7 Episode results for "Nord House"

Debunked: Climate Change Hysteria

The Ben Shapiro Show

12:42 min | 4 months ago

Debunked: Climate Change Hysteria

"Ben shapiro here. And you're about to listen to the audio only version of debunked my newest series ride dismantle into bunka common leftist myth each episode in fifteen minutes. Or less. if you like what you hear. Head on over to daily wire dot com slash. Subscribe use promo code debunked for twenty percent off and become a member today. This is the only way to get the full experience. The show has documentary. Feel with amazing visuals. Help guide youth through a plethora of stats and facts and you can binge the entire first season right now. On the daily wire daily wire dot com slash subscribe and use promo code debunked for twenty percents off. We've got a very different kind of sponsor for this episode. The jordan harbinger show. Which is a podcast. You really should be listening to. I know that every day somebody tells you you just have to listen to some podcast in united states. Sure and then you don't listen to it. Don't let that happen here jordan. Show which apple named one of its best of two thousand eighteen is aimed at making you. A better informed more critical thinker. So you can get a sense of how the world actually works and come to your own conclusions about what's happening even inside your own brain. Each episode is a conversation with the different fascinating guests. And when i say something for everyone here. I really mean that in one episode jordan talks to a hostage negotiator from the fbi offers techniques and how to get people to like entrust you which sounds useful in disturbing at the same time. Another episode tells the story of a cinematographer who discovered a lost city in the jungle and made one of the most important archaeological finds of the century. You can also check out jordan's conversations that people like remmy steve madden and lieutenant colonel. North another reason to support jordan harbinger. Is that the woke. Mob is going after him these days because he show has a bunch of diverse opinions and teaches people how to think versus what to think sushi. Show him some support. Otherwise only the other side gets voice. If that's not worth checking out. I'm not sure what is we heard. Daily wear really enjoyed the show. We really think you will too. There's just a lot here. Checkout jordan harbinger dot com slash for some episode recommendations or search the jordan harbinger show. That's h. a. r. b. as in boy i as in nancy g. e. r. on apple podcasts. Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. Whenever you're away from home taking the family road trip or getting some outdoor adventure you need to plan for the safety of yourself and your family. If you don't feel comfortable carrying a firearm or even pepper spray taser products are safe and easy to use. Tasers gives you the tool. You need to protect yourself and your family safely. The people at taser believe that safer. Self defense is better self-defense. Tasers line of non lethal self protection devices are small and lightweight enough to carry with you or in your glove compartment or purse at. They are powerful enough to incapacitate an attacker. Guns carry unnecessary risks for you and those around you sometimes and even pepper spray can harm me as much as an attacker. Sometimes it's ineffective. He's our products are safer and easy to use these an electrical charge to immobilize attackers for up to thirty seconds allowing you time to escape end. Send emergency dispatch to your. Gps location keizer devices. Come loaded with features like laser assisted targeting an emergency dispatch which will send response teams to your. Gps location upon firing more than two hundred and thirty seven thousand lives have been saved with the teaser network of devices apps personnel. And now you can own taser device. The number one choice of law enforcement agencies protect yourself and your family with tasers line of smart self defense products. Taser devices are available without a permit in most. Us states get the taser post plus or tasers strike light at tasers dot com with promo code deboned see fifteen percent now at tasers dot com promo code bones. It's not a s. e r dot com promo code debunked restrictions apply see site for details. We're going to begin with what's being called climate day over at the white house. This is climate day here at the white house today. He's climate the the white house you've heard the climate change. It's going to put an end to all life on earth put civilization existential peril in five years. scientists predict. We will have the first ice free. Arctic summer that exposes more ocean to sunlight. Ocean is dark stakes. Climate change couldn't be any higher than they are right now and if we don't take action hundreds of millions perhaps even billions of human beings are going to die in my view. We've already waited too long to do this climate crisis. We can't wait any longer. these are lives. Let's begin with what climate change is. According to william nordhausen the nobel prize. Winning economists vote the ultimate source of global is the burning of fossil or carbon based fuels such as coal oil and natural gas which leads to emissions of carbon dioxide co two these greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere where they result in feedback loops that increased global temperatures increased global temperatures have a variety of follow on effects ranging from rising sea levels storm frequency to ocean acidification possible impacts. Well they're serious debate over how much the world warm over the course of the next century the intergovernmental panel on climate change estimates that the global climate warm somewhere between two degrees celsius and four degree celsius above the mean temperature during the eighteen fifty tonight nine hundred period. That's a pretty large range. There's also significant uncertainty about sensitivity of the climate to carbon emissions as nasa goddard institute of space studies director gavin schmidt explains climate sensitivity has quote quite a wide uncertain range and that has big implications for how serious human made climate change will be. There's wide uncertainty about the impact with regard to climate change. Will human beings be able to adapt. How many quote unquote shock. Events will occur. It's impossible to predict shock events of course but we can't at the very least attempt to quantify the probabilities this allows us to quantify the sacrifices we should make in the here and now to prevent significant possibility of future damage. So what exactly should we do. Uncertainties about the impact of climate change. Lie at the heart of climate change policy. How much should we sacrifice. Current economic well being and future economic growth for the sake of stabilizing the environment in essence. They're to possible pathways toward dealing with climate change. Mitigation and adaptation. Human beings are really good at annotation. Cost mitigation are extremely high. Nord house for example has suggested that people ought to accept that a certain amount of global warming is baked into the cake. And that we're going to be able to adapt to it but that we ought to work on curbing global warming outside of that range nor how suggests that the cost of mitigating mobile warming to less than two point zero degree celsius over the course of the next one hundred years bar exceeds the future damages that occur from such a climate change. They shouldn't bother to try. And mitigate below that level nord how suggests that we ought to try measures to contain climate change to three point five degrees celsius over the course of the century experts in politicized science have no problem proposing radical solutions to climate change. Which just coincidentally happened to align perfectly with left wing political recommendations. Those who disagree are quickly. Slandered as climate deniers no matter their acceptance of ipcc clamato estimates. We don't have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. I'm good very good to see you again. Thank you so much for stopping by the. Thank you for having me force. You're changing the world. So we're very excited. The heavier that's the media trial. Greta birth a scientifically unqualified teenage. Climate activists travels the world obnoxiously lecturing about their lack of commitment to curbing climate changes. You all come to us. Young people for hope. How dare you you have stolen. My dreams might childhood with your empty words a trucker out as an expert and they ignore actual scientific voices on climate change. In truth very little can be done about climate change in terms of regulation without seriously harming the economy to abide by the agreement guidelines for example would cost by heritage foundation smits at least twenty thousand dollars income loss per family by two thousand thirty five and a total aggregate. Gdp loss of two point five trillion dollars and is even the un environment programme found in two thousand seventeen. If every major country kept twits pledges under the much ballyhooed perriman. The earth will still warm and least three degrees celsius by twenty one hundred. In fact even if the united states to cut its carbon emissions one hundred percents the world would be point two degrees celsius cooler by twenty one hundred to reach net zero carbon emissions worldwide by twenty fifty via representative alexandria. Ocasio cortez is infamous brand. New deal would cost the typical family of four eight thousand dollars every single year. This would require the raising taxes. There's an element where yet there's people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes proposals for global harvard. Taxes are also highly unlikely to become reality there simply too. Many developing countries reliance on carbon based forms of energy. So what exactly should we do. I'm not suggesting that nothing can be done about climate change. We should be pushing for research and development into better energy storage. One of the big problems with solar wind. Energy energy is that the energy must essentially be used as soon as it's generated. We should also be cheering. America's fracking industry. which has redirected energy use for more carbon intensive industries. That's reason for america's carbon emissions reduction over the past few years. We should be pushing for these nuclear energy and for research and development into how to make a cheaper as bjorn lomborg former director of danish governments environmental assessment institute rights nuclear energy to make carbon dioxide. Perhaps surprisingly nuclear energy is also very safe. We could also invest eighty dollars into carbon sucking technologies machines capable of sucking carbon emissions from the air. Then there's adaptation. I should be promoting capitalism which increase living standards around the globe thus making people in poverty less vulnerable to the ravages of climate change. You aren't all that worried about climate change personally because you probably live in a global wealthy area with access resources making everybody more wealthy means more ability to withstand the risks of climate change which should also be investing in adaptive measures like seawalls and artificial nourishment essentially adding sandwiches and we should be looking at new technologies like geo engineering which can actually change the climate itself yet. Those who promote these policies are treated as deniers. Those who shot that the world is ending and the only solution is massive economic. Redistributionism are treated as truth speakers. The world is gonna end in twelve years. If we don't address climate change and their biggest issue is your biggest issue is. How are we gonna pay for it. And this should alert you to the real agenda for many who promote climate interest area remaking the global economy not preventing or mitigating the effects of climate change. So this issue is not just about our climate. These are not different problems. These are all part of the same problem. The green new deal is an economic boon for the many that contrasts with the current prophets of planetary extraction. If you wanna take climate change seriously you have to look a real solutions. And if you want to solve the problem of climate change you have to view it as an actual problem not merely as some sort of horrible dystopia that we must embrace socialism. In order to avoid the reason the left has to put focus on climate changes because you need a crisis in order to incentivize people to engage in strategies that really affect their lives in nasty ways. Our plans are ambitious but we are america. We're ball a mistake in many on. The right make is simply say that. They don't believe the global warming is happening at all. The truth is global. Warming is happening. We're not sure exactly. To what extent and because of that uncertainty it makes zero sense spent trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars mitigating problem. That may not be nearly as severe as the left suggested is especially when those trillions of dollars spent in pursuit of actual policies that may not mitigate climate change in the first place. We can do this. We must do this and we will do this. I have been to high level conferences with climate scientists from top universities. All of whom behind closed doors. We'll tell you exactly the same thing that i am telling you right now but then as soon as the doors open the walk out front and explain if we don't embrace green new deal then you must be some sort of climate denier you keep hearing over and over and over. The climate change is going to kill us. All it's absolute nonsense. If you enjoyed that audio only version of debunked you will love the video version. And this episode is just the tip of the iceberg at the entire first season available right now exclusively at the daily wire. The show looks fantastic as documentary. Feel there's some amazing visuals. Plus you can get my show notes with links and resources to all of the data used all in one place when remember become a member. Today go to daily wire dot com slash subscribe and use promo code debunked for twenty percent off.

jordan harbinger jordan Ben shapiro remmy steve madden nancy g william nordhausen america nasa goddard institute of spac apple intergovernmental panel on cli white house Nord house lieutenant colonel
Episode 007 - Drawdown & Climate Change Solutions

