POPULARITY
16 episodes with walter bagehot
2 episodes with walter bagehot
3 episodes with walter bagehot
Esta semana, desde La Paella Rusa especial arroz con letras, os proponemos una lecturita sencillita para las tardes estivales. En concreto, hablamos de Liberalism at large. The world according to The Economist, de Alexander Zevin (Ed. Verso). Un libro que aborda “el desarrollo del liberalismo moderno al estudiar la larga historia del periódico The Economist, que, desde 1843, ha sido el más incansable - e internacionalmente influyente - defensor de la causa liberal en cualquier parte del mundo. Liberalism at large examina una ideología política en movimiento a medida que enfrenta los desafíos que la doctrina clásica dejó sin resolver: el surgimiento de la democracia, la expansión del imperio, el predominio de las altas finanzas. El contacto con fuerzas tan trascendentales no iba a dejar indemnes a los defensores de los valores liberales. Zevin refleja la política - y las personalidades - de los editores de The Economist pasados y presentes, desde los banqueros-ensayistas victorianos James Wilson y Walter Bagehot hasta las eminencias de la actualidad Bill Emmott y Zanny Minton Beddoes. Hoy en día, ni la crisis económica interna ni la guerra permanente en el extranjero han disminuido la creencia de The Economist en los mercados sin restricciones y en un gobierno limitado. Confidente de los poderosos, emisario del sector financiero, portal hacia los asuntos internacionales, esta revista da forma al mundo en el que viven sus lectores (y todos los demás). Esta es la primera biografía crítica de uno de los arquitectos de un orden mundial liberal que ahora está bajo una creciente presión”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Efectivamente, tras unos días de intensa reflexión y pícnics románticos por los jardines de Moncloa, Pedro Sánchez apareció en nuestras pantallas el pasado lunes 29 de abril para decir que se queda. Que quiere seguir al frente de nuestras vidas y nuestros corazones. Porque el Perro es un hombre profundamente enamorado de su mujer, pero también de todos y cada uno de los españoles. Así que, en este episodio de La Paella Rusa abordamos el penúltimo giro de guion del cánido socialista y las reacciones que su anuncio de no dimitir ha causado en el resto de fuerzas políticas (ya sean socios de gobierno o adversarios)... y en las mediáticas. También guardamos un emotivo abrazo a estos expertos analistas que apostaban con vehemencia por una dimisión asegurada al 100%. Pobrecicos. ¡Ah, y elucubramos sobre cómo le sentaría al rey Felipe VI que este señor le hiciese madrugar un lunes para nada! ¿Y qué opinará Letizia de todo esto?Y seguimos con más Perro, pues en este capítulo de La Paella Rusa, también nos planteamos qué efectos puede tener este golpe de efecto en el futuro del líder del PSOE y en el del propio partido o cómo puede afectar a los próximos comicios catalanes y europeos, que tendrán lugar, respectivamente, a mitad de mayo e inicios de junio. Y, por supuesto, nos hacemos la gran pregunta: ¿realmente esta persona canina se pasí casi una semana dándole vueltas a la idea de dejar el poder o solo quería sentir que España le quería mucho, mucho, mucho y muy fuerte?Y en nuestra recomendación cultural, desde La Paella Rusa os proponemos una lecturita sencillita para las tardes primaverales. En concreto, esta semana hablamos de Liberalism at large. The world according to The Economist, de Alexander Zevin (Ed. Verso). Un libro que aborda “el desarrollo del liberalismo moderno al estudiar la larga historia del periódico The Economist, que, desde 1843, ha sido el más incansable - e internacionalmente influyente - defensor de la causa liberal en cualquier parte del mundo. Liberalism at large examina una ideología política en movimiento a medida que enfrenta los desafíos que la doctrina clásica dejó sin resolver: el surgimiento de la democracia, la expansión del imperio, el predominio de las altas finanzas. El contacto con fuerzas tan trascendentales no iba a dejar indemnes a los defensores de los valores liberales. Zevin refleja la política - y las personalidades - de los editores de The Economist pasados y presentes, desde los banqueros-ensayistas victorianos James Wilson y Walter Bagehot hasta las eminencias de la actualidad Bill Emmott y Zanny Minton Beddoes.Hoy en día, ni la crisis económica interna ni la guerra permanente en el extranjero han disminuido la creencia de The Economist en los mercados sin restricciones y en un gobierno limitado. Confidente de los poderosos, emisario del sector financiero, portal hacia los asuntos internacionales, esta revista da forma al mundo en el que viven sus lectores (y todos los demás). Esta es la primera biografía crítica de uno de los arquitectos de un orden mundial liberal que ahora está bajo una creciente presión”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Youth Sport: Kyle gets to know a minister better. In 4 parts, by oolonroosevelt. Listen to the Podcast at Steamy Stories. Kyle McQuary, newest research fellow at the John Burfitt Institute, and the Very Honorable May H. Van, MLA, CSS, Minister for Youth and Sport for the Province of Deltaland, drink tea in a café across from the provincial capitol. [[MORE]] Forward: Sexual Equity is a philosophy that is the foundation of of government in the Pacific island nation of New Dorset. Sexual Equity is based on the notion that while men and women have equal value and should be equally free, fundamental differences make complete sexual equality impossible, and that it is equity (fairness and justice) that should be sought between the sexes. The adherents of Sexual Equity note the differences in male and female sexual drives, as well as differences in the ways men and women typically view hierarchy, status, and a culture of honor. Origins of Sexual Equity In a 1975 speech, Wanda Barnes, then the leader of the Women's Caucus in the New Dorset House of Representatives, laid out the principles of Sexual Equity. She noted that New Dorset had been a leader in sexual equality: the first country in the British Empire to grant equal suffrage to women and also to elect a female member of its legislature, and the only country in the world that established dual constituencies, with one male and one female legislator elected from every constituency, guaranteeing equal numbers of men and women to Parliament. Despite this nominal equality in government, she noted that continuing control by men in the political party system and in spheres outside government had stymied attempts at substantial reform. Despite the recent session had been concerned mainly with issues around independence: whether to become a republic instead of sharing the British monarchy, and how to reform the Senate and the system of honors. She claimed that these were issues of honor and status, of interest primarily to men, without addressing the important issues affecting women's daily lives. Hearkening back to difference between “dignified” and “efficient” parts of parliamentary government (see The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot), Barnes proposed a male monarchy and House of Lords, which would be symbolic and deal with issues such as honors and national symbols, and a female House of Representatives, which would form the executive and make the laws. Adoption of Sexual Equity in New Dorset Barnes' proposals caused an uproar; she was accused of being sexist against men, and several male-led political parties took the opportunity to propose eliminating dual candidacies and repealing some of the previously passed women's rights legislation. The turning point was an overheard remark by the Minister for Home Affairs, Jason Campbell, saying that he would gladly give up the power to government in return for sexual favors. Although he quickly apologized, Wanda Barnes gave another speech (Second Sexual Equity speech of Wanda Barnes) pointing out the prevalence of female prostitution and the different sexual needs of men and women as exemplifying their differences and the need for equity rather than equality. Saying that she believed Campbell had nothing to apologize for, Barnes declared that she was proud of having been a prostitute in her youth (prostitution was particularly common in New Dorset: see Prostitution in New Dorset), that giving men pleasure was nothing to be ashamed of, and that sexual service is something women should be able to provide to men, if men can provide what women need as well. After the speech, Barnes and some of her followers in the Women's Caucus had a series of one-on-one meetings with Campbell and several other members of parliament, about which much has been rumored but little is known for certain. After those meetings, a constitution for New Dorset was adopted incorporating Barnes's proposals, and also mandating that sexual service is mandatory for members of the House of Representatives and the various provincial legislatures (see Sexual Service in New Dorset). Campbell became New Dorset's first king, and other male MPs who voted for the new constitution became the first dukes of the provinces. “So, Mr. McQuary, now you've seen the centers in person. What did you think? "Minister, I was very impressed. Back in the capital, we weren't able to find funding to open youth centers more than three days a week. But here, you have care five days, plus classes and activities, even on weekends. The centers themselves are very nice, but it's the level of funding that I can hardly believe.” “Well, much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for that. The last government worked out a grand bargain between all the cities and the provincial youth and senior citizens ministries to share staff and resources: all the ancillary support staff like cleaning, procurement, and personnel, and even things like using the same music instructors for youth and senior programs. Reducing redundant functions allowed us to redirect what funding we had toward front-line staff. We disagreed in a lot of other ways, but the last senior and youth ministers made a great accomplishment here.” “It's laudable of you to give so much credit to people you opposed.” “Well, we're all here to serve the public good. We can't do our best for our constituents if we get caught up in squabbles.” “Still, I find it admirable.” “Well, thank you, Mr. McQuary.” The minister takes a last sip of her tea. “Is that everything you need for your report?” “Yes, but there is something else I wanted to ask, Minis— is it OK if I call you May?” The minister tenses up. She wasn't expecting this. “Oh-kay,” she pronounces slowly. “May, I've really liked working with you over the past few days, and walking around seeing your centers today was just wonderful. I really enjoyed it, and I think you did too. I'd like to take you out and spend some time together, see if we can get to know each other. You saw they're doing ‘Once' at the community theater here? I think you'd like it.” “You want to go on a date. With me.” Smiling, he says, “Yes, that's what it's called. Will you come?” “Mr. McQuary—Kyle—you're a nice guy, but I'm in the Legislative Assembly and a minister in His Highness's government. You know what that means. I don't go on dates.” “What? Why not? I know your responsibilities. That doesn't bother me.” “They don't bother you… We're not just talking about long hours in committee hearings and late nights in the Ministry offices, right? You know what this job requires of me.” “Yes, May, I know about your service obligation. That's not a problem.” “Not a… look, you might think you know, but there's no way you could say that and really understand what it means.” She pauses and stares at him for a moment before getting her phone out of her purse and concentrating on it for a minute. “Ok, let's go.” She stands up and takes a step. “Well, come on.” Kyle stands and May leads him into the capitol and down a back stair. They come to a security desk. “Hi, Faith,” May says to the guard. “I have a perk booking for number three?” “I wasn't expecting… oh, I see you just made it. Of course, Minister. I'll need to see both your IDs before I buzz you in.” They show their IDs and are buzzed through the first door; May uses a key card to let them through a hallway and then into a small room with a divan and a closet. May opens a connecting door wide, using her purse as a doorstop to make sure it doesn't close. She ushers Kyle through it and says “You wait in here, I'll be just a minute.” Kyle walks into the room, which has a bed, nightstand, tall chair, and a low stool. “May, wait a minute, this isn't —” “Kyle, you wait in there and then we can talk, okay?” “Um, okay…” May slides opens the closet and begins removing her clothes: first her shoes, then skirt. Kyle says “Um, May…” and looks away. “No, I want you to look.” He looks back at her as she places the skirt in the closet, and proceeds to do the same with her blouse, stockings, and underwear. She then dons a perfectly sheer robe from the closet, and walks into the room with Kyle. “Go on, have a seat.” Somewhat bemused, he gets up on the chair, and she brings the low stool in front of him and kneels on it, so her face is on a level with his pelvis, and then looks up at him. He stares down at her breasts, clearly visible through the robe. “Twenty times a month, Kyle, I come down here, just like