17 Millonarios por herencia.Apuntes:El individuo soberano. William Rees-Mogg & James Dale Davison.El capital en siglo XXI. Thomas Piketty.Incerto. Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Was kann man gegen wachsende soziale Ungleichheit tun? Diese Frage erörtern der französische Ökonom Thomas Piketty und der amerikanische Philosoph Michel Sandel in dem Buch „Die Kämpfe der Zukunft. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit im 21. Jahrhundert.“ Rezension von Jochen Rack 

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Faut-il transformer le capitalisme et comment pour réduire nos émissions de gaz à effet de serre ? Ou à l'inverse est-il la solution pour mener la bataille climatique ? Comment penser un système économique différent et qui améliore la vie du plus grand nombre ?Thomas Piketty est économiste, auteur de nombreux ouvrages sur les inégalités de richesse, notamment "Le Capital au XXIe siècle". Il est également co-auteur, avec Julia Cagé, d'une somme sur la démocratie parue en 2022 "Une histoire du conflit politique". Il est également chroniqueur au Monde, et ses articles ont été publiés en 2025 au Seuil sous le titre "Vers le socialisme écologique".« Chaleur humaine » est un podcast hebdomadaire de réflexion et de débat sur les manières de faire face au défi climatique. Ecoutez gratuitement chaque mardi un nouvel épisode, sur Lemonde.fr, Apple Podcast ou Spotify. Retrouvez ici tous les épisodes.Cet épisode a été produit par Cécile Cazenave et réalisé par Thomas Zeng. Musique originale : Amandine Robillard.Chaleur humaine c'est aussi un livre qui reprend 18 épisodes du podcast en version texte, que vous pouvez retrouver dans votre librairie favorite.C'est toujours une infolettre hebdomadaire à laquelle vous pouvez vous inscrire gratuitement ici. Vous pouvez toujours m'écrire et poser vos questions à l'adresse chaleurhumaine@lemonde.frNabil Wakim Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Brown's fascinating Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton UP, 2014) chronicles the changing conceptions of wealth and treasure in late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. For our 2020 series in the rise of money (we also spoke to Thomas Piketty and Christine Desan) Brown related the emergence, in the 3rd and 4th century AD, of striking new ideas about charity and how to include the poor inside a religious community. Brown explains the importance of civic euergetism in the Greek and Roman worldview–i.e. benefaction and charity strictly confined to the good of the city. In early Christianity, this was replaced by compensatory almsgiving by the rich to benefit the lowly poor, or beggars. That notion of the rich being “less likely to enter heaven than a camel going through the eye of a needle”–that, says Brown, “was Jesus at its wildest.” Augustine even preached about almsgiving as “like a traveller's check” that let the rich bank up credit in heaven. But most crucial of all to Brown's argument about changed ideas of wealth is that Christianity initiated the world-transformational notion of corporate identity. Before Oxford, before the East India Company, before IBM, the “managerial Bishop” (Brown's brilliant coinage) is not wealthy in his own right, but is an agent of “impersonal continuity.”.Brown thinks Foucault got this kind of “pastoralism” in Church leaders partially right. But Foucault–“an old fashioned Catholic in many ways” Brown remarks slyly–underestimated the desire of the Christian community to designate a “consumer-driven” church hierarchy in which they can invest. Pressed on the question of resonance to our own day, Brown (as a “good semi-Durkheimian of the Mary Douglas variety”) stresses that “these are almost incommensurable societies.” And he does note an ominous Roman parallel in present-day “personalization of power”–understanding the odious Putin by reading Seneca. Nonetheless, Brown makes clear his enduring admiration for Late Antiquity–compared to classical Greece and perhaps to our own day–because of its “remarkable tolerance for anomaly.” Brown has that too, more power to him! Mentioned in the Episode Peter Brown, Body and Society (1968) Peter Brown,. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1968) Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) Peter Brown, The Ransom of the Soul (2015) Evelyne Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siè (Economic Poverty and Social Poverty) Augustine, Confessions (c. 400 AD and many other works available here ) Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (on priests and the importance of the pastoral or shepherding metaphor) George Lakoff and Michael Johnson, Metaphors We Live By Seneca, Letters from a Stoic Listen and Read Here.