Poutine Politics

37:35 min | 2 years ago

Episode 007 - Drawdown & Climate Change Solutions

"Yeah he's coming up on the monitor all right. Let's see parking. It probably male person okay. I think we're good now. This interruption brought to you by the dog. Welcome back to putin politics. My name's adam my name's mike i decided to do the are this week's topic about climate change solutions more talking talking about things that not necessarily that an individual can do but a general idea of what solutions are at their more importantly. I've found some uh-huh website. That actually took the time to figure out the cost which in analytics like how much is it going to cost to do x. <hes> how much is it gonna cost in money and how much is the actual carbon footprint or whatever you wanna call it the the greenhouse gas emissions. What what can we do to solve the problems in different ways with a realistic tone and not trying to make it so expensive or whatever the case may be and i found some very very the interesting things as a result of that so what's the website there is a project draw down is the book. It's called drawdown dot o._r._g. Okay i is. I like wait. I we have that book or we borrowed it from the library and that's what i was thinking. I'm like okay anyways. I haven't read it yet now. It's really it's really good 'cause they. Took the time they've found out i guess five years ago or whatever when they started that nobody taking the time to do it. Nobody taking the time to figure out what was what are the solutions that are realistic nick conservatively like we're not talking <hes> ambitious figures where oh well. If we all go solar. It'll solve the problem. We'll all the cars off the road like that's not the tender realistic solution. That's just oh yeah made up stuff yeah. It's gonna it's gonna be awesome. So what do you think is number. One biggest the thing that realistically we can do to change or start naming stuff and i'll tell you if it's in the top oh okay i'm going to say one of them's going to be something about recycling because recycling is a big problem right now in the sense a lot of what we recycle is into recyclable really or or isn't getting recycled no not even close to the top <hes>. I'd i'd say i'd say like switching off of cold but i think again. That's probably one that sounds too ambitious. No or what's alternative like what what alternative one of the things i've read recently was well and again again. It doesn't necessarily go to the to the <hes> drawdown situation but <hes> people are saying well. We need to be able to ship our <hes> liquefied. Natural show gas over to asia so that they can use natural gas to generate electricity instead of using the coal mining in china and australia. Yes that's not one of them. Though no i figured it probably wouldn't be because well look. Natural gas is cleaner. It's still a fossil fuel and so that's not really moving towards a draw down towards zero emissions. No it's not one that's the number one that you can do and i was like oh really wow <hes> that can be done for governments in general is is wind turbines on like after so on on land on land. Okay you mean like all those wind. Turbine projects got cancelled by the government last year. Those ones sweet those exact ones and the reason why and if you read i read a little bit more about it. It's that yes there is a cost to build and there's a net cost in the and then what about this website is that they say what is the cost of money so there is a cost to build them and the knowledge that there's going to be a cost billingham but however there is also a savings with this is the part. I love about this. They actually list how much it's going to save and wind turbines. It's the number two one that they think can work and it's one that can save money so it's a net win in every way you wanna look at yes. It does cost up front money in they don't hi that cost but overall over time it is going to save everybody money because coal is more expensive transport as opposed to wind turbines and wind turbines. Take up so little space. They don't require maintenance. They don't require ongoing costs right at least the advantage to for wind turbines lanes in comparison to solar is that a wind turbine theoretically in the right location can run twenty four seven right like obviously you're not gonna have strong winds all the time but wind blows at night right the sun doesn't shine at night so <hes> at least a wind turbine has the chance the possibility of running twenty four seven now detractors would say okay well. That's that's all well and good but a one again. The wind doesn't blow enough necessarily so it's a large you may have you may need a large number of turbines like a really large number of turbines to generate that we do from other sources right now and there's obviously the nimby ism involved with it. You know i don't want to wind turbine. That's in my field of view. Never mind the fact that the horizon is fourteen kilometers away. I have a pretty big field of view from my property. Yes there is an factor that and this is the part if we change the perception on the wind turbine rather than saying. It's an ugly eyesore eyesore and you realize that it's saving the planet. Do you have a big shift. Does it mention anything about like smaller smaller turbines anyways as well like kind kind of like how people can get the solar panels installed on the roof and those are smaller panels than the ones you see out in fields. Obviously we have the big wind turbines that are out in fields leads and then the odd place here and there when i'm traveling around i'll see like little wind turbines kinda hanging off the corner of like a barn roof for something like that like obviously they're not generating a large amount of electricity you but they're doing something like it could be a combination of that where you know if people want to install that kind of thing on their house they can do that as well as having the large turbines out in fields that are obviously generate way more electricity because of their size and the argument about wind turbines being an eyesore. I mean you think coal-burning plant with its smoke coming out not an eyesore the they don't build coal power plants in nice farmland trust me. I have no a problem with the wind turbines whatsoever like i i used to drive quite often kind of in that that area of southwestern ontario where there's just as big chain of wind turbines going all the way up to the bruce peninsula. I don't live there so obviously. I'm not the person that they're talking about. That's complaining about the i. Source because i just drive by and it's like well. That's cool that they've got these winter binds. You know alternative energy. That's a good thing i don't. I don't have a problem with them at all. I think it's great you. Kengo solar solar is actually up there so firm reference there saying atmosphere they rank it a to an equivalent so they can use one model for it and it's total atmosphere ick c._o. Two reduction in gigi tons so they say winter minds and this is all by two thousand fifty. If we go wind turbines we can reduce it by eighty-five gigi eight tonnes number one though on the one i found number one was alarming but if you look at like rooftop solar number ten it's only twenty five giga tons so it's not going to be as impactful still good. This is globally so it's not like it's yeah i can. We don't broken up and the website goes kind of more. Does it go more in depth to be like what percentage of households holds i guess would need to have that rooftop solar percentage of buildings or something. They do a percentage breakdown. They just do it as realistically could. Could we do to provide solution so it's not like you know and it would be up to governments individually to provide those solutions to do those things so because the government has has to be involved yet because if the government does nothing businesses are going to make money and if you're a coal producer you're going to want to continue to produce coal especially as long as the coal exists and there's lots of it. Yeah and those people are going to say well. It's more expensive to switch and the right and the initial cost is more expensive to switch. There's no arguments there. It's the net cost later that were cheaper. That's the biggest problem with any change not even the change to to renewable energy and it's the change of anything you know is the fact that there's that big upfront cost and people don't wanna pay that big upfront cost. It's like nobody's going to be able to afford it or or you know a very small percentage of people are going to be able to afford to make that change so it's just not worth it and we're worried that bending ending too much money is going to or maybe not spending too much money but it's gonna cost you know we're gonna cause a recession and the markets are gonna crash and currencies aren't going to be worth as much the people who are going to be dying in the streets and yeah i don't wanna see people dying in the streets but i want to see us get better and that costs money right the reality. Is that if we do nothing the overall g._d._p. Of the world will go down. It's just if we do nothing. We're going to be fighting. The result of climate change so that cost is coming. Are you going to pay for it. Now or you're gonna pay for three times later and you know trying to convince people that is always just the greatest fun the number one the biggest thing and i was shocked to hear this is refrigerants because remember how they had they went from c._f._c.'s <hes> because the c._f._c._c. a._f._c. the c._f._c.'s and aerosols that were getting released into the atmosphere where damaging the ozone layer. Yes there actually is recovering and recovering quite nicely. Even though i've never heard anything about that no report good news and we heard anything about the ozone layer was there's a hole in it. That's really bad and people are going to get burned by the sun and we're gonna get higher levels of cancer and you really don't hear about the ozone layer anymore. No no i remember oh the scare tactics on the news about how bad are ozone ozone layer wasn't oh we're all just gonna burn like four seconds and how great it was thirty forty fifty years ago. It's like okay and now that the ozone layer i it's recovering is recovering very well. We don't hear anything about that like this bitterness with the news. Why don't you report something like that. You can do an in depth story about that. It'd be fantastic news. There's a show. I haven't watched it yet but i've seen clips from. It's called <hes>. The newsroom is an h._b._o. Show it's almost like it's a very serious but almost at the same time kind of makes fun of the fact that that's that's the way the news reports is like what you hear is just all the negative stuff in and it just feels so blatant and exacerbated but anyways essentially yes escort so they replace c._f._c.'s with hydrofluorocarbons which are one thousand times worse than carbon dioxide so in place where like you get. You'll see them a lot in hotter climates where you see draft air conditioner after aircraft air conditioner oh you mean like here here in north america in china's worse yeah i mentioned so like you just see them all winter shakers. I was just so people can survive like it's not like it's oh. Why are you doing this when i don't like being sweltering hot like europe right now humans don't do well in certain climates right like they don't one of the best ways to solve that is to change that to change from hydrofluorocarbons to more nautile. Thanks the problem with doing that. Is there's just causes not cheaper. It's more expensive. It's just pure cost. Now you can get from the conservative amount was ninety giga tons by doing this then they can say up to the one was saying like you know. That's very conservative estimate. They said they like one hundred fifty. Gigi tons <hes> by switching which is great again but it's a cost like if you're gonna switch from h._f._c. There's there's a cost to doing it so there's cost to going greener. They're going to a situation where a government is. Gonna have to come in and they're going to have to use dials to turn it up so either. They're they're gonna have to make it more expensive tax people that use h._f._c.'s and the proper disposal of it or they're going to have to do so the cost for the other way but the government has step in to do something and that's the big thing like there's other things on here like tropical forest well. I can't do anything about that. Sorry does very little little impact that i can directly have as a comedian now they go else go with reduce food waste which is oh yeah priced out but reducing simply don't buy more food than you need because if you buy more food than you need you end up reducing it a unit throwing it out. You're just increasing your carbon footprint yeah. I won't say that we're bad at that but we do. Have you know food that goes bad because it sits in the fridge too long and eventually <hes> goes bed gets mold. Hey it's like a double hit. That's the fridge. H._f._c.'s and that's the that's the food waste sweet doing great already. Go let me tell you about my car <hes> bob. We're all guilty of one of the worst worst. Food producers are restaurants. That's why in france <hes> they have it were usable. The food goes to food banks and things like that total shelters and stuff like that yeah yeah yeah. Which is e e think that'd be no brainer but a lot of places don't do yeah. I used to work at grocery store in we stop giving feedback and did they did. They stop just as a. You know. It's not doing that anymore or has ordered. The food banks say that they just couldn't take take the volume. The food banks kept asking too much and we end it was too much hassle. Wow that's <hes> all right. I yeah and i don't know what to say. I mean if you force humans to if you if you give a human an option to do something they're going to take the path of least resistance more more often like there's some times when you have a good conscious but that's not the norm that's exceptions to the rule right. There's people out there like if you option of buying thank bags or bring their own bags and they're going to bypass the place every time i feel like i feel like part of the problem there as well with the grocery stores. Is you know they'll put like they start slapping the fifty percent off stickers on stuff and or or just reduced prices but they tend to do it on produce produce when the produce is already in a condition that the majority of people are not going to buy it. I know that can be difficult time that but what you know what a bunch of bananas that's completely yellow and starting to show a couple of spots of brown. Maybe that should be a discounted a <hes> bunch of bananas as opposed to still being on the shelf at the regular price because it's still good enough whereas the what the you know the bananas you'll see on the discounted discounted shelf are the ones that are like half brown and starting to feel soft and nobody's gonna pick them up except for us because we throw them in the freezer and then put them in smoothies. If you like i said and the reason why you do this because you've been incentivized to do that and the only way to do that. Is you have to make solutions to it so one of the best ways to solve for governments to implement things that will allow companies in general reduce things like that reduce refrigeration and things like that is a carbon tax. There's also cap and trade. Carbon tax was <hes> who is the one that won the nobel prize for it. Oh build nord house the american economist honest that one <hes> nobel peace prize or nobel prize peace prize nobel prize economics for carbon tax because it works because you say okay. You want eman breath. We're going to charge you so much per carbon-tax emission and then use that money to then either reduce or really are or subsidize other people that are using the worst problem is is that australia did it australia brought in a carbon tax and then they repealed it when a new government government came in and the funny thing was that the party that the repealed it the only reason they repealed it was because they had a mandate to repeal it they didn't it wasn't because it wasn't working from what i read about that one the reason they had the mandate was because of cool lobbyists because there's a lot of coal mining going on in australia right now <hes> so oh that's yeah that's why the carbon tax was repealed because the coal lobby comes along and says this is costing us too much money and the government says yes you're right. This is costing you you too much money. I'm shaking my hand in front of me while i say this kind of like my comment on <hes> on canada food guide and with the the milk the milk doc <hes> lobbyists coming in and say well the food guy needs to be changed and we need to get milk back on there and said you know this is my problem with money in government with you know burn with private sector money in government but that's i. We're gonna leave that one for right. Now i mean marketplace did a fantastic job on like the idea that the government should be able to put labels or whatever they whatever you wanna call it letting people know how good food is. It's a fantastic idea that make it simple say like this. This food is rated five stars this foods weight at one. What's the difference well. Five stars might be cabbage. One-star might be chicken nuggets right like we we all understand where good food and food is john speaking but sometimes it gets a little bit murky and you're not really sure but well this one's hiring sodium this month higher in fact this one's higher in mega threes and you don't want the sodium arguments going on right now with the <hes> like the beyond meat burger and stuff like that i've had them. They're good. Don't trust the people that are like our beef. Everyday the beyond me burger is good and yes the sodium levels a little bit higher in the prepared patty but you know what your body knows how to handle sodium if you allow it to handle sodium properly and one of the other things like could never plant rich diets. I was actually i was gonna ask if something reduction of of livestock production or livestock consumption or something like that was going to be was going to be high on that list because there's so much carbon emissions with in the agricultural sector that goes into making that beef because is that people don't think about not even the underlying costs to see overlying costs you know the all the farmers that have you know they're burning the fuel with or two for tractors not just to take care of the cattle but it's all the crops that we grow to feed the cattle so that we can have our burgers and our steaks and to to the to the level that we have. I'm not saying you need to stop eating beef. I'm saying that there's people that don't need to have beef seven days a week. It's right and keep wanting cows fart. Yes yes and that's bad thing. Termites worst greenhouse gases <hes> you know and they have to clear fields there is there's a push. They also talk about <hes> mixed mixed farming. Were you don't have to decimate entire field of trees having a mixed environment where you can have like trees and other things <hes> making a more sustainable sustainable farming environment so rather than tillage i was i was told recently by client of mine that i don't know. I don't know it's like a local. If it's a local law or if it's a provincial law or something like that because he he said when he was younger they used to when the cattle would graze you know they would go into into the trees because you know shaded cover and stuff like that and they would they would graze in the bush urine apparently at least again i. I don't know if it's if it's a municipal missile thing for like what township he's in or if it's a provincial thing i haven't looked that up but he told me that there's actually rules in place that prevent him from allowing his cattle title to graze in the bush like who who would regulate that. Why would you regulate that. You need to go back like curry's like if you're going to have cows graze plant trees like grace in and i get the idea of it's amy harder from a farmer to see all the cattle if they're in between trees. I got that right like chase down cattle. <hes> isn't fun to begin with allow try and chase them around trees. That's even more refund. Cows can be trained to a degree that you can. They'll come for certain things so they're not actually the dumps planet close but they're pissed off all the confirms <hes> actually no no no no no. They know that they're pretty dumb. Pigs are currently smart. Mark cows oh. They're so stupid. Climb upstairs can't go down them barnes. They put up stairs slow with you can only go one way. It's a one way entry system. I wonder if there's a set of stairs when when cattle gets sent <hes> like into an abitur like going to go up the stairs and then they see like all the machines and stuff they're about to tear them apart and they're like all the hell what we're getting out of here and they turn around look at the stairs like nope can't go down there. I remember this larry saying one of the funniest things that he said like oh. Why do we cal's because they're ugly. Daughter's there durable yeah the plant the plant based the plant based diet that doesn't surprise me that that is would be we so high on the list and and kind of coupling with the reduction of of livestock consumption as it is for the livestock that we consume beef is the highest i when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions for production yeah. It's everything ball with like <hes> chickens better but beef is way worse yes yes. There's a there's a investigative journalism series that was done by the toronto star called undeniable and one of the one of the articles in there <hes> was talking about farming farming and livestock and from the charts that are in that story. The greenhouse gas emissions from cattle is seven times worse <music> than chicken chicken. You can housing such small areas whereas cows you have massive massive field right because that's how they craze but their carbon sequestering australia yeah so i mean you kind of carbon sequestering except the carbon is just ending up in the cow and and in the beef and then we eat the beef and then we excrete the beef and where's the carbon going. It's not all staying in your body. There's a process process and there was another website. I went to that talked about how you can figure out how many trees to be planted to offset your carbon and i'm like <unk> planting trees as one of the top ones. It's just it's good like you're. You're not going to plant enough trees to offset deforestation yeah yeah you. Are you talking about the science magazine study the one about the trillion trees or whatever you can put in how how much use for car airplane your house and everything like that. Oh right okay yeah. I think i know what you're talking about. Yeah it's an interesting website so one of the big things that they that can really help with clamps is definitely carbon tax like the current taxes very effective because it allows companies. They can budget for it. They know how much emissions they they can produce. They know how much it's going to cost. They can take measures to reduce those costs and anyone that's a high polluter is going to charge more. You can then use that money to then fund other projects in general for whatever like it's just a revenue stream for the government and you can switch it to the infrastructure sure needed for solar farm solar <hes> wind generators whatever the case may even solar rooftops all those things can work using to have money as a source you know and that's my problem with the one of my problems with the criticism of the carbon tax is oh. It's just a revenue generator for the government so like why i don't understand i. I don't understand why that's a problem. I don't understand why the government trying to raise more revenue is a problem because it's not like all those people in the government are just pocketed and that money and saying well. This is ours now. No it's getting re purposed like it's going into programs. It's going into things that are in the government's platform airman their mandate that for for for what they need to meet and in particular the carbon tax that we have here in in in in canada in the provinces that are affected by it all of that money that's being collected by through the carbon tax is going back to those provinces most of its going back to the individuals you can. Some people will look at it as well. It's stupid for people to pay the carbon tax and then just give them the money back. Well you know if you're taking carbon tax money from people who can afford afford to pay it generally the people that are higher up on the chain and you know whether it's whether it's what you wanna call the one percent and some of that money is then flowing over due to the lower income individual who maybe can't afford a car but is having problems affording groceries affording heating their house then you're helping to balance the scales ale's a little bit yeah like i just roll my eyes at the idea that somehow a carbon tax can't work and yes there are going to be some fringe businesses that will suffer possibly collapse as a result of the carbon dioxide. I'm not gonna nor that fact. Those those misses weren't strong models though they weren't strong businesses they weren't they were fledgling. We're not talking about. We're going to kill off the strong. Ones were killing off the ones that are weak as a result of doing that. You're reducing a future cost that is enormous and it's effective way and oftentimes these companies when they go <hes> with a lower carbon tax and they go with lower carbon emissions. They also realize oh wait. We are actually more efficient because we've had to you know oh we had to research are for an assist and figure out how to do that. Can we use this extra heat that we're just just wasting away for something. Oh we're going to have a concrete concrete's a fantastic example of something that's terrible for carbon emissions this will there's plants in thailand that they take the concrete. They put it into a pool. They use the ammonia off the pool to then source the heat to use the concrete eight they have algae that eat up all the stuff that comes off the monja stuff like that and they just use it all and because they were using all the access they found technology as you to do it now all of a sudden they're way better off. They're making more money rather than less because there are forced. They're not gonna change. You're not gonna why would what would to change. Why would they take all all that upfront cost. Oh wait. It's going to cost us more. If we continue what we're doing that job creation new industries he's like you have to force people do things and with clem chains being such a hard topic to grasp for most <hes> it's hard for me to completely completely understand in how i can influence it and what i can do. Now i went to government on -tario website and it said when travelling use bikes like really that's your solution. That's what i can do. Maybe maybe we should put all of the m._p.'s and t. and tell tell them they need to ride from toronto like from queens park now for some of them it'll be easier than others obviously but they need to ride a bike from queens park to their constituency the office in their writing and that's the only way they're allowed to travel to their constituencies. Some of them are going to have a great time because like oh my constituencies like right over there you no in toronto and you know what most of those most of those writings are currently being held by liberal and dp member of parliament or or members to the legislature. It'd it'd be interesting for you know the p._c. Party legislators to take their own advice. Get really i wanna make sure on clarence something to the the first people to bring up climate change as a thing that we have to address or conservatives in the eighties margaret thatcher was famously. One of the biggest proponents of this is going to happen. This is a problem and we need to address it now and she's legendary for her. Her staunch conservative conservative nature brian rooney was obviously obviously not as high as margaret thatcher. Let's let's let's start there first of all i'm gonna. I'm gonna give credit where credit is due. <hes> but brian rooney is is respon- is partially responsible for legislation that was enacted to reduce acid rain nixon broaden the yeah yea. Nobody wants to remember nixon. Credit credit's due yeah. What were the okay what were the other because there were three points on the on the ontario website on the government website for climate change. What was the what was the other points that they recommended. The one was tap water right okay so that was fine. That one's fine. Yes you know what in most communities your tap water is fine to drink if you don't think it is go by some sort of household filtration system whether it's a filtration system that you hook up to your to your water line whether it's like <hes> something in the lines of britta filter <hes> <hes> we use one here. That's called a burki which is gravity fed system. You just have to let from tap every time that it gets close to being empty and it just flows through the charcoal filter. It's tap water. That's you know you're you're still filtering it a little bit more to make it a little bit cleaner but then you're not using the plastic bottles. I go with water cooler now now. Some who say oh using plastic well water cooler. The idea is one. I'm not using plastic publicize drink. I'm reusing that water cooler jug every time i go to the water store. I'm just using their water not my because you're refilling it from their tap right yeah so they're doing their process us. Whatever and i'm paying for them to do it as opposed to what you're doing. Where you're you've. You're doing it your way and that saves you cost because you don't have to pay for it like i do when i would go but it's still cheaper like understand something. A water cooler chuck is so much cheaper than water bottles. Oh yeah if you get a water cooler. I mean yeah. There's an upfront cost but not that much. It's not that you hundred bucks. Maybe i i understand okay. I should rephrase it and say yes. I understand there are plenty of people out there that a two hundred dollar upfront cost for sure sure would would be hard. I and i'm not gonna. I'm not going to deny that but if you have a two hundred dollar cost and it's costly for you don't go water bottles drink from from the top with the other thing they pronounce. It was public transit now. I'd like to see if if the government is trying to push that we should use public transit. They should use public not just bike riding you everywhere. You have to go. Oh you have to use public transport. You want other people to do this to reduce climate footprint that you used public transit now. If you're taking a bunch of m._p.'s to a location occasion that's fine you can rent it boss. That's still airbus you that's fine. I've no problems with that. That's a fantastic way to reduce. Maybe we should throw them at school but yeah no. I mean it turnabouts his fine because it's not it's still better than you know each person driving their own car. If you want promote than you've followed the lead right they also said to buy locally and things like that. It's like well with all these things that they're trying to promote. They're not. I'm doing anything to incentivize people to do it or the opposite punishing people that are the opposite side well the other the other problem too with again at least in ontario they do they. They had that whole advertising campaign about all the carbon tax is bad and it's gonna cost everybody money. We have a plan for climate change. Go to the ontario government website for client for climate change. Their plan is literally the three points that we just covered. That's their plan right now. There is no other language on their about upcoming legislation or anything like that. It's essentially climate change. It's on you you yeah. That's it so yeah. The solution is nothing so i don't want government to come up with all the solutions but i wanna feel like they're. You're part of the team you don't have to. I really don't want the government to come up with individuals solution so i don't want them to say you know. Everyone has to ride their bikes for everyone hostage. Everyone has to whatever the case may be. I want a large concept where it forces people to do things with very minor inconveniences so like the carbon tax. That's what the current tax works because it's just forces you to do it like there's a cost and it's simple. It's straightforward is the least involvement for the government because they don't have to do anything. Maybe just just maybe the carbon tax will make it so that one of the most advertised vehicles in this country the ford f. one fifty won't be eh one of the most popular vehicles for people to buy how many people that by a ford f one fifty or dodge ram or whatever whatever you know like quote afford unquote low model truck how many people that buy those vehicles actually need them actually use them for what they're for. You can get away with little quarter quarter time. You don't need a full ton truck with dooley's on the bag. Just show hope baker truck is don't forget the farm plates. I mean again. There's legitimate farm trucks but i've literally seen a truck in town that has farm plates on it that has like stove stove pipe exhaust pipes coming out of the flat or of the flatbed truck. I i like okay. I can look at that and it's very obviously not a farm truck now. Somebody should pull your plates. Electric vehicles wants to not but highs it was but that's what it is all right so let's let's go to the website so that people can draw down dot org. Yeah take a look at it. I do remember looking at that website. It didn't look into it completely in depth but anyways go take a look. It's got so it's got the cost a how much the current emissions would be the if governments pursued these things to reduce it. It's got the cost upfront costs like how much it cost to implement the what structure may be an also if there's any savings or costs associated with it so for instance like winter bites reduces cost but refrigerator humanitarian increases cost and they take a look at that which is great because that's what i wanna find like. Where can we be talking. That's what i wanna. Go right and i know i know there's like a book. That's essentially a compendium for that website <hes> which is called drawdown as well well <hes> so whether it's bookstore library i e book whatever you know. Take a look find. The book read it. Take a look at the website read over the information there. There's a lot out of good solid information that honestly we should be as individuals. We should almost be lobbying our governments to be like we this. This is the stuff we need to do in voting that way. Yes we are okay. I'm going to date the podcast again. Okay i'm going to do that. It's august. I that we're recording this august first two thousand nineteen the election is on october twenty first two thousand nineteen so we are about two and a half months away from the time of recording vote yup so <hes> yeah you need to vote and don't feel a lot of people feel like well. If i vote for instance instance the green party the one that's actually doing something for climate change. They're not going to get in. They may not get in this election but the more votes they get this election more chance they have for next election. Not only. It's weird to say that not only that but when you consider the fact that we're most likely heading into a minority parliament. Even let's say if they win five five seats. That's still gives them a voice yeah and they can make this way right now. I'm not this again. This isn't like an endorsement saying gordon vote green party because because you know what vote for the party that you believe has your best interest. I'm okay. I don't care what party you vote for but vote for the party that has your best interest but vote okay the fact that in the last federal election the number of voters went up but it was still only fifty six percent of eligible voters. That's sad all right. That's the end of that. This has been routine politics. My name is adam. My name is mike. Talk to everyone. Thanks for listening to putin politics. Be sure to keep up with us. Online and through social media website is putin politics dossier you you can find us on facebook at putin politics. You can find some instagram at putting politics you can find us on twitter at politics eighteen because twitter thought we were french ron youtube. We'll start page on page at page on p. A. t. r. e. n. Dot com slash boutin politics. We hope we entertained you enough that you can show us. Some love makes money. We'll be back next week with another episode.