this, and say 'Hi, my name is May. May I serve you with my hands, my mouth, or through intercourse?' That works out to about once every work day. I usually take a morning appointment, which means that every day before work, I'm in here having sex with some man whose name I'll never know and who I'll never meet again. "I can see I'm turning you on. That's sweet. It's not fair of me to bring you down here, get you all hot, and then leave you hanging. Come on, let's get those pants off.” She reaches up and unbuckles his pants, and pulls them and his underwear down. Kyle rises to let the clothes fall, but otherwise is too shocked to say anything. “Let me work on this a little,” she says, and takes his cock into her hands, running her hands up and down it, squeezing and massaging. “Do you know why I met you at nine-fifteen today? It's because between eight and nine, I was in the room next door, sucking some guy off. He was big, too, my jaw's still a little sore from it. "And I did the very same thing yesterday with a different guy, and the day before that, I was lying face-down on the bed while another guy fucked me from behind. And I'll be here doing something just like that tomorrow, and Friday, and every day next week.” “Here, let me see if I can get you off.” She kisses his glans and then licks it, and brings it into her mouth, moving up and down with lips and tongue. It isn't long before his body stiffens and he ejaculates into her mouth. “Mmm, yours isn't bad,” says May. “Pineapple juice?” Kyle can't do more than shake his head. “So, Kyle, I hope you enjoyed yourself. I'm flattered you found me attractive. But I do this every day with a different man every time. I can't have this job and still be a regular girl and go on dates and be in a relationship and meet the parents and go to Christmas holidays and… I just can't do those things. "Can I just say, 'Thank you for allowing me to serve,' and then we can go back to being colleagues? I still want to help with your research.” Kyle stares down at her. “May… that was amazing. Maybe the hottest thing that's ever happened to me. But 'Thank you for allowing me to serve' isn't my idea of pillow talk from someone I care about.” May just looks up at him. “I wasn't going to get into this till later… but OK. Part of the reason I took a job out here was because I had a bad breakup with my fiancée. We were teenage sweethearts, and I thought we'd be together forever. But we had a problem. I couldn't help… look, I'm a man, I'm attracted to women. We'd go out together, and I'd see a woman, and I'd look. Not crazy staring look, but just… notice her. And Ruby would catch me noticing, and she'd be mad. And jealous. And I'd feel like I was hurting our relationship. Eventually even when I was out by myself and I'd see an attractive woman, I'd feel like I was being disloyal just by noticing. And I couldn't stop.” “Well, yeah. Men notice women. Women notice men, too, for that matter. Your fiancée didn't know that?” “Maybe she did. I don't know. But she made me feel that I was dishonoring our relationship just by noticing. And eventually I met someone who noticed me back, and since it felt like if I was already being unfaithful, what the hell… we did more than notice each other. Ruby couldn't forgive me for it, and I don't blame her. We broke up after that. "I've thought about it a lot since. I know some men get into exclusive relationships and, maybe they notice others, but for them it's not a big deal. But for me, it has to be,, after that. I don't want to be in a relationship where I have to try to hide who I am or what I want. I need to be with someone who can let me explore that side of myself, without my being afraid of dishonoring the relationship. And that means I need to be with someone who doesn't need me to be exclusive. "So someone like you, with a service obligation – well, that's just the perfect thing for me. Because I need someone who also doesn't want to be exclusive. Either because she also wants to explore her other wants and needs, or because her career means that exclusivity isn't an option. So May I really like you, but I'm also interested in you because you are what I'm looking for, that way. For me, your being in politics doesn't mean you're not a person I can date – it means you're the only kind of person I can.” May looks down and shifts uncomfortably. “May, we will never be the only ones for each other, in terms of sex. I'm going to look at other women, and more than look, and I am going to sign up to receive service from other politicians, which I do appreciate for what it is. And maybe you'll find someone else you want to have a fling with, and you're definitely going to be here every morning, giving service to whoever is next on the waiting list. And for you and me, that's a good thing. "I want to go on dates with you, and get to know you. I can imagine… I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but you're a person I can imagine holding close, sharing good and bad times with. It doesn't bother me that you have sex with other guys. What bothers me is the thought of them leaving you alone afterwards.” May tears up, just a bit. “You know, it's not just down here … I mean, the duke, he likes having me. I get an audience summons at least once a week, sometimes a few times.” “What? I thought he wasn't supposed to repeat audience summonses, at least not often.” “Well, he's not, but that's not a rule, it's just something not usually done. He's supposed to, you know, 'allow the honor of service to be shared,' that kind of thing. But he's been asking for me a lot. I mean, up until now, I haven't minded… too much… he's pretty gentle, most of the time, and it's nice to feel wanted… even if it's just because I look like the girls he knew overseas.” “Well if it's OK with you it's OK with me. If I were the duke I'd want to have you too. I just wouldn't want to send you home afterwards.” May can't help herself and sniffles. “But that is what he does… sends me home in the back of a car, all by myself… and I get home and…” Kyle gets off the chair and kneels down next to May. He holds her hands, and she pulls herself together, just a bit. “Kyle, you need to know… I've never… I mean, I've been with hundreds of guys, but it was all service. We came to this country with nothing when I was just a baby, and then my dad died, and Mom was really poor. She never had the money to give me the things all the other girls got… I was the only one with crooked teeth when everyone else got braces, the only one with small boobs when everyone else got implants, the only one who had to shave because she couldn't afford hair removal treatment. And I looked different… nobody wanted me. The only way I could get those things was to borrow, and I went into commercial service to pay it off, where I was the exotic one… and then I graduated and went straight into politics. I never had a boyfriend, even a real date.” “May, please, I can't imagine anything better than being the man who could give you those things. You've had sex, but you've never had a lover. Can I be your lover?” May nods. “Ok. Yes. I want to. So much. Yes. And I really do like you, Kyle, I had a wonderful time today too. I mean, outside, looking at the youth centers.” Then she pauses, and her eyes crinkle just a bit. “There's only one more thing you need to know.” “May, you can tell me anything.” “All right. I saw a VIP preview of that production of 'Once'. It was awful. Truly terrible. If I could have walked out without causing a stir, I would have. Maybe we could see a movie instead?” by oolonroosevelt for Literotica
Youth Sport: Kyle gets to know a minister better. In 4 parts, by oolonroosevelt. Listen to the Podcast at Steamy Stories. Kyle McQuary, newest research fellow at the John Burfitt Institute, and the Very Honorable May H. Van, MLA, CSS, Minister for Youth and Sport for the Province of Deltaland, drink tea in a café across from the provincial capitol. [[MORE]] Forward: Sexual Equity is a philosophy that is the foundation of of government in the Pacific island nation of New Dorset. Sexual Equity is based on the notion that while men and women have equal value and should be equally free, fundamental differences make complete sexual equality impossible, and that it is equity (fairness and justice) that should be sought between the sexes. The adherents of Sexual Equity note the differences in male and female sexual drives, as well as differences in the ways men and women typically view hierarchy, status, and a culture of honor. Origins of Sexual Equity In a 1975 speech, Wanda Barnes, then the leader of the Women's Caucus in the New Dorset House of Representatives, laid out the principles of Sexual Equity. She noted that New Dorset had been a leader in sexual equality: the first country in the British Empire to grant equal suffrage to women and also to elect a female member of its legislature, and the only country in the world that established dual constituencies, with one male and one female legislator elected from every constituency, guaranteeing equal numbers of men and women to Parliament. Despite this nominal equality in government, she noted that continuing control by men in the political party system and in spheres outside government had stymied attempts at substantial reform. Despite the recent session had been concerned mainly with issues around independence: whether to become a republic instead of sharing the British monarchy, and how to reform the Senate and the system of honors. She claimed that these were issues of honor and status, of interest primarily to men, without addressing the important issues affecting women's daily lives. Hearkening back to difference between “dignified” and “efficient” parts of parliamentary government (see The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot), Barnes proposed a male monarchy and House of Lords, which would be symbolic and deal with issues such as honors and national symbols, and a female House of Representatives, which would form the executive and make the laws. Adoption of Sexual Equity in New Dorset Barnes' proposals caused an uproar; she was accused of being sexist against men, and several male-led political parties took the opportunity to propose eliminating dual candidacies and repealing some of the previously passed women's rights legislation. The turning point was an overheard remark by the Minister for Home Affairs, Jason Campbell, saying that he would gladly give up the power to government in return for sexual favors. Although he quickly apologized, Wanda Barnes gave another speech (Second Sexual Equity speech of Wanda Barnes) pointing out the prevalence of female prostitution and the different sexual needs of men and women as exemplifying their differences and the need for equity rather than equality. Saying that she believed Campbell had nothing to apologize for, Barnes declared that she was proud of having been a prostitute in her youth (prostitution was particularly common in New Dorset: see Prostitution in New Dorset), that giving men pleasure was nothing to be ashamed of, and that sexual service is something women should be able to provide to men, if men can provide what women need as well. After the speech, Barnes and some of her followers in the Women's Caucus had a series of one-on-one meetings with Campbell and several other members of parliament, about which much has been rumored but little is known for certain. After those meetings, a constitution for New Dorset was adopted incorporating Barnes's proposals, and also mandating that sexual service is mandatory for members of the House of Representatives and the various provincial legislatures (see Sexual Service in New Dorset). Campbell became New Dorset's first king, and other male MPs who voted for the new constitution became the first dukes of the provinces. “So, Mr. McQuary, now you've seen the centers in person. What did you think? "Minister, I was very impressed. Back in the capital, we weren't able to find funding to open youth centers more than three days a week. But here, you have care five days, plus classes and activities, even on weekends. The centers themselves are very nice, but it's the level of funding that I can hardly believe.” “Well, much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for that. The last government worked out a grand bargain between all the cities and the provincial youth and senior citizens ministries to share staff and resources: all the ancillary support staff like cleaning, procurement, and personnel, and even things like using the same music instructors for youth and senior programs. Reducing redundant functions allowed us to redirect what funding we had toward front-line staff. We disagreed in a lot of other ways, but the last senior and youth ministers made a great accomplishment here.” “It's laudable of you to give so much credit to people you opposed.” “Well, we're all here to serve the public good. We can't do our best for our constituents if we get caught up in squabbles.” “Still, I find it admirable.” “Well, thank you, Mr. McQuary.” The minister takes a last sip of her tea. “Is that everything you need for your report?” “Yes, but there is something else I wanted to ask, Minis— is it OK if I call you May?” The minister tenses up. She wasn't expecting this. “Oh-kay,” she pronounces slowly. “May, I've really liked working with