Tschechne, Martin www.deutschlandfunk.de, Büchermarkt

How is market signaling tied to economic growth, and what will the introduction of AI do to the wave of economic development in the US and abroad? Will other surging economies surpass the United States as dynamics continue to change?Michael Spence is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, also the author of a number of books, including The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World and most recently, Permacrisis: A Plan to Fix a Fractured World.Greg and Michael discuss Michael's ideas on economic growth and signaling, exploring the early days of applied micro theory with key figures like Ken Arrow and Tom Schelling. They also cover the evolution of global economic policy, particularly the challenges and opportunities in an increasingly fragmented world. Michael shares insights from his books and emphasizes the importance of cognitive diversity in understanding and addressing global socio-economic issues.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Show Links:Recommended Resources:Kenneth ArrowRichard ZeckhauserThomas SchellingThe Market for LemonsPooling EquilibriumJohn Maynard SmithErving GoffmanEdward LazearWashington ConsensusReport: EU competitiveness: Looking aheadGuest Profile:Professional Profile at the Hoover InstitutionProfile for the Council on Foreign RelationsNobel Prize ProfileWikipedia PageHis Work:Permacrisis: A Plan to Fix a Fractured WorldThe Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed WorldEpisode Quotes:The scarcity of time as a signal18:56: It turns out time is an incredibly important signal. In just an ordinary interaction, if somebody's willing to spend time with you, we always take this for granted because it's part of life, right? If they won't spend time with you, that sends a different signal. I mean, in the internet era, I think most people understand that the scarcest commodity is attention, not money, not other things. And so, the battle for people's attention, or time, or whatever you want to, these are slightly different, but it's pretty important. So, it's all there, but it did have origins well before the signaling and screening work.Signaling model has to be visible11:11: The core of the signaling model is that it has to be visible. It has to cost something; otherwise, everybody would do it. And the costs have to be negatively correlated with the quality; otherwise, it won't survive in equilibrium.Navigating crises, inequality, and global interdependence49:19: The way I approach that is try to look at the big challenges: maintaining some reasonable level of global sort of interdependence with the benefits that it brings without getting into big trouble, dealing with the various dimensions of the sustainability agenda, and dealing with sort of stunningly high levels of inequality, especially in wealth. Thomas Piketty's right; there's long cycles in these things, and maybe you just have to live through them. But, the last thing I did is look at the St. Louis Fed, which publishes pretty detailed data on American household net worth, assets, liabilities, and net worth. The top 10 percent has two-thirds of the net worth. The bottom 50 percent has 3%. Yeah. Sort of wonder, you know, can you really run a society that looks like that indefinitely, or if not, what's going to break and cause it to change?

REDIFF - "Si l'État a besoin d'argent, il n'a qu'à taxer les riches". C'est une idée qu'on entend souvent alors que le déficit s'est creusé et que l'État manque de ressources... Cela s'appuie sur une faux constat, alimenté en partie par certains travaux de Thomas Piketty. "Hors-série Lenglet & Co", un podcast hebdomadaire présenté par François Lenglet et Sylvain Zimmermann, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et des mutations économiques, en Europe et dans le monde.