australia putin toronto china ontario nobel prize asia mike i m._p. ontario government europe
186. William Nordhaus on the Economics of Global Warming, Pandemics, and Corporate Malfeasance

Science Salon

1:06:55 hr | 4 months ago

186. William Nordhaus on the Economics of Global Warming, Pandemics, and Corporate Malfeasance

"You're listening to the michael shurmur show i'm your host michael shurmur. My guest today is william nord. House in his new book is the spirit of green the economics of collisions and contains in a crowded world Bill is the winner of the twenty eighteen nobel prize in economics. He's the sterling professor of economics and professor in the school of environment at your university is many books include the climate casino risk uncertainty and economics for a warming world and a question of balance weighing the options on global warming policies. He lives in new haven connecticut. this is the man. He won the nobel prize for good reason because of his work and environmental economics is nudging people to do things That are good for the environment for clean air water and so forth in when it's in their own best interests to do so economically. We already do this in many many areas of life so We cover all these different examples of how this works in in different areas And then at the end. I ask him to make the case for Why conservatives republicans and so forth should be on board with this. And he. I think he i think he nails really economically. This is really the right thing to do. selfishly greedily Not to mention of course as a collective action problem. It's better to have clean air and water in a sustainable environment and So we go through all the different steps that need to happen not that many. Not that difficult. We can get there so With that lease joy. William nord house the new book the spirit of green congratulations to you are the man to talk about environmental economics and But before we get into that tell us. What's it like to win the nobel prize. Do they really call you at five in the morning. Well actually what happened. Was i turn my phone off at night and so about. We got up at seven thirty and my granddaughter cold. Grandpa grandpa did you hear. I said nothing here what you won the prize. So that was how i heard. It was very funny sweet. Nice he has. was actually much sweeter than than but it's much sweeter than hearing a voice from sweden the morning of absolutely family. And did you go to stockholm and give a speech that yes you was. It was a fairy tale. It was just fabulous. I mean you might think you want. You don't want to go to stockholm in the dead of winter because there's no sunlight but it's actually is actually very beautiful with the lights and the candles and the palaces. It's really out of out of as i say i haven't been very down. We had a wonderful time. Wonderfully jane care gave some talks visit with people from old friends new friends and the best time was had by the ten euros in the twelve year olds came with us. Oh nice out. How nice is the funniest thing was it was. It was like one o'clock in the morning after this law evening one of the journalists said to my ten year old. Aren't you tired. And she looked at. It says no be tired. You tired said yes and your ended. Your your speech you gave was that you're based on the research for which he won the prize on environmental economics yet it was on climate. The they're actually events that with lots of but the two one is your nobel speech which is a beautiful auditorium and is present. Presented work beautifully beautifully. Done actually you can see it on and then a shorter one which is in a wet more interesting was there's a banquet speech and so they give one person from each of the different areas gives a two minute speech on. What when so. I talked about the actual. Don't what's in the book. The our legacy to our grandchildren not not so much what we do in terms of leaves we've bills are houses but our institutions and our public. Property and public read your. When i read your book. I was thinking about The research. I was doing it for when i was writing the moral arc about the future of moral progress. What what what's next and one of the big ones is is obviously The right for future generations to have a livable sustainable environment to live in a planet. The planet that that continues on indefinitely. Yes yes One of the things that Is in the book. There's a chapter and on excellent civilizations wear i. I took a couple of new for me. But i spent maybe a month or so studying and researching on it. So the question is there's a kind of elon. Musk admire greatly by the way but he has his mars project and where you could buy one way ticket nope tomorrow. I don't know if you know that these one way tickets but you're not come back. Well you have the book you have to return traveled with some with someone else. Select like going out west in in the nineteenth century stagecoach. There are no round trips. And as i looked at it i became looked at the different analogues and biosphere two in arizona manned space station in life at hartika. It became clear that extra civilizations is call him along. Win the future. In when i when i talk to people i say one of the things. If you live on mars it's going gonna make less attractive than earth is. It will be no pets because the atmosphere is so dangerous. You have to be protected from the allah asteroids in the uv. That unless you have a pet walk around his armor in a spacesuit which you can't pepper well it's not going to be much on. Leave your dogs. Your cats guinea pigs. Yeah the analogy. I here is You know go to the top of mount everest where the best climbers in the world with oxygen only stay for like fifteen minutes and that would be paradise compared to be an on mars. Well the other thing is if you think of antarctica which is a pretty tough place to live. Mars is much less hospitable than artika. It's like sixty degrees colder just to start with and know what okay anyway. Of course the idea is that they're gonna they're gonna deal engineer the planet and pump out. Co two gas and create a greenhouse effect until it gets to a nice toasty seventy something and then turn it off. A you know what could go wrong there. Yeah no i agree. I think it's a long ways in a. I mean to take that. Co two mars is is a lot of space travel. I know where we can get it. We can get from the atmosphere but at this point you know this is only we only see. We can only see a couple of days in the future so who knows what will happen. Hundred or five hundred years. Yeah that's right. But i did want to ask you about that because you're an economist that if you were to set up a mars colony presumably we saw the you know the physical living problems. What kind of government should we have. What kind of economic system. I mean would we look at what we've done in the past couple of centuries here on earth and go this one works. This one doesn't work. Let's try that. Or maybe musk's economic team will come up with something completely different. Or the nasa team or whoever a completely different form of governance than democracy and a in a in a regulated economy has. It's a really interesting question. I think what we tend to do is take our institutions with us. The people do they bring him to america. Take austrailia in two different places. So it i would probably just take our institution self. We take our institutions to chinese will take their institutions so you might have a chinese which was quite autocratic in a westerns colony which was quite democratic such as it is up one of the things we learn about institutions very hard. You can admit them. They're not like cars were mousetraps Ball and The the idea that you could just just a device. Something from scratch is a complete fantasy. So i would probably take our institutions with us and midwood after dappled atmosphere the environment. But it's a really good question you'd question it is now i've been been reading the about this writing about this and You know of course. I don't know the answer either. I think you're right. It goes back to the the first conservative in. Thomas are sorry His name is spacing at that wrote on the french revolution yet. Burke yeah yeah Edmond burke that You know he's part of the american revolution because they were you know they were doing an incrementally legally carefully and and trying to be peaceful about it whereas the french revolution was just just tear the whole thing down and start from scratch and we saw what happened there. Yeah i think that's a really good point. I think burkey conservatism is under appreciated in our land. And those to where we were. We exported the british model to america's with. I mean not with all of its flaws as well laws of slavery in other things but some of its good points whereas The french the french didn't expert much of anything in terms of politics except the metric system which was a good expert. We should've had. I don't know why we didn't adopt that. That's a different question yeah. I'm not a conservative. But i'm worried about the The poll to the far right from people like trump supporters and so on away from this more centrist conservative is that that does have a lot of value to it and the moment you kinda step in that direction. The people on the far left. Say while you're just an autocratic neo nazi or whatever will no there's there's some right of barely right of center conservatives that preserve our institutions and then change the ones that need to be changed gradually and and they're being kind of out shouted by the people on the far. Right when i think Booking conservatism is to preserve your is really a kind of hung humility about creating new institutions. It's how difficult it is. And then there's an interesting example of this from public health. Which is the core conventions. And they're actually took skull conventions over six decades before we actually reached international agreement on how to control it and that was partly because we didn't understand cholera in international convention to so difficult. But that's actually it's a beautiful example of how difficult is when you start from scratch to invent these new institutions and. Finally we have something. Which until you've all the w. h. o. Which is a no a remarkable institution given all of the difficulties of international sedition. Well it's like the problem Eleanor roosevelt had getting everybody to sign onto a universal declaration of human rights You know finally they add to just say all right. We're just going to close our eyes and sign it and and no one's going to argue about why this one and why not that one or whatever because they'll never get there. Yup that's the home. Global governance is a whole nother issue from national governments and then part of the issues that i talked about a little in the book but are not so appreciated in the climate change debate subsidy for changing the way we think of governance climbing trees. And i think we've we've gone down the wrong path so far i think we can get too strong climate agreements through violent actions of nations. And we need something. That's as more teeth than dante agreements. So that the government is actually one of the key issues that we need to deal with in this issue of dealing with but call the bumps and collisions and contagion of the modern. Yeah so you have all section on the tragedy of the commons and collective action problems. And how do we navigate those kind of problems when one country says. We don't wanna do that. And as you point out poor countries they they. they wanna be industrialized. They wanna get there. They wanna live like we live so it's hardly fair for us to say no no. You can't do that. you have to stay poor things. I've tried to do in this project. Which has taken about. A decade was really conceptualize. How we think about the split public seyran collective action. We have our our analyses theories and treatises on how we deal with the private sector market economies their strengths and weaknesses in the market sector with its strengths and weaknesses but conceptualizing our collective activities is. Actually there's a weaker and little theoretical and discursive description of those than you would think In in some part of what i tried to do is to think more broadly in different areas not just climate change pollution but also innovation of global governance national governments local government how to think about the collective action whether it's limits watered strengths or weaknesses. Where should we use it where she would not use it and one of the conclusions is the most difficult of all. Are these global. It's because of the polka but we have great strengths on national governments. I mean we have some real success stories in how we've dealt with issues as as different as the income tax on the one hand and a deal with pollution of sulfur on the other. I mean there's a real success stories in collective action when we use new tools and we think about things carefully and we use goodwill in trying to is his new instruments and institutions. Yeah you've got this discussion of the coups nets environmental curve in which the environment has to get worse before it gets better that is to say for for people to care about the environment. They have to have at least three square meals a day and a house to live in. You know the basics of life and to get that you need power It cities are basically energy capture devices in. You need power for that and is there a way around that. I mean nuclear solar. They just make this leap in like ten years and not have to pollute the environment. If you're a poor country and the idea the kushner's curves you said things get worse before they get better which is actually not universally true. But but there's something to. I mean when you're living in a cave. I could be polluting very much on the other hand. You're not going to be eating very much in as you move as you move to adopt selectivity particularly cities and you and you start up. Industries manufacturing particularly than the other. Be burning things. And you're going to be having the the these side effects of industrial activity and that's that's when things get worse but as you say as you as you get wealthier you around pollution control devices you take simple such a simple thing as washing coal may not many people know that actually all his dirty the first thing you can do you play. Just wash it wash before you burn it and that means a lot of the junk out just right. They're not quite a garden hose. But you can think of it as a garden hose so you can do very inexpensive things. You could make a lot of progress than you do. More expensive things can make more progress. But that that's why things get better as you say it's it's it's it's half of it is that you don't have the resources to do it as a poor country but the other half of it is actually things are getting much better and if you look at aware. Poor country is today belt of the a different country twenty forty sixty years ago. Actually the technologies are much cleaner. I mean a cellphone is different. Itself is different from the technology that we use solar power which is assist small villages different from a power station. So technology improves things as as well as as wealth. And then there's the story of the horse in the disappearance of the horse which was the greatest contributor to clean cities other than player was when the horses disappeared from the streets of new york and millions of tons of various offshoots of the horse the urine and the and the manure disappeared from the streets of new york when the automobile arrived and now the everybody hates the automobile but the nineteen hundred every loved it because cities right. It's a never ending cycle of changing technologies that ever cleaner. What i haven't been able to get a straight answer on so i'd like your opinion is on the one hand i hear environmentalists. Say we can absolutely have sustainable energy. Solar wind geo engineering and so on enough to fuel provide all the energy that humanity needs skeptics of this that you know that i talked to in read. They were not even remotely close to like the entire land. Surface would have to be solar panels and it still wouldn't be enough And therefore we need nuclear something like that what. What is your sense of sustainable. Green technology for enough energy for everybody. Well they're both right because on the one end. Eighty percent of our energy usage fossil fuels. Now we're not going to replace that overnight. I mean i'm going to burn down the house. Get rid of my cars. Take a bicycle wherever. I go and that means that. Don't go anywhere. I won't be flying anymore so i won't be doing that tomorrow so obviously we can't replace all of the also fuels in every country in any every industry overnight but if you look in the long run and long run twentieth forty years sixty years one hundred years. It's hard to know We we have made remarkable improvements in her energy technologies. People think of solar and wind but also batteries. Simple things like improve batteries. So you could generate. I mean so. Obviously solar and wind depend on the time of day the weather and so on. So you can we needed. We need our power at night. And some is in china at night so we knees batteries to store and his batteries become more efficient vastly more efficient. The last two decades that allows our renewable power to be stored news in my view. This is a little bit of a fantasy nba orleans terrific We need much much better. low cost transmission. We need superconducting transmission and that may have superconducting transition. We can generate power in the waterfalls who greenland stupid around the oil for nothing But that's that's in the future. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why are you may just send the this sounds like the original test. No no no no. It's a super super conductivity. Just means you can transmit something someplace else without any resistance. Yo otherwise you lose power all right so it it's we. We started out with superconductivity at essentially zero degrees. I'm like my fair. And now a scramble. Paget crept up to host room temperature but it's still exuded temperature acknowledged. But it's getting better. But i mean you you can you do that with renewable power plus batteries plus conductivity. Basically you've solved the world's energy but that's that's though mars. Those tesla wall batteries. That i'd like to have at my house but they're fifteen thousand bucks each and i would need three of them to store. an power that i need if the if the sun goes down you. Let's forty five thousand bucks so some of my neighbors have him. They got him on some. There was some program for a while we get them for free if you're in a low economic income area or something like that anyway but that ended i guess Well here in california where i live at just pass the legislation that all cars have to be electric by i forget and twenty five or twenty forty or something like that. Will that help. If every single car and truck in the united states was electric. How much would that You stabilize the co. Two gas increases not much by itself. I mean i only only a small part of the world in transportation automobiles only small part of our co two emissions. So by itself won't but you chip added here. I mean we talked. I talked about like papper now. We talked about automobiles next. We have to talk about airplanes and how the airplanes flying so but you know. We're moving in that direction. But when i'm moving i'm we do have to realize not moving very quickly in part outside the central reason. We're not moving very quickly as we don't. We're not serious about putting a price on carbon potato big shortcoming of our policies baker about policies and say the modern shortcomings of policies of other countries. Is we don't really wanna recognize that we should be paying or our emissions of co two the way we pay for oil and choose food and other things because it is scarce. And it's a scarce thing that should be charged for and that's the thing that's actually necessary if we're going to make a transition to a low-carbon economy i always like thomas oils. Definition of economics is the study of the use of scarce resources. Which have alternative uses and therefore there are no perfect solutions just trade-offs the you have to give things up if you want something else. Economics is a scientist choice. Here in one in one word yeah. Scientists science have choice. Yeah well right the Again back to the collective action problem Getting people to go along with. What doesn't seem like. Is there a problem so yet what you're talking about there with with Pollution is negative. Externalities it i think. We're all comfortable with a corporation dumping chemical waste into the local river. That's not cool. Because the rivers coming down to my house. And so i think we all recognize. We're not going to allow that. So but what's the analogy to take it from there to while you're dumping co two gas into the atmosphere and it floats over to some other country in manufacturer says not my problem. It's just the air. How do we get people to think about. The atmosphere like local river. Well maybe maybe it's co two is invisible. You can't taste it it can't see it It just floats around on the air you it. We'll maybe a little bit like a corona virus. You can't see can't smell. You can't hear it can't taste it. But it's deadly and the same way analogously but through a different mechanism the c o two his deadly because it causes wildfires causes sea level rise causes its spread vector-borne diseases so it's the same invisible way Not so dramatic not short term. It doesn't happen overnight. You're not going to get sick and five days. It might take longer but it's it's actually much more pervasive and much harder to prevent. There's no vaccine but the problem. It's the difference between that and the piano but it's just as deadly as the coronavirus here. I think we're running up against the same problem of getting people to accept the theory of evolution. just intuitively. I never see any animals becoming other animals. I don't see species evolving. What are you talking about ten thousand years one hundred thousand years. I mean this doesn't even register in my intuitive brain in. It's the same kind of problem you know. Global warming over the decades centuries. You know yeah yeah maybe You know i don't see this happening. It was called the other day. What happened to global warming weather versus the climate short term versus long term thinking. Well i mean if you wanna talk about evolution of again going back to the pandemic. We see this virus evolving over time with different variants and some more dangerous. I'm not maybe maybe l. Maybe one mean the history of The history of these viruses is that usually what happens is they evolve become less dangerous so this this is it into the common cold is just an old. An old dangerous virus became a less dangerous virus. So i mean that's pollution on just as the rest of the pandemic operates lightning speed. I'd after much more rapidly than evolution of large mammals like but it's the same mechanism at work its survival and it's Finding niches and discovering things getting bigger brains learning how to do into or causing more damage. This is the problem. Richard dawkins science. Richard dawkins causes middle. Land that we evolved in this middle land and the savannahs of africa where we change happens sort of slowly at a human scale over days or weeks or months or whatever and we see things of a certain middling size and middle lean speed medellin time and so the idea of like the climate change in over the next thousand years. It's like whatever. I don't see it just doesn't register any kind of intuitive way. Well you know. I think that's true but on the other end if you go back i i can. I remember. remember back when people didn't know anything about it except for a few geophysicist Survey the american people in nineteen sixty and say how big a climate changes. You probably get zero. The also think climate change was made. Maybe thunderstorms if something like that. But if you explain what it is and that's increase now and we have a at least half of maybe more of the american people now think it's Think it's real exists called but caused by human and think it's trouble and they look they look around and see what's happening right away in the most dramatic examples of these wildfires. Hurricanes also will do it for you so it's with us. It's with respect today. So i think the immediacy of it's not just in the future you say well that's going to happen next year. Twenty thirty four years but now it's happening right now. You can see it if you live in california. You know you could see. I live in high fire country house in the mountains of barbara. And i can't get fire insurance. Are i had to go through the california federal these fires. Yeah we we have to mexico. We have a little cabin which is a surrounded by ponderosa pines. It's just it's a sitting there with a little little sign up saying. Burn me dad. Because it's just it's just gonna happen while these days but that's you know that's that's that's what's happening to us. I think if the climate science debate and five questions is the earth getting warmer is it primarily human caused a much. Warmer is gonna get isn't an existential threat. And what should we do about it so reading your book. Clearly you agree. Global warming is real. it's primarily human caused. It's gonna get warmer but here. Then how far out. Dearie the error bars for estimating how much warmer gonna get. What's the latest data on that Let's say five years ten years fifteen one hundred years from now because that was going to determine to what extent it's a problem and therefore what we should do about it. Yeah so let. Let's go to twenty one. I mean go to twenty one hundred where we have multiple studies in a multi model studies with climbing miles. We have economic models. We have different kinds of techniques end to the best guest. There is on the project. We are now with little policy. It's going to be about four degrees c. above pre above preindustrial levels. So that's roughly seven plus degrees f. It'll be more in the mid continental us it'd be more in the high latitudes be less in the ocean areas just because of the differences There bar on that Well say plus or minus one percent depends what you mean by airbus. But let's say fifty six you know say fifty percent it'll be between Between three and five sixty or something like that they're no malls no model no. Let's say nothing's going to happen. Is really nothing. There are a couple of couple of non louder. Say nothing can happen. Projection could always my like dozens of models using different techniques of the physical malls around the world. There every every major country has at least one of these miles and they're all different. I mean some are some are large scale. Small scale supercomputers very fine resolution every broad resolution dipper principles different different initials all kinds of things. They're different different apps but they don't give none of them known give close to zero so And you know what we've seen we've seen basically would actually happen is pretty much on track with what the models are would were projecting thirty years ago. So it's not as if you go back nokia. Let's look at what this. Ipc the governmental panel said. I i report liquid says for now assessor twenty. It's pretty much on track So this is this is really good and mature. Science on the science goes back to eighteen hundred six. It's not brandon stuff and we've evolved as an alba thinking and we. We know a lot more health and we have that we didn't have computerized. Published magazine called the climate sceptics. Email me and say you should be skeptical of global warming those models. They the latest. I've been hearing about those models. You know they're they get whatever they plug into them. They're not consistent. So your point is that it's not one model that's telling us you have multiple lines of inquiry multiple lines of modeling all pointing to the same conclusion. Not like these guys are all meeting on the weekends to get their stories straight because they want to destroy american capitalism or something like this is a conspiracy theory goes yeah and also chinese models russian hours. You know. they're they're they're not. They're not all american and and they're not all that's a. That's an absurd idea They ended that they're they're getting together conspired destroy capitalism. I think what they are they are. They are concerned about the earth and a lot of the baby environmentalists may not be they may just be computer programmers for