you over the past few days, and walking around seeing your centers today was just wonderful. I really enjoyed it, and I think you did too. I'd like to take you out and spend some time together, see if we can get to know each other. You saw they're doing ‘Once' at the community theater here? I think you'd like it.” “You want to go on a date. With me.” Smiling, he says, “Yes, that's what it's called. Will you come?” “Mr. McQuary—Kyle—you're a nice guy, but I'm in the Legislative Assembly and a minister in His Highness's government. You know what that means. I don't go on dates.” “What? Why not? I know your responsibilities. That doesn't bother me.” “They don't bother you… We're not just talking about long hours in committee hearings and late nights in the Ministry offices, right? You know what this job requires of me.” “Yes, May, I know about your service obligation. That's not a problem.” “Not a… look, you might think you know, but there's no way you could say that and really understand what it means.” She pauses and stares at him for a moment before getting her phone out of her purse and concentrating on it for a minute. “Ok, let's go.” She stands up and takes a step. “Well, come on.” Kyle stands and May leads him into the capitol and down a back stair. They come to a security desk. “Hi, Faith,” May says to the guard. “I have a perk booking for number three?” “I wasn't expecting… oh, I see you just made it. Of course, Minister. I'll need to see both your IDs before I buzz you in.” They show their IDs and are buzzed through the first door; May uses a key card to let them through a hallway and then into a small room with a divan and a closet. May opens a connecting door wide, using her purse as a doorstop to make sure it doesn't close. She ushers Kyle through it and says “You wait in here, I'll be just a minute.” Kyle walks into the room, which has a bed, nightstand, tall chair, and a low stool. “May, wait a minute, this isn't —” “Kyle, you wait in there and then we can talk, okay?” “Um, okay…” May slides opens the closet and begins removing her clothes: first her shoes, then skirt. Kyle says “Um, May…” and looks away. “No, I want you to look.” He looks back at her as she places the skirt in the closet, and proceeds to do the same with her blouse, stockings, and underwear. She then dons a perfectly sheer robe from the closet, and walks into the room with Kyle. “Go on, have a seat.” Somewhat bemused, he gets up on the chair, and she brings the low stool in front of him and kneels on it, so her face is on a level with his pelvis, and then looks up at him. He stares down at her breasts, clearly visible through the robe. “Twenty times a month, Kyle, I come down here, just like this, and say 'Hi, my name is May. May I serve you with my hands, my mouth, or through intercourse?' That works out to about once every work day. I usually take a morning appointment, which means that every day before work, I'm in here having sex with some man whose name I'll never know and who I'll never meet again. "I can see I'm turning you on. That's sweet. It's not fair of me to bring you down here, get you all hot, and then leave you hanging. Come on, let's get those pants off.” She reaches up and unbuckles his pants, and pulls them and his underwear down. Kyle rises to let the clothes fall, but otherwise is too shocked to say anything. “Let me work on this a little,” she says, and takes his cock into her hands, running her hands up and down it, squeezing and massaging. “Do you know why I met you at nine-fifteen today? It's because between eight and nine, I was in the room next door, sucking some guy off. He was big, too, my jaw's still a little sore from it. "And I did the very same thing yesterday with a different guy, and the day before that, I was lying face-down on the bed while another guy fucked me from behind. And I'll be here doing something just like that tomorrow, and Friday, and every day next week.” “Here, let me see if I can get you off.” She kisses his glans and then licks it, and brings it into her mouth, moving up and down with lips and tongue. It isn't long before his body stiffens and he ejaculates into her mouth. “Mmm, yours isn't bad,” says May. “Pineapple juice?” Kyle can't do more than shake his head. “So, Kyle, I hope you enjoyed yourself. I'm flattered you found me attractive. But I do this every day with a different man every time. I can't have this job and still be a regular girl and go on dates and be in a relationship and meet the parents and go to Christmas holidays and… I just can't do those things. "Can I just say, 'Thank you for allowing me to serve,' and then we can go back to being colleagues? I still want to help with your research.” Kyle stares down at her. “May… that was amazing. Maybe the hottest thing that's ever happened to me. But 'Thank you for allowing me to serve' isn't my idea of pillow talk from someone I care about.” May just looks up at him. “I wasn't going to get into this till later… but OK. Part of the reason I took a job out here was because I had a bad breakup with my fiancée. We were teenage sweethearts, and I thought we'd be together forever. But we had a problem. I couldn't help… look, I'm a man, I'm attracted to women. We'd go out together, and I'd see a woman, and I'd look. Not crazy staring look, but just… notice her. And Ruby would catch me noticing, and she'd be mad. And jealous. And I'd feel like I was hurting our relationship. Eventually even when I was out by myself and I'd see an attractive woman, I'd feel like I was being disloyal just by noticing. And I couldn't stop.” “Well, yeah. Men notice women. Women notice men, too, for that matter. Your fiancée didn't know that?” “Maybe she did. I don't know. But she made me feel that I was dishonoring our relationship just by noticing. And eventually I met someone who noticed me back, and since it felt like if I was already being unfaithful, what the hell… we did more than notice each other. Ruby couldn't forgive me for it, and I don't blame her. We broke up after that. "I've thought about it a lot since. I know some men get into exclusive relationships and, maybe they notice others, but for them it's not a big deal. But for me, it has to be,, after that. I don't want to be in a relationship where I have to try to hide who I am or what I want. I need to be with someone who can let me explore that side of myself, without my being afraid of dishonoring the relationship. And that means I need to be with someone who doesn't need me to be exclusive. "So someone like you, with a service obligation – well, that's just the perfect thing for me. Because I need someone who also doesn't want to be exclusive. Either because she also wants to explore her other wants and needs, or because her career means that exclusivity isn't an option. So May I really like you, but I'm also interested in you because you are what I'm looking for, that way. For me, your being in politics doesn't mean you're not a person I can date – it means you're the only kind of person I can.” May looks down and shifts uncomfortably. “May, we will never be the only ones for each other, in terms of sex. I'm going to look at other women, and more than look, and I am going to sign up to receive service from other politicians, which I do appreciate for what it is. And maybe you'll find someone else you want to have a fling with, and you're definitely going to be here every morning, giving service to whoever is next on the waiting list. And for you and me, that's a good thing. "I want to go on dates with you, and get to know you. I can imagine… I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but you're a person I can imagine holding close, sharing good and bad times with. It doesn't bother me that you have sex with other guys. What bothers me is the thought of them leaving you alone afterwards.” May tears up, just a bit. “You know, it's not just down here … I mean, the duke, he likes having me. I get an audience summons at least once a week, sometimes a few times.” “What? I thought he wasn't supposed to repeat audience summonses, at least not often.” “Well, he's not, but that's not a rule, it's just something not usually done. He's supposed to, you know, 'allow the honor of service to be shared,' that kind of thing. But he's been asking for me a lot. I mean, up until now, I haven't minded… too much… he's pretty gentle, most of the time, and it's nice to feel wanted… even if it's just because I look like the girls he knew overseas.” “Well if it's OK with you it's OK with me. If I were the duke I'd want to have you too. I just wouldn't want to send you home afterwards.” May can't help herself and sniffles. “But that is what he does… sends me home in the back of a car, all by myself… and I get home and…” Kyle gets off the chair and kneels down next to May. He holds her hands, and she pulls herself together, just a bit. “Kyle, you need to know… I've never… I mean, I've been with hundreds of guys, but it was all service. We came to this country with nothing when I was just a baby, and then my dad died, and Mom was really poor. She never had the money to give me the things all the other girls got… I was the only one with crooked teeth when everyone else got braces, the only one with small boobs when everyone else got implants, the only one who had to shave because she couldn't afford hair removal treatment. And I looked different… nobody wanted me. The only way I could get those things was to borrow, and I went into commercial service to pay it off, where I was the exotic one… and then I graduated and went straight into politics. I never had a boyfriend, even a real date.” “May, please, I can't imagine anything better than being the man who could give you those things. You've had sex, but you've never had a lover. Can I be your lover?” May nods. “Ok. Yes. I want to. So much. Yes. And I really do like you, Kyle, I had a wonderful time today too. I mean, outside, looking at the youth centers.” Then she pauses, and her eyes crinkle just a bit. “There's only one more thing you need to know.” “May, you can tell me anything.” “All right. I saw a VIP preview of that production of 'Once'. It was awful. Truly terrible. If I could have walked out without causing a stir, I would have. Maybe we could see a movie instead?” by oolonroosevelt for Literotica
Youth Sport: Kyle gets to know a minister better. In 4 parts, by oolonroosevelt. Listen to the Podcast at Steamy Stories. Kyle McQuary, newest research fellow at the John Burfitt Institute, and the Very Honorable May H. Van, MLA, CSS, Minister for Youth and Sport for the Province of Deltaland, drink tea in a café across from the provincial capitol. [[MORE]] Forward: Sexual Equity is a philosophy that is the foundation of of government in the Pacific island nation of New Dorset. Sexual Equity is based on the notion that while men and women have equal value and should be equally free, fundamental differences make complete sexual equality impossible, and that it is equity (fairness and justice) that should be sought between the sexes. The adherents of Sexual Equity note the differences in male and female sexual drives, as well as differences in the ways men and women typically view hierarchy, status, and a culture of honor. Origins of Sexual Equity In a 1975 speech, Wanda Barnes, then the leader of the Women's Caucus in the New Dorset House of Representatives, laid out the principles of Sexual Equity. She noted that New Dorset had been a leader in sexual equality: the first country in the British Empire to grant equal suffrage to women and also to elect a female member of its legislature, and the only country in the world that established dual constituencies, with one male and one female legislator elected from every constituency, guaranteeing equal numbers of men and women to Parliament. Despite this nominal equality in government, she noted that continuing control by men in the political party system and in spheres outside government had stymied attempts at substantial reform. Despite the recent session had been concerned mainly with issues around independence: whether to become a republic instead of sharing the British monarchy, and how to reform the Senate and the system of honors. She claimed that these were issues of honor and status, of interest primarily to men, without addressing the important issues affecting women's daily lives. Hearkening back to difference between “dignified” and “efficient” parts of parliamentary government (see The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot), Barnes proposed a male monarchy and House of Lords, which would be symbolic and deal with issues such as honors and national symbols, and a female House of Representatives, which would form the executive and make the laws. Adoption of Sexual Equity in New Dorset Barnes' proposals caused an uproar; she was accused of being sexist against men, and several male-led political parties took the opportunity to propose eliminating dual candidacies and repealing some of the previously passed women's rights legislation. The turning point was an overheard remark by the Minister for Home Affairs, Jason Campbell, saying that he would gladly give up the power to government in return for sexual favors. Although he quickly apologized, Wanda Barnes gave another speech (Second Sexual Equity speech of Wanda Barnes) pointing out the prevalence of female