25 Burst results for "John Maynard Keynes"

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Crypto Voices

Crypto Voices

03:11 min | Last month

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Crypto Voices

"The inflation conflation with wages. Absolutely. I mean, at the unit of account, regardless of where we might be with Bitcoin in the next 50 years, the unit account, even for most sort of basket case economies for primary spending, although I know people have done this with Bitcoin, it's still probably by and large as the U.S. dollar. Yeah. So seeing how the U.S. dollar might compare with other digital currencies with other assets with other service contracts is certainly certainly interesting. And that's a perennial question with Bitcoin too, isn't it? Because Bitcoin also is volatile. And over the long term that we might believe that it's not volatile if it becomes kind of the unit of account. Still, the base money won't be able to be expanded to any politician or central bankers win. So does that eventually create a deflationary interest towards everybody's sort of basis, like you said, no one likes to receive a pay cut. Correct. My thinking is long, long-term, I don't know if you thought about this, but long, long term, it might just be where the tech is doing everything and we'll just work less and we might get paid the same, but we're working less. That's a long-term question. That's a great way to maybe even end this podcast. That was what John Maynard Keynes wrote a hundred years ago. We talked about the future of my grandchildren. He's got this really great essay. I'm not a keynesian. I advocate for his policies, but he's a great writer. So he talks about how a hundred years from now, my children are going to be working. I think it's like four hours a week or something. If you visit to continue the trend and of course, we're working more today than we were a generation ago. And so that's not a technological challenge. That's a social challenge. Yes. Just like I said, we're social creatures, we are designed, we're built to work. And the nature of the work will change, but we're not going to have 30 hours of leisure. I don't think. You never know though. I'd like to see it. I don't know that I don't know what I would do with my time. 30 hours of leisure. There's always so much golf you can play and I'm terrible at golf. Well, it's still the marginal benefits of society could be in other areas that are just maybe seem less like work, but whether it's art or science or research to be something that you're still adding. It's a great really great insight you mentioned. I haven't thought about that, but I'm just saying another way to make sure I understand it. Because of the deflationary environment, the people being unwilling to lower their nominal pay, they're going to make adjustments on other margins and they're going to say, well, I will work less. I will spend more time with the family. You're saying that well, that's the only palatable way to do it, I guess. And I'm not saying I know that that will definitely happen, but that is the standard retort to Bitcoin's fixed supply of 21 million units is even just, as I mentioned earlier, even if you just account for something like population growth, presuming productivity stays exactly the same.

U.S. John Maynard Keynes golf Bitcoin
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on What Bitcoin Did

What Bitcoin Did

05:26 min | Last month

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on What Bitcoin Did

"IO. All right, you don't want to make any predictions. Never make critics. How are you preparing? How are you preparing is understanding what's going on, listening to the financial system. How are you prepared? Am I prepared? How do you prefer? I'm being as safe and as risk averse as I possibly. So what is safe and risk averse right now? It can be any number of things. And I don't want to give out investment advice. I don't want to get into any of that stuff. It's the one indicator that would be contrary to that, the unemployment rate. No, because that's a lagging indicator. And it's also faulty because it doesn't take you account in the U.S. to participation problem. What does that mean? Fewer people have come back to labor force since 2020 or 2020. So the employment rate doesn't take into account all the people who didn't come back. We're just supposed to ignore that. Oh, I see. The participation problem is the deflationary problem that John Maynard Keynes identified a century ago. But it happens starting in 2009 2010, and we just ignored it. So we have fewer people working, but the unemployment goes down because we don't ignore all the fewer people who don't work. Why? Nobody knows. Nobody seems to know. Economists have said, while Americans are lazy, they won't go back to school and learn new jobs, their drug addicted, any number of excuses that basically blames workers for what is a macro issue. What do you think the reason for that is, again, we talked about this commerce is spending too much time worrying about money. And so it's a drag and economic growth. Globalization, more inefficient economic systems means there's less opportunity to create sustainable enterprise that leads to employment. So I think the average American worker who's out of the labor force knows more about what's going on in the economy than every central banker and economist there is. They can feel the fact that there is no jobs available because companies are struggling with all of these issues. Well, people can only want to know. Yes. I mean, we'd see it with our numbers. Our podcast numbers are essentially a derivative of the Bitcoin price. When the price goes up, downloads shoot up and we get a whole new we get a new base, but when it drops it drops. We put out a show today with Lin ordon talking about the crisis in Europe, straight line up. People want to know, people because they want to protect themselves because they know they've been fucked by the central banks. That's another being lied to. Yeah, of course. I think that's, again, it goes back to what it's instability. You can feel the instability, but you got Jay Powell on the TV saying, no worries. I got this covered. I'm going to hike rates and the economy is going to be just fine. There'll be a soft landing. We're all good. And everybody knows that's bullshit, right? People should about transitory. The fed, you have to understand what the fed says in public is not what it says in private. You look at some of the academic studies, the literature.

John Maynard Keynes Lin ordon U.S. Jay Powell Europe fed
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:38 min | Last month

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Years before. Say something about that acceleration of growth that you see is happening in the 20th century. You know, I mean, it was British economist John Stuart mill, right? He was writing in 1871 about how all the industrial revolution had done was it had created a somewhat larger middle class and it had allowed manufacturers and the rich to earn greater fortunes, but that the overwhelming mass of humanity was still confined to the same life of drudgery and imprisonment. Then they had been before that they had been in before. And before all the way back into deep time. It was very clear by 1900 that things had changed. John Maynard Keynes writing in 1919 looks back and says starting in 1870, we entered economic El Dorado. And that now our chief task after World War I was figuring out why we tried to blow it up and try to get desperately back to what was good was going on after 1870. Fortunately, we eventually did, and so things rolled through up until our day. First of all, gives a sense of what happened in 1870 that brought all this about. There were some three driving forces in your book. Well, you know, everyone has an idea about just what it is that's made us as a civilization so wealthy that makes our economy so productive. And different people have different things and they all go back and some of them back even to say the year ten 70 when it turns out that the law applies to a German emperor standing in the snow outside of the castle that a law is and his tool, but instead it that the law provides to everybody. But you get three things that fall into place in 1870 that set technological progress into a much higher gear than ever before. And they are the industrial research lab so that you can rationalize and routinized the discovery and development of technology. And then the corporation, as we know it. Which rationalizes the development and deployment of technology, you know, in combine that with the globalized economy with the telegraph and the I railroad in the iron hold ocean going steamship. And all of a sudden, the incentives to deploy technology worldwide for production are so overwhelming and people turn their minds to how to do this that everything explodes in a way it never had before. Brad, much of the academic discussion of your book has

John Stuart John Maynard Keynes El Dorado Brad
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

04:04 min | Last month

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Weston from Bloomberg radio. Our very special contributor Larry summers of Harvard has stayed with us because we're going to bring in now Professor of economics from UC Berkeley. He's Brad to long. The author of a new book slouching toward utopia, an economic history of the 20th century. So professor, welcome for joining us. It's really good to have you here. I've read this fascinating and really sort of protein book. It's really quite a book. Let's set it up first because it's a history of the 20th century, but you don't necessarily define the 20th century as from 1900 to 2000. You start an 1870 unit, end up in 2010. Why? Well, the big thing that happens happens in 1870. Before 1870, the world's poor, and there's no prospect for the world being anything other than poor. After 1870, every single generation humanity's technical competence doubles. And then doubles again in the following generation. And such an enormous pace of technological advance raises the possibility for the first time of a world in which we can bake a sufficiently large economic pie for everyone to have enough. And that was nothing that humanity had ever seen before. One of the remarkable things Brad that you highlight is that it really wasn't very different to live in the United Kingdom in the 19th century than it had been to live in the ancient world 2000 years before. Say something about that acceleration of growth that you see is happening in the 20th century. You know, I mean, it was British economist John Stuart mill, right? He was writing in 1871 about how all the industrial revolution had done was it had created a somewhat larger middle class and it had allowed manufacturers and the rich to earn greater fortunes, but that the overwhelming mass of humanity was still confined to the same life of drudgery and imprisonment. Then they had been before that they had been in before. And before all the way back into deep time. It was very clear by 1900 that things had changed. John Maynard Keynes writing in 1919 looks back and says starting in 1870, we entered economic El Dorado. And that now our chief task after World War I was figuring out why we tried to blow it up and try to get desperately back to what was good was going on after 1870. Fortunately, we eventually did, and so things rolled through up until our day. First of all, gives a sense of what happened in 1870 that brought all this about. There were some three driving forces in your book. Well, you know, everyone has an idea about just what it is that's made us as a civilization so wealthy that makes our economy so productive. And the different people have different things and they all go back. Some of them back even to say the year ten 70 when it turns out that the law applies to a German emperor standing in the snow outside of the castle that a law is and his tool, but instead it could be that the law provides to everybody. But you get three things that fall into place in 1870 that set technological progress into a much higher gear than ever before. And they are the industrial research lab so that you can rationalize and routinized the discovery and development of technology. And then the corporation, as we know it. Which rationalizes the development and deployment of technology, you know, in combine that with the globalized economy with the telegraph and the I railroad in the iron hold ocean going steamship. And all of a sudden, the incentives to deploy technology worldwide for production are so overwhelming and people turn their minds to how to do this, that everything explodes in a way it never had before. Brad, much of the academic discussion

Bloomberg radio UC Berkeley Brad Larry summers Weston Harvard John Stuart John Maynard Keynes United Kingdom El Dorado
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible

Bitcoin Audible

05:19 min | 4 months ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bitcoin Audible