all but the other. Just say one other thing in addition to different models you have mountain you have sensitivity analyses where you try to find out what the what are the issues. What are the parameters. We don't know about nick at the same point you get you get again. You get uncertainties because no allowed uncertainties about what's going to happen to emissions. Let's come in have shut down the economy again. What's going to happen over the next few years what. What's going to happen to population growth. So there are uncertainties. But you take you. You still get the same inclusion at the. This is a long argument. We've been we've been having since the beginning of time the being time in terms of climate change and Some of it has been funded by a people. Want to our environmental policies of has been funded by people who are conservatives don't like mucking with what they view as mucking with the market But but i think if you look at the people who don't have a political interest in this ethic it's really. It's pretty clear this is. There's not there's not really a serious debate here about the science has always been this Politicized if you go back. Say the nineties eighties seventies. now it's kind of interesting trajectory. How things start in science and then this this this is not the first time in another interesting example was software pollution which was going along and just chugging along people were trying to clean up the air in pittsburgh and other cities and you know it wasn't wasn't steel companies didn't want to clean it out but at the battle between the the companies in the public interest and that's standard stuff but then then when the acid rain controversy who in the reagan administration the clinton has immune that was the first example in the us and that was the kind of model for how the people who are the ponant could politicize something. Get in and get the politics on their side. Addition to just the lobbying to prevent change in its bid but it's not everywhere it's primarily it's been s rain and now climate change but the lots of barriers were. I mean we haven't politicize drinking water yet. You know and cigarettes which were politicized on now become pretty de-politicize so it kinda comes and goes but part of it also is going to say when someone please go ahead. Say one thing similar to interesting example. Because you can see the evolution in people's thinking because they either cassava back goes back more sixty years now. There are the battle over cigarettes and you could see the. The cigarette companies advertisement is really making was really affecting of public us on the dangers of smoking. Used to be you go back to the earliest surveys. Eighty percent of people who didn't smoke. That was dangerous and thirty percent of people who smoke thought. It wasn't dangerous but what happened over time. Was that converged. The now even people who smoke dangerous which is actually a big change. From the and fits. It's the cumulative effect of people dying lung cancer information warning packages and beating up on this beating up on the people who the deniers of his in this case the cigarette company. So that's a that's a lesson that it things take a long time to really change public attitudes here here. I recommend naomi arrestees book merchants of doubt in which she and her co author track The whole cigarette debate you know fifties and sixties and seventies but then they show how the climate sceptics so-called deniers or whatever you wanna call them use the same tactics as the cigarette deniers in fact sometimes they use the same people. They hired the same lobbyists to write the same kind of Advertising jingles to you know so doubt that the jury is still out or we need more science or You know that sort of thing and It it's it's. It's a striking parallel to how it's almost like a formula of how to deny a particular scientific theory. Yeah i think that's right. I think that's really. It's a really interesting book. Rescues conrad because conway and it does go through it does go conway gut does go through the the history of the it also tells us suffer story and acid main story in how it is. This is a formula for influence influencing public opinion. And it's a very very useful. They're useful history. Pinker also makes the point in enlightenment now that when climate science got bundled with Gore because of his film an inconvenient truth. And you know this one. The whatever academy award in bunch of prizes and so on it then became a left wing liberal A cause or problem and therefore when conservatives here climate change or global warming their brains. Autocorrect to anti-capitalism you know. Anti market and government regulation and big government and the socialism. Co two gas got to do with socialism. While you know that's kind of the causal chain they're bundling it with politics. This is an interesting example of american exceptionalism because this is not true in most the countries we have gotten ourselves into. I wouldn't say we. The republican party has got himself into a rottweiler. It's it's advocating the anti science themes anti-science policies and a science science to speak. But this isn't sure other countries. I mean this is. This is right now. Really really taken hold in the. Us in a very unusual way you look at conservatives in the uk. I mean conservatives in the political conservatives the uk on the continent in even in canada in japan. I don't know how you know how you characterize the government of china but these are places where come across the board. It's not that everybody has equal enthusiasm but nobody sitting there saying well. This is all a hoax. just abandon. let's get out of the get out. The can is a good example. They've got a very strong carbon tax initiative. Now but then they're just divided politically united states both regionally and politically. But they haven't gotten the business. Conserve decided to march backwards to the eighteenth century. In terms of their views of science and politics noticed that Last week there were some people saying. I got back sedated. But i'm going to wear my mask anyway. 'cause i don't want people to think a republican was like. Oh my god. This is what it's back to crazy. That's another example politicization. Really why you policies i mean why anyone placetas mask is just behind me and why that's a. Nothing's puzzling to be as why's that. Why's that conservative in traditional Birkin conservatism to say that i don't. I don't wanna wear a mask. I mean that's that's what traditional conservatism is. Which as. I'm free as long as i don't hurt other people but when i heard other people then we need to protect each other or even norms like Everybody's used to signs in a restaurant that says no shoes. Those shirt no service. Well you know the conservatives aren't saying hey. I want the freedom to be able to go in shirtless and barefoot into a restaurant that no one says that so house wise amass different. It's interesting how Tim smoking again. As an example will used to very strong policies on smoking. It's interesting example now with Vaccination a many institutions colleges universities and other are are ask themselves should require their employees to get vaccinated in yellows just decided to do that. But you say well okay. We don't allow smoking on campus. We don't smoking in. Our buildings are smoking restaurants Smoking the the asserts koby to killed The code the covid nineteen killed more people last year than smoking dead. Why don't we think do we think we we need. We can be more relaxed about restrictions on vaccination than we aren't smoking. Does it come strange idea so the smugness is good example. How we've moved up in this country in this country actually is is pretty advanced relative to other options with respect to smoking when not we're not serve cross the board where really quite advancing the smoking campaign in the united states I'm you still go. Any many countries new sit in restaurants. You some guy next. X table is melissa. Not not right. This last year smoking a cigar blowing it over your face. Each dessert which is not such a pleasant experience but in smoking. We've gone from denial to really very strong regulations to protect people to protect the public health. And that's a beautiful example of but it's taking a long time. It's taking a really long time and a lot of work about people in different. Yeah that's a good analogy because it's clean air that we want and smoke. Filled air from cigarettes and cigars is not cleaned and even if Because there was debate about secondhand smoke even if turns out secondhand smoke is not deadly Let's just say that for a second. It's still stinks. And i don't like it. I don't wanna be in a nice restaurant smelling some guy cigar on a plane. Or you know you go into. Somebody's house that smokes. The house stinks right at the the smoke is in the carpet and the drapes and that's why hotels you know. Don't do that anymore because even if you went into now is smoke free room if they didn't change the drapes in carpets. The room stinks right. So there's there's kind of a norm of civility. Like i want a better society. Maybe maybe an analogy would be interstate. Highways eisenhower instituted. The interstate highway system in the nineteen fifties. I don't recall was too young. You know people say no no that should be privatized and let the equivalent of today. A bill gates. Jeff bezos build the freeways and they can charge people or something. This is kind of collective action problem that we all liked because we get to get from point to be much faster on an interstate highway and we all have to pay for that with taxes. Okay you know so maybe it's just what you get used to nothing but just one more thing smoking. It's interesting is that one of the underutilized areas in this in this whole green movement is the use of green taxes. And the idea that you'd use fiscal instruments have particularly taxes to slow particular activities whether it's smoking or drinking or drugs or pollution and or carbon emissions and this. This is a whole uncharted in public finance. The use of these. What aqap green taxes or or good taxes and let intellect good taxes replace bad bad taxes bad taxes being taxes on things. We wanna encourage people working people. Save him and so smoking's a good example of how we've use fiscal instruments such cigarette taxes to reinforce our other ways of influencing behavior and we can use that many many more areas we can use it obviously in allusion can use it for carbon taxes and we can use it for congestion can use it for other kinds of errors as well. And there's a lot of revenue there that we're just letting go to waste because we we don't we don't use fiscal instruments so that this call holy trinity of of green taxes. Which is they can. They can replace bad taxes. They can improve the environment. They can raise revenues for public purposes. And and we just just sitting there unused Equivalent model be something like the government. allows me to deduct the interest on my home loan my mortgage because the government wants more of us to be homeowners. And because i'm married. I get a tax break for being married and having a kid because the government says well. We think it's good for people to be married and have families and raise kids for the future of our country And so on. Maybe it's something along those lines but people are used to. Yeah but well. I think Accepted the penalty rather than a bonus of an app. That's that's why that's why it's a different words pose difficulties but i mean there are other examples which are of closer when we use used to us. We have these tax credits for renewables with tax credit for electric vehicles. And things like that. So these are things. We're trying to promote good behavior. A bike and people buy electrical vehicles nap alert weather as a homes windows or other things that are in the earlier days for corporations to invest in platinum. Now there's a research and development tax credit as well so this those things we're trying to encourage those think but the public but we need to have the opposite of those as well. We need to discouragements as well as encouraged so called sin taxes taxes but but they're also green taxes in this zone in the sense of. I don't really. I don't think we should view our carbon footprint assim. I mean i think sin sin sin brings them moralizing. I think we ought to get rid of we. I mean i don't want to go round. Everybody car cuddling. I mean it's such a waste of our moral energy to calculate carbon footprint all the time. How much am i spending to take a plane. How much am i doing. My driving should do a bicycle. Should i do this do that. I mean we have limited moral energy we if we price it then. We don't have to do that because our carbon footprint is built into the prices of things we buy in. Let's save our moral energy for warren peace life and death and and under love and hate and things like that. We had lots of lots of issues around to spend our moral on. It shouldn't be covered. It's an easy way to walk us through how you do these long term calculations of the cost. Let's say by twenty one hundred of our economy to bring co two gases down to lower lower the temperature by. Let's say it's only gonna go up by three instead of six or or or whatever you'll hear people like the on lomborg and and others say yes. Yes global warming is real. It's human caused and we should do something about it but these economic models are going to cost trillions dollars in their own only to lower the temperature by you know point one one tenth of one percent and is just not going to do not worth the money at. How do you do those calculations. So so the the the calculations were Temperature limits are actually quite simple. Some other ones are more complicated but those are quite simple so basically what you do. have you have to. you have a climate model. Which says if they're so so much. Co two emissions that religious on so much warming. So you need what you do. Is you start by working back. You limit the temperature. Two degrees or three degrees. How much is allowable emissions. So maybe it's so many billion tonnes over the next whatever years so that that's something that's relatively straightforward calculation that she can do in this climate models. This is working backwards. You wanna get from here to there. How do you drive and how to take. But it's our emissions can allow. That's step one and step two. Is you use your economic energy models. Fear how much it costs to reduce emissions by that much and we've had energy miles like this for forty years or so and there are many of them all of these different answers. Us factor of fifty percents. Something like that but you get your answers than you work back as okay. This is what it costs. And each of those steps the modeled there many many malls which do that independent models. You've climate malls developed geophysicist economic models developed by the national energy labs or the academics nubia. Put those two together and you get you get what it costs. You get one prices necessary to get there. It's a it it sounds. It sounds simple. It's it's a complicated calculation to take. You takes you a few years to do it but what you figured out how to do it. It's it's it's pretty simple. Did they take into account. And you know you can do. I look like a growing economy. Now just say something. I can just one of the something i. I teach a class. Not teacher cannot teach macroeconomics energy economics economics. And i have my students do this. They take excel spreadsheet that we go through each of the steps next figure it out and put their substance. It's it's know after takes about maybe a week time and they can do their own novel. Get their answer in figure it out themselves. Yes i've been reading about this Modern monetary theory and You know how this is going to allow us to have something like a. Ub or a massive Infusion of capital into trucks improvements dawn and You know like some of my conservative friends are going. Oh this is pure magic it get. This can't work But then you know as i understand it. As long as the economy's growing pretty robustly may three or four percent a year. And you could do something like that. I was going to ask you about that in general but then i just thought would that change your model like if the economy grew one percent versus four percent that would change surely change your environmental economics models. Well let me say i wouldn't. I wouldn't put a billionth of bit of money right but just just all by okay. Why not know just while it's not mom and it's just it's like the old fashioned it's like nineteen it's nineteen sixties with a little dusting little sprinkle of modern modern computer and modern algebra. But i think it it's it's not modern. It's not it's not theory so but that's another thing. But i think so but then that's a long conversation. We can do that on another occasion. So rothe makes if we could so interesting question. People sometimes ask well didn't didn't we lower emissions during the pandemic on we. We have much lower penetration much lower emissions of co two another pollutants in. The sky was clear and you could see the stars i am. That's true but is that the way you wanna do. I mean you wanna you can. Actually you really wanna lower michigan. Go back into the cave. Let's live stone stone-age existence. But that's not the idea it's vastly inefficient you. You're killing you're killing tens of millions of people in your sickening people in you're you're making them depressed and anxious and they can't travel under so upset is really the way you wanna do it now. That's that's that's the way to pull too political failure my view if you want to do something like that. It's very very expensive not the way to do it the way to do it is by doing gradually efficiently in the places where their low hanging food which has a lot to do so that that's what now you might ask. Okay so should we grow slower many. That's come caller. That may be maybe. The pandemic is like slow growth. Maybe we should. We should chewy faster. We should go slower. Well i think the problem is when people get growth hit. Think of cancer that they should. That's not think of growth growth. Is your better shelter your food for people. You have education for people your health care for people that that's what you're talking about. You're talking about some cancers cells growing going outside our houses and that's good but we need to devote some of that to make sure it's clean grow and green growth and that that is going to require more resources. Devoted things clean power clean industry less polluting cars low-carbon technologies. They're not free the not super expensive but they might cost us depending on different numbers over the long next thirty forty years two three four percent of output. But that's i two three years growth. So it's the main thing we have to do is we have to do it. -fession efficiently and effectively. That's the real key to undertaking his nuclear power in your equation. I think nuclear power is vastly safer than call a. Just get clean. Let's get clear about that. Vastly safer than co. it's probably it's if you amid the greenhouse gases. It's probably about the same as natural gas. I don't know by the solar wind or completely different animals but the main point about nuclear power is that it has no carbon emissions until it it. It's it really is one of the options we have and the other. It's the only option. We have now then could provide reliable baseload power as opposed to seasonal diurnal variation in the power. Now it's expanded the real promises Most people's take tape that's true it's it's a people say it's it's not true. It's not say but the main problems it's expensive. It's it's just way way more expensive than other into regulation so if nucleus if nuclear has given our future it's got to be much cheaper it's expensive because regulation or just inherently expensive both well It's expensive because we wanna make it safe. I if it's it's so it's sorta like if you if you were if you have a philosophy basically zero risk nuclear power zero being ten of the minus a large number risk very very unlikely Three mile island every hundred years or something. Every thousand minoan died there Notre nobles ever to saying if. That's your yes. Sir that makes the point at super-safe this is at so if that's if that's an we've now safer than we were three mile. The regulations are tougher. And they're so tough that we won't there too expensive to build a plant so it's a tradeoff we have different. Trade offs in different areas of trade offs in the highways killed people on the highways all the time. Much safer in the airplanes are super-safe new powers even safer. So if you're willing if you're willing to to do make allow greater risk and unique power. It'd be less expensive but this point not allowing let not lot expenses. Just it's just the way we've designed. It is expensive machines and give us your opinion on the green new deal always associated with a afc with probably not good because she's barely far left politically so people at fox news lose their minds when they hear green new deal. But what's the reality of it and and and is it going to be that threatening to our economy. Or how can we get around that. Well i think the the green new deal is is is an aspiration and it. It's actually largely about distributional politics and distribution of income about jobs. it's about healthcare. There's a little bit about the environment in the it's it's it's basically a distributional new deal more than a green new deal on the green part. I think it's pretty pretty backward in its in. Its design is no mentioned. All it has loud plant loud talk by plummeted no mention all about the international dimensions which is a critical dimension not mentioned all that carbon pricing which to all economists think is is a key to making official policies So i think it's It's it's not as i. It's a serious set of policy proposals. Yeah again. I think one of the problems here is the politicization of the whole process. So an we're coming up on an hour here. And i know you have other interviews to do and so on so i guess it asked you to kind of you know. Give us the pitch for why. This is something that we should all be on board with. Kids should also want to say conserve the environment here. I'll use an analogy that If if you define yourself by certain sacred values like if i'm talking to a christian about evolution and their creationist. I can't give them a choice between darwin. And jesus 'cause they're gonna pick jesus every time right so. I tried to take that off ago. Maybe evolution's the way god created life or whatever it's perfectly okay except theory of evolution. You don't have to give up anything so and to conservatives. I try to say. Climate scientists real and so on global warming is real and human caused. But you don't have to give up your capitalist views and your belief in free markets up. That's all fine. You know that but then then the but but what well you know then then kind of the examples used and it's on that maybe there's a way to make a lot of money you know profit from green technology and you know. Be the next elon. Musk and you want to save the planet environmentally and make a lot of money and change the world inside so kind. Give us your pitch for why conservatives should be on board with all this. Well i think I think conservatives around the world and by the irking conservatives or people who liked the traditional values and tradition you like democracy and people having a voice and free speech and free association and a milton friedman view of the role of personal individual freedom and the way markets. Help that because they They allow individual choice and governments by necessity on our question. So this this is the This the traditional conservative view. So but you can't deny that there are public values in the public goods that we have we have parks. We have common air. We have common common values. We've come spaces and we wanna just auction those off we don't wanna just auction of yellowstone or central park in new york to the highest bidder to build a tower tower trump towers in them. That's not a vision of good society. I think any any of us so conservative or not considered so. The question is how we're gonna do that in a way. That preserves the freedoms that conservatives thing in here is where i think conservatives are very much on board with the use of fiscal instruments food bar mental policy such carbon taxes and if i were conservative only put them in half say. 'cause i'm trying to think of this non political way. I'd say you know. I so much like to have a high carbon tax because i can get rid of all these other. Things will get rid of these lightbulb. Regulations really do any lightbulb regulations. The good society get rid of all these other regulations which just i'm talking as a conservative now and which are just hampering. Our personal freedoms institutional freedoms are to invent and innovate. So we need to do is we need a powerful powerful fiscal incentives to improve the environment in with those we can then have maximum freedom to innovate an in. Just give one other one of the really important point a high carbon price which is which is really necessity. The solve the carbon. The climate problem is a great incentive for innovation because it in high carbon prices. It anyone who's looking at the automobile and say i'll fossil fuels of the wave of the past out the wave of the future and what we really need to do with hybrids and electric and electric vehicles which aloke are or similarly in in power generation defined low low power forms of low carbon forms degeneration. It's it's county. It's a way of incentivizing. The market to innovate which is is really the way. We're going to solve these problems over the next half such so. So that's that's my conservative hat. I think that's very powerful. I know some conservative took the economist but also people george george shultz was very much carbon taxes for just this reason because they harnessed the market and they do it in a way that has a light with a length governmental touch light hand of government like that we do need some regulation for sure. I grew up in los angeles. And the air here in the sixties and seventies just terrible just awful and i was a bike bike racer and you had to be home by like ten in the morning Or else your lungs. It just be fried in then. Then the regulation catalytic converters and a now there is a hundred times better in life is better here because of that and Just a little regulation. I think i think one of the really interesting environmental stories of the last thirty plus years is the use of pricing in mid sulfur. And how we have a system captain trade system for sulfur where the prices just really. It's it's moved down emissions just enormously over the last much more rapidly than other areas in the united states and it's been declining at about ten percent a year for the last few years much faster than any any anything you die earlier era of the control command and control regulations or other countries. It's been a major success story. And i think largely because of this very very powerful fiscal incentives given that that's the number one example that use to promote carbon pricing. Well put bill. Thanks for coming on the show. Thanks for writing your book and especially for your lifelong work on on these important issues. There are solutions out there. I'm a big fan of innovation and technology and the innovation of something like regulations like you're describing carbon taxes on technology. It's a technology of moving people from one area to another area like like. They say we didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stones right out better ways of living. Yeah it's an interesting point. I think we we we under appreciate institutional innovations. I mean we love. We love hard. Innovations like phones. It's the greatest. I've said that's a great innovation but the smartphone personal vision three and a half million people around the world of smartphones summating. How taken over. But i think something. We don't appreciate as much as institutional invasion we've invented things over time is of our democracy institutions free speech institutions institutions and the one that i particularly is institution of using fiscal incentives to improve the environment. And that. that's something that won't get a patent for. you'll get anything for. Maybe but i something that actually is very very power is very powerful institution innovation and. I think we should celebrate that. -solutely those technologies. Well you can win a nobel prize. Maybe you did. That's worth something thanks.