prostitution and the different sexual needs of men and women as exemplifying their differences and the need for equity rather than equality. Saying that she believed Campbell had nothing to apologize for, Barnes declared that she was proud of having been a prostitute in her youth (prostitution was particularly common in New Dorset: see Prostitution in New Dorset), that giving men pleasure was nothing to be ashamed of, and that sexual service is something women should be able to provide to men, if men can provide what women need as well. After the speech, Barnes and some of her followers in the Women's Caucus had a series of one-on-one meetings with Campbell and several other members of parliament, about which much has been rumored but little is known for certain. After those meetings, a constitution for New Dorset was adopted incorporating Barnes's proposals, and also mandating that sexual service is mandatory for members of the House of Representatives and the various provincial legislatures (see Sexual Service in New Dorset). Campbell became New Dorset's first king, and other male MPs who voted for the new constitution became the first dukes of the provinces. “So, Mr. McQuary, now you've seen the centers in person. What did you think? "Minister, I was very impressed. Back in the capital, we weren't able to find funding to open youth centers more than three days a week. But here, you have care five days, plus classes and activities, even on weekends. The centers themselves are very nice, but it's the level of funding that I can hardly believe.” “Well, much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for that. The last government worked out a grand bargain between all the cities and the provincial youth and senior citizens ministries to share staff and resources: all the ancillary support staff like cleaning, procurement, and personnel, and even things like using the same music instructors for youth and senior programs. Reducing redundant functions allowed us to redirect what funding we had toward front-line staff. We disagreed in a lot of other ways, but the last senior and youth ministers made a great accomplishment here.” “It's laudable of you to give so much credit to people you opposed.” “Well, we're all here to serve the public good. We can't do our best for our constituents if we get caught up in squabbles.” “Still, I find it admirable.” “Well, thank you, Mr. McQuary.” The minister takes a last sip of her tea. “Is that everything you need for your report?” “Yes, but there is something else I wanted to ask, Minis— is it OK if I call you May?” The minister tenses up. She wasn't expecting this. “Oh-kay,” she pronounces slowly. “May, I've really liked working with you over the past few days, and walking around seeing your centers today was just wonderful. I really enjoyed it, and I think you did too. I'd like to take you out and spend some time together, see if we can get to know each other. You saw they're doing ‘Once' at the community theater here? I think you'd like it.” “You want to go on a date. With me.” Smiling, he says, “Yes, that's what it's called. Will you come?” “Mr. McQuary—Kyle—you're a nice guy, but I'm in the Legislative Assembly and a minister in His Highness's government. You know what that means. I don't go on dates.” “What? Why not? I know your responsibilities. That doesn't bother me.” “They don't bother you… We're not just talking about long hours in committee hearings and late nights in the Ministry offices, right? You know what this job requires of me.” “Yes, May, I know about your service obligation. That's not a problem.” “Not a… look, you might think you know, but there's no way you could say that and really understand what it means.” She pauses and stares at him for a moment before getting her phone out of her purse and concentrating on it for a minute. “Ok, let's go.” She stands up and takes a step. “Well, come on.” Kyle stands and May leads him into the capitol and down a back stair. They come to a security desk. “Hi, Faith,” May says to the guard. “I have a perk booking for number three?” “I wasn't expecting… oh, I see you just made it. Of course, Minister. I'll need to see both your IDs before I buzz you in.” They show their IDs and are buzzed through the first door; May uses a key card to let them through a hallway and then into a small room with a divan and a closet. May opens a connecting door wide, using her purse as a doorstop to make sure it doesn't close. She ushers Kyle through it and says “You wait in here, I'll be just a minute.” Kyle walks into the room, which has a bed, nightstand, tall chair, and a low stool. “May, wait a minute, this isn't —” “Kyle, you wait in there and then we can talk, okay?” “Um, okay…” May slides opens the closet and begins removing her clothes: first her shoes, then skirt. Kyle says “Um, May…” and looks away. “No, I want you to look.” He looks back at her as she places the skirt in the closet, and proceeds to do the same with her blouse, stockings, and underwear. She then dons a perfectly sheer robe from the closet, and walks into the room with Kyle. “Go on, have a seat.” Somewhat bemused, he gets up on the chair, and she brings the low stool in front of him and kneels on it, so her face is on a level with his pelvis, and then looks up at him. He stares down at her breasts, clearly visible through the robe. “Twenty times a month, Kyle, I come down here, just like this, and say 'Hi, my name is May. May I serve you with my hands, my mouth, or through intercourse?' That works out to about once every work day. I usually take a morning appointment, which means that every day before work, I'm in here having sex with some man whose name I'll never know and who I'll never meet again. "I can see I'm turning you on. That's sweet. It's not fair of me to bring you down here, get you all hot, and then leave you hanging. Come on, let's get those pants off.” She reaches up and unbuckles his pants, and pulls them and his underwear down. Kyle rises to let the clothes fall, but otherwise is too shocked to say anything. “Let me work on this a little,” she says, and takes his cock into her hands, running her hands up and down it, squeezing and massaging. “Do you know why I met you at nine-fifteen today? It's because between eight and nine, I was in the room next door, sucking some guy off. He was big, too, my jaw's still a little sore from it. "And I did the very same thing yesterday with a different guy, and the day before that, I was lying face-down on the bed while another guy fucked me from behind. And I'll be here doing something just like that tomorrow, and Friday, and every day next week.” “Here, let me see if I can get you off.” She kisses his glans and then licks it, and brings it into her mouth, moving up and down with lips and tongue. It isn't long before his body stiffens and he ejaculates into her mouth. “Mmm, yours isn't bad,” says May. “Pineapple juice?” Kyle can't do more than shake his head. “So, Kyle, I hope you enjoyed yourself. I'm flattered you found me attractive. But I do this every day with a different man every time. I can't have this job and still be a regular girl and go on dates and be in a relationship and meet the parents and go to Christmas holidays and… I just can't do those things. "Can I just say, 'Thank you for allowing me to serve,' and then we can go back to being colleagues? I still want to help with your research.” Kyle stares down at her. “May… that was amazing. Maybe the hottest thing that's ever happened to me. But 'Thank you for allowing me to serve' isn't my idea of pillow talk from someone I care about.” May just looks up at him. “I wasn't going to get into this till later… but OK. Part of the reason I took a job out here was because I had a bad breakup with my fiancée. We were teenage sweethearts, and I thought we'd be together forever. But we had a problem. I couldn't help… look, I'm a man, I'm attracted to women. We'd go out together, and I'd see a woman, and I'd look. Not crazy staring look, but just… notice her. And Ruby would catch me noticing, and she'd be mad. And jealous. And I'd feel like I was hurting our relationship. Eventually even when I was out by myself and I'd see an attractive woman, I'd feel like I was being disloyal just by noticing. And I couldn't stop.” “Well, yeah. Men notice women. Women notice men, too, for that matter. Your fiancée didn't know that?” “Maybe she did. I don't know. But she made me feel that I was dishonoring our relationship just by noticing. And eventually I met someone who noticed me back, and since it felt like if I was already being unfaithful, what the hell… we did more than notice each other. Ruby couldn't forgive me for it, and I don't blame her. We broke up after that. "I've thought about it a lot since. I know some men get into exclusive relationships and, maybe they notice others, but for them it's not a big deal. But for me, it has to be,, after that. I don't want to be in a relationship where I have to try to hide who I am or what I want. I need to be with someone who can let me explore that side of myself, without my being afraid of dishonoring the relationship. And that means I need to be with someone who doesn't need me to be exclusive. "So someone like you, with a service obligation – well, that's just the perfect thing for me. Because I need someone who also doesn't want to be exclusive. Either because she also wants to explore her other wants and needs, or because her career means that exclusivity isn't an option. So May I really like you, but I'm also interested in you because you are what I'm looking for, that way. For me, your being in politics doesn't mean you're not a person I can date – it means you're the only kind of person I can.” May looks down and shifts uncomfortably. “May, we will never be the only ones for each other, in terms of sex. I'm going to look at other women, and more than look, and I am going to sign up to receive service from other politicians, which I do appreciate for what it is. And maybe you'll find someone else you want to have a fling with, and you're definitely going to be here every morning, giving service to whoever is next on the waiting list. And for you and me, that's a good thing. "I want to go on dates with you, and get to know you. I can imagine… I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but you're a person I can imagine holding close, sharing good and bad times with. It doesn't bother me that you have sex with other guys. What bothers me is the thought of them leaving you alone afterwards.” May tears up, just a bit. “You know, it's not just down here … I mean, the duke, he likes having me. I get an audience summons at least once a week, sometimes a few times.” “What? I thought he wasn't supposed to repeat audience summonses, at least not often.” “Well, he's not, but that's not a rule, it's just something not usually done. He's supposed to, you know, 'allow the honor of service to be shared,' that kind of thing. But he's been asking for me a lot. I mean, up until now, I haven't minded… too much… he's pretty gentle, most of the time, and it's nice to feel wanted… even if it's just because I look like the girls he knew overseas.” “Well if it's OK with you it's OK with me. If I were the duke I'd want to have you too. I just wouldn't want to send you home afterwards.” May can't help herself and sniffles. “But that is what he does… sends me home in the back of a car, all by myself… and I get home and…” Kyle gets off the chair and kneels down next to May. He holds her hands, and she pulls herself together, just a bit. “Kyle, you need to know… I've never… I mean, I've been with hundreds of guys, but it was all service. We came to this country with nothing when I was just a baby, and then my dad died, and Mom was really poor. She never had the money to give me the things all the other girls got… I was the only one with crooked teeth when everyone else got braces, the only one with small boobs when everyone else got implants, the only one who had to shave because she couldn't afford hair removal treatment. And I looked different… nobody wanted me. The only way I could get those things was to borrow, and I went into commercial service to pay it off, where I was the exotic one… and then I graduated and went straight into politics. I never had a boyfriend, even a real date.” “May, please, I can't imagine anything better than being the man who could give you those things. You've had sex, but you've never had a lover. Can I be your lover?” May nods. “Ok. Yes. I want to. So much. Yes. And I really do like you, Kyle, I had a wonderful time today too. I mean, outside, looking at the youth centers.” Then she pauses, and her eyes crinkle just a bit. “There's only one more thing you need to know.” “May, you can tell me anything.” “All right. I saw a VIP preview of that production of 'Once'. It was awful. Truly terrible. If I could have walked out without causing a stir, I would have. Maybe we could see a movie instead?” by oolonroosevelt for Literotica
Walter Bagehot skrev satirisk, men treffende, om det britiske monarkiet. VG-kommentator Yngve Kvistad har gjestet podcasten for å snakke om Bagehots tanker om monarkiet, med de naturlige avsporinger som skal til for å få en god episode. Har for eksempel politikerskandalene de siste årene styrket det norske monarkiet? Lytt og få (kanskje) svar! Vi lyttes!