"For the war without an official tax, by printing a lot of money, spending it into the economy, and then eliminating or reducing the gold peg before people knew what was happening to their money. This allowed governments to fight much larger wars by extracting more savings from their citizens, which led their international opponents to debase their currencies with similar tactics as well. If they wanted to win. Ironically, the fact that Fiat currencies have no cost to produce is what gave them the biggest cost of all. Bretton Woods and the petrodollar. After World War I and throughout the tariff wars and World War II period thereafter, many countries went off the gold standard or devalued their currencies relative to gold. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said in 1924, quote, in truth, the gold standard is already a barbarous relic. By 1934, gold was made illegal to own. It was punishable by up to ten years in prison for Americans to own it. The dollar was no longer redeemable for gold by American citizens, although it was still redeemable for official foreign creditors, which was an important part of maintaining the dollars credibility. Shortly after Americans were forced to sell their goal to the government in exchange for dollars, the dollar was devalued relative to gold, which benefited the government at the expense of those who were forced to sell it. It remained illegal for Americans to own gold for about four decades until the mid 1970s. Interestingly enough, that overlapped quite cleanly with the period where U.S. treasuries underperformed inflation. Basically, the main release valve that people could turn to instead of cash or treasuries as savings assets was made illegal to them. It's rather ironic gold was a, quote, a barbarous relic, and yet apparently had to be confiscated and pushed out of use by the threat of imprisonment and hoarded only by the government during a period of intentional currency devaluation. If it were truly such a relic, it would have fallen out of usage on its own. And the government would have had little need to own any. Making gold illegal to own was hard to enforce, though. There were not many prosecutions for it, and it's not as though authorities went door to door looking for it. By 1944 towards the end of World War II, after most currencies were sharply devalued, the bretton Woods agreement was reached. Most countries pegged their currency to the dollar, and the United States dollar remained pegged to gold. But only redeemable to large foreign creditors, not American citizens. By extension, a pseudo gold standard was temporarily reestablished. This lasted only 27 years until 1971, when the United States no longer had enough gold to maintain redemption for its dollars. And thus, ended the gold standard for itself and most of the world. There were too many dollar claims compared to how much gold the U.S. had.

Bretton Woods John Maynard Keynes Fiat U.S. government bretton Woods
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money

podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money

02:21 min | 5 months ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money

"A marriage in some sense blessed by John Maynard Keynes is focused on full employment, could we even slouch towards utopia? But that marriage itself failed its own sustainability tests when it ran into the buzzsaw of the neoliberal challenge of the 1980s. The explosion of our science and technological competence and then our application of it to be production via full globalization, the modern corporation and the industrial research lab, all of which burst upon the world in 1870. That ought to have made prosperity and indeed utopia or birthright. Yet we have, in many respects, sold it for thin red lentil stew. Why have we failed so catastrophically at equitably slicing and then properly tasting the large economic pie we built? Well, you know, Friedrich von Hayek was the one who most keen sightedly observed that the market economy is tremendously effective at crowdsourcing solutions. And Hayek grew from this the conclusion that the market gives us the market takes the way blessed to be the name of the market. We dare not interfere with this thing because it can produce prosperity for all, or at least for most. And attempting to monkey with it to go further runs the risk of destroying its ability to do its job. But humans disagreed. As genius Karl polanyi saw, humans needed much more rights than property rights expected property rights. And you know, the markets treating the only rights that mattered as property rights and treating those who society saw as unequal as equals unequally and treating unequals equally. That has brought us social explosion after social explosion with mammoth political and genocidal consequences. Not blessed be the name of the market. But rather the market was made for men not men for the market was required if humanity was to even slouch towards the utopia that we ought to have already grasped with our technology. But how? We are still in the position John Maynard Keynes thought we were back in 1924..

Friedrich von Hayek John Maynard Keynes Karl polanyi Hayek us
Keynesian Economics: 'We're All Dead in the Long Run'

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:32 min | 5 months ago

Keynesian Economics: 'We're All Dead in the Long Run'

"So John mentor Keynes wrote his most famous book, the general theory of employment interest and money. Keynes really was the leader of what could be called a revolution in economic theory. The very same way that Freud was a revolutionary in psychological thinking or Foucault and derrida was a revolutionary and philosophy of sexual norms, same with Kinsey and money. John money, that is. John Maynard Keynes was the pioneer. Of getting people to think differently about economics. His prior to John Maynard Keynes, there was a anchoring towards the laws of nature of gravity of thermodynamics that things matter and they can't be made up out of thin air. Now John Maynard Keynes, his most famous quote that I think best summarizes. His economic philosophy, his moral philosophy or lack thereof is, well, we're all dead in the long run. We're basically it doesn't matter what you borrow. It doesn't matter what you do today. We're all dead anyway. So what difference does it make? All of the economic thoughts of John Maynard Keynes that we're going to go through can be best summarized by an incredibly cynical and dark phrase of we're all dead in the long run.

John Maynard Keynes John Mentor Keynes John Money Keynes Derrida Foucault Freud Kinsey
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:53 min | 6 months ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"I hope I don't have to keep driving the Toyota camera I have back in my garage in Maryland I'm impressed that you even have pretty doesn't even have a car you know She's a big city girl now I still have my roots back in the suburbs Does she even have a driver's license That's a good pretty does have a driver She's from Texas and I feel like you have to have one In order to consider the real citizen drive around the farm All right so let's talk about the demand side Julia you know we're hearing reports that China is in various stages of reopening I guess that means more significantly more demand So is that kind of what the futures market is telling you in terms of future prices here It is with the futures market is telling me and JPMorgan actually come up with an interesting note this morning saying that if China increases buying Russian barrels off the market the discounted barrels by 1 million barrels a day then the impact is not going to be as bad as expected but what would have to happen is China restarting its economy just as you said So if that happens the prices for oils will not be as heavily impacted but if China does not buy all of that extra crew from Russia then that's going to be an issue And prices JPMorgan says could peak as high as a $136 in June Somebody was calling it for $70 oil on the street this morning Who did I see there I have to go check it out How many dollar oil What kind of oil Very low quality $70 oil That was add Morse yesterday Yes Well he's a big guy Yes The classic bear He's saying fair value of oil is around $70 not a 120 Fair value is different than calling for because you know he could think that the market is Well I just forget I'm forgetting the word Let's see what the market can stay exuberant longer than the market can stay irrational longer than I can say liquid Is that the something like that But anyway but I think the problem is just the whole supply side of the equation here is Julie was mentioning it It's refining kind of stuff you duke it out of the ground because I said hey why don't the guys and gals down in Texas and Oklahoma just start doing more fracking or whatever they do down there with the shell but even if they were to do that it's really not that much refining capacity That's exactly it That's exactly All right so I found the quote by the way John Maynard Keynes Tom would be so proud of me Says markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent And this is something I would say to add more because he's saying it's just his idea of fair value right His calculation not that he thinks oil is going to trade at $70 anytime soon All right good stuff Julia Oil futures reporter for Bloomberg news and the University of Michigan wolverines Go blue Appreciate it All right thanks very much Horrible All right we've got sickening Continuing to move lower here S&P off about 1.1% coming up Balance of power David Weston he drives a conversation forward He brings like only he can do Wall Street together with Capitol.

China JPMorgan Toyota Texas Maryland Julia camera Morse John Maynard Keynes Tom Russia Julie Julia Oil Oklahoma University of Michigan wolveri Bloomberg news David Weston
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

02:41 min | 7 months ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Organization Days with John Howell afternoons from four until 7 On the big 89 WLS We heard colleague four four four the USA now to let Dan know what you think 844-484-3872 the Dan bongino show All right a couple of things I'm going to get to the questions you all submitted some great questions If you'd like to submit a question you can always call we take your calls in the next segment 8 four four four 8 four three 8 7 two 8 four four for the USA But on Friday most of the time we do a question segment unless it's a huge news day So if you go to true social I am at D bongino the verified account there I put a post up every Thursday the day before it says questions for tomorrow's radio show You can always submit them there We'll get some good ones here today We'll get to that but some other news items I want to cover for you I don't want to leave the week leaving important information on the table Folks are very important economic number came out yesterday I get it I know I understand economics is the dismal science It is probably one of the most boring topics known to humankind I get it I love it I don't find it boring A lot of people do I enjoy economics But one number you should always pay attention to They're all important Inflation labor force participation unemployment frictional unemployment They're all important numbers But one I would argue if I was triaging the importance of this number I would put this outer close to the top It's our productivity number Things like general factor productivity industry specific productivity Y without getting into you know detailed into the wonky here Productivity measures simply what we produce folks wealth is what you produce It's not what you demand You can demand whatever the hell you want If it's not produced here's a simple weight of it The left wants you to believe the leftist theory of economics Which didn't start with Keynes but John Maynard Keynes kind of formulated into what he thought was a semi coherent demand plan Is that the economy is juiced on the demand side That if we can just feed people's demand by giving them free money they'll go out and buy stuff in the economy or grow which if you're listening at home and you don't have an understanding of economics you know I get it you study other things You probably like well that sounds sensible Give people money to go buy stuff Okay great I can give you all the money in the world to go buy stuff But if the stuff doesn't exist the money's worthless Here you want to make it even more simple I'll just get a simple question Very simple I don't need any this is an a or B would you rather be On.