The two most dangerous presidents in American history lost the popular vote but won the slave state monument, the Electoral College: war criminal George W. Bush and Russian asset Donald Trump. Luckily it's within reach to reform the Electoral College, protecting democracy and the world.    Alyssa Cass of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a bipartisan movement to pass legislation in enough states across the country to ensure that the president is elected by the popular vote, joins Gaslit Nation to explain how to reform the Electoral College. Seventeen states and Washington, DC, with 209 electoral votes total, have already enacted the legislation. This means 61 electoral votes are needed in order for the popular vote–the will of the people–not the outdated and dangerous Electoral College, which gives way too much power to a handful of swing states, determines our elections. To be a part of the movement to reform the Electoral College, check the status of the legislation in your state and get involved: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status   This week's bonus episode, exclusive to supporters at the Truth-teller ($5/month) level and higher, features Russian mafia expert Olga Lautman and European analyst Monique Camarra of the Kremlin File podcast on the making of Vladimir Putin. Listeners at the Democracy Defender ($10/month) level and higher join the conversation on Gaslit Nation's coverage of Israel and Palestine. Thank you so much for all your comments! We always enjoy hearing from you!    Here are some of the exciting events we have coming up for our Patreon community at the Truth-teller tier and higher that make Gaslit Nation possible:    Investigative Journalist Craig Unger Live-Taping - June 25th 12pm ET:  June 25th is George Orwell's birthday! Come celebrate with us at a live taping of Gaslit Nation, featuring another fearless journalist, Craig Unger, the author of several bestselling books: House of Trump, House of Putin; House of Bush, House of Saud; and American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery (which features his reporting on Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile global crime syndicate). Joining the live-taping will be Russian mafia expert Olga Lautman and European analyst Monique Camarra of Kremlin File. Drop your questions in the chat! Be sure to subscribe at Patreon.com/Gaslit at the Truth-teller tier ($5/month) or higher to get your ticket. A zoom link will be sent out the morning of the event. Thank you to everyone who supports the show!    Cult Expert Dr. Janja Lalich Live-Taping - July 15 8pm ET July 15th kicks off the Republican National Convention/Hitler rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. To help us cope with the mainstream media, especially the New York Times, continuing to normalize Trump and his MAGA cult, we're producing a live taping with cult expert Dr. Janja Lalich. Bring your questions about how to navitage this perilous time of rampant disinformation and manipulation, learn the signs of cult grooming, and how to help loved ones who have fallen victim. This will be Dr. Lalich's second time on the show. You can listen to the interview with her from April 2022 here.    In the Shadow of Stalin Book Launch - September  Gaslit Nation will host a live taping at a book launch in New York City for In the Shadow of Stalin, the graphic novel adaptation of Mr. Jones. It includes scenes that didn't make it into the final cut of the film, or it would have been three hours long! The evening will include a special meet-up just for Patreon supporters. We look forward to sharing more details as we get closer. If you want a book event/live taping of Gaslit Nation in your town or city, let us know!    Indivisible x Gaslit Nation Phonebank Party! - June 20th 8pm ET Open to all, Gaslit Nation and Indivisible are kicking things off early this year, really early! When there's such a thing as Project 2025, there's no time to waste. Come join us for our first phone bank party of the season, as we make calls to our fellow citizens in Republican hostage states, to refuse to abandon those on the frontlines of American authoritarianism, and to plant seeds of change. We're going in!  RSVP here to join us! https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/628701/ Show Notes:   Pre-Order In the Shadow of Stalin: The Story of Mr. Jones, out this September! https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/In-the-Shadow-of-Stalin-The-Story-of-Mr-Jones/Andrea-Chalupa/9781637152775   The song you heard at the top of the show was 'The Fuel' by Jerrika Mighelle. You can find more music by Jerrika Mighelle on all streaming platforms or at jerrikamighelle.com. And be sure to check out the beautiful official video for 'The Fuel' on YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXK32cYuOWs   Post-9/11 wars have contributed to some 4.5 million deaths, report suggests https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terror-911-deaths-afghanistan-iraq/   Surveillance and interference: Israel's covert war on the ICC exposed Top Israeli government and security officials have overseen a nine-year surveillance operation targeting the ICC and Palestinian rights groups to try to thwart a war crimes probe, a joint investigation reveals. https://www.972mag.com/icc-israel-surveillance-investigation/   Spying, hacking and intimidation: Israel's nine-year ‘war' on the ICC exposed https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/spying-hacking-intimidation-israel-war-icc-exposed   Fareed Zakaria: Is Israel committing humanitarian crimes in Gaza? The Israeli gov't strenuously denies it. Aryeh Neier, a giant in the world of human rights who escaped Nazi Germany and later cofounder Human Rights Watch, says the answer is yes. Our conversation from today's GPS: https://x.com/FareedZakaria/status/1794793567543509201   Thomas Piketty's Radical Plan to Redistribute Wealth https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/books/review/a-brief-history-of-equality-thomas-piketty.html   Why the Voting Rights Act Is Once Again Under Threat https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/why-the-voting-rights-act-is-once-again-under-threat.html   William Barr, nation's top lawyer, is a culture warrior Catholic https://www.ncronline.org/news/william-barr-nations-top-lawyer-culture-warrior-catholic   Bill Barr, frequent Trump critic, says he will support the ‘Republican ticket' in November https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/politics/bill-barr-donald-trump-vote/index.html   “I started Occupy Wall Street. Russia tried to co-opt me” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/02/activist-russia-protest-occupy-black-lives-matter   What will Trump jury decide? Here are the three options https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c033m2qdm0no