Geldgeschichte(n): Das US-Regionalbankensystem & Eine kurze Geschichte der Zentralbanken Im Rahmen unseres deutsch-österreichischen Verständigungsprojekts vereinen mein Bloggerkollege Clemens Faustenhammer und ich die zwei schönsten Nebensachen der Welt, nämlich Geld und Geschichte, miteinander und reisen dafür einmal monatlich zurück in unsere Finanz-Zukunft. In der sechsten Folge der Geldgeschichten fragen wir uns, wie es um die Sicherheit der Einlagen in den USA nach 90 Jahren Bankenregulierung eigentlich steht, anschließend gibt es eine kurze Geschichte der Zentralbanken einschließlich des Vaters der modernen Geldtheorie Walter Bagehot. Im ersten Teil der sechsten Folge der Geldgeschichten blicken wir auf die fragmentierte Bankenlandschaft und deren Schutzmechanismen für Geldeinlagen jenseits des Atlantiks. Während im deutschsprachigen Raum unter dem Begriff Einlagensicherung der gesetzliche Schutz von Bankeinlagen zu verstehen ist, existiert als US-amerikanisches Pendant die Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Das Wechselspiel zwischen einerseits rigider Regulatorik für die Finanzmarktakteure und andererseits mehrerer Wellen zügelloser Deregulierungen zeitigte fatale Folgen für die Stabilität des US-amerikanischen Bankenmarktes, die in weiterer Konsequenz das internationale Finanzwesen ansteckten. Nothilfeprogramme, gestützt von staatlicher Seite, sprich finanziert von Steuergeldern, halfen nicht nur einmal aus der misslichen Lage, den endgültigen Kollaps des Finanzsystems zu verhindern – Kollateralschäden wie der, zwangsweise vollstreckte, Niedergang der Washington Mutual inbegriffen. Was in den 1930er Jahren mit 2.500 US-Dollar Einlagensicherheit für das Bankguthaben begann, kulminierte auf heute 250.000 US-Dollar. Unabhängig der Couleur politischer Amtsträger endeten die unter dem Mantra der "Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit" realisierten Liberalisierungsambitionen in neue, striktere Regularien für die US-Banken. Just im 90-Jahre-Jubiläum der FDIC haben es bizarrerweise zwei Banken auf das Stockerl der größten Bankpleiten in den USA "geschafft". Auch in der zweiten Geldgeschichte tauchen wir in die Finanzwelt ab. Obgleich es mittlerweile ein wenig ruhiger um die Branche geworden ist, standen die Geldinstitute im ersten Halbjahr 2023 im Fokus fast aller Kapitalanleger, nachdem mit der Silicon Valley Bank immerhin ein Top-20-Kreditinstitut der USA pleiteging - die größte Bankenpleite seit dem Untergang von Lehman Brothers. Dieses Schicksal blieb der Credit Suisse, der Nummer zwei in der Schweiz, durch die Übernahme durch die Nummer eins respektive die UBS erspart. Nun sind Bankenkrisen so alt wie das Bankwesen selbst, ebenso haben Bankenrettungen und Finanzmarktstabilisierungen Tradition. Zeit also, einen Blick hinter die Kulisse der Kreditinstitute sowie Währungsbehörden zu werfen und mit Walter Bagehot den Vater der modernen Zentralbankarchitektur zu würdigen! Eine frische Folge unseres gemeinsamen Podcastformats mit jeweils zwei lehrreichen Geldgeschichten erscheint an jedem letzten Freitag im Monat! Medienempfehlungen: ► John F. Bovenzi: Inside the FDIC ► FDIC: A Brief History of Deposit Insurance ► Wikipedia: Bankenkrise 2023 ► Wikipedia: List of largest bank failures in the United States ► Friedrich August von Hayek: Die Entnationalisierung des Geldes ► Walter Bagehot: Lombard Street
[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. So, if you like what you read, please consider a paid subscription. And yes, I do speaking engagements. If you need a Pride Month speaker, hit me up.]On Saturday, at Westminster Abbey, The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Justin Welby, the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury, placed all 2.23 kilograms of St. Edward's Crown upon the head of Charles Philip Arthur George.That's King Charles III to you plebs.He's the oldest person ever to accede to the British throne, and his coronation was a spectacle not witnessed by the world in more than 70 years, which is the same amount of time Charles has been waiting for a promotion. And you thought your professional advancement is underwhelming.It was an entertaining show. It had to be entertaining. But was it entertaining enough?Because if it weren't entertaining enough, what would be the point of the British Monarchy?It was more difficult to pose that question with Elizabeth II. To most observers, she embodied the dignified — that primary duty of the Crown to serve as something of a spiritual bulwark and compass for her subjects, as a complement to the legal power held by Parliament to actually do something, as envisioned by 19th-century British political philosopher Walter Bagehot.And where did True North on that compass point for Elizabeth II? Above all else: preservation of the United Kingdom and allegiance to her constitutional obligations, which is to say: not much.Elizabeth II was beloved by so many not because of any real power she had to change their lives but because of her unflappable consistency. She held a steady presence in the lives of her subjects and didn't rock the boat, something which became a great comfort to many over the decades of her reign.But times change and cracks begin to show. As Elizabeth's reign endured various cycles of instant mass communications—the introduction of television, the introduction of the internet, the introduction of social media—it became increasingly more difficult to maintain that dignity.Messy affairs, subsequent divorces, a globally beloved daughter-in-law who had the audacity to recognize her self-worth over the institution (a characteristic practically beaten out of Elizabeth from birth), the occasional racist or sexist remark from husband Phillip (or one of his affairs), the periodic, embarrassing story about son and heir Charles, the allegations of rape against son Andrew, etc.In hindsight, the poise with which Elizabeth held herself in reaction to the swirling chaos around her is undeniably impressive, and yet, her considered choice to maintain preservation of the Crown over holding it (and the governments formed in her name) accountable will undeniably shape her legacy.It's this simple: if we choose to believe that Elizabeth II was intended to be a grand moral beacon, the True North on society's spiritual compass, we're bound to be disappointed. But if we choose to acknowledge her intended role as one of the greatest political entertainers of the 20th century, she was certainly successful.But much like explaining why a joke is amusing, illuminating the actual role of the British Royal Family as the world's best paid acting ensemble takes the fun out of the experience. We're not supposed to look behind behind the curtain. We're supposed to suspend disbelief and skepticism in order to be entertained by all this.With Elizabeth, it was much easier to suspend that disbelief. Even many anti-royalists held a grudging respect for her consistency and dignified stature. Elizabeth was playing a role that coincidentally wasn't far off from her private life. Were it not for her, the House of Windsor would have likely imploded decades ago into a shadow of its former self — it existing at all. The British Royal Family is the most pointless and painful method acting process of all-time. Elizabeth simply lent it undeserved credibility with her extraordinary commitment. She was the Daniel Day-Lewis of royal performance. Beyond reproach.With Charles III, a man who seems absurdly dedicated to being publicly awkward, almost as though it's a kink, it is far more difficult to suspend disbelief in order to be entertained. Charles is only convincing as a king in all the least admirable qualities perceived by the public: arrogant, out-of-touch, and self-absorbed. Is that fair? Well, it doesn't really matter at this point. Maybe Charles is a wonderful human being behind closed doors. Maybe he's the victim of some truly atrocious framing by media. Maybe he simply has insurmountable weaknesses in his style of communication.And maybe… he's just not really good at this. Regardless, the public is being asked to suspend disbelief in order to be entertained, and Charles, bless his cotton socks, is simply less-than-convincing in the ways in which it will be necessary to prevent further decline of the Monarchy.I'll concede that he doesn't need to be entertaining if he's doing something that endears him to the public — like, you know, an actual leader with real authority to shape the lives of his subjects. But that's very unlikely to happen.We could be surprised. Maybe Charles will be a transformational sovereign who finds a way to work around constitutional restrictions on his legal power (which, again, is basically none) or manages to locate something inside himself that exchanges his awkwardness for an image resembling genuine connection with the public.Maybe Pluto will become a planet again. Maybe the U.S. will win the next Men's World Cup. Maybe I'll co-write a song with Brandi Carlile and watch her sing it at the Grammys someday.Maybe can be an entertaining game.Unfortunately, maybe just isn't enough for Charles to keep the public favorably engaged, particularly one that's ever more cold to him in the wake of Harry & Meghan formally splitting with the House of Windsor.There are no big British royal weddings on the horizon. No grand royal jubilees. No global spectacles offering entertainment that justifies the citizenry paying a lot of cash to keep the King and his issue comfortable. There are no real opportunities for Charles and the British Royals to globally shine simply for existing.The only person with the kind of peerless charm and warmth that could have saved the British Monarchy, without need of a global event and embossed invitation, was killed in a Paris tunnel more than 25 years ago. She was pushed out of the British Royals for the same qualities that made her arguably the most beloved person in the world.She didn't need to act. She simply was.It doesn't matter how many horses and military personnel in silly hats marched in front of them on Saturday. It doesn't matter how many lush robes were draped over their shoulders or the weight of the gold-framed crowns placed on their heads.Charles and Camilla will never be as loved and respected as Diana, and they know it.And so, they will attempt to entertain. Good luck.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Hi, I'm Charlotte Clymer, and this is Charlotte's Web Thoughts, my Substack. It's completely free to access and read, but it's also how my bills! So, please do kindly consider upgrading to a paid subscription: just $7/month or save money with the $70/annual sub. You can also go way above and beyond by becoming a Lifetime Member at $250. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe
Walter Bagehot, as Jim Grant writes, believed that bankers and central bankers should exhibit financial discipline. He would not recognize today's banking world. Original Article: "From Discipline to No Discipline: The Sorry Evolution of Modern Banking"
Walter Bagehot, as Jim Grant writes, believed that bankers and central bankers should exhibit financial discipline. He would not recognize today's banking world. Original Article: "From Discipline to No Discipline: The Sorry Evolution of Modern Banking"
What happened at SVB? Is our banking system in crisis? What are we to make of our economy? Ajay Shah and Mohit Satynanand join Amit Varma in episode 323 of The Seen and the Unseen to tackle these complicated questions and more. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Ajay Shah (Twitter, Substack) and Mohit Satyanand (Twitter, Substack). 2. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ajay Shah: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 3. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Mohit Satyanand: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 4. Ajay Shah on currencies and crypto (1, 2, 3), an RBI misstep, the third globalisation, NBFCs and banks (1, 2), digital payments, the resolution corporation (1, 2), interest rate mismatch, voting in the MPC, the importance of low and stable inflation and the mispricing of risks. 5. Two Economic Crises (2008 & 2019) — Episode 135 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Mohit Satynanand). 6. The State of Our Economy -- Episode 252 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Puja Mehra and Mohit Satyanand). 7. The Importance of Finance -- Episode 125 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ajay Shah). 8. The Art and Science of Economic Policy — Episode 154 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vijay Kelkar & Ajay Shah). 9. In Service of the Republic — Vijay Kelkar & Ajay Shah. 10. Josh Felman Tries to Make Sense of the World -- Episode 321 of The Seen and the Unseen. 11. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 12. The Forgotten Greatness of PV Narasimha Rao — Episode 283 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vinay Sitapati). 13. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 14. The Long Road From Neeyat to Neeti — Episode 313 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Pranay Kotasthane and Raghu S Jaitley). 15. Elite Imitation in Public Policy — Episode 180 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Alex Tabarrok). 16. Premature Imitation and India's Flailing State — Shruti Rajagopalan & Alexander Tabarrok. 17. Public Opinion — Walter Lippman. 18. The World Outside and the Pictures in our Heads — Walter Lippman. 19. Watching the Wheels -- John Lennon. (Amit also loves Chris Cornell's version.) 20. You're Missing — Bruce Springsteen. 21. The End of Silicon Valley (Bank) -- Ben Thompson on Stratechery. 22. This Banking Crisis Won't Wreck the Economy -- Tyler Cowen. 23. SVB Took the Wrong Risks -- Matt Levine. 24. Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market -- Walter Bagehot. 25. Moral Hazard and the Cantillon Effect. 26. Beware of the Useful Idiots — Amit Varma. 27. The Use of Knowledge in Society — Friedrich Hayek. 28. Austrian Economics: An Introduction -- Steven Horwitz. 29. Friedrich Hayek: The ideas and influence of the libertarian economist -- Eamonn Butler. 30.The End of History? — Francis Fukuyama's essay. 31. The End of History and the Last Man — Francis Fukuyama's book. 32. Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology -- Chris Miller. 33. The Double ‘Thank-You' Moment — John Stossel. 34. Why Pramila Devi Uses Her Chappals Sparingly -- Sayantan Bera. 35. Where Are the Customers' Yachts? -- Fred Schwed Jr. 36. South India Would Like to Have a Word — Episode 320 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Nilakantan RS). 37. Jimi Hendrix on YouTube Music, Spotify and Wikipedia. 38. Neil Young on YouTube Music, Spotify and Wikipedia. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘The Madness of Money' by Simahina.
Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. 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
Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies
Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher.
Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies
Programming Note: We will be on a short ‘writing' break. Normal service will resume from Oct 29.Global Policy Watch: When Traditional Institutions Work Insights on topical policy issues in India — RSJKing Charles III was coronated last week. I saw the pictures of the event, and if you did not know the history of the British monarchy, the whole thing looked like a Monty Python sketch on a Nolan-esque budget. The King wore a costume that might have appeared outdated even in the 12th century when the Westminster Hall was built. The political class in their finery bowed, the aristocracy in splendid robes kept a stiff upper lip, the media continually upped the circus quotient for public consumption, and the Yeomen of the Guard marched in precise steps while some grand music (Handel?) played on. It was all pomp and circumstance (Elgar would have approved).I watched this with mild bemusement. I mean, here's King Charles III, a man who is reputed to speak to his plants, iron his shoelaces, show strange interest in red squirrels and, who often, rails against scientific revolution and the modern economy. What a strange man to ascend the throne of a nation vastly different from him. He must have found the quaintness of the pageantry to his taste. On the other hand, I'm sure he would have some time during the ceremony contemplated the history of the other Charles (Charlies?), who might have ascended the throne with similar accompanying pageantry.Charles I was beheaded for treason by the parliament led by Oliver Cromwell at Whitehall, not too far away from where Charles III was seated. The second King Charles led a charmed life with childhood exile, a triumphant return to the restoration of monarchy, and finally, a long suspension of parliament in the last years of his rule marking his legacy. Uneasy may not lie the head that wears the crown these days (there's really no day job here), but Charles III cannot be too careful about the institution that he represents. The institution is in a perilous state, and he's seen by many as an oddity unfit for the role. The commonwealth states don't have any time for the monarchy. The link to the colonial past is no longer about nostalgia. That's been erased and replaced with an indifference bordering on disdain for monarchy and its role during the excesses of colonialism. Among the young in Britain, the support for the monarchy is on the wane. Only 33 per cent in the age group of 18-24 support monarchy today compared to the 59 per cent who did a decade back. Some feel with the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, the institution of the monarchy will struggle to remain relevant or to serve its vital role of being the ceremonial head of the state. An elected president could do it better. I mean, what's the point of monarchy barring providing grist to the paparazzi mill, occasional photo shoots with visiting heads of state and announcing a few royal honours every year? Why spend enormous money and effort propping up an archaic and undemocratic institution? Why have a democratic constitution and then have a hereditary basis for choosing the head of the state? Isn't that a traditional and conservative imposition on the people?I have more than one reason to support such traditionalism in a democratic polity.Firstly, people need symbols and customs that represent continuity with their past. This assurance that you are part of an unbroken chain that holds all that's good and great about your culture gives meaning to many people's lives. That it extends beyond the personal (faith and family) to the political in how you organise your community and run your nation makes it both an anchor to hold a society steady and an escape valve that lets off any built-up steam of anger. Old institutions build up their influence over the ages. This is how they become easier to follow at any given time. This is a vital capability to preserve in any democracy.Writing in the mid-1860s, Walter Bagehot, the editor of the Economist then, made an insightful observation of how to create and nurture a good Constitution that will clarify this capability further:In ..constitutions there are two parts (not indeed separable with microscopic accuracy, for the genius of great affairs abhors nicety of division) first, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population — the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and next, the efficient parts — those by which it, in fact, works and rules. There are two great objects which every constitution must attain to be successful, which every old and celebrated one must have wonderfully achieved every constitution must first gain authority, and then use authority, it must first win the loyalty and confidence of mankind, and there employ that homage in the work of government.There are indeed practical men who reject the dignified parts of government. They say, we want only to attain results, to do business: a constitution is a collection of political means for political ends, and if you admit that any part of a constitution does no business, or that a simpler machine would do equally well what it does, you admit that this part of the constitution, however dignified or awful it may be, is nevertheless in truth useless. And other reasoners, who distrust this bare philosophy, have propounded subtle arguments to prove that these dignified parts of old governments are cardinal components of the essential apparatus, great pivots of substantial utility; and so they manufactured fallacies which the plainer school have well exposed. But both schools are in error. The dignified parts of government are those which bring it force which attract its motive power. The efficient parts only employ that power. The comely parts of a government have need, for they are those upon which its vital strength depends. They may not do any thing definite that a simpler polity would not do better; but they are the preliminaries, the needful prerequisites of all work. They raise the army, though they do not win the battle.Secondly, in this age of polarisation and tribal loyalties trumping reason, the idea of an apolitical sovereign reigning as the head of state is appealing. There's a hope there that such a sovereign might not help rally people toward a populist cause but could perhaps hold them back from falling prey to raw emotions and passions. This moral authority, however undeserved, can constrain any political movement that threatens to derail democracy in the name of populism or majoritarianism. There's an additional element to the exercise of undemocratic sovereign power. When things are going good, the checks and balances of power between the legislature, executive and judiciary work effectively. There are debates and consultations before a consensus on the way ahead is arrived. But in times of crisis and exigencies, there's a need for an additional reserve of power or authority that can supersede or expedite the usual decision-making process of a democracy by imposing its will. A constitutional monarchy run on a parliamentary system has that reserve. A presidential style of government lacks this and runs the risk of not being agile enough to counter such exigencies. Like Bagehot put it:“at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people. There is no elastic element, every thing is rigid, specified, dated. Come what may, you can quicken nothing and retard nothing. You have bespoken your government in advance, and whether it suits you or not, whether it works well or works ill, whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it.”Lastly, a functioning and aware monarchy helps assuage the deeply embedded anxieties about identity in society while gradually accepting the inevitable change that times bring with it. One of the things that the British monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II at the helm, did well was to stand for what was to be British in times of tremendous upheaval. She was resolutely Christian, proud of the empire, rarely apologetic about its excesses, devoted to her duty as the unelected sovereign and funny in a very British way. Each of these was (and is) a fault line in a society wanting to modernise and cast away the sins of its past. She carried them along because maybe she understood the importance of being a gradualist. Or it is likely the legacy of the institution guided her to be one. It is strange, but the monarchy, the most top-down of the institutions, perhaps has been the bulwark against any hastily concocted plans of a top-down imposed change in societies. I went back to some of the early speeches of Queen Elizabeth II to see if she always knew this was what she had to contend with being a modern constitutional monarch. It could be her speech writers who saw this, or it could be her imprint on them, but her early speeches give a sense of her awareness about this. In her coronation day address, she said:The ceremonies you have seen today are ancient, and some of their origins are veiled in the mists of the past. But their spirit and their meaning shine through the ages never, perhaps, more brightly than now. I have in sincerity pledged myself to your service, as so many of you are pledged to mine.Therefore I am sure that this, my Coronation, is not the symbol of a power and a splendour that are gone but a declaration of our hopes for the future, and for the years I may, by God's Grace and Mercy, be given to reign and serve you as your Queen.Parliamentary institutions, with their free speech and respect for the rights of minorities, and the inspiration of a broad tolerance in thought and expression - all this we conceive to be a precious part of our way of life and outlook.During recent centuries, this message has been sustained and invigorated by the immense contribution, in language, literature, and action, of the nations of our Commonwealth overseas. It gives expression, as I pray it always will, to living principles, as sacred to the Crown and Monarchy as to its many Parliaments and Peoples. I ask you now to cherish them - and practise them too; then we can go forward together in peace, seeking justice and freedom for all men.Listen, much of this can seem like pompous drivel to the more cynical among us. But it is uplifting and meaningful to a lot more. There's a lot worse that was being said—then and now—to people from positions of authority. I'd rather have thousand-year-old institutions rooted in modern or outdated traditions speak uplifting drivel like this. People should get more of this.It applies to India too.Matsyanyaaya: The Chips are Down for Russia's Defence CompaniesBig fish eating small fish = Foreign Policy in action— Abhiram Manchi & Pranay Kotasthane(An edited version of this post first appeared in the Times of India's September 23 edition)Russia is considered a dependable defence partner to India, and rightly so. An underlying assumption is that Russia will continue to be a reliable supplier even in the future. But this assumption fails to consider that Russia's defence production capabilities will continue to decline well after the ongoing war in Ukraine ends. Here's why.Consider these telltale signs first. Russia has delayed the delivery of two Talwar-class stealth frigates for up to six months. There are also short-term delays in the supply of S-400 Triumf missile systems and spares for Kilo-class submarines, MiG-29 fighters and Kamov Mi-17 military transport helicopters. These setbacks shouldn't be dismissed as routine. They indicate a deeper problem: Russia's inability to access semiconductor chips for defence platforms going ahead.Ukraine put out an alleged shopping list of semiconductors, connectors, transformers, etc., that Russia is desperate to purchase. Politico, a US-based media company, divided this list into three parts Critical, Important, and Not-so-important. The Critical list has some chips of basic complexity, such as connectors, and memory chips, besides digital signal processors and Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), which fall slightly higher in the complexity grade. There are no cutting-edge chips on the list. These items are pretty standard and can be manufactured on a large scale in most cases. This surprising lack of complexity in Russian equipment has also surprised the US. There have been claims that college students majoring in electrical engineering could reverse engineer and build most of the electronics used. Also, there have been instances of Russian-guided missiles missing their mark purely due to the old versions of navigation systems.When Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, the US quickly banned selling semiconductors used in defence systems to Russia. The new controls target chips, encryption software, lasers and sensors, etc., for Russia's defence industry. The other three pillars of the semiconductor industry, i.e. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, also banned the export of items through the export control list provided by the US. These controls essentially mean that none of the high-end chips will be available for use by Russia. Russia also does not have the infrastructure to manufacture these chips domestically. Only two Russian companies, Angstrem-T and Mikron Group, are reported to have elementary production-grade chip manufacturing capabilities.As a result, Russia is feeling the pinch. It is running low on hypersonic weapons because of the unavailability of microchips. Examination of the remnants of the missiles Russia launched on Ukraine showed the usage of older technology parts with elementary GPS systems. Sometimes Russia even used chips taken out of dishwashers and refrigerators.This puts India in a precarious position. India is the largest importer of Russian weaponry in the world. Even after the ongoing war ends, it is unlikely that the West will remove these high-tech sanctions. With these constraints to negotiate, Russia could proceed in two ways, neither of which augurs well for India.As seen in most weapons in Ukraine, Russia could use chips from western manufacturers by indirectly sourcing them. It is tough to track chips once they leave the foundry, as there may be multiple unregulated second-hand markets for them. There are also third-party firms sourcing chips and then directly selling them to Russia. While Russia has been a reliable defence partner of India, it would prefer to replenish its declining stocks of chips before considering India's requirements. From the Indian perspective, even if Russia does continue the supplies, India has to think twice before using chips obtained from these dark markets.The other option for Russia's defence industry is to approach China and obtain the chips from them. While this may work for Russia and be advantageous for China to have Russia in their debt, India has to be wary of these Chinese chips entering into the defence equipment being sent to India. Do we want Chinese chips in our missiles and submarines?Whatever the option Russia opts for, India must prepare for a sharp drop in Russia's ability to deliver on defence purchase orders. Their technology is dated, and the chips would come from the black market or China. There will also be delays and cost overruns, with supply chains disrupted, financial systems in tatters and Russian manufacturers closing shop. India will now also face issues with its exports to other countries, a case being the partnership with Russia to work on assault rifle export.Given the reality of Russia's defence sector, India must diversify its weaponry in the short term and focus on local manufacturing over the long term. Regardless of Russia's intentions, its capability to meet India's defence needs has taken a big hit. India must utilise partnerships with the US, Japan, Australia, France, and Israel to secure defence equipment and chip supplies. India Policy Watch #1: India's Semiconductor Policies v2.0Insights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneEarlier this week, the Union Cabinet approved modifications to three of the four schemes introduced in December 2021 for developing a domestic semiconductor ecosystem. Several news websites have claimed that with the government “sweetening the deal”, investments in this sector will be more forthcoming. I agree, but not without some fundamental reservations. Here's why.Semiconductor FabsTo attract chip manufacturing companies, the original programme promised up to 50% upfront financial support for leading-edge nodes (28 nanometres and below). The promised fiscal support for trailing-edge nodes employing older technologies dropped commensurately, going down to 30% for a fab that produces chips at the 45-65 nanometre nodes. (The node size is a rough measure for the size of a building block in a chip. The smaller that number, the more building blocks that can be packed in the same area resulting in higher performance).Under the new scheme, the government promises upfront fiscal support of 