michael shurmur william nord school of environment at your William nord Grandpa grandpa jane care hartika stockholm Edmond burke burkey united states papper thomas oils Richard dawkins elon mount everest california
Steve Keen Says Economists Get Everything Wrong (Especially About Climate Change)

Odd Lots

1:08:31 hr | 3 months ago

Steve Keen Says Economists Get Everything Wrong (Especially About Climate Change)

"Hello and welcome to another episode of the thoughts podcast. I'm tracy alloway. And i'm joe weisenthal. So joe one of the themes that we've had in our recent episodes is this idea of the pandemic changing certain perceptions of economics or certain perceptions of how the world and the economy actually works. Yeah i think that's exactly right like you know we. We just got in the us for example personal income and spending data. And you know. The story is that income replacement household income replacement was actually extremely effective and successful in the us. And that's not what you expect in a recession and it sort of. I think like people sort of opening their minds to like. How much of what we take for. Granted is just a policy choices. Yeah absolutely so. I mean one of the big things that happened is we had the kovic shock in twenty twenty. We finally had this exogenous shock. That economics is kind of obsessed with and things didn't necessarily pan out exactly the way that a lot of economists would have expected based on traditional principles of how things actually work so now not only have. We had an unusual crisis in many respects but now people are talking about an unusual recovery as well and whether or not the future economy is going to look slightly different so with that in mind And i guess without further ado we have the perfect person to talk about All of this An iconoclastic economist. If ever there was one and someone who thinks slightly differently to a lot of other economists out there. We're going to be speaking with professor steve keen. He's a distinguished research fellow at the university college. London and also the world's first crowd funded economist. He has a patriot account where he posts a lot of materials. You can check that out. A professor keen. Thanks so much for coming on thank you. Thank you for the invitation. So i guess some. I'm trying to think where to start. Because of course your research is quite wide ranging and if we're going to talk about the entire state of the current economy that's a pretty big topic but maybe just to begin with talk to us about what surprised you over the past year or what stood out to you in terms of economic developments in some sense. I wasn't surprised. Because when the crosses i i get on my patriot. Blog that we should have. The government should come as much money as they candidate the economy to make it possible the people to not to have to go to work and still the bills go bankrupt through the whole process and i suppose i suppose in one sense. It's not amazing that went across the strikes like this economic expo gets thrown out the window where desperately deserves to be thrown by the way and then people are just you know i know from what hang palsson had decided back when the financial process he had he wasn't going to let capitalism collapse on his watch so they throw the government money book at the system. Now of course that happened back in the great in the great recession as well. But we're very rapidly. Switched iva to spec on balancing the government's books and all this other stuff this time round the skylab overdone it'd been two or three times as big as what happened with the poor trying to reduce the damage from the global financial crisis and actually a lot of americans ended up getting payroll is out of the fact that i got six hundred bucks a week from the government to to make their bills for a while and i think what actually has decided to people is that. Hey maybe the maybe. The world financial system doesn't work the way the textbooks told us it works so i think that's the the the pleasing thing that i take out of this that there's mole consciousness. That textbook woke explanation as the bank of england itself said in two thousand. Fourteen is simply wrong. Do you think this is a lesson. That's actually been learned like we can all observe this. We can all look at household incomes having held up despite the crisis we can look at the Sort of very robust power of fiscal policy. But do you think this is a lesson that actually learned or do you into lesson that will be dismissed. All that was weird crisis because there was this executive shock. It was a health thing. We have to go back next time in a downturn. We have to go back to the old way. I'm already seeing. That happened in the literature particularly amongst uk politicians of both labour and tory stripes. That both talking about the need to balance the books and get you know out future generations on paying for our splurge during but i think the scale of this was so big in the public impact so great that it's going to take longer with that conventional message to be accepted as it was in the past and i think in some ways. They're not going to get a chance to do that. Because as soon as twenty twenty was out the door pilsen thank god. It's not twenty twenty anymore. Twenty twenty one said. Hold my beer. I'm going to set fire to canada and what's happening right now. Is i think making people think that a whole lot of things. I took for granted. Do not work the way that they assured they do on. That includes how economists have said that climate change is no big deal. So i think was a warm up saying that. We have to do something to drastically. Change our impact on the planet and what we did during the government's got the capacity to finance that creates the money when it spins. And that's that's the listen. I hope the we can get through. Were damn. We're going to need that when we stopped working out. How do we address. Climate change. I definitely want to talk about climate change in detail but before we do that. Can you maybe elaborate a little bit on the public debt versus private debt issues. So you make a massive distinction in your research between public and private debt. So it's it is ridiculously simple. Once you say from the point of view of an accountant and of course. Most economists don't do accounting donal in about money. Also a paul krugman has a new master class program out where the two crucial slots economics is about people. It's not about money. Well that's totally wrong. It is about money and how money affects people and how people take money so when you when you look at money gotta look and double entry bookkeeping terms and you see what happens when a bank creates a line. Well it puts money in your deposit account which is a liability for itself and it puts an identical amount of money in. Its loan account saying you. I was that money so it's assets roz and its liabilities roz and that's how credit money is created by banks and a very similar mechanism applause for the government when the government spends molin attacks back in taxes. The spending turns up in private bank accounts that roz increases the liability. Saad of the banking system ledger. And the money is is stored in the reserve accounts that the is transmitted through the reserve accounts at the banks themselves have at the central bank. Well that means the reserves roz when the government spends has a deficit just like the loans roz when the private banks create when they create lines both them create money and in that sense they is not limits on the amount that can both create the impacts. They both have on the economy depend. Upon what are the inflationary impacts what are the impacts of having to pay for that extra debt when you borrow it as an individual when an individual borrows money. You can't go to the bank silo. I printed these nuts out in my basement. You're going to use those by mantra spill in the case of the government the treasury which creates the money by the deficit. Spending is the effective. I honor of the central bank and that means that it can in fact pay its interest payments effect fatal vision accounting operation between the treasury and the central bank so the government has limitless capacity to create money the limit so the impact of that on the economy rather than the physical capability of doing it and rather than the the government creates and going to finish. This is getting very technical resign. No no i'm into it okay. But if you look if you look at water reserves they think about the nine assets that banks have their reserves that the deposit accounts the private banks have at the central bank. There are the loans have major the private sector and there are the bonds that they've bought predominantly treasury bonds. Now when the when the government runs a deficit he puts money. In the reserve accounts of the banks increases. Their assets puts money into deposit accounts. Spending comes from the public gets extra money out of then treasury says we're gonna issue bonds to sell the bonds to the banks to cover the extra debt with with with money. We have created. Well that is an author. The bonds when the banks bottom are also assets. And how do they pay for them. They pay them with the reserves so the deficit creates reserves. And then when the treasury says we're going to sell you treasury bonds for that the treasury bonds an interest which the reserves normally to the treasury bonds can be traded which the reserves cockpit copy traded. So it's an offer that's too good to refuse for the banks and that's why the banks all lies more than by mothers either. Subscribe for all the issues of treasury bonds. So there's no way that any borrowing going on from the public in whole thing. It all happens on the asset side of the banking sector believing the province nonbank sector out of it. So there's no limit to the amount of money. The government can create that way and cavill buy bonds and that's why we saw something like thirty or forty percent. Jd increase in in inverted. Commas government. did the government created the money that bought the bonds. One thing you mentioned that the crew in masterclass the idea. His claim that economics is the study of people that about people. You say it's about money. Can you explain that further. Like this idea of like centering. Money as the sort of key unit of analysis are like where we start in the journey like understand what what is the significance of starting with money. Yeah well let's talk about how krugman sauce without it for civil and why that using all the huge mistakes mainstream textbooks make and of course comeback to emphasize the bank of england and the bundesbank boats of the textbooks so wrong this is not a arriving radical coming out and attacking. You know sensible interests economics. This is institutions and no other talking about telling economists. You got it wrong. You've gotta learn the accounting. So what the economists do and you can see this in krugman's work and you can sit in textbook. Is i say well. This is supply of money. And that's under government control and that's fix of and there's a demand for money and that's both as individuals demanding money and the government win. It runs a deficit. All demands money so a nice show. The government running a deficit. They have damaged slipping demand money. So the the more money demand you demand higher interest rate you have to pay and the government borrowing gets added onto the demand curve and that drives up the interest right and that's why they make all the arguments about driving interest government spending driving up interest rates crowding out private spending causing the economy to slow down. That's their analysis now. We need to do the accounting. And you look at. It actually built a software package which is freely available called. Linski available on source forge. I'd love to have people in the finance sector as well as academics and students downloaded and take a look at it. And it's designed the interlocking double entry bookkeeping tables of the you can do it if the corporate six company can do it of its own books. Its designed to macroeconomics. It's there is a free tool and when you when you look at what actually happens. What you say is that rather than government borrowing adding to the demand of money. It actually adds to the supply of money. So all the arguments krugman and komag about how deficits to crowd likely to expenditure and drive up interest rates. When you take what actually happens and then put it. In framework rather than leading to the demand curve and driving up interest rates it pushes the supply code out and drives interest rates down. So they're framework is just completely the wrong framework and say you gotta stop for money and one of the one of the essential reasons. I don't like talking about money is because if you cited bank lending creates money will you never be bars for the sheer pleasure of being in debt. You borrow to spend so that borrowed money adds so aggregates amand and then when you have people paying off that causes a collapse in aggregate demand so if you if you take on board that banks create money when they lend and then see what the of the overall economy your whole macroeconomics has to change. Now they acquired comfortable with elias models and their dhea and the disease and all this stuff none of which have money in them. None of which have banks virtually now. No one will too. I just don't want to change. How they have been used to thinking. Even though reality says they wrong now now we have the the formal bodies like the bank of england. Little bonus bank saying they're wrong so it makes a huge difference to understand the accounting. So this goes back to the distinction between public versus private debt. And the the suggestion. Or the implication i think is that public debt is much less of a problem in terms of financial stability than private debt. So i'm wondering could you maybe elaborate on that point and then put it into context for us in in the current environment so we just saw massive fiscal stimulus In the us for instance and at the same time. I think we're starting to see. I haven't looked up the number recently by pretty sure. We're starting to see private sector dutt go up So how much of a problem is that. And how much does the balance between public versus private actually matter. But i think the way the thing about providence public is lack of soul because when you look at the mainstream nitrate them as both well they ignore private did because of eta shoot is will private that acts between consenting adults and we shouldn't look inside the financial bedroom if the economy. Whatever they want to do. As i k by us but government did that's a burden on future generations. Now in fact when you look at it the burden on future generations is when you you die with a mortgage and kids have to take it on lighter so it's private debt that gives that burden on future generations of the car and borrowers and private debt. You when you borrow money from a bank you can't repay it in which you invent yourself. Whereas with the government the government spends more than it gets back in taxes can finance at by counting operations between the treasury which is part of the government and the central bank which is part of the government so is in fact a of stimulating and economy to have deficit spending taking place as we've seen during ivan. Imagine what america would have been like if they'd be no increase in the deficit. In fact the deficit what was what thirty or forty percent of jd. Pay so without that spending would have been a title collapse in the province sector of the economy. And when you look at the historical record. And i've done some empirical work but this work has been done by the philanthropist. American philanthropist richard vague. Who's also leading banker. And he's iron. Rotten is a formal government position in philadelphia. Richard do research into one and a half centuries of financial crises being about one hundred fifty countries around the world and found over the last one hundred fifty years of being about one hundred and fifty financial crises. every last one of them was caused by runaway profit debt bubble and the only way out of it was gerard private date off so the focus be health in government did is just the wrong. These is just becoming out of bad thinking and equally one of the people people in also you what the level of government did is now one hundred percent of jj pay in america after after catered will profit was one hundred and sixty percent of jd. Pay so the crazy thing is the thing that i told you not to worry about is not only the one you should worry about. But it substantially larger than government did in most countries around the world. So i want to talk a little bit more about sustainability of government spending and i think it will actually dovetail or lead us eventually into the climate change discussion as well but obviously in as you noted one of this sort of curbs or you know where the rubber might hit the road with the government's Capacity the spend is inflation and right now we have some elevated inflation. Say in the us. But there's a strong argument that you know to us economist. Word that is transitory. But how do you go about thinking. More broadly okay. Forget you know the data right now but how do you go more. Broadly thinking about how to conceptualize ability to spend without generating undesirable inflation. or actual. Like you know how to you know reconceptualise fiscal capacity like. Do we have any sort of way to put numbers on this or like. How do you go about thinking about where those limits are. Yeah i mean that is something which costs because we monetary theories description of how current financing occurs. But what we've had is practice without with that's been ignored in you had constraints on how much money government can spend the whole austerity type programs. Have had ever since the days of reagan. Reagan and thatcher. Now if you say well we actually understand it. That would mean that the policy now becomes to get the maximum level of employment. You can get all of your job. Guarantee is part of that program and the issue about inflation as is that inflation ten survey something which comes out of competition over the over the income shares of the economy when we look back the on those major inflation back in the seventy s. You had economy going gangbusters compared to what it's done. Ever since low level of unemployment and high level of capacity utilization and that made it as strong demand on raw materials imports. And you had in seventy three pilot co spot of the yom kippur war. You had the possible. Inc being increased from two to fifty barrels ten. And then you had in nineteen seventy nine eighty another another boom with ross win from ten dollars to forty well that takes money out of capitalist sands maze. Less investment can take place and you have this slump in the economy equally had low on employment. I work because demand. Large y draws and those white draws is also leads to inflation. So you need this very very strong. Basis in in in aggregate demand out of a strong bargaining position for work is to get hold of with the extra balcony power they get from lohan on employment to get bogged any power demand high wages on. That's what tends to set off inflation so in that context where we are right now when miles from that happening because the working class unions veins smash. There's no real bargaining power for the individuals until you're in a really really taught market and with temporarily saying that. But i think it'll be a sustained fly through but if you did get to the stage where you had you know job guarantee very very low unemployment. People who didn't have lost their private sector job would get a low low paid but still job guaranteed income that would potentially increase the vomiting powerful workers. And you could have struggles either. The distribution of income which could lead to inflation arising. So i think in that situation. You've got to stop talking about really. International agreements ever income distribution the of thing that the swedish government used to do back in the sixties and seventies when they dramatically industrialize in sweden having sort of agreements between capitalist workers and the government about how to develop a swedish society is the time. So you once you realize that you can have full employment. then you've also got to have some agreement about the distribution of income and how money is spent. And i'm not going to suggest that's going to be an easy thing to do. So if we if we actually start getting the government using the capacity it has to generate a level of aggregate demand that gives you full employment. Then we're going to have to work out what's the power relationship between workers and capitalists in america and copy as extreme as it's got to be in the last thirty or forty years one little caveat the it isn't the industrial work capitalists have got that powers the financial system. So we're gonna have to take on financial capital and that always tends that it'd be a lot more than you'd like it to be. I mean what are the chances that we actually got a real discussion on that issue in the us. And what are the obstacles to people taking. On frankly. I don't think we're going to get that conversation. I've got to shake my head off to stephanie hilton. And the modern monetary theory people who've made have been very successful in raising this to the stage where congress even has device about it. And you've seen some congressman realizing will they don't have the constraints they thought they had and they're changing. Their attitudes about the political pressure back in the opposite direction is enormous. So i'm not convinced that we're to get a conscious decision to go about doing it. But a bit like cova before. Kevin struck my side december. Twenty of thousand and nineteen. If you ask anybody with the government you run a deficit. As forty percent of jada. Next year they would have kicked you out of the room. That's what the government ran next year. Forty percent of jj pay and if you look back at the last time we had spending on