Dan bongino John Howell USA Inflation labor force Dan John Maynard Keynes Keynes
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Planet Money

Planet Money

07:09 min | 9 months ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Planet Money

"This all went down in the cool mountains of New Hampshire. Way up near the Canadian border, there is a giant hotel. It's white wood up on a ridge, looks like a big cruise ship, and it is still open today. Good evening. Welcome to the mount Washington hotel in bretton Woods. Of course, we had to go see it. Yes. All right, we want to go through the reception dish right to the left. The town of bretton Woods would become famous for what happened in this hotel. It was the end of World War II and the great economic minds of the world came together to figure out what's next. The news reels of the time make it seem like a very sober and serious endeavor. At bretton Woods, New Hampshire, delegates from 44 allied and associate countries arrived for the opening of the United Nations monetary and financial conference. On the newsreel, you can see dozens of men in their wool suits and hats that are getting off trains, they're getting out of motor cars. They're flooding into the ornate lobby of the mount Washington hotel. Things are designed to promote trade in the post war world and to create a foundation for lasting peace. The delegates here would create these big global organizations that exist to this day, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank. But the newsreels leave out the real story. This hotel was off the beaten path. It was up in the Woods and it was pretty chaotic inside. A lot of the real action took place in the basement of the hotel in a bar called the moon room. The owner of the hotel strolled down on that first night, the moon room and just had a look around. Our guide is Ed Conway. He's a reporter for Sky News. And he's the author of the new book this summit that would essentially representatives of almost every country in the world there before him drinking away, enjoying themselves. And I think there was the sense that never before had this corner of New Hampshire had quite such a cosmopolitan crowd and apparently he was kind of ash and faced and needed to be taken away because he was so shocked at the proceedings. I mean, you hear about that more back in the day, people used to faint a lot more back then, I think. When you picture bretton Woods, picture sweat, cigars, whisky, high levels of emotion. Though episodes were even the kind of strongest men there burst into tears because it was entirely stressful. They were working 18 hour days. And on top of this, drinking copious amounts of alcohol. I rarely read anything economics or otherwise any account that has so much about the amount of booze that was consumed during a short period of time. And that's one of the fears that Keynes had going into this. He said that he was worried that alcohol poison was going to set in before the end of it. There was a reason for so much alcohol, because the problem they were dealing with was huge. They were trying to put the whole world back together. Even before the war, the global economic system was broken. Countries had mostly stopped trading with each other. First, there was the depression, countries put up these high trade barriers to try to protect their domestic industries. And there was a bigger problem. The world had gone off the gold standard. Under the gold standard, every country's currency was backed by a precise amount of gold. You knew exactly what a French Frank or a U.S. dollar was worth. Gold made trading easy. But without the gold standard, countries could print money and they did. And the value of their currencies went wildly up and down. It was hard to trade when you never knew on any given day with the other guy's currency was worth. So this was the issue they are trying to solve at bretton Woods. How do we stabilize the world's currency? So people can start trading again. There are basically two ideas to deal with this to pretty different ideas to bury different men. The first guy, John Maynard Keynes. He arrived at bretton Woods as the biggest celebrity economist in the world. Now, he had a long experience with this kind of stuff. He had watched the world screw up the economic recovery after World War I. He helped guide Britain through the depression. The man is gregarious. He's brilliant. He's magnetic. He's the one that's in all the photos. He's the one that talks in the newsreels. You've been working quietly. The way of the cool group the mountains of New Hampshire. And I doubt I doubt if the world hit understands, a bigger thing we are bringing to birth. I love that. The bigger thing we are bringing to birth. Even today, when people think about bretton Woods conference, they think about John Maynard Keynes, when you're at the hotel, everyone knows exactly what room he stayed in. We went to it, room two 19, still in use. Hi. Hi. Economics reporters, and this is the room that a famous economist slept in. Oh, really? John Mayer Keynes? Oh, okay. So we were just wondering if we could look at it. Sure. Is that okay? Sorry to bother you. It's a beautiful room. Fireplace, big bedroom, looks out on the mountains. So right in here, this is where John Maynard Keynes wife, the Russian ballerina, would do her dance exercises in Keynes, and we know that it was this room because downstairs was where treasury secretary morgenthau was trying to sleep with his wife, Eleanor, and they were getting mad because of all the ballet exercises over their head. Bretton Woods was like a summer camp, you know, if a summer camp determined the future of the economy. It was like dirty dancing. It's like dirty dancing if John Maynard Keynes were there, saying nobody puts the British pound Sterling in a corner. Yes. Because Keynes is walking into this conference worried about Britain's place in the world. When he grew up in Great Britain, it was a colonial power. It ran the world economy, and now the best he could hope for is a new currency system that does not put the Americans in charge. He wants something where everyone's included, and we're frankly Britain is not bossed around by the United States. Keynes rival is an American. Harry Dexter white, he was actually the man running the conference. And today everyone knows the room that Keynes stayed in, no one has any idea where white stayed, and even when he was alive, he was in enigmatic figure. We did find a little archive tape of him. The representatives of 44 nations here in Britain would are taking steps to prevent a repetition of the currency chaos which is usually followed in the wake of war. Harry dicks are white was the assistant secretary of the United States treasury. He'd sort of warmed his way in there while Kane was born in aristocrat. It was kind of from the wrong side of the tracks. He had immigrant parents, his dad was a hardware peddler. Weight worked his way up from a temp in the Treasury Department. Where Keynes was magnetic and charming. It was not. White is about the most unlikeable character you will ever see, even his colleagues who were admirers of his ability never had anything nice to say about the man. No one says anything nice about him. Ben steals with the council on foreign relations, and he wrote a book about the two guys. It's called the battle of bretton Woods. He says, Harry Dexter white had been fantasizing about this conference for years before it happened. It was time white felt that America take its proper place as the leader of the world economy. While white and Keynes were maneuvering for power behind the scenes at bretton Woods, the rest of the representatives from all those other countries were having a final time.

mount Washington hotel bretton Woods New Hampshire John Maynard Keynes Ed Conway Keynes Sky News International Monetary Fund Britain World Bank depression John Mayer Keynes United Nations treasury secretary morgenthau Harry Dexter white America Bretton Woods
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Planet Money

Planet Money

02:28 min | 9 months ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Planet Money

"More damaging. Acting on its own, the U.S. can exact a huge amount of pain. The reason for that is all about the dollar. And the dollar is very special status as the world's reserve currency. It's the main currency used by multinational businesses and financial institutions. That means when the U.S. imposes sanctions, it has more power to mess up the workings of another country's Central Bank and its global trade relationships. So where does that special privilege come from? Today we're bringing back an episode from the archives that tells the story of how the U.S. dollar came to have so much clout in the first place. This episode originally ran in 2014. Robert Smith and Zoe chase take it from here. They say that money makes the world go round, but let's be more specific. It is actually the U.S. dollar. Like if you're a French wine exporter and you need Chilean oak for your wine barrels, you pay in U.S. dollars. If you're a Brazilian coffee maker, you want to sell your coffee to make drinks in turkey. You get paid in U.S. dollars. In every other country in the world, every country that is not the United States. There are basically two currencies that matter. The one they use at home with their friends, the Brazilian real, the French year room, and the one they use to trade, which is the U.S. dollar. And this is very, very good for the United States. Crucial, really, to our place in the world. Everyone wants our money, everyone takes our money. And it's valuable to the United States in all sorts of ways. When U.S. businesses want to trade abroad in U.S. dollars, guess what? We already have the U.S. dollar. And for many complicated reasons, it basically means that when it comes to trade, the wind is at our back. But it wasn't always like this. There was a moment where this became the way we do business. The world got together in a rare display of global economic planning and decided, we need to cooperate. And we need one currency to trade with. But exactly which currency it would be was up for grabs. And it came down to the fight between two men. One British, one American. You probably heard of. If you only know one economist, you know this guy's name. John, Maynard Keynes. He had this brilliant utopian dream of a common currency for the world. The other guy, the guy who ended up winning this fight almost no one knows his name. It's Harry Dexter white. Somehow he managed to outwit John Maynard Keynes and put the U.S. dollar at the center of the world..

U.S. Zoe chase Robert Smith Central Bank turkey John Maynard Keynes Harry Dexter John
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu

Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu

07:16 min | 1 year ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu

"Well, now I need a much bigger research budget to look into them and I need a research center. I need to hire a whole bunch of people to look into it with me. And so we see how this is reflected in many fields where we go all through these hysterias, where everybody is always fascinated by this. And of course, that also helps with that also inevitably be driven by the agendas of the people funding it. It's all ultimately political. It's ultimately government money. It's bureaucracies that are that have political goals and objectives. And so they push funding toward the kind of hysteria that they want to hear about. Oh, okay, so I'm going to see if I can reiterate all of this. There are some pretty aggressive claims. So, all right, you've got the government is printing money. They can print as much as they want. They mine Fiat by getting people in debt, one of because we're talking about universities, but it really is just one of the examples you use in the book. So we're just going through this example as one way Fiat distorts incentives, which then have these huge knock on effects. So they mine for Fiat by getting people in debt. One of the sort of easy targets because it's motherhood and apple pie is education. So let's make education nice and cheap. So we subsidize the loan, so the loans have a very low cost. Students take out then these massive loans to go to school, but which could be a good thing, were it turning out people that are extraordinarily gifted at things that the world cares about deeply and that really matter and move the needle in a meaningful way for humanity. But we don't end up with that result because there is an incentive that I don't know if it was originally tied to Fiat or not, but a decision was made that publishing is good. Okay, so to keep your job, you must publish. I'll say I'll say the issue here is that think about the example of Soviet cars. Why did Soviet cars suck? Because they were produced in the same way that modern research in modern American universities is produced. It's from the top down, imagine it's the same thing. You have a committee of people that decide which car factor is going to get funding. And then they allocate the cars to the consumers, whereas in non Soviet countries, compare East German cars to West German cars in West Germany, Mercedes or BMW, they had to make their own cars and they had to come up with their own decisions and they had to then get the consumer to willingly take money out of their own pocket to pay for the car. So that forces them to make cars that are good that don't suck that convince the consumer to come up with something that to come up with valuable money and pay for it. But in the Soviet Union, when the money comes from above, you don't even have to posit and this is kind of the key insight from Austrian economics when it comes to socialism is that socialism is not an incentive problem. It's not just that you have corrupt people, it's not that you have lazy people. Socialism is a calculation problem. This is the economic problem of socialism. And it's something that most socialists can not come to terms with. Even if you solve the incentive problem of socialism, it is not, it is not a workable system because it's not possible for the East German car factory to figure out how to make cars properly unless they get feedback from the customer. Unless they put the cars out and the customers willingly pay for them, and the customers have a choice between their car and all the other cars, and they choose this model rather than that model, and then the producer asks themselves, why is it that they like this over that one? Let's focus on the things that they like. Let's get rid of the things that they don't like. Let's focus on the things that we can make profitably. If you can make something profitably, that's telling you that you're using your capital productively. So when you sever that process so that the money doesn't come from the consumer, the money comes from above from basically the money printer, you end up with shitty East German cars. And you end up with shitty academic journals that produce all this pseudoscience and babbel basically. Wow, that was a really good way of explaining that. Okay, that certainly hits home. Central planning is an idea that runs through the book and why do we have the temptation towards central planning and how is a hard money like Bitcoin or maybe to you Bitcoin is the only thing that's going to make this happen. How is that going to solve the problem? Does it shift incentive structures? What does that look like? Yeah, I think it's all about the figurative printing press. It's all about the ability to make that into money. So what happened in World War I and the first couple of chapters of the book a little bit more history, which looks at the way in which that monetary system was installed in the west during World War I. Later on in the 1930s con artist by the name of John Maynard Keynes came along and wrote a bunch of stupid books about why this actually is a better way of running the monetary system. But this is really just like the fake excuse that you come up with after you've already you've totaled your father's car and then you go to your dad and you tell him, you know that I actually think this is better for you. You don't need the headlights. Let me explain to you why cars are better without headlights. But they went off the gold standard in 1914, 1516, there was never an admission. It was totally surreptitious. It was manipulative. It was a lie. It was done by central banks behind people's back. And there was never an honest admission that, hey, we're going off the gold standard. It was always nowhere on the gold standard. We coming back to the gold standard which is suspending the mobility for a bit. Don't worry about it. Everything's going to be fine. We're just fighting a war. What example did he give for why it was this car is better without headlights? Well, basically it's extremely stupid. I have to say, and I mean this not just to throw away a gratuitous insult. It's very well earned insult. It's the idea that if you have a recession, which was the case in the 1930s, because they had gone off the gold standard for 20 years and had been trying to basically pretend that they were still on the gold standard while they were off the gold standard. That causes recessions. You have complete this location in the labor market and in all kinds of product markets where people are unable to invest and spend money in a way that is. That meets the market demand. And so you have just like if you had price controls and anything you get shortages and surpluses, you have price controls over wages and labor, and so that's what led to unemployment. So sane answer would have been, get rid of those shortages and stop the inflation and then it's going to prices will adjust.