50% for all node sizes. The change reflects two realities. First, trailing-edge fabs are crucial for India. The demand for older node sizes will not disappear anytime soon. Future applications such as 5G radios and electric vehicles will continue to require manufacturing at these nodes. Most current defence applications also require trailing-edge chips. Second, many countries are wooing the leading-edge node foundries with much larger incentive packages. Companies such as TSMC are being courted by all major powers, and it's unlikely they will pick India for the most-advanced nodes. India's chances are better for securing older technologies. Display FabsMost display panel manufacturers are located in East Asia — companies from China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan dominate this industry. The scheme was designed with the explicit aim of import substitution. The original scheme promised up to 50% upfront financial support subject to a cap of ₹12,000 crores. As part of the changes, this upper cap has been struck off. To me, this scheme didn't make sense even when it was announced. I have four reasons for the scepticism. Even during the high peak of supply chain disruptions during COVID-19, there was no shortage of display panels, indicating that there are no constraints to increasing production, as is the case for chips. (The only shortage related to displays was for the driver chip, not the panels by themselves). Apart from China and Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have leadership in specific segments of displays. So we aren't dependent on one vulnerable source, as in the case of chips. Import dependence on China won't go away. Even if these fabs manufacture displays in India, the input materials will have to be imported from elsewhere. So the bottlenecks will shift but don't disappear. The industry is moving to newer technologies apart from LCDs and AMOLEDs. Samsung is focusing on Quantum-dot displays instead of LCDs. The scheme might be able to get old-tech here, but for newer technologies, imports might continue.Thus, to spend ₹12000 crores for a product in the pursuit of a failed notion of import substitution doesn't justify the opportunity costs. Moreover, removing the upper cap after Vedanta-Foxconn got into this game raises concerns about rent-seeking — the tendency of businesses to distort policies to serve their own interests.Assembly, Test, Packaging Units, and Specialised Low-volume FabsFor assembly, test and packaging firms, & compound fabs, the promised financial support has increased substantially, from 30% to 50%. More importantly, the original scheme allowed disbursal once a facility had begun production. Under the modified scheme, the financial support will be upfront. Prepaid, not postpaid. These changes again warrant scrutiny. Is it another case of rent-seeking? At the margin, I am okay with the changes in this segment. India has a potential advantage because of the need for a large, mid-level trained workforce for this segment of the supply chain, in comparison to conventional semiconductor fabs. Semiconductor DesignSurprisingly, there were no modifications in the one area where India does have a comparative advantage - semiconductor design and design services. The capital requirement for this segment is at least two orders of magnitude lower than the first three segments. And yet, the response to the scheme for encouraging design firms seems less than lukewarm. We propose two changes in the policy for that segment in an article for Hindustan Times earlier this month:To receive deployment-linked incentives under the current scheme, a design firm has to be registered in India with a 50% local stake. That clause could be watered down. Companies should qualify as long as the workforce is majorly Indian and the development happens here.Reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers are also crucial for India's semiconductor design companies to increase operations in India.On both these counts, the status quo prevails. To summarise, the modifications reflect the government's seriousness in attracting investment in this sector. Through these changes, the government is acknowledging that India must start its chip manufacturing journey at the lower end and climb its way up. Getting good at this game takes a couple of decades. At the same time, a thin line separates responsive government policies from regulatory capture by businesses. All industrial policies run this risk, and we need to be vigilant. India Policy Watch #2: Six Essential Questions in Indian Public FinanceInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay Kotasthane Longtime readers might recall what I say about public finance: it is an underrated discipline that offers insights across all public policy domains. Many good public finance textbooks exist, but there are few books which explain the subject in the Indian context. Luckily, we now have a book which does that — M Govinda Rao's Studies in Indian Public Finance (SIPF).To make it easier for all readers, I have a book essay that distills the insights from the book as answers to six questions of contemporary relevance. They are:What do we know about the quantity and quality of India's public expenditure?Should India reintroduce wealth and inheritance taxes?Is an imperfect Goods and Services Tax better than no GST?What is the single-largest expenditure item in the union government budget?What ails Indian Fiscal Federalism? andHow many centrally sponsored schemes should the union government run?To know how the book answers these questions, read my Indian Public Policy Review essay here. And if you are serious about learning public policy, the book is unmissable. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Podcast] Who should pay for the UPI? We have a fun Puliyabaazi on this topic.[Post] Big Think's Progress Issue is a must-read, especially Hannah Ritchie's essay An End to Doomerism.[Blog] Morgan Housel on Three Big Things: The Most Important Forces Shaping the World[Paper] Down with Legalese. In this paper, authors confirm that “Poor writing, not specialised concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com
It is 5am on a Monday morning in Washington, D.C.I have no shortage of work that needs to be done. I have emails to send, meetings for which to prep and schedule, calls to make, just a lot of things to do that really cannot be put off. And yet, here I am, at an ungodly hour, watching dignitaries slowly file in for the funeral of a woman I never met and who never did anything for me. Why?How does a kid raised in trailer parks in Central Texas come to be obsessed with the British Monarchy and admire Queen Elizabeth II?Nowadays, TLC is a channel where you'll find programming as illuminating and varied as “90 Day Fiancé” and “90 Day Fiancé: Pillow Talk” and “90 Day Fiancé: Just Landed” and “90 Day Fiancé: Before the 90 Days” (I'm not kidding; these are all real titles, and I've intentionally kept the list short).But in the early ‘90s, it was literally known as The Learning Channel, and in the only real bonding moments I can remember having with my maternal grandmother, we would sit beside each other in her bed in my grandparents' trailer and watch episodes of “Great Castles of Europe”, a series that ran for two seasons on the network.The show would take viewers on tours of these castles and the royalty that lived in them and the culture and social structure of the time in which they lived. My grandmother would smoke a cig that she had asked me to spark on the kitchen stove and have me grab her a coke and we'd sit there for half an hour marveling at the gorgeous scenery on the tube while she told me the bits and pieces she knew about the British Royals.I was hooked. I knew what “divine right” meant long before 4th grade social studies, to say nothing of the increasing controversy surrounding Charles & Diana, earning a fluency in House of Windsor scandals, via my grandmother, that would later shock my elementary school teachers.The typical American view in the ‘90s was this: we didn't think much of Charles, but we loved both Diana and the Queen—for different reasons. More on that in a second.Some of our British friends have openly wondered why Americans are obsessed with the Windsors, especially given our supposed aversion to elitism and complicated class politics and living thousands of miles away and the not-so-small fact that our nation was borne out of rebellion against the British Crown.Honestly, I wish it were complicated, but it's not. The simple answer is that it's free and glorious entertainment. It costs us nothing. Americans don't have to pay for the show, but we still get to watch it. There's the soap opera drama, sure, but even were it not for the salaciousness, there's still the over-the-top pageantry. We love a big wedding.Nor has it ever really cost us having an opinion on the existence of the Monarchy. We have never been truly obligated to any degree of partisanship on the question. Vehemently oppose the Monarchy? Okay. Weirdo American royalist? Okay, too. Who cares — let's all watch the shenanigans together and comprise a ridiculous peanut gallery from across the pond. Nothing lost and nothing gained.There's a sort of unspoken inside joke to observing the Monarchy as an American, something which we historically don't even acknowledge to each other because, until recently (with the ludicrous, racist treatment of Meghan), there's been no need. It would be stating the obvious.That is: does any American really believe the British Monarchy represents the best of humanity, the embodiment of morality? Hell no. It's a silly question, one so obviously answered that there's no need to discuss it.The 19th-century British writer Walter Bagehot is most frequently cited when explaining the justification for the existence of the Crown. Bagehot wrote that Parliament is the “efficient” part of the State and the Crown is the “dignified” part of it.The Crown is meant to be above the fray, never sullied with day-to-day politics and, instead, serves as the supposed living embodiment of British values. The Crown is meant to provide a steady and unwavering bulwark of morality.This is, on its face, completely ridiculous. How can the Crown supposedly embody British values without ever speaking to what those values should be or how they should evolve? No one really seems to know, but moreover, that's not really the point. It's silly to defend the British Monarch as a head of state. The Crown has no real legal power on paper. It cannot make new laws. It can't dictate the Armed Forces. It can't express partisan opinions. Even the speeches offered by the Monarch to open Parliament aren't written by the Monarch. It is merely a formal mouthpiece used by the government.The Crown does not really exist to express defined and irrefutable values. The most dedicated royalist, in good faith, must inevitably concede that the British Sovereign does not really perform as a nuanced arbiter of right and wrong. And deep down, regardless of nationality, we all kinda know that. The reality is that the House of Windsor's primary purpose is being one of the most popular entertainment brands in the world. This is an acting troupe. With few exceptions, every member of the British Royal Family is simply playing a role for the public that is typically at odds with their authentic self.Ah, but the exceptions. That's where it gets interesting. To be an exception to this framework is to go one of two directions: either breaking away from the firm completely or having an existence, public and private, that is indistinguishable from it.Diana broke way. As did Harry and Meghan. And they are beloved for it. They said “to hell with this” and rejected the obligation of playing a role. We love them for their commitment to authenticity in opposition to their institutional obligations.We love Queen Elizabeth II for a different reason. She was not acting. She truly believed that every fiber of her being must serve in existence as an anchor for the Commonwealth. In the place of evolution, she offered an ironclad resolve to tradition and dignity. The Queen in private was essentially the Queen in public, and we all knew that.You didn't have to like the Queen to know that she would have never abandoned the United Kingdom. If that island had been invaded at any point during her reign, she was committed to going down with the ship. And you respected that about her.Ironically, in a role that is meant to be bereft of opinion, her commitment to outward neutrality made her partisan moments all the more powerful, however subtle or implied — her opposition to Apartheid, her annoyance with Thatcher's austerity, her tacit support of LGBTQ rights, her less-than-subtle disgust with Trump, her protocol-breaking warmth toward Michelle Obama.When she came down to London to address the nation and the world in the wake of Diana's death, that was more than enough to alleviate the outrage at the Crown's initial response. When she made her historic trip to the Republic of Ireland in 2011 and demonstrated a substantial degree of humility and respect, literally bowing and speaking in Gaelic, that was more than enough to win over her hosts.There was a density to her gravitas that made every gesture and word carry enormous impact, far more than any other world leader.She truly believed in her earthly commission during a reign that increasingly saw global leaders become more cynical and openly performative, and thus, most of us gave her substantial benefit of the doubt.If there were ever an Era of Earnestness in global politics, that has definitively come to a close with her death. Sobering, to say the least.During one of our evenings in her bedroom, I remember asking my grandmother why she despised Charles but loved the Queen, and she didn't say anything for a moment, the smoke billowing from her hand as she briefly appeared lost in thought.“You never have to guess with her”, she answered a few moments later, her voice raspy. “What you see is what you get.”And we'll never have that again.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Hi, I'm Charlotte Clymer, and this is Charlotte's Web Thoughts, my Substack. It's completely free to access and read, but if you feel so moved to support my writing, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription: just $7/month or save money with the $70/annual sub. You can also go way above and beyond by becoming a Founding Member at $210. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe
English Grammar Podcast On Learning About Probability Adverbs ✔Lesson transcript: https://adeptenglish.com/lessons/english-learn-grammar-adverb-probability/ In this English language grammar lesson, we further our understanding of adverbs and their use when discussing probability in everyday English conversations. Today we will hear about the contrast between terms such as certainty and probably, and communicating with others using the English language by getting comfortable with probabilities. Why probability? Well, English speakers (I guess everyone) need the ability to communicate estimates of the chance of something happening in the future. Talking about certainty and uncertainty is commonplace, and it's important to understand the implications of what's being said. This English podcast lesson will focus on the differences between good and bad odds of future events and how their usage fits into everyday English conversation. We will talk through the typical English adverbs used to communicate zero probability all the way to the best case. Listening to this podcast will leave you with a good chance of understanding "How likely something is" Life is a school of probability. ⭐ Walter Bagehot, Author English speakers often use words and phrases when speaking about the likelihood of things happening, “odds,” and the chances of certain events. The words probability, chance and odds are constantly being used in everyday English language, and it means different things in different contexts. You may want to know the probability of something happening in the future, such as finding money on the ground. Or you can ask someone what his or her probability of something is, like wanting to know how likely he or she thinks it might rain today. The words and phrases we'll cover in this English language podcast lesson will be helpful when you want to make an estimation or understand the implications of another person's estimation of the future.Learn more about our courses here: https://adeptenglish.com/language-courses/ Adept English is here to help with FREE English lessons and language courses that are unique, modern and deliver results. You can learn to speak English quickly using our specialised brain training. We get straight to the point of how you should learn to speak English. We teach you in a fun and simple way that delivers results. If you want to learn to speak English, our approach to learning through listening will improve your English fluency.