that scowl. I was during the second world war and the impact of that. That was when we realized we're in an existential process. Was eight to spend the money all star saying now hit la so we spent the money. Nobody disgusted there was too much money being spent buying that that next sherman tank will whatever is being constructed with the government money that was being spent on private corporations to build tanks rather than cars. So when you face an essential process like that you tend to throw the rule book out the window. And that's when you look at what happened with how people actually involved in doing that. People like bouncy by bosley rommel and people who are running the federal reserve that can the not in forties. They realized there were no constraints on government. Spending there was a tag. There's actually pay. Taxes are obsolete for government spending by the president of the federal reserve of new york and in forty six. So that's necessity. is the mother of invention nephew. Done have necessity. Audiology comes back in. So i think if we didn't find any future existential threats there would be this pressure to return to the all balance the books government spending as burden on the future. That audiology would come back. But i don't think it's going to get a chance. So can i ask the i. Guess the flip side of that question. Which is you know. We're talking about fiscal capacity. And how do you create appetite to expand that. How do you actually Tackle the private debt problem Because you have this. Massive financial sector that is incentivized basically to keep creating debt. Because every time they do that they earn money. How do you go after that. And like what is the political appetite to take that aspect on. I think the political almost zero because if you look at politicians themselves the main people. I talked to people in the finance sector so eisenhower us to talk about the military industrial complex autocrat. The politico financial complex and therefore what finance wants is what politicians tend to allow and finance wants to create as much as it can. Because that's how they make money the literally literally by creating the debit for themselves figuratively the more the province six attacks on the mole income that the private sector has to pay to the financial sector so the their opposition to deliver. Juicing debt is enormous but the trouble is we've now we've now reached levels of providence which historic in the history of capitalism so america the daughter in america going back to i thirty four and the level of private did we've got now is greater than the peak level of provident compared to judy pay during the great depression which was the previous pig driven by massive deflation between thirty and thirty three so we had this enormous hang of profit did and what that means is banks are reluctant to lend. Because i now realized as a possibility that i wouldn't get very paid and the nonbank public is reluctant to borrow because they already carrying an enormous amount of dead with low interest rates. So that combination means you've got very stagnant demand coming from the from credit when credit is part of a small amount of credit demand is a healthy pod of growing economy. But if you look at trump is argued in favor of the private banking system than monogamy and you made was that banks should be providing money to entrepreneurs now. They doubt but that's what they should be doing. So what. We've got us a huge. I the hang of private date. We shouldn't have left providence. Get anything like level. It's at i think it'd show at one. Hundred and seventy percent was the paik. The when america was during will be called the golden age of capitalism between light forties. And the and the early seventies the level of providence began at about forty percent of jd. Pay and something. Forty percent and seventy percent of pay. That's money borrowed through. Cynthia realistic reasons. You've got working capital companies. You have money for households to buy large consumer items. You have some funding of entrepreneurs that's a creative role of the financial sector when you get two hundred and seventy percent you can. That one hundred percent is pretty much parasitic behavior and what has worked. I've done a linski model of how this could actually work. We need a modern day. Aaa we can't just write the debt off because that would cause the banking system to collapse. We can't just give money to people who borrow money from the banks and save how you did off with that because people who didn't borrow people were frugal consigned. That's moral hazard whereas mine will my it is. Let's use the capacity the pro the government sector to create private money and use government money. See it by smiling and use that to replace credit vice money. Say give everybody in the country every all the same amount of money if they have debt they must pay down off their debt. Is they don't have did what i would require is that they buy newly issued corporate shares with corporate shares used to pay down corporate say reduce both household debt and corporate quite substantially. You wouldn't change the amount of money in the economy. Just change that rather than being mainly backed by by credit and private dead. It's now many back by say it and government money creation capability and with that you would dramatically reduce the inequality that we've got in society you'd also stimulate the economy by putting because there's more workers you're saving the money than there are bankers in capitalists. Getting the same per head. You'd stimulate the economy because workers have to spend faster than bankers. All capitalists. do and they'd be as of model quite a substantial boost the economy with no additional money creation. So we could do it. And i'm certain we want. Do you have a. What's the dollar amount like say in the us. Like and how do you how would go about deriving the right amount. What what. I want to say whether you wouldn't necessarily do it in one guy because unlike standard economists i'm not confident mind is going to work magically so i'd like to do a test ron but if i did the whole caboodle. The model that i did was giving every adult american one hundred thousand dollars a one year with one hundred thousand said if you're in debt had to be used to pay down if you weren't in debt you had to buy corporate shares which we used to cancel corporate. Did now that worked out to one hundred thousand dollars per person which is about one hundred and ten percent of jj pay and if we did it reduced the level of of providence from one hundred and sixty one hundred seventy percent down to sixty to seventy percent of jj which is back on the sweet spot for the gold niger. Capitalism and that of course would mean a shift in the allocation of dead so providence would fall government did would rise but went on model that what would result. I wasn't expecting as because this there was much more money. In the hand of work as a middle class people than beforehand the economy went into a boom and the boom meant. The debt fell so worried about the level of debt. We weren't about the ratio to pay and the impact of the mud in my model the impact of of this hundred thousand purpose and was two first of all this government did one hundred percent of gdp and draw province if the dead by the same amount but either the next ten years also the level of dead dropped back to you. One hundred percent full in the level of title debt cream from is about two hundred sixty data hundred sixty percent sixty percent providence. One hundred percent government debt. That was a reduction in the debt burden. So it's a it's a way of doing it would actually work and stimulate the economy it causes more prophets for firms. Even the bankers could come out because if you sold jubilee bonds to finance it. The interest rate on the bonds could make up for the fact. They weren't getting interest on the profit that had been cancelled by the modern day. Chea belay so. It's all doable. I just gave me a hundred percent. Short one happened so we were talking about attitudes towards Fiscal spending and how they might be changing but possibly not to the degree that you'd be advocating professor he in but i know you've been critical of the european union over the years and i'm curious how you feel about it now and whether or not. Uc's some attitudes changing towards fiscal cohesion. I think the european union was always a european union was a good idea. The euro was a big mistake. And that might as your them. That hasn't changed because the whole logic on talking about providence. Public data. seems you have a treasury and the central bank the back. Whatever you with your fiscal policy of course when when the countries of the european union join the euro that guy that right away and you have this sort of supranational central bank has no supranational treasury. There's no supranational spending so in that sense. Old governments have turned themselves into effectively being in the same situation as a prophet borrower. And we're seeing. How does options that. Spain food t. khalifa graceful but also to spain and italy and portugal. They've been beneficiaries. Have been the ones who've got a like germany did very very well. Thanks very much. Out of the fact that countries like italy could no longer devalue their currency when they had to try deficit with germany. so i'm still a critic of it and of course when you see how it first of all handle the outbreak and then the vaccine rollouts and then the idea of providing people with money to enable them to pay their financial commitments when they couldn't go to work because of kevin. I going to use the word. Starting with cluster and ending with doc to avoid it but nowhere did know in near well as america which is always the model of the european or even uk at that stage even the managed stuff aprio royally so. I'm no great of it. The one what i have seen is that again experiences teaching them some lessons all the things that are worried about happening out of lodge levels of government spending having occurred so in that sense has been a bit more realism creeping into the european union. But it's still one of the first things i would do is go back to the lira. Go back to the pace. I go back to the mock And just use the euro for internal tribe in the european union. But again they seem to be so wedded to the idea of this now. Supranational currency That that's again not quite as unlikely as modern. Dj belabored unfortunately pretty unlikely. You know before. We delve a little into the climate discussion. And obviously it. You know it's part of this discussion. I i wanted to go back to something you said you know the sort of like i guess it's like the politics full employment like there's that famous essay the political aspects of full employment by clench key. And he sort of anticipate you you. You know you said that you you're talking about okay. If the government were to ever really be a take a permanent fiscal stance where it's always going to maintain aggregate demand such that were have full employment somehow. That's when the real political fight begins and of course we're already seeing that. I mean we have like you know. We're nowhere near anything resembling full employment in the us right now. We'll always already major push back against you. I major frustration among companies at their ability to hire easily right. Now what what do you see. Like how brutal could it get. You know as we get as labor markets. Get tighter and tighter. What do you expect to see. Or if this current If there's currently currently remarked conditions persist what do you expect to see. On the part of the sort of like capital class bosses et cetera. pushing back against these policies. Well they will and truly try to do that. That's definitely the case could be quite destructive of the civility. You're trying to bring about three modern monetary theory to begin with as well. I think you've got to include the andrea income compact at the same time as part of it. It's also why focus on nauseous looking in terms of work versus bosses but workers versus bosses versus bankas. Because way the real sense of mathematical modeling of what a call. Minsk is financial instability hypothesis. One thing which came out of the model walls that the rising level of debt. When i had the head firms borrowing money to actually invest in real factories so it was sort of bearing barring to the original. You'd want to see but you can have such a level of you euphoria. During a boom that capitalist bar on walden naked repack during during the slump. And you've got this ratcheting up provident. New fondly had addict crosses but assad effected this was again was not not building into the models. What's called an emergent property. Is that even though. It was the therms. So therefore the capitalist during the borrowing and the workers had no borrowing at all it was the work has paid for the high level of private dead because increasing the level of private dead led to a falling worker share of income so the transfer of money wasn't from funds to bankers regime workers to bankers and the fastest sitting in the middle. So i would want to reduce the power of the financial sector and say if we make the financial sector list powerful less of a burden on both households and firms both workers and capitalists can benefit from that. We've got to reduce the size of wall street. Wall street is a burden on american capitalism. Not a shepherd to the to the golden future but nonetheless. I can just see if you had full employment. And you had the animosity that exists now between american workers and american corporations off the last thirty or forty years. If you gave power to the work by having full employment that could be a lot of we're gonna get even now type attitudes amongst work because incentive. You know you want me to come and work you pay me more money. Did they could be those those things leading to a conflictual approach and then coming back and trying to screw the the balcony. Power the workers by bringing back on employment one small so abide by no means do i see a rosy future where everybody's holding hands and singing come combine. This could be an unless it's done sensibly you could. You could have an outbreak of political conflict. Coming out of the change in the power balance. The appreciating what remains about government spending and the capacity to generate full employment. Actually means okay. So speaking of non rosie futures That's probably the perfect segue to finally talk about climate change so you have been incredibly interested in this topic and also incredibly scathing when it comes to some other economists work on the actual price or cost of climate change including certain pulitzer prize winning economist. Who's done a lot of work in this bill. Full of surprises closet was awoken fiction. But he's actually william knowing housing. Which itself is the worst fiction because it's not a nobel prize. This is a good slip as it whitelaw. I think we stick with that pull. This is a great actually. It's a work of fiction. Economics is not a nobel prize. And what vinod. How studs is bob. More fiction than anything related to fact this abusive media bias. Showing here entirely focused one one day joe. Pulitzer for okay. I have a bunch of questions on this but like one. Why your intense interest in the space and secondly what is it about economics in your traditional economics in your opinion that makes it ill equipped to deal with climate change or to model it properly will host question. I've fascinated by how we actually include the physical reality of production economic models a census seventies when i first became a critic of the mainstream economics of course at the same time limits to growth came out which was a superb pace of work understand system dynamics was doing working doing mathematical studies. That the tom. So i thought it was superb. And then economists trashed the hell out of it. And the economists you did. Most trash was one william nord house who write a paper called measurement without data. So that was the beginning of my interests. I didn't engage in the academic work on it until two thousand and sixteen seventeen. When i was working with some economists i got cold as a physicist. Who's been trying to bring energy into economics for a long long time. And then working with bob i was saying. How do we bring the role of energy into how economists think about production. Because if you look at not just the way that neoclassical david. Even my more realistic post keynesian school of thought they model output is being generated by labor and capital now p. con produce anything whether energy you so the fact that it wasn't there just didn't make any sense to me and of course is how do you bring it in sensibly. And what would happen if you look at work by stiglitz and and solid two very mainstream economists back in the seventies die say well let's just energy and is another factor of production but labor and capital and energy together. And you get output. Well yeah i. I'm going to throw. I'm going to throw a handgrenade into a factory and see how many wichita can produce that way. You can't just add energy lockwood machines or work inside it and walk walking through bob's house one day which was full of statues a little flash of inside pop in my mind labor without energy as a corpse. Capital of that energy is a sculpture in other words energy is named as an input to by lebron capital to allow them to do work. Ten minutes later on dodd. Done this idea of bringing energy into models of economic models and production. so i thought with that donna. Pipe was published in two thousand nine hundred with a innocuous title the night on the role of energy and production thought. It was time for me to engage in this discussion about climate change and then in two thousand and chain not house. Got the so-called nobil for it well near my initial reaction was at least they giving bill prosperous environmental work. But then i thought i'd better read to literature. Which is i always dive in. Even if i can't stand neoclassical economics. Hostile rated and i couldn't believe the garbage always rating quite frankly. I'm not going to be polite about this. This is the worst work written fifty years and the that it was given a nobel prize is is not a reason to trust the research. It's arisen to shot. The night will produce down under shop mainstream economics down as well. It's that bad. So what is it for people who aren't familiar with the work once you've dived into. What are the what are the claims that nordhausen making that you think is so discrediting of the nobel. Well the main climb climb that he makes is how trivial climate change is going to have a have an impact on the economy so in his novel prospects which people can find on the web quite easily. He said that the with no abatement of the impact of climate change is leading the economy role on if there were no damages from climate. Change at all. Then you get a certain level of pay. If you include the damages from climate change on our productive capabilities six degrees increase in temperature would cause an eight point nine percent full in j six degrees temperature. This that's published in the paper. In the american economic review one of those specialist journals in two thousand nine hundred and i think and in his goal prospects he actually says the optimal temperature changes afford degree increase in temperature iva preindustrial industrial levels. Now i just. I couldn't believe it. How the hell does he reach those results. so i dived into his research. This particular piper in nantou naughty one cold too slow on not to sazleh. The comics of global warming will become of climate change and in that he assumed simply assumed that icy seven percent of industry would be unaffected by climate change. Because it happens in what it called carefully controlled environments that he lumped all manufacturing all services. All of government spending even lumped mining in there. The only thing things have in common is they happened undercover accepting. You didn't think about mining. Obviously he's simply saying rufo protect you from climate change. Well i'd like the people of albert. And and calgary and vancouver and spied caned come and have a conversation with william nord house about how much ruth projects you from climate change. It is absurd assumption but this this is what economists do all the time they want. They make what they call simplifying assumptions. Which actually if the simplifying assumption is genuine. Simplifying assumption is false. You have to have a sloppy more complicated model. If what if these assumptions are on the whole world is different. And that's the sort of assumption. I defended simplifying so he did that. First of all these simplifying assumption at rufo protect you from climate change and then another one he did you say well. We can use the current if relationship between temperature and income across the united states. Decide what's going to be the impacts of climate change as if what we're experiencing now in terms of the before common change here. In the fact that florida is poorer than new york and new yorkers richer than north dakota the distal temperature differences area. Said you might get a ten percent increase in j. from north dakota to new york and a ten percent fall at the guy from new york to florida. That's all it's going to happen if we have a six degree increase in temperature. Us from north dakota to A new york and another six to get us from new york to miami. That is insanely stupid. And those assumptions are essential pod of coming out and saying the six degree increase in temperature will only reduce by eight point nine percent. I think it was it. Eliminate al spacey's that's closet. What the impact will be so. There's something you said there about traditional economics not dealing that while with the physical and this is also something. We've been talking a lot about on all blots like this idea that for instance Some classical ideas of the benefits of free trade for instance and competitive advantage. Don't actually take into account transport costs so in a year like