Fiat babbel West Germany Mercedes Soviet Union BMW apple John Maynard Keynes
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on On The Media

On The Media

06:56 min | 1 year ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on On The Media

"Mood. The right to repair movement. Right. Yeah. But you identify somewhat more dubious protests as luddite sabotage two on Reddit, for example, there's a wave of users who give each other tips on how best to shoplift in order to get back at retailers for forcing them to use self checkout. They're essentially enabling each other to steal. How do you see this as led ism? Reddit took the forum off, but what was really interesting to me is not just the sharing of tips and tricks, you know, scan your organic stuff is regular, get a little discount for yourself. But the way that people justified it, they said, look, these self checkouts got installed in my grocery store. I didn't agree to it. And all of a sudden, instead of someone else scanning my stuff, bagging my stuff, I've got to do it myself. I'm essentially working for the company. Someone had that job. They don't have it anymore, and now I'm doing the work. If they're going to get me to do free labor for them, then I'm justified in getting a little discount on my bananas or getting a free steak here and there. We have to take matters into our own hands and form some kind of wider challenge. Maybe it would be enough to get the cashiers to come back. Again, this stuff is not inevitable. That happens sometimes. Now you see the three software movement as the great example of luddism succeeding in the here and now, right? So the free software movement was born in the early days of software programming. If you were into computers, you were part of this niche subculture. And to learn how to operate your PC that you built from a kit, you had to talk to other people who were making software, you had to borrow their programs, look at their code, change their code, and that was how people learned how to program. And so when personal computing starts to grow, some people are saying, well, software can be a market. Something that we sell rather than something that people have to kind of make themselves. Bill Gates wrote an infamous letter to this computer hobbyist club, saying you're stealing my stuff. Ironically enough, Bill Gates himself stole quite a lot of what became windows from other places. But we don't need to go there now. U.S. Supreme Court decided it was copyright. That would govern software. So these practices that this first generation of hackers and programmers were used to would have been gone, illegal. And so what these people did, led by this eccentric figure Richard stallman, is they said, well, what if we had our own intellectual property licenses that we would paste on top of copyright? Because copyright is automatic. And these licenses actually relinquish my exclusive right to this software. Anyone else is allowed to borrow my code, change it, customize it with one provision. They also have to abide by those rules for whatever they produce. So that means that free software would beget more free software. And you would develop an entire ecosystem. And that would preserve these grassroots craft traditions within computer programming. And did it work? The biggest success and one that maybe some of the listeners out there recognize is the Linux operating system. Started by a teenager, sending a message out and saying, hey, does anyone want to do an open-source operating system? And hundreds and thousands of people said, yes, we want to help out. Let's make it. But even if you're out there and you're like, I don't know anything about free software that just use the programs that are already on my computer. Free and open-source software in many cases had higher quality customizable products. At the end of the process, your modem or your router is probably got some free and open-source software running on it right now. One reason why programmers still have a great deal of autonomy, I don't have to have a degree if I'm good enough, I can live in Berlin for 6 months if I want and make a lot of money. The reason why programmers have that ability is precisely because they were able to carve out this space of autonomy. They didn't let Microsoft control that profession. But I do think it's one really recent example of a kind of luddite perspective. And your book wasn't at least initially just a response to how luddites have been miscast and misremembered. It was inspired by all the renewed discussion about automation in the workforce. Yeah, so there was a lot of discussion. 7 or 8 years ago from economists, from people working in industry, wow. We're going to automate a lot of different jobs and those people that work in those positions. They're going to be out of luck. So what is going to happen? But you also have this kind of interesting moment in leftist and progressive politics of people saying, well, maybe that's not so bad. Sure, in our current world, it's really bad not to have work because we need wages to live. But what if this was a kind of leverage to enter a new society where we don't have to work to live? And that automation creating greater wealth could actually be a vehicle for a post capitalist politics. I don't understand that logic. You don't get leverage if you don't have something to hold over the heads of the people who are making all the money. Automation the 50s caused a huge wave of unemployment in the black community, automation at a huge impact on housewives. I mean historically washing machines were a huge deal, but it did actually increase the workload overall of the homemaker. I agree a 100% with you, Brooke. The way that automation works is not simply it gets rid of work. It redistributes work and it changes the approach to work in a variety of different ways. Sometimes yes, jobs are eliminated. In other cases, jobs are de skilled and degraded in the case of the housewives, new technologies, rather than saving them work, expectations rose. So they were still doing just as much work as before. In fact, the only thing that's gotten women to spend less time on chores is burden sharing with their partners. So it's actually feminism that saved women, not technology. And yet the people that you are talking about seem to be echoing John Maynard Keynes who predicted his grandchildren would work only 15 hours a week due to technological advance that technology is not only inevitable, but it's inherently good for workers, even.

Reddit Bill Gates Richard stallman U.S. Supreme Court Berlin Microsoft Brooke jobs John Maynard Keynes
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:57 min | 1 year ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Today is a day that every single child in school should take pause and be leads through and told the great american story of how we got here. Today is a beautiful day. There's a lot wrong with our country right now and i wanna take a pause to remember what happened on this day in seventeen. Eighty seven september seventeenth. Seventeen eighty seven was one of the most significant days in human history. It was definitely one of the most significant days in political history. Almost never before had this idea of self government been tried. The romans tried it in some capacity and failed and eventually became an empire. The greek strident and city states. But never before. Did a people attempt to embark on a form of government. We're the people were the sovereign. The idea of self government independent judiciary the ideas of freedom and equality in the rule of law that are the ultimate principles to build that society. In today's time it's easy to feel disconnected to the brilliant so the clairvoyance or the wisdom of our founding fathers or the framers september seventeenth. Seventeen eighty seven was the last day of a heated constitutional convention that lasted almost the entire summer and went from may twenty fifth to september seventeenth. Hundred eighty seven. It was held in private and and secret. George washington presided over the chair as the chair of the constitutional convention. Now we have some notes from the constitutional convention but most of the back and forth debate and the commentary. We will never know exactly what was set alexander hamilton john. Jay james madison. They were going at it. You see the articles in confederation at articles of confederation which were written after the successful revolution or separation from the british. Were posing problems there. Shays rebellion inability to commerce between states to mint currency. It became more and more clear that some form of a federal government was necessary. The question is what kind of government do we want to form now. A sloppy way to talk about the american stories say we had two founders one in seventeen seventy six and one in seventeen eighty seven that is not true there is an a divine connection between the truths of the declaration of independence and the laws of the constitution of the united states

john maynard keynes edmund Blm incorporated organization Burke airbnb united states of america nike
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover

Factually! with Adam Conover

03:51 min | 1 year ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover

"Politically very effectively for much of american history. You can think about the new deal and the type state that was created by the new deal as a hybrid of keynesian demand management and antitrust aggressive antitrust enforcement. Those two things together really really sort of form the basis for the administrative state that develops out of out of the great depression and one reason why these two things seem to go together so naturally. These different factions fought for at different times for different reasons but they had this political lines that lasted for like forty years. And one reason that made sense because these people have been talking about this and and seeing these problems as somehow related and these factions working together all the way back into the nineteenth century. The original anti monopoly movement is is not just about corporate breakup. It's about worker hours and the eight hour day of all of these. These ideas are sort of working together. People are talking to each other about the book. Before you have names. Like john maynard keynes or joan robinson to to attach them to be formalized into these into these theories. So i think we're seeing under biden the revival of of that kind of new deal idea of democracy in government that has been out of fashion in both parties for for quite some time. I think it's come back into fashion in part. Because of presidential politics i think watching the primaries in two thousand sixteen and twenty thousand for the democratic party. Was you know these were very different. Events than presidential primaries had been over the course of my lifetime. But i think also people are just responding to events. It's it it is amazing. In a lot of a lot of democratic party thought particular on the left there are sort of these deterministic ideas about well under capitalism. You know everything is determined by at you. Know the forces of production and who owns them and so all of our ideas are dictated by some mechanistic force beyond our control. And i i look at the last fifteen years or so and i see events happening in the world. People changing their minds and responding to them and actually having new ideas on both the left. And the right. I don't like all the ideas that are people are coming. But but i think clearly people are changing their minds. And it's it's hard for me to believe that this intellectual stuff that the actual discourse about this doesn't matter in some way. I it seems to me that it really does matter. And it's particularly the leadership of the democratic party. Well it is surprising. Because you know you heard for instance in the last in the last campaign bernie sanders and elizabeth. Warren both talking about issues of of antitrust varying degrees. And you could be forgiven for thinking well unless one of them wins. It's not going to go anywhere. I mean biden wasn't saying that stuff on the campaign trail but then like he he is elected and he starts nominating all the people that you would think that they would have nominated he. Starts you know following up on at least some of these policies and yet. It's not something that i would have predicted until i until i saw. It happened and i think you're probably right. That the the the discussion about these things has actually led to changing people's minds. So now that that's happening i mean what are the possibilities for the future that you see. I mean like for the last couple of years break up big tech has been a motto for a lot of the people i've had on my platform various speakers. Have you know had been been banging that drum for example. Could we start to see..

joan robinson democratic party john maynard keynes biden depression bernie sanders Warren elizabeth
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Planet Money

Planet Money

07:53 min | 1 year ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Planet Money

"Okay and we're back. It's card if i'm here with allison traeger and mahir dais. I okay so as you heard in the episode. There is kind of this spooky eerie but really quite effective process right. So here's my first question in. What is guessing the weight of a cow similar to what happens when people are deciding whether to buy or sell a stock because you have a marketplace where all these different people are bidding on stocks based on how much they think it's worth and you do converge to this price and i think the big difference between the cow and the stock thing is that you know we can verify. The weight of the cow like it's noble and with stocks. What makes it much more interesting and fun is will wait a second. Do we really ever know it. Yeah right penelope the cow has an actual weight and that weight is not gonna change. Just because i guess the weight too high or i guess the weight too low but with stocks. It's the very guessing of the price that actually ends up setting the price. It's different so if i look at the price of a stock and i think it's low then i'll buy that stock at the low price and the very active buying the stock pushes up demand for it. Just a tiny bit and then that in turn pushes up the price of the stock and so in the stock market you've got thousands and thousands of people doing that over and over and that is what sets the price of a stock on the stock market. Exactly right there's a whole set of things. We can debate about any company and its future and that is what world trying to do in financial markets. So you've got all these people who are thinking about buying the stock because they think it's gonna go up. You got all these other people who are going to sell the stock because they think it's gonna go down and it arrives at something in the middle. Roughly yeah okay and how can this still work. If at least some of the people buying and selling a stock either don't know much about the company or just might not be very good at analyzing companies in general given that they're supposed to be investing based on how good the company is will so first thing the mistakes that people may cancel each other out right. The reason it's important for all of us is the price of that stock actually really matters for the world because people make decisions based on it not a savings decisions but you might go work for a company. Because you think it's gonna be a good company to work for you might buy companies products. Because they're doing well so these prices send signals into the world about what we should do. So the prices are correct. The market sending that money to the best places for the right price. Yeah and when you say that the price is correct. Allison you mean that. The price of the stock is a good reflection of how good the company is. How well you can expect it to perform in the future. But what if the price is higher than that or lower than that how does that distort the process so if a company is completely over undervalued then you know maybe gets too much or too little capital and it doesn't put it in the right place because there's a finite amount of investment in the world right. There's only so much money. People can invest. So you wanna make sure. It goes to the most worthy places. Okay so that is. One theory of how stock prices are set. A lot of people constantly guessing some guessing. High some guessing. Low some guesses better and more informed than other guesses but what they're guessing is how good the company is how well it's going to perform in the future. How much money. It's going to be able to make in the future but there is this other theory theory that says that what people are guessing when they invest in the stock market does not actually have much to do with how good the company is. It's a theory that the stock market is not like guessing the weight of a cow. It's more like a beauty contest and to test that theory. We've got another planet money experiment coming right up when class continues this message comes from. Npr sponsor ford introducing the mustang mach e. Here's the global brand director of electric vehicles. Jayson castro data on the challenge of creating an all electric. Suv that drives like a mustang. The normal challenge of making suv go fast is higher center gravity. The beauty of the battery electric vehicle platform. Is that all of. The weight was down low on the floor. Because that's where the batteries housed. And that's where the electric motors are to learn more about the new all electric pony in the mustang stable goto four dot com the indicator from planet. Money is your daily source for economic stories stories. The peel back this onion. We know as the us economy today on the show and the show. Dan show desperately seeking construction workers. Forget everything you thought you knew about the unemployment numbers ten minutes or less that is all it takes for us to explain what is going on with all those numbers. Listen and follow the indicator from npr. Everyone welcome back from recess. Please take your seats. You are now about to hear a planet money story from twenty eleven david kastenbaum. Adam davidson are going to test a theory about the stock market proposed in the nineteen thirties by the economist. John maynard keynes. Keynes said that a way to think about how the stock market works is to think of it. Like an unusual beauty contest. Now people who've read the masterful biography of canes by robert scandal ski. No that keynes's romantic interests were generally directed at men but in this case he imagined a beauty of women so the conduct. You imagine would work like this it was. It would be in a newspaper where you put six photos of different women and then you ask the newspaper readers to write in with their vote and this is the important part you get a prize if you pick the most popular face and the reason this is a good proxy for the stock market is thing think how the stock market works so you might go around and look at different companies and say boy i think coca cola really should be worth fifty dollars and boy i. I really like the chances of ge growing in the future. I think they're gonna be worth more in the future but the rational logical investor thinks about something else as well they think i have my view of how healthy these companies are but if the rest of the world has a more optimistic view they think these companies are going to do even better than i do. That is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. I should invest based on what i myself think but what everyone else thinks and this issue of people casting their vote effectively spending their money in a market based not on what they themselves think is right but based on what they think other people think is right is what some people thought could lead to bubbles and mania 's and And many of the distortions that we've seen in the markets lately so canes was thinking about this in terms of beauty contest where he was pointing out that the rational logical thing to do is to try to pick the woman that you think everyone else is going to pick not necessarily the person you think is the prettiest in fact. The person who's the prettiest might not actually win here a read from what he wrote quote. It is not a case of choosing faces that to the best of one's judgment are really the prettiest nor even those that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We've reached the third degree where we devote our intelligence to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be and there are some i believe who practise the fourth fifth and higher degrees. He's just talking about some kind of a strange exponential psychological process. This is pietra rivoli. Who gave us the idea to test this out. She's a professor at the mcdonough school.

allison traeger mahir Jayson castro penelope david kastenbaum Adam davidson robert scandal Allison electric motors Npr John maynard keynes ford npr Keynes keynes Dan coca cola ge
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