Chapter 13. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 12. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 11. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 10. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 9. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 8. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 7. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
This episode is also available as a blog post: http://quiteaquote.in/2021/02/03/walter-bagehot-public-opinion/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/quiteaquote/message
Adrian Wooldridge is The Economist‘s political editor and writes the Bagehot column; an analysis of British life and politics, in the tradition of Walter Bagehot, editor of The Economist from 1861-77. Adrian also used to write the Schumpeter column on business, finance and management. He was previously based in Washington, DC, as the Washington bureau chief where he also wrote the Lexington column. Prior to his role in Washington, he has been The Economist‘s West Coast correspondent, management correspondent and Britain correspondent. He is the co-author of “The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea”, “A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalisation”, “Witch Doctors”, a critical examination of management theory, and “The Right Nation”, a study of conservatism in America. His most recent books are “The Great Disruption: How Business Is Coping With Turbulent Times (2015) and “Masters of Management: How the Business Gurus and their Ideas have Changed the World—for Better and for Worse” (2011). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Chapter 6. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 5. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 4. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 3. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 2. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
Chapter 1. An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
An unabridged reading of the Bible of Central Banking - Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot. Chapters drop every Thursday morning beginning June 3, 2021. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
“Excellent… and written in a gripping style.” —The Economist During the upheavals of 2007–09, the chairman of the Federal Reserve had the name of one Victorian icon on the tip of his tongue: Walter Bagehot. Banker, man of letters, and inventor of the Treasury bill, Bagehot prescribed the doctrines that—decades later—inspired the radical responses to the world's worst financial crises. Persuasive and precocious, he was also the esteemed editor of the Economist. He offered astute commentary on the financial issues of his day, held sway in political circles, made as many high-profile friends as enemies, and won the admiration of Matthew Arnold and Woodrow Wilson. Drawing on a wealth of historical documents, correspondence, and publications, James Grant paints a vivid portrait of the banker and his world. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pbliving/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/pbliving/support
“No person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons.” So declared the Act of Settlement, a statute of prime UK constitutional significance, just before the Union of England and Scotland; but that sentence of the Act as originally passed has been struck out by a complicated legislative sleight of hand, with much invocation of “modern convention” and “democracy” and lawyerly nods towards Walter Bagehot’s 1860s paradigm of “parliamentary democracy” and Albert Venn Dicey’s 1885 doctrine of “parliamentary sovereignty” as supposedly expressing the “national will”. It was, however, a notion of which Dicey himself repented less than thirty years later as having caused “lawlessness in England”.
"El gran placer de la vida es hacer lo que la gente dice que no puedes. (Walter Bagehot).🀄️" Y nuestro programa de hoy se lo dedico a los soñadores, y es que ayer fue el día de Martin Luther King, ya sabéis... el "I have a dream". Martin Luther King fue un hombre de raza negra, que desde muy joven defendió las causas y derechos de la población civil de color, que en esa época era víctima de segregación racial y violencia. Fue víctima de varios atentados, hasta que, en el año 1968, fue asesinado de un disparo, mientras estaba en la ciudad de Memphis, Estados Unidos, donde participaría en una huelga organizada por un movimiento afroamericano. Sin duda alguna, que el legado de Martin Luther King fue que todos los hombres disfrutaran de plena libertad, justicia e igualdad. Fue uno de los mensajes más significativos y recordados de la historia. Un discurso que conmovió a toda la sociedad y que todavía sigue en la memoria de quienes admiraron su labor en defensa de los derechos civiles en Estados Unidos. Hoy en nuestro programa continuamos comentando las noticias que me han llegado este fin de semana a redacción...¡esta vez sobre MMA!
Season 3, Episode 1. The economic crisis response playbook was written in 1873 by Walter Bagehot, and central bankers have called upon the sacred text for the century and a half since. Who was Walter Bagehot and what does he prescribe central bankers do to stop bank runs and economic panics? This and a speedy 200 year history of central banking before Bagehot in Episode 1 of Season 3. Go to www.centralverse.org for episode transcripts and interactive graphics explaining how modern central banks work today. Connect with me on twitter @KalebNygaard Subscribe! Rate! Share!
"El gran placer de la vida es hacer lo que la gente dice que no puedes. (Walter Bagehot).🀄️" Y nuestro programa de hoy se lo dedico a... ¡la Juventud! porque hoy es el Día Mundial de las Habilidades de la Juventud. En 2014 la Asamblea General de la ONU proclamó el 15 de julio como el Día Mundial de las Habilidades de la Juventud, a propuesta de Sri Lanka. Hoy en día los jóvenes son un colectivo estratégico para lograr un avance en las sociedades. La celebración de este día trata de empoderar a los jóvenes para que sean influyentes en el mundo, empezando desde sus comunidades y logrando objetivos globales. Sin los jóvenes será imposible conseguir sociedades justas y sostenibles. Hoy hablando de habilidades y de Juventud... que mejor que tener aquí con nosotros hoy de nuevo a los BrotherTrickz!! porque este próximo fin de semana imparten su 3º Seminario online GRATUITO de XMA. Así que hoy, os presento al tandem de profesores que lo impartirán en esta ocasión, Óscar HOKORI Núñez y Alejandro Reyes.
Our first look at a central banking figure outside of the United States. Walter Bagehot's book Lombard Street is one of the most important in all of central banking history. (Episode originally aired on June 10, 2016.) Centralverse
"El gran placer de la vida es hacer lo que la gente dice que no puedes. (Walter Bagehot?).?????" Y nuestro programa de hoy se lo dedico a los soñadores como yo, que crecieron viendo a sus héroes del celuloide, y eso marco sus vidas... ¡PARA SIEMPRE! Hoy en nuestro programa hablaremos de Cine Marcial "low cost" o "de guerrilla", vamos... que veremos algunos tips y consejos para que los que queráis introduciros en el mundo de la acción sepáis como podríais empezar a grabar vuestras primeras peleas.
The foundations of modern policing are based not on justice, but on the punishing of poverty, the imposition of the status quo, the disciplining of the public, the constriction of liberty, and justified as the protection against an ugly, sinful, idle, greedy, and organised criminal class that has no basis in reality. In this video I look at the birth of the modern police force in Britain, what the historian V.A.C Gatrell calls ‘the policeman state.' The nineteenth century was a period of great transformation. Urbanization, industrialization, technologicalization , were all, at the heart, a change in the routines of humans. Modernity, at its simples t, was about efficiency, speed, production, of the maximizing of health, wealth and profit. It was about scientifically searching for those rules, those methods, those laws, that would bring about the ideal human order. The first modern, standardized police forced – the Metropolitan Police – was created in 1829, and continued to expand across the century, increasing from around 20k in 1860 to 54k in 1911. The preventative police were to be visible, wear uniforms, be of good physique, intelligence, and character – ‘domestic missionaries' as historian Robert Storch called them. There was protest: The Gazette called it ‘a base attempt upon the liberty of the subject and the privilege of local government' and that the purpose of the police state was to ‘to drill, discipline and dragoon us all into virtue' A parliament inquiry concluded that ‘such a system would of necessity be odious and repulsive, and one which no government would be able to carry into execution ...the very proposal would be rejected with abhorrence' And that ‘It is difficult to reconcile an effective system of police, with that perfect freedom of action and exemption from interference, which are the great privileges and blessings of society in this country; and your Committee think that the forfeiture or curtailment of such advantages would be too great a sacrifice for improvements in police'. In 1867 the commentator Walter Bagehot wrote that: ‘The natural impulse of the English people is to resist authority. The introduction of effectual policemen was not liked;I know people, old people I admit, who to this day consider them an infringement of freedom. If the original policeman had been started with the present helmets, the result might have been dubious; there might have been a cry of military tyranny, and the inbred insubordination of the English people might have prevailed over the very modern love of perfect peace and order.' Despite all of this, the fist of modernity raised its clenched rational plan, and swung. Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: http://patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Carlos and Bob critically assess the Fed's $1.5 trillion repo operations, allegedly designed to stem market panic over the coronavirus. Bob observes that even Walter Bagehot's famous dictum said central banks should lend freely *at a high rate of discount*.Mentioned in this episode and other links of interest: Carlos and Bob's September 2016 presentation, "How to Weather the Coming Financial Storms." The documentary This Is Nelson Nash. Bob's new series for the Mises Institute, Understanding Money Mechanics. Carlos and Bob's book, How Privatized Banking Really Works. Bob's analysis of the Fed's latest emergency repo operations.The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
On today's Defence Deconstructed Podcast, we are joined by Ian Brodie and Eugene Lang to discuss how defence will work in Canada's new Liberal-minority government. Defence Deconstructed is part of the CGAI Podcast Network and today's episode is brought to you by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). Subscribe to the CGAI Podcast Network on iTunes, SoundCloud, or wherever else you can find Podcasts! Bios: Dave Perry (host) - Senior Analyst and Vice President with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. Ian Brodie - Associate Professor at the University of Calgary and Program Director at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was chief of staff to Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. Eugene Lang - Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was chief of staff to two ministers of National Defence in the Chrétien and Martin governments and served as an official in the Department of Finance. Related Links: - "Elections and Defence Policy” [CGAI Podcast] (https://www.cgai.ca/elections_and_defence_policy) Recommended books: Ian Brodie – “The Hundred-Year Marathon” by Michael Pillsbury (https://www.amazon.ca/Hundred-Year-Marathon-Pillsbury-1-Dec-2014-Hardcover/dp/B012HUQ3DI) Eugene Lang – “The English Constitution” by Walter Bagehot (https://www.amazon.ca/English-Constitution-Walter-Bagehot/dp/0199539014/) Recording Date: 4 November 2019. Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website at www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Jay Rankin. Music credits to Drew Phillips.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