twenty twenty when we suddenly see Borders closed and gridlock and shipping and shipping costs going up quite a lot Classical economics isn't well equipped to deal with that or to work around it or to sort of synthesize it. I'm wondering are are you looking at that aspect of the economy as well like this idea of things. Being more complex than traditional economics has allowed. Is that something that twenty twenty has proven in your mind. All and truly. I mean the whole idea. We'll these incredibly long supply chains with up to one hundred countries involved in manufacturing and appalachian. Well the apple iphone stops being made when cli- hits did is incredible fragility in the economy. We've designed to make an incredibly efficient efficiency. Is the enemy of resilience. You inefficient bear has no fat when it goes into hibernation therefore starves. So you have to have botha's you have to have surplus brutalises to be available surplus beds for example to the win win climbed pandemic hits you've got room and you've got intended refer intensive kids instead of saying the panic webbing trip because we trimmed it down to the stage where there was slobby mole supply than you would get from demand in a normal situation. Normal doesn't exist anymore. So yeah it's it's incredibly ignorant about the physical world and this is why they can make the stupid assumptions. They make about manufacturing only. There's a roof to protect you from climate change. Well if you can't get energy. Oh fabio machine stop turning if you can't get workers because the temperature You're living is simply incompatible with human loss. They'll be no workers to manage those machines. So there's a there's a physical unreality to mainstream economics and that's one part of another group called the institute for biophysical economics trying to say we. We have to build a physically grounded. Biologically realistic model of the economy. Because we certainly haven't got it now. And that's why we've little souls up the climate change garden path. I will talk more about that. Because you mentioned you're sort of like the idea of like okay capital as we know it. Physical capital about energy is a is a statue which i thought it was a really nice way to put it and that we can't just think of like energy is yet you know wrap that into capital or just sort of another one that factors of production. What happens when you introduce energy into the equation. So as you describe okay. We need to labor capital and energy. What are the new outputs in sort of like the models. Once you break it out that way. What are you good for example if you know the the what they call the cobb douglas production function that the mainstream uses one of the mysteries. They've had for a long time. Is that attributes output to being a factor of technology. Tom's tom's capital and they always thought that you know like the library and capital would be the main sources of change in apple but the phone is actually technology and they call it what they call the solow residual now when i put my energies and inputs library and capital into that function when i get. Is that the so-called technology which still is obviously form of Issue technology is the energy consumption level of the typical machine of a particular generation. So if you look at the energy consumption of a Other giants while steam engine. That was about ten tons of called the day if you look at the elon musk's falcon rocket that's about efficiently ten tons of of kerosene per second. So that's why. The dramatic increase in income has come from we really benefiting out of all of us work capitalist bankers the works benefiting out of using more energy for production. But what that gives you as well. How sustainable is that and when you have. Energy is an input to production. In this sense you also get the necessity of both waste energy and waste materials yukon produce output with that energy and matter you therefore produce useful output without waste energy and waste matter dumping into the environment so you then have a link between the economy and your ecology and of course the question. Is you know many many questions out of it. What is the impact of using that energy and using all that matter on the sustainability of the big system. And you would be thinking about that rod from the outset. We have been completely blindsided by that. The last fifty years in faculty two generations of humans with trebled or quadrupled followed on the planet. And that's where we're seeing things like the impact of climate change driving up temperature. That's the carbon. Dioxide is one of the phones of we dump into the environment. And we're now seeing the impact of that in incontrovertible way in canada right now but you have to think in terms of the physical constraints of a production system on the planet and we have completely ignored that and we're now paying for given that framework. What's your solution for it. Then because of course the challenge here is always that well first of all people don't seem to appreciate the physical aspect of economic growth but secondly it's that sort of classic commons problem right where everyone can abuse the environment and because they individually benefit from it. So how do you actually fix that well. I think we could've fixed if we listened to the limits to growth arguments fifty years ago. We could've fixed. Gradually using market mechanisms lacob and texas and carbon pricing would have been feasible and also constraints on population growth in a whole range of other issues that when the growth of their simulation i had about. I think about fourteen simulations in three or four of them into a sustainable future way. We continued having up to three times. A standard of living the the average standard of living for the whole planet was about three times the standard of living at an in nineteen seventy and since americans are not in seventy most of the montigny better off today than they were back in seventy given the skew and income distribution. That'd be a pretty pretty dawn nas wolves now instead because we're delighted for fifty years and tripled or quadrupled relied on the planet. I think we're in massive over shared and to be get to a sustainable level. We've gotta go backwards. We have to have people calling digress. And we're not going to do it voluntarily again. Think we'll do it. Because we're we're forced into it with events like the canadian haven and worse to come icon that that will be something which has to be done by command economy. You can't do it using market mechanism. So i think in that sense. What got us into another war. But it's not it's not a war on climate it's water restore the climate and that means really a war on our over consumption on the planet and you know the only way i can say it happening is people if people truly realize that. This is an existential threat. Not for the children. Will their children children existential threat for anybody alive today. Every thinking back to the beginning of the conversation of course and you know there has been like this big turning point perhaps from a fiscal perspective in rejecting austerity. And you pointed out to that. At times of extreme crisis such as prior to war is a necessity changes people's perception of what the government is capable of doing. And i think that like you know right now. The political debate around climate. There seems to be a lot of impulse to address it. But not a lot of impulse to do what you've just described which is essentially a form of defacto hysterically acceptance not about The pri the pretext or the argument is not fiscal sustainability but Sort of ecological sustainability like. How do you build the politics. Though for what you're describing would for most people like in a sort of an austerity regime t won't be done in any voluntary since i mean people most people being frankly on interested in economics. It's on it's only obsessive. Kasey really want to know how the economy operates at all times. Most people have been like me with a car. I only one now. The energy works when it stops working. Otherwise seem it's gonna continue taking over. And i opened the guarantor and the engine driveway ongoing and turn it off again. And i think about all the complicated mechanics involved in making that possible so the same thing applies to the economy for most people and therefore they can't see any need to restrain their own spending. They weren't voluntarily turned vegan. They weren't voluntarily walk rather than hop in the car and drive to the local shop thing. I think holy hill. If i don't do that we're all gonna die now if you look back to the with the second world war that realization hit england after the war period when they had to suddenly evacuate what was lifted their army out of dunkirk. And you had the very rapid rapid procession paul and foles france foles and suddenly really hill. This is serious. We've gotta throw all our resources at trying to defeat this enemy and then in that situation people accepted rationing. Now i think the same thing is going to apply here. We are going to need some serious crosses and then when does people will suddenly realize. This isn't something for two or three centuries in the future which is what william note house literally says he says limit. Small damage is relatively small damages in the next two centuries that's one of his published pipes. It's not relevant. Small damages that huge damages becoming if we're lucky in the next thirty is if unlucky in the next ten and when that realization hits an. It's an existential thrash. Then in those situations people are willing to accept constraints on what they can do to drastically reduce the level of consumption and to give us some possibility of throwing our resources rather than producing more and more plastic furniture all his junk. We consume drastically reduce. It is just essential consumption and all arizona's directed at creating non-carbon-generating energy systems and reducing allied on the planet trying to restore the body diversity to restore the things like the arctic which we're obviously losing the arctic summer. Say we're losing right now. Everything has to be going back to trying to restore the stability of the climate that we have destroyed the holocene climate that we evolved out societies. And we've got a rebuild that frau societies be able to continue existing only once that realization hits. I think well anything be done. And in that case we are not going to be getting near ahead of it. We're going to be in catastrophe. Catch up mode. I want to say it happened as soon as possible. Just said we reverse direction before it gets even worse. What about this sort of like liberal optimists would say well. Nuclear power and carbon sequestration and other technologies that can address some of these things without the sort of like extreme austerity regime. That you're describing. I assume your skeptical of those paths like i. I'd like to hear why. I mean to two reasons. First of all was the engineers for this. I have a lot of engineers on my patriot. Website and some of them have totally pro saw in some titling prior nucle- and i've come out in a balance of saying yes. If we had a well-designed energy system we'd have both nucle- things like thorium reactors rather than uranium but those and and lots of solid power and wind as well the the reality is we haven't produced one thorium reactors since the very first on done before america scrapped the thorium for uranium reactors. Because that way you could make nuclear weapons so we simply don't have the technology l. The engine is able to produce them as rapidly as we need to. And then is your. It's actually easier to produce the solo pow because it you know the sullom as we can make the civil sills out of the factories the work of installing them as trivial compared to the work of building and installing authority nuclear reactor so in that sense i say solar is a more immediate way of addressing. Now need to get away from call but the trouble is. It isn't just carbon dioxide the hull thi- some carbon dioxide actually says to some extent the climate change trivia lock bowen lomborg and not house and all that bulb because leaving out things like our impact on biodiversity. Now you might. You ended up saying this segment recently on of snot ocean snort off the coast of turkey huge disturbance to the by the biological patents in one of the the ocean of the between the mediterranean and the black say and this is the sort of damage we're doing by the run offs. We have the fertilizer runoff. Also putting into the ocean. The way we're wiping out spacey's that blah of snort is in some places. Apparently up to a gun made a thick and means that any fisherman stav lose oxygen and we're going to have mass dolls so it isn't just the common isn't just the energy issue it's hall pressure putting on the boss baby and we have to restrain ourselves in wise that humanity in general it isn't just under capitalism humanity generals never practiced restraint. And until we do. We're not gonna have a sustainable future on the planet. sorry. I have one more question based on that but a big part of our conversation has been. How do you change attitudes whether it's towards fiscal capacity and the deficit or towards climate change or towards the relationship between capital and labour. What do you think is needed to change or to shake up classical economics and maybe changed the way Economists are viewing a lot of these issues. I think economists law schools franklin was once you believe this stuff. it's it's a self contained belief system and this is not just critical of economists. It's something about humanity as well max plank. Who's the guy who discovered quantum mechanics spa solving what was called a black body. Radiation problem using complex mathematics. He realized part of the solution involved as you being discreet. Coming in what we now call quanta rather than being continuous. Which was the assumption of the maxwell alien physicists that he was rice southern all these colleagues when maxwell leeann physicists now he tried to persuade his fellows that you know they had to think of energy and describe units of quanta rather than being smooth and they simply couldn't do it and he finally right a wonderful languages. Summarize by saying science advances one funeral at a time did that works in sciences because the experiments that proved that the maximilian thing didn't work. You can do that as experiments. Thank at exactly the same results you can reproduce. What's odd is back. Then defined the alterior dozen work and so when students come in. They've what these professors who is still taking on the old stuff but these students are aware that the alsop dozen solve this new problem and so when the professors get to go to replace themselves. I retire or they die. They've got behind us. Students as staff students a dedicated to the new wu thinking that's why sohn's progressives one funeral at a time but an economic she can have across the great depression and you'd becomes history. Nobody knows about it. You can't reproduce the great depression. I we have the great recession yukon reproduce that and see whether a post approach would have worked better than a classical approach so we tend to forget history with get the experience we've done in the real world in which we live and then new people come along and get toward simul neoclassical. Lot and the the neoclassical vision is a beautiful vision of the ethic of antica society with no power corrupt everything. And where there's no need for government is all done by the markets all nas anonymous and egalitarian and that is such a seductive. Vision that these nerds. Come along and full for this stuff in reproducing. It again. You can't get rid of them so i sigh. Economics does not progress one funeral. At a time we have to replace it. Lock stock and barrel an. I'll be sending these economists off to go plan true somewhere or maybe teach if you mathematics classes history students rather than you do. You can't convince them you can't convert them over the last people to realize the world is change. Well professor king an absolute pleasure. Speaking with you thank you so much for coming on odd. Lots and really fascinating conversation. So thank you thank you for the on. This wasn't got a bit hairy. It didn't get harry now. That was great. It really good. Yeah it really good. Thanks so joe really fascinating conversation and there are so many bits and pieces to pull out of it at one thing. I really likes well. In addition to professor qian's emphasis on the physical which again has been one of our themes for this year. This idea that economics actually doesn't do a very good job of taking that into account. But i really liked the distinction between public and private debt. And if you just look at the way the world works. It's absolutely true that like classical economic seems to put much more emphasis on public debt than it does private debt. Like even if you look at the european union and things like the master treaty like that is all about constraining government debt and doesn't say anything about private. It's incredible how backwards so many people's intuitions are about our man. I mean it couldn't be more spot on there so much as you say the measure tree embedded in the law this idea that like the public debt specifically must be contained so much you know fear mongering about like a fiscal expansion and having to pay for it etc. It's almost like it's it really feels like it's one hundred eighty degrees backwards when you look at you know any crisis how often it originates in the banking system the private sector household debt. It's so forth. It's kind of like amazing. how consistently back. How totally backwards. A lot of people's intuitions are about this totally. And i'm just thinking back to spain during the eurozone crisis. The problems were entirely on the banking slash private debt side and meanwhile the eu is sort of wringing its hands over government debt ratings and things like that and fiscal austerity. It's i kind of wish. I'd known of professor hans work back in two thousand twelve like that would have been really helpful framework for actually viewing the eurozone crisis hundred percent. And like you know. I really think i've said it many times. It's so like. I do think that within sort of look more like intellectual economics economic circles there does seem to be a certain sneering accounting That's just like what the person had the back office. Does he like balances books. But it's consistent who is it. A stephen clapham clam. We talked to like so many of the most interesting conversations. We have our rooted in accounting. I wanted to just you know going back to like the the climate portion. Because it's really interesting. Like i do feel like there is a lot of like i would say gam- sort of liberal climate optimism that it's sort sorta like we can get to want green new deal. Green new deal implies a new deal. Everyone is jobs sort of a message of abundant green. We can do it in a way that You know environmentally friendly and professor king's message is at this point. And i think you know no one wants to hear it and i don't i don't know i don't have an opinion whether it's right or wrong but no one wants to hear that essentially like the only message like a str- extreme austerity is the answer to the to ecological crisis. Well it's again like sort of totally at odds with classical economics which is all about economic growth and then suddenly switch into well actually in order to save the planet and ensure that we all survive in the long run. Ha ha ha You have to restrain economic growth. Like i don't know and yet you kind of made this point but yet people people seem comfortable sometimes or at least in classical economics. People seem comfortable with the idea of fiscal austerity in order to preserve the budget and yet like there seems to be a lot of difficulty with the idea of fiscal austerity in order to save the planet and preserve the planet just sort of consumption austerity more broadly. It's like fiscal expansion. Consumption austerity at loved And again i thought it was very interesting. Phraseology or characterization like neoclassical economics as actually like a defective form of like anarchy. And i hadn't really thought about that before but if you're sort of like assumption is that in the sort of like the natural state of nature is for things to come into balance right to for things that come into balance that two lines intersect on a chart and there's the price and if we just let that happen then everything balances out. We just sort of like what neoclassical. Economics is rooted in these assumptions of equilibrium. But that is also like implicitly anarchist because then the best the government can do at that. Point is create distortions and create or maybe necessary but unfortunate distortions in what would otherwise be perfect harmony is sort of this very interesting anyway. I'm fascinating provocative Conversation with professor can yeah absolutely. It reminds me a lot of that. The anarchy point reminds me a lot of that quote about you know things fall apart. The center cannot hold okay. Should we leave it there. Let's see there all right. This has been another episode of the all thoughts podcast. I'm tracy alloway. You can follow me on twitter at tracy alloway and i'm joe weisenthal. You can follow me on twitter at the stalwart. Follow our guest. On twitter steve keene. He's at proft steve. Ken follow our producer. Laura carlson she's at laura. Carlson followed the bloomberg podcast. Francesca levy at francesca. Today and check out all of our podcasts on twitter at bloomberg onto the handle at podcasts. Thanks for listening. This sustainable business summit global will be held july thirteenth and fourteenth themes include the road to net zero the financial cause for sustainability and the snes g with influential speakers from morgan stanley salesforce cisco bp unilever nissan and more global advisor in texas investment managers summit advisors p. w. c. rbc schlumberger j. whip pro supporting sponsor principal financial group register at bloomberg dot com slash sb s global slash radio.