07:00 min | 1 year ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Is Bloomberg surveillance alongside Tom Kean. Lisa Brown words. I'm Jonathan Farrow. Your record market 60 minutes away from the opening bell shaping up as follows the S and P just short of 42 20 on the S and P 500. We advanced a little more than 1/10 of 1%. Yields are basically unchanged just south of 1, 51 40 90 37 1 49 37 time after a huge rollercoaster of a ride over the last several sessions, Yes, it's been. It's been just there to roll across the ride, but I would just watch what happens today and John that will be wrapped around fed speak, will be catching up with President Williams alongside Michael McKee. At 9 30 Eastern time Mike joining us now for a preview. If that Mike McKee we've had the likes of President Bullard and President Kaplan really set the stage on this that made a lot of noise, Mike, What's the push back in a sound like in 60 minutes? I think we've got a hint of that from John Williams yesterday when he said, We're still a long way from making the substantial progress that he thinks is necessary to start changing monetary policy. The question we have for him, of course, is What constitutes substantial progress. You've got bulletin Kaplan, saying that the rapid drop in unemployment and the rise in inflation suggests that maybe we're getting close to that. Does John think we're close to it? Or we still are going to be many months away? Mike. I want to go back 10 years to John Williams put putting in the research work at San Francisco on our starred in the paper was heavily underestimated the likelihood of severe zero bound events while 10 years on. We have lived at Mike McKee. What is he going to say about a theory and let's be clear folks. Williams could win a Nobel Prize for this. There's no question about this. But Mike McKee the path from Newt Pixel to John Maynard Keynes, and I mean seriously to John Williams. What's he going to say of the validity of our start? Our Star course relates to the potential growth of an economy and his work showed that it moves around. It's not a a static number. And so I think he's going to be still defending that. But there are times when you get close to the zero bound, they have said, where it doesn't really come into play. It doesn't move all that much because your interest rates are so low, and that also means your economy is not moving very quickly, So it's something to keep an eye on is whether or not Potential growth rises now. The Fed's forecast that they put out last week with the survey of economic projections is that the economy will drop back. It will grow very quickly this year. And then it will drop back to around 1.92% 2 years from now, so our star doesn't move very much and we can ask him Why can't there is also why the market seems to be so concerned that our start could move even lower. Should the Fed move away of from their stimulus too early, and this idea that a lot of people were raising after the market response to the Fed's meeting last week. Inflation expectations over the longer term went lower. How much do you expect him to push back on that? Well, I think he's not going to push back on the idea of lower inflation expectations because that would mean the Fed is doing its job. If inflation expectations come down, they have the credibility. People think that they are going to act on inflation. If it gets out of control. The question is, does it get out of control? Does it accelerate too fast? And, uh, both, Uh, Kaplan and Bullard and Williams have all made the case that there is this big debate and there's this great uncertainty about what's going to happen and To give you a good example of the uncertainty. You got Ray Dalio, who founded Bridgewater, saying, We're going to have runaway inflation. And you've got Bob Prince who runs Bridgewater today for Ray Dalio, saying, We're not And that's the same company. That's what Tom likes to see. Play out publicly. Mike looking forward to the conversation. And thanks for all the hard work you put into these interviews will be carrying that interview on TV and radio 9 30 eastern time. So T K. In about 56 minutes. It's incredibly important. Anybody can't say enough about this, folks. We partition economics John Williams out of Berkeley. And then he sacrilege you went to cross upon after LLC to Stanford, John Farrow. John Williams is truly one of our original academic theorists, the only one I can think of in the modern sense. And Fed is clarity and power for the Federal Reserve. You mentioned vice chair clarity along with chair power. The three of them that, Tom, you're likely to hear some pushback from what we've heard from Bulletin Kaplan. Over the last week. Major pushback in the huge Mr Here, and this goes back again to another paper on the unknown. We get a briefing now on this to prepare for our conversation with I say Professor Williams, Dr Williams, with Neil sharing of Capital Economics, Neil sharing from where you visit and the wonderful global economics of capital economics. Do you believe in our star? Do you believe it's accountable and useful number? Well, I believe in our star, but I think you hit the number the issue there. Is it a useful numbers Like all these concepts we have an economic output gaps is another one. They're useful, theoretical concept. Measuring them in practice is difficult Mission measuring them in real time. Anticipating shifts in them in real time is fraught with difficulty I think can lead to policy mistakes, So it's what I think it falls into that bucket of analytical tools a bit like output gaps like I say, useful to have useful framework for thinking. But we have to be very careful when we don't translate that into what it means for policy. This capital economics suggest that the Fed is making a policy error. Well, I think again it comes back to what is the what is the stated aims of policy. This is this gets the heart of the issue. I think with the flexible average inflation target regime is it can be interpreted in different ways by different policy magazine. We've seen that play out in the response to the FOMC meeting. It's subsequently last week and in subsequent days has been interpreted in different ways by different people. Now, If you're asking me do I think we're going to have double digit inflation in the in the U. S that constitutes of policy error? No, I don't do I think that core inflation is going to be allowed to run sustainably high higher than 2% over the next 345 years. Yes, I think it probably will. And do I think that's the mistake is the real question is, does it then accelerate beyond that, I think, and it was the inflation gs out of the bottle tray struggle to kind of keep it at 234%, or does it go beyond that? Forget that In the fifties and sixties, we had those types of rates for inflation to 34% that was instrumental in getting government debt ratios back down after the Second World War, and that wouldn't surprise me if that's what we're trying to head towards, Um today. Neil. There's higher than expected inflation. And then there's a question of growth..

Tom Kean Jonathan Farrow Michael McKee John Williams John Maynard Keynes Lisa Brown Neil John Williams 34% Bob Prince Mike McKee 234% Tom Mike Bridgewater 60 minutes John Farrow 10 years Second World War
"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

Newsradio 600 KOGO

08:54 min | 1 year ago

"john maynard keynes" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

"I'm ensconced in my garden tower with a bulletproof vest on Asking people. Why would you come downtown anymore? I don't understand it. You ought to see downtown Minneapolis. Really? There's an autonomous zone where George Floyd tragically died. No one can go in there. Not even an ambulance. People don't go there after dark for obvious reasons. It's almost like we're trying to be Seattle. Look out. Seattle in Chicago. We're coming after you Next. We're number one. We had a shoot out over the weekend. That's passe these days and the town is boarded up. You want to know why the cost of housing construction and lumber's gone through the roof? Minneapolis soaked up all the plywood that's called downtown, A Zay said. Last hours Rush has been talking about for the last year. We've lost control of our cities. We really have lost control of our biggest cities, and this is not Dissimilar. I remember And Mike Malone will appreciate this 1977 Yankees were in the world Syriza's and then 77. I think, Jackson. That was the year Reggie Jackson comes over to the Yankees and hits those dingers. Well, about three in one game, right, Remember, Remember it vividly. Jackson is in midtown or someplace in in Manhattan, and somebody pulls a gun on him. Crime in New York City before Giuliani was just like it is today. We're witnessing the seventies again. This is that seventies show inflation how labor shortages. Monetary expanse like you know, Love Lord John John Maynard Keynes could only dream of. This is a bizarre scenario. And yet here is the difference between today in the 19 seventies. In the 19 seventies, Americans understood something was amiss. They understood that that a 21.5% prime or inflation and 13% Or stagflation, which the games Ian said was impossible. You can you got to fight unemployment with inflation. You got to fight inflation with unemployment. The Phillips curve nonsense. That was all a bunch of hooey. The market's still believe the only way to grow the economy is easy money and inflation. So every time the Fed says, Oh, no, no, no, we'll keep the federal funds rate of zero. They go crazy when in fact, the way to fight inflation is to grow the economy. Economic growth is anti inflationary. And you, don't you? You can't have both inflation and unemployment and we had it during the seventies. And what made the Reagan revolution possible? Was you had a sense of what it meant to have a free country in the 19 seventies Still The 19 sixties and seventies, the S D s and the Black Panthers and the weatherman The weather underground. They were radical scene for being radicals. They were marks this violent thugs. Even John Lennon couldn't understand them. And now apparently, his son can't either. Sean, who issued a tweet will talk about a little later. The point being today that is the Democrat Party. The Marxists are ruling the Democrat Party. Whether it's the squad whether it's Chucky Schumer afraid of the squad, whether it's Joe Biden, Kamila Harris, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, Phil Murphy, Andrew Cuomo, Gavin Newsom. They are either terrified of the Marxists or they are one In the same And that's what makes me fear for the republic. We had a backlash in the seventies. The Marxists are doubling down today and these are the same people that were the apologists for China. Does a sympathize with China and with its ruling class and its command and control the manner that you have to, you know, round up and kill of you Muslims or you crack down on Hong Kong. That's just the way you have to do for society's sake. Freedom's got to take a back seat here. And so down. It's so interesting that this bombshell came out that it's a fascinating, fascinating bombshell. So bombshell it all Some of us were suspecting. This nefarious activity at Wuhan a year ago, But we were considered conspiracy theorist by Big Tech by the Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and the never trump Blinking project. How many times can you be wrong and still have credibility? Russia's got another great take on this Wuhan lab theory and he got it before anybody else roll it. It is highly likely that the chai calms lied about this and said that it was non transmissible and they had it under containment to make sure people didn't raise hell about it on the streets of Wuhan. Because if people had raised hell about it on the streets of Wuhan that would have gotten out social media phones it would have gotten the Chinese Communist would not have been able to suppress everything. The mayor of Wuhan even suggested that the central government prevented him from revealing details about the epidemic until January. 20th. He knew all about it, but the child calm government. Beijing refused to let him Reveal details. Considering that the first public announcement came out of Wuhan on January 1st. We can assume that G Jing Ping had a sense of the danger before that in December. We know he did. So clearly downplaying the disease wasn't working, saying that it's non transmissible renowned container wasn't working because Wuhan was being devastated. So now it was time for the chai com Communist Party to get serious But how serious Would they provide full cooperation to the international community would being seen is the source of the virus hurt their international image. This is what they think about They did everything they could to hide the fact that this thing was theirs. They did everything they could to hide that it had a center that was Wuhan. This is they didn't cooperate because they didn't want their toe what people think there was saying that cooperate about There is nothing to see here was the child calm attitude now, many of you still okay? That's because they'd weaponized it brush and they would Okay if you want to stick with that do so. But there's more here. There's a darker dimension. Always has been talking about communist governments. The more Beijing cooperated. The less the disease stood to affect other countries. This includes countries China sees as a threat to existence, its existence like the United States, so why would China's suffer the effects of a pandemic? While others stayed safe and increase their strength relative to China based on China's own costly experiences, asking this rhetorical is there is no way if this thing Was real if it starts in a lab in Wuhan, and if it is this deadly virus, his theory is there's no way the Chinese air going to allow this to stay in their country. Only they're going to make sure they're not the only ones affected by it. Now this is still a distance from creating a weapon on purpose. His theory again here is that it happened. However, it happened in a lab, the wet market. They tried to suppress it. They tried to ignore it. They tried to act like there was nothing to see here, not contagious, not transmissible. But when all that failed because it was the exact opposite of what they were lying about. When they realized how deadly it Woz. The chai Kon government made a decision that they weren't going to be the only country affected by it because that would lead To a vast economic disadvantage if they were going to be hurt by this than by Delhi by gosh other nations were going to be Now, this theory of this is the way they think and act. Is inimical the human decency. But folks, they're communists. This is what you know We have not talked communism properly in the schools in this country for it least 30 years since the 19 eighties. And we have to consider that G Jing Ping and the Chiang Kam politburo. Came up with a way to share the effects of this virus with everybody else in the world to make sure they were not the only ones damaged by it. The way it's written here. Gee, Jing Ping has produced the greatest program of ethnic cleansing in the world. Today he's curtailed freedoms in China Severely. He's the father of the An optic UN's state. His incessant military build up threatens neighbors while using economic and other subversive means. To erode the sovereignty of countries around the world. We should not assume it was beyond his imagining to withhold the degree of support from the international community to ensure that China would not suffer alone that the words these are Communists..

Kamila Harris John Lennon Keith Ellison Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Tim Walz Mike Malone Phil Murphy Reggie Jackson Andrew Cuomo Gavin Newsom New York City Chucky Schumer Democrat Party Sean George Floyd January 1st Manhattan December G Jing Ping
Breaking Down U.S. Spending During The Pandemic

NPR's Business Story of the Day

01:07 min | 1 year ago

Breaking Down U.S. Spending During The Pandemic

"The trillions of dollars that the biden administration wants to pump into the economy signal. The return of big government. I put this question to zachary carter. Who wrote a book called the price of peace. It's about the economist. John maynard keynes and the ideas that underpin our current understanding of what government's responsibility is in a time of crisis. Carter told me it's not really about big government versus small government anymore. It's about how the money is spent. There's always been at least over the last seventy five years if fairly large government but since the nineteen nineties there has been a different consensus about how we should organized that government with democrats moving closer to sort of the reagan conservative republican understanding about how how the state should be organized. And i think president. Biden's been pretty clear about wanting to turn away from that. He's hanging portrait. Fdr in the oval office. That's something new. So i think the size of the government is sort of a rhetorical issue. The real shift here is where the focus of that. Government is is directed.

Biden Administration Zachary Carter John Maynard Keynes Carter Reagan Biden Oval Office
Fisher Vs. Keynes: Investing Tragedy And Triumph

The Indicator from Planet Money

06:20 min | 1 year ago

Fisher Vs. Keynes: Investing Tragedy And Triumph

"Irving fisher was born in eighteen sixty seven in the town of saugerties. New york got his phd economics from yale in eighteen ninety one and for most of his adult life he enjoyed this almost unparalleled streak of success. Yeah not just as a great economist but also as an entrepreneur and investor. Tim harford is the author of the data detective. A new book that includes a chapter about irving fisher. He was the basically the inventor of what we now call the rolodex card filing system. That made him a multimillionaire. He was a diet and fitness expert. He published a book called how to live which was the freakonomics of its day. Only sold five hundred thousand copies. He set up the life extension institute. He was a campaigner on prohibition. He was a vegetarian. Assist an astonishing a prolific campaigner and thinker and he made a lot of money in the markets for a while as the stock market in the nineteen twenties was going up and up fisher was investing more and more money into it in fact even though he was already investing a ton of his own money he was also borrowing even more money to invest in stocks so that he could boost his returns fisher was just supremely confident about his forecast that the market would keep going up confident both in his own intelligence and also in the possibility of using data and statistics to predict the future. So that's where irving fisher was right before the crash of nineteen twenty. Nine john maynard. Keynes the other. Great economists of the era got there a little differently. Canes was definitely already considered one of the great economic minds of the time and just like irving fischer canes knew. He was the smartest guy in every room. He walked into same. Yeah me too something. We all share with gains right. But unlike irving fisher john maynard. Keynes had gotten some things wrong. By that point he had been humbled by the market before he had an early investment fund immediately after the first world war that just went went bankrupt and it was fine canes raise more money went back into the market. Got everyone's cashback. Everyone lived happily ever after but he had that experience going. Oh yeah. I thought i was smart on the market. Maybe i'm not smart on the market when the crash of one thousand nine hundred nine arrive. The stock market collapsed more than twenty percent in two days and within three years it had fallen more than eighty nine percent from where it was before the crash. Both and john maynard. Keynes lost a lot of money on their investments in the crash but there is a huge difference in how they responded so after the crash fisher kept doubling down on the same investments. He even kept borrowing money to invest in the same. Losing stocks for example fisher owned stock in a company called remington rand and right before the crash remington rand stock was at fifty eight dollars share but after the crash of two three months it was twenty eight dollars. A share and fisher was borrowing money and buying more shares at twenty eight dollars for years into the crash. It was one dollars a share. That is how to be a millionaire. Lose everything maybe fisher believed that his precious data just could not be wrong or that he could not be wrong or that. His self worth was tied up in this idea that he was right. Whatever the case he couldn't change his mind and he lost everything. Canes was different kane street at his failures as a chance to learn a chance to improve his process up to the crash he'd been investing based on his ability to predict the ups and downs of the whole economy. But after the crash he decided that that was just too hard to unknowable so he changed his strategy to investing in companies that he believed had good management and he thought would go up over time no matter what the overall economy was doing. Canes made a fortune for himself and for the endowment of king's college us money he was managing one of the things he said when he was trying to raise money from his own father was win or lose. This high stakes gaming amuses me. That's that's just an amazing linked to say when you're trying to persuade someone to give you money and yet in the end it helps because he just didn't take it so personally for the past few decades. A psychologist named philip tat. Lock has studied the behaviors that lead to better forecasting being very precise predictions constantly. Checking to see if your forecasts or proving true and updating your forecast if they are not true all of these make you a better forecaster. But tim says if he had to summarize. All of this research on a bumper sticker. Full cost is better when they recognized. They might be wrong and they are asking themselves. What am i missing. What perspective having tie considered. Who haven't i talked to that sort of almost paranoid suspicion that you might have messed up. And the willingness to change your mind that leads to much better forecasting you know it sounds so obvious. Just be able to change your mind and yet in practice. People really struggle to change their minds especially about their deeply held beliefs. That irving fisher could not change his mind and john maynard. Keynes could ended up making all the difference in how they lived the rest of their lives a few months after the second world war at fissuring canes both died fisher was alone and nearly bankrupt hitting bailed out by his millionaire sister-in-law and he'd completely lost his reputation as a result of his failed forecast. It's such a tragic end to a great career. Canes died a millionaire the most famous and celebrated economists on the planet and there is a quote that sometimes gets attributed to canes that. Tim also likes to remember him by. He probably never said it but he lifted which is when the facts change. I change my

Irving Fisher John Maynard Fisher Keynes Tim Harford Saugerties Remington Rand New York Philip Tat TIM
[AI Futures] Steps Towards International AI Governance - with Futurist David Wood

Artificial Intelligence in Industry

07:30 min | 2 years ago

[AI Futures] Steps Towards International AI Governance - with Futurist David Wood

"So David where I thought we'd start off here is around this broad topic of the governance of artificial intelligence I. think that there's concerns about the near-term around security privacy. There's longer term concerns about becoming more powerful people are thinking about should there be just regional surveys of governing technologies or or is it prudent to really think about global governance GM stance or way that you like to frame that problem? I'm all in favor of some local experimentation I. Think it's appropriate to have some things out to not obvious in advance that we can. Off. The Bat first time get a complete system of regulation. Correct. So I'm in favor of different parts of the globe whether it's the EU whether it's America whether it's China experimenting with a view to. Seeing which rules make more sense which rules viable. However, it has to be a stepping stone to watson envisioned global agreement because people will not surely be loath to commit themselves to that restrictions nationally locally if they perceive thought competition is going to be able to walk without these restrictions and get potential advantage. So we have to move into coast to international agreements to. Many people people are. Fearful of the any prospect of global government they feel that it's going to be d'italia -tarian or inch to wants the. Taliban. But what I will say is that we already have examples of global governance of various things. We have a sports organizations which managed to reach agreement on how the soccer football. World Cup is played. The Olympics Organization makes lots of agreements even though the constituent. Nations have lots of different political viewpoints and lots of different makeup. So there are examples of how useful agreements can be reached even between the ideological opponents. That's what we have to build on. I. Like the idea of local experimentation. It does indeed feel very hard to take a directly to the top okay world. Here's the page we're going to be on in terms of how data's treated or what is allowed to do or not allowed to do that Cetera. How do you see that playing out in terms of? Relative, near-term thinking about obviously the EU is they have their GDP are rules that are coming out. You see new sort of waves of these rules emerging in different countries than some observation by the global community as to how are they shaking out their implications for private sector innovation whether implications for human rights where implications elsewhere and then being able to use those as the experiments to build something more global. Exactly, right and the GDP aw in the EU is very important case point most people of mixed views about the actual implementation we often think, wow, this is clunky. This is A. This is poorly done on the the hind. We have sympathy towards what the rules are trying to do, and we say, yes, it is appropriate. Thought is the right to have an explanation. It's appropriate for people to understand how the data's being used and so on. So we can see that the intent is Goud. If maybe not. One hundred percent in agreement, but it's a starting point, but it is not something that's done once and then finished on the contrary. It's part of what should be an ongoing sequence my lendings in the Business World I spent twenty five years in the mobile technology and smartphones industry that was an industry in which there was a great deal of rapid change, their surprises of a new entrance of disappointments of things going wrong and. Then things going overwhelmingly right. My key lesson from all of that is the importance of agility the flexibility. Of course, you can set the overall long term direction, but you must stay get to that overall target in stages interim as moll steps, a new must be ready to your plan based on what you have lent in what new things become clear that were less clear L. ear on that face so we will get their stage-by-stage. I think politics the world of politics often seems almost like a domain were that innovation where in the private sector let's say is rampant stood to be the only game town isn't the only real game in town in politics to some degree because experimenting with fifty counties in Wisconsin, about how we're going to manage healthcare bills is really hard to do and seems somewhat viable as opposed to. Some big change for the whole state of the whole country and it just Kinda. Gets rolled out. Is there a way to sort foster a greater degree of this experimentation because it feels like at least historically, there have been limits to seeing politics as part of this iteration learning it's more of just clunking inevitability. It's not seen as maybe the global community is not look to aggregate policy as a way for us all to learn for us all to move forward. So ready to encourage that mindset in that learning like you saw in the private sector. One problem with politics is people really like to admit that they will wrong stu really like to have something a defied with them as being a failure whereas in business more people are willing to shrug and say, yes, dot to didn't walk as I expected and you know what analogy I'm wiser. And Business we talk about failing smart failing fast and feeling forward and it sounds like buzzwords. But all three of these things means something particular failing forward in particular means that you don't try and move on quickly and did deny the you ever were associated with such an experiment you say, well, here's what you've learned from it and you use that as a starting point for the next round of experiments but they politicians like to present themselves and we often as voters like to see all politicians is A. Superhuman Infallible Vegas and we need to have a much more human understanding of how politics works. So that's one thing that will help. A second thing that will help is more of a coalition that mentality rather than two different groups WanNa. The right and the other the laughed the Republicans at the Democrats or whatever politics is in my view much healthier when there are multiple different parties involved and where it's quite easy for people to move from one party to another as their owner. Viewpoint changes evolves over the time. So sadly, when two different blocks very adversarial. Limits the ability to have more meaningful and useful discussion. It pushes into their role in mental state as well. It puts into this tribal frame in which we often don't want to say something we think is true because it might be embarrassing for offsides. So instead, we latch onto something that makes the other side look stupid even though we may not fully believe it. So it's a very bad way of having a proper. Discussion. So sometimes I talk about we need more than just democracy. We need a super democracy. We need to learn how to have these discussions in a way that We're happy to admit that we've been wrong with hoppy to admit we've changed our mind after all to court the Economist John Maynard Keynes though he may not actually have said this when the exchange I changed my mind, the