treasury Us providence government bank of england krugman tracy alloway joe weisenthal palsson european union molin Commas government komag richard vague steve keen
Bjorn Lomborg on the Costs and Benefits of Attacking Climate Change

EconTalk

00:00 sec | 2 years ago

Bjorn Lomborg on the Costs and Benefits of Attacking Climate Change

"The. Welcome to econ talk part of the library of economics and liberty. I'm your host Russ. Roberts of Stanford university's Hoover Institution. Our website is econ- talk dot org. Or you can subscribe comment on this podcast and find links and other information related to today's conversation also find archives. We listened to every episode we've ever done going back to two thousand six or Email addresses mail it. He contact dot org. We'd love to hear for. Today is April sixteenth twenty nineteen and my guest is democ and author. Bjorn Lomborg his books include the skeptical of our medalist and cool. It is the president of the Copenhagen consensus center. Our topic for today or the costs and benefits of attacking climate change beyond welcomed econ, talk, Russ's, great beer. Let's start with your assessment of the risks from global warming. How serious a problem, do you think it is? So I think the first thing to really realize is that I'm not talking about this as me, I'm simply trying to take some of the best people who've been working in this typically with the UN climate panel. So when you're asking me, what is my assessment, I'm simply answering. What is it that the UN climate panel is telling us because I'm just working in economics. I'm not the science guy who's been looking at this list, lots of economists who ballooning at this what they find is global warming is a problem is not the end of the world by two thousand and seventies, the net impact of global warming will be the equivalent of somewhere between zero point two and two percent of GDP. So it's the quivalent of probably one recession of the next fifty years by the end of the century, unmitigated global, warming might cost somewhere between two and four percent of global GDP. Remember by then will probably be somewhere between five and ten time. Times richer. So after thousand percent increase will still have to pay two to four percent. That's certainly a problem, certainly not the end of the world. A lot of people though, worry about a worse case scenario. There's increasing concern about extinctions among young people, there's a number of movements, as I'm sure, you know, in the in the United Kingdom trying to mobilize non violent protests that recently reserve in parliament. Those were you at all those issues, the possibility of a of more drastic impact. Well, I mean, I think there's two things that we should look at when we, when we think about, you know, really bad outcomes. So the, the very far out tail probabilities, one is to remember that any realistic policy that we're going to embark on, on the next fifty years will have a trivial impact on climate change. And hence also attributed impact on the risks of these tail events. So in reality, a lot of people seem to be saying, I really really really worry about this far out thing that could happen like extinction of some sorts and therefore, I'm going to pursue very costly, but incredibly ineffective policies that just singly seems contradictory to me, if you actually worry about the really far out tail events, you should be focusing on policies could actually help you with those events the only way to have. Conscripting pact on climate change is going to be through ju- engineering. Now, it's important to say, I'm not advocating during during I am advocating that we should look into June joining essentially putting sunshine on the planet if you will, it's hard officially manipulating the temperature of the planet so that it cools down. We know you we can do that, because volcanoes do it back in nineteen Ninety-one Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, emitted so much selfish oxide from one volcano that reduced temperatures about one degree Fahrenheit for about three years so you can these global temperature. So you can definitely do this kind of thing that is your only real way of avoiding dramatic battle comes the other part of the conversation. And the other thing you need to remember, if you really worry about bad outcomes, surely, you don't just worry about bad outcomes from global warming. You worry about bad outcomes, from a wide range of other. Issues. And I would still argue if you worry about battle comes from club warming, you should worry about a lot of other bad outcomes like terrorism, like, bioterrorism, certainly, the issue of, of a, an asteroid killing off large parts of the planet, which we know can happen and many, many other things, and Richard Nord house, which will probably talk about later. Sorry. Bill Nord house, a professor at Yale University and got the Nobel prize in climate economics. The only economist to get that he's actually written on this, and one of his points was, we actually do have a reasonably good estimate of how much is worth for most people to secure the planet because back in the early two thousands Naza was looking at should we protect the planet from asteroids, shoot. We look for near earth objects might hit the planet. These. Are basically extinction events in these real extension of wins. We know that they've happened before probably have about a risk of one hundred million years, so not a high risk by any means, but certainly terrible outcome. They could track either ninety percent or ninety nine percent of these earth. Objects and the extra cost of tracking. The nine percent was not very high yet, congress decided not to spend that it was a couple of billion dollars safe enough of that very. Well, it very clearly tells you that we actually put a price on human survival. And when north house dosa calculation it shows that we care somewhat but not all that much about the planet. So in that sense if you worry about extinction events, which I think very, very unlikely in, in, in climate, you should certainly also worried about it in the many other areas, where it's much more likely, and where we also don't seem to be spending three sources the last bit that I'm sure we'll talk about later is the fact that human beings are incredibly good at damping. Too many of these issues, which is probably one of the reasons why you really don't need to worry all that much about the far out of the far tail probabilities. So I'm a little bit skeptical that actually quite a bit scepter. I don't think we want to use the unwillingness of our bizarre and imperfect by definition political system to decide how we whatever that means feel about say extinction of the earth. Why would you wanna use that as a basis for, for how much we should actually care about or how much we actually care about this revival, the planet, I, I guess, I think I'd go to ninety nine with you on that. I think we're on the same page there. I'd want the ninety nine percent of the object still looked at. And I guess the question is what in the worst case scenario of of global warming? Is there a policy that would be affective as you point out, doing something just to do something that just impoverishes us without reducing the risk would be a mistake? But are there other things we can do? Maybe in the generic failed to be funding very. So russia. Absolutely right. Just because you don't worry in one case doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be worried in general, I was simply pointing out that we make these decisions, a lot of different places and pointing out that we should be different, only in climate, not all the other areas, seems to me to be inconsistent and it certainly is not consistent with human behavior. And I think a large part of that is because we've actually over the last five ten thousand years, succeeded pretty well, simply because we said, we'll handle stuff when it happens that does not seem like an intellectually, very satisfying decision. But it turns out that it very often works if again, you actually want to protect yourself against runaway global warming of some sorts, the only way is to focus on Jerry generic and just to give you one example. And again, I think it's important to say we should not be doing this now partly because global winds just not nearly enough of a problem and also because we. I need to investigate a lot more. What could be the Batum pacts of doing Jerry Janine. But we know that white clouds reflect more sunlight, enhance cool. The planet slightly one way of making a white clouds is by having a little more see salt in over the oceans, stirred up. Remember most clouds over the oceans, get produced by startup see-sawed basically wave action. Putting see-sawed up in the lower atmosphere, and those very tiny salt crystals act as nuclei for the clouds to condense around the more new client. There are the wider the cloud becomes, and so what we could do is simply put out a lot of ships that were basically, Chuck up a little bit sea water entirely natural process, and build more white clouds estimates show that the total cost of voting all global warming for the twenty first century would be in the order of. Of ten billion dollars. So remember, this is probably somewhere between three and four orders of magnitude cheaper. So typically, we talk about ten to one hundred trillion dollars of trying to fix global warming. This could fix it for one thousand one ten thousands of that cost. So surely, we should be looking into it. If for no other reason, because a billionaire at some point in the in the next couple of decades could just say, hey, I'm just going to do this for the world and conceivably actually do it. And then, of course, we'd like to know if there is a really bad thing that would happen from doing that. But this is what could actually avoid any sort of catastrophic outcomes, not just cutting carbon emissions through more Sola panels, which will in any reasonable estimate have a neck little effect of the next half-century. I'm gonna come into that a second but coming back to the stirring up the salt on the oceans. I, I wanna say there'd be a positive extra now they had I'd have. Better photographs. I love a cloudy sky, especially white clouds, relative to a clear blue sky. Just my taste though could be the other way around for somebody, but I do think as you point out. I think it's a wonderful opportunity for foundation or an extremely wealthy individual boasts to explore that option and generate some data perhaps on whether it work. Maybe it's not so feasible, maybe it would take rather Norma's number of, of ships, and it would have clogged the oceans in different ways and other shoe point anime about the respect so we didn't haven't thought about I don't know about, but. Well, I'm gonna come to other forms of reducing carbon second, but before we do I want to talk about the side effects of climate change. I think a lot of people. The reason I think there's an apocalyptic feeling among some, and I said, among the number of young people these days, especially who are very concerned about this. You know, they see a lot of trends, or at least they perceive trends that, that are learning. There is a feeling that I'll just pick a few, you can then decide which ones you want to respond to but. Sea levels rising sea ice is falling polar bears. Shrinking population wise, droughts are getting more frequent flooding as more frequent hurricanes, or more frequent intense hurricanes more frequent. To those were you, do you think they're true? So you actually have to go through one of h h one of its because some of them are true. So Segel's absolutely rising. This is a very predictable probably one of the best sort of indicators for global warming. And we're expecting by the end of the century that sea-levels will be somewhere between one three feet higher than they are today. But remember, this is not the end of the world. It's a problem, and it's a problem that we know very, very well, how to deal with many nations of dealt with Holland being one of the obvious countries. This is something that you can deal with very, very cheaply also remember lost one hundred fifty years, Segel's rose more than a foot, and yet, if you ask most people, what happened the last hundred and fifty years, they're unlikely to mention the fact that ceelo's rose as one of the century long important issues. It's absolute. Missed because we dealt with it because actually most buildings on the coast or close to the coast, certainly get rebuilt every hundred years. So it's something that you can very easily adapt to and something that we have very cheap technology to deal with about polar bears. It seems very unlikely that we actually have good data that pull a bears are decreasing. We've certainly seen a dramatic increase in polar bears from the nineteen sixties where we might have had about five to ten thousand individuals in the world today. We have somewhere between twenty two and twenty eight thousand many, many more polar bears. And there is no good evidence that they actually declining. There's no evidence that it's decreasing. But the important point here is this is mostly because we've been much better at actually stopping shooting, polo bears. But remember, right now, every year we still shoot somewhere between three hundred and eight hundred cola bears. So I mean if you want to do something. About pulling bears, there's much policy stop shooting polar bears. If you look at some of these other things you mentioned so droughts, actually, the U N tells us, there's low confidence in and the scale even of droughts. And for the US the US climate change science program tells us drops half for the most part, become shorter less free can and cover a small portion of the US of the last century. So we've simply wrong on droughts, again, in the future, there's possibly going to be more droughts, some places likewise for floods where actually not even sure globally, whether there's more or less floods, the UN climate panel tells us, they don't even know. They've no confidence in the sign of the trend. But certainly, the cost of US flooding has decreased over the last century traumatically. So it's probably decreased from sorry, typical cost back in. In around nine thousand nine hundred three was about two percent of GDP today that cost is about zero point two percent. So we've seen a dramatic decline in, in these costs. Likewise for hurricanes. We've actually seen fewer hurricanes hitting the US, not more. And again it's important because, as you mentioned, a lot of people have the sense that there's more and more hurricanes what they actually seeing. And I think this is important to sort of point, this at once again is more the CNN effect that we see more and more of every hurricane that happens. And so we get the impression that things are getting worse and worse. But really what we're seeing is. We're seeing more and more of it actually if you look at the continental land falling hurricanes in the US, both the all the hurricanes have been declining not increasing, and also the strong or the major ones that once a cat. Three and over have also been declining not increasing. And again, this simply bears, repeating we get the impression from media, that this is happening, more and more. But in reality, if you do the numbers, it's happening, probably less, and less certainly for hurricanes in the US. But the reality here is we're getting a very bad picture from media because we're only looking at how often do we hear about it? It's a little bit like back in the nineteen nineties, if you remember everybody talked about how there's more and more crime, while all the crime statistics actually declining. But we saw more and more of these stories about a person being raped or a home break ins, and all these terrible things happening, and they're really all true. But we're not gonna be able to make good policy decisions unless we actually look at the data and the data clearly told us back then we're seeing less crime, not more and likewise, what we're seeing here is typically that we actually tackle. Climate catastrophes better and better, not worse and worse, the union of concerned. Scientists climbs a quote recent research in this area suggests there has been increase in intense hurricane activity over the past forty years, they can see. It's hard to measure. I'm sure they had to do some statistical analysis to figure that out and try to isolate certain kinds are canes, but there are some data points are not as cheerful suspect as the ones you're summarizing. Do you think that's true? Yes. So you can definitely argue that there's been an increase of the last forty years that's partly because you're starting in a low impact and you're ending up in a higher impact, y'all. So looking at data set that we know is terribly skewed because at I forty years ago, we had very little satellite information. So you missed most of the major hurricanes whereas now you get every little hurricane delivering. And that's why there's a very good argument land falling. Hurricanes is much harder to miscount, and that's why that's my preferred message. But the reality here is much more importantly, to recognize that it is very unlikely that we're seeing a dramatic increase. We've seen a small decrease in land falling hurricanes, but it's very unlikely that we're seeing a major increase in any of these impacts. And certainly, if you look at it from the account of how much does this cost society, we have seen a decline in all the matron pacts on US flooding and hurricanes, and certainly if you look globally on all weather impacts, you've seen a decline in cost from about zero point three percent to now, down to zero point two five since nineteen ninety of less thirty and that's worldwide where you talk about how it's a beautiful. Chart climate related deaths over the less century of have plummeted, and regardless of what's going on in the climate could be getting worse, actually. But could have more hurricanes could have more droughts, more floods. And we still have a lot desk because we've adapted we're richer. We have more air conditioning to deal with hot weather. We have stronger buildings because we can afford to make them stronger to deal with flooding hurricanes earthquakes, and so on. Yes. And whenever I show this graph people just astounded. It's from the international disaster days base, which is the best database that we have it certainly is under a percenting the impacts in the early years of last century, simply because there's less data gathering and yet what it tells us in the nineteen twenties, on average every year, half a million people died from climate related deaths like floods droughts storms while fire and extreme temperatures to day despite the fact that the world has quadrupled in population since then the number is down to about twenty thousand people a year, so ninety five percent reduction every year. And as you quite rightly mentions this has very little to do with climate and everything to do about