EU GM Taliban John Maynard Keynes David Wisconsin Watson Goud Soccer Olympics Organization China America Wanna Football
Coronavirus recession is "likely," economist says

Bloomberg Businessweek

01:30 min | 2 years ago

Coronavirus recession is "likely," economist says

"What's the damage to the economy that we've suffered so far but it's primarily from the attempts to fight the virus rather than the ravages of the virus itself which includes kind of shutting down a lot thanks for in teens planned shutdowns you know businesses closing transportation and so on all those things are devastating global GDP and so the question is and you said the question twenty twenty is how are we collectively meaning the room the human race going to manage to fight off the virus as we must without destroying everything else we care about the economy our family lives and so on and it one of the interesting things about this economic moment and you quote mark Zandi well known guy over at moody's chief economist he says we could be moving from a self reinforcing positive cycle to a self reinforcing negative cycle and that seems to be such a key insight here because what is a recession recession is when you lose faith in the future and you don't invest for the future of your business you don't buy if you're a consumer you hunker down and that very active hunkering down which is trying to protect you from the recession itself can trigger the recession because what works for one family or one company doesn't work collectively when everybody tries to do what it wants is what John Maynard Keynes called the paradox of

Moody John Maynard Keynes Twenty Twenty Mark Zandi Chief Economist
Tension between allies overshadows NATO summit

Bloomberg Daybreak: Europe

04:06 min | 3 years ago

Tension between allies overshadows NATO summit

"Matter NATO leaders have begun arriving full them me sing in a what would just outside of London that this morning so far still says that he had a very good meeting with president trump of while NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg is said there's nothing new in differences within the NATO alliance we saw some real differences on display yesterday for more we're joined by by bring back great today who's out that may save me sing a wolf and we just heard from Emanuel McCall now Maria who said that NATO should not only be talking about money it was the full out between mac clone and trump in the visible tension on display at the NATO meeting yesterday between the two that sort of taking the headlines so far just he's saying it's not just about money and that is Amaral micron of course the problem is that it's becoming very difficult to determine all the fallen takes from the treatment is for Donald Trump really is in many ways about money he's saying that NATO works wars before a denim because more countries are paying more into NATO he also says that it is serving a purpose because you're seeing more countries take a more active role as you can see why the two men are coming from two very different places and yesterday of course that was very all these one time said that my car had been insulting disrespectful that he had been very nasty to NATO when he said it was I do have to say however trauma one point call need obsolete so the French are wondering what exactly is the difference publications what is the you know John Maynard Keynes I believe that when the facts change I change my mind since I started a new you know at the beginning of his his presidency things have changed has GDP the defense and to be very Frank yes and I was at NATO yesterday they were having an event and many of the people I spoke to their weight and meet at will concede that the pressure from trump who openly said you have to pay up or we're not going to pay we're not going to pay for rich countries did force everyone to think actually has a point and we should make an effort a you're seeing gradually there's not many countries that hit the two percent target but you are seeing more countries he more or make an effort to ward that so that is something that need a would give credit to term for although they say he's ways are not the most diplomatic and when I spoke to John Stockton and I told him look trump is saying and taking all the credit for the increase in spending why are you not taking credit for it he just said I don't care how we get there what I care is that we have strong NATO and trump has made it stronger interesting that we've seen in this sense club is a big deal is that for some reason it's very fit for purpose president John a voice in saying this morning we are investing two percent of GDP in defense I think was a special event you can go to a nice if you are part of that company any stump that much images we got him Maria about what is being talked about behind the scenes and what speeches over the arrivals handshakes I know there's been some video said placing around Justin Trudeau and the the sort of behind the scenes Chad said has been happening between world leaders and add just to go back to the to percent yesterday trump said he would like some countries to pay four percent and this is something that is very confusing to people because they have no idea where he gets a number from in terms of today will there is a video circulating where you see Justin Trudeau macro and mark Rutan Boris Johnson himself and daisy appear to criticize leader they don't need that person but they do say well you know we were late because he took a forty minute press conference he always does as and so on trend has not really talked about this today and the focus on the ground is whether we're going to get a resolution in Turkey whether we get a communique by the end of this and of course China the U. S. would love for nature to toughen their language on China that feeds very much or would be very much into their narrative that over a long period of time China is the biggest threat to western

London Nato Two Percent Forty Minute Four Percent
Scary Stories From The Eek-conomy

The Indicator from Planet Money

08:44 min | 3 years ago

Scary Stories From The Eek-conomy

"We are exploring some of our darkest economic fears and our slightly worried about aliens from outer space in Nineteen fifty four in December nineteen fifty four there are a whole bunch of people in Chicago the Planet Clarion so this group called the seekers and they got a ton of media attention is looks like you know looks like Iran is in fact what they did was doubt that we people convince themselves of something the facts proved them you see right now in a political discourse is is a lot of people. I'm really afraid that the cognitive distances kicking in and we've splintered US oh that's poetic next up jared Europe some of the big important economies Germany in particular seems to be slowing down and markets will take care of themselves yeah there stoically very worried about over-heating about inflation Connie's is a way to really entrench these downturns or slow growth it's a prevention is happening exactly not only do you need an ounce of prevention space aliens too big economic fears because if you and I bought our own economic fears in fact this shirt and it's a picture of an inverted yield curve people make you healed off recessions to come right but also upside down words saying because the inverted yield curve does have a good track record of because it has such a strong track record it is a monster to me it is something that makes me worried with black pants and kind of green ish jacket I don't okay spirits is a term invented by the economist John Maynard Keynes to explain the role of emotions Jim shop because they're always like a billion costume places in New York that go into like any empty and you know this is New York Halloween subway in New York is always kind of a spectacle right everybody nobody was dressed up in the opposite I thought like what is going on so two years ago we spent almost ninety dollars per household on Halloween the sheer it's about spend extra money on a costume and then of course if people are pulling back on their Halloween spending maybe means they're the National Retail Federation reported that fewer people are celebrating Halloween at all dressed up and I found the Devin Miller you know our office manager like the sweetest the things in fact so I thought I would like bring him into into the studio and ask him like into work dressed up and then you like became discouraged and like just took off the costume that and then what happens okay so this morning I dressed up as a lumberjack my normal routine given the place ready for the day but it just I don't know I just wasn't feeling can't muster halloween spirit like that's a bad sign like I feel like Devon's always modesto all week like Jack Lynch and ready to go devon will you be our indicator lean close is our indicator for this Halloween. I think it's I think it speaks in

New York Devin Miller John Maynard Keynes Chicago Jared Europe National Retail Federation Devon Iran Office Manager Jack Lynch Germany Connie JIM Modesto Ninety Dollars Two Years
Mark Twain: great novelist,  horrible investor

The Indicator from Planet Money

10:11 min | 4 years ago

Mark Twain: great novelist,  horrible investor

"Twain also invested a lot of money throughout his life though, and he is the first person who's big investment mistake Michael told us about, and actually in the case of twain, it was more than one he made every mistake in the. He was addicted to entrepreneurs. He would fall for anything. He would back any idea. He dabbled in stocks and silver mines, and gold mines. And he just everything he touched, went south twin was like an early version of a venture capitalist. He invested his money in a bunch of new kind of faddish ideas except he was terrible at it. He put his money into milk powder, extract railroad stocks a startup insurance company. They were all disasters and the one big idea that he chose not to put his money into you that he passed up when you had a chance. Alexander Graham Bell telephone, oh, which would have made twain a fortune between biggest mistake. Michael says, might have been throwing a lot of money at this big typesetting business, and it had to do with this machine. The twain hoped would be used by newspapers and publishing companies and twin kept investing more and more and more money in this typesetting business, even as its loss. Were just piling up on his biggest mistake was that he didn't know when to say no moss. I'm not going to continue to fund this really bad investment. Why do you think he could not walk away a, he was human and we all have our our flaws and limitations, and there's something called revenge trading where if you lose money in a stock, you want to win it back the same way and he just could not control himself. And I think that a an underlying theme in this book is that discipline and self awareness is a lot more important to determine your long success than just ro IQ, revenge. Tradings like the worst sequel to a movie ever. Trading revenge, trading revenge of the trader. Poor Mark Twain. Yeah, twain ended up losing an amount of money on that typesetting investment that would be the equivalent today of millions of dollars, but not knowing one to cut. Your losses is actually not the only lesson that we should take away from the story of Mark Twain's terrible investment record. There's another lesson which is at you can be amazing world class at this one thing. Just like Mark Twain obviously was at writing and still be terrible, horrible hopeless at another completely different walk of life like investing or that you can be really bad at investing and still be a really wonderful human being a light in the world gift to the country, all those things. And just I like that change the perspective. Very nice, right. And just like just maybe just, you know, put it in index funds, just put it in index funds next up the oracle from Omaha himself. Warren Buffett's buffet

Michael Bat Huckleberry Finn Twain Mark Twain Berkshire Hathaway John Maynard Keynes Buffet Stacey Manic Smith Alexander Graham Bell Sean Covey Research Director Warren Buffett Berkshire Omaha United States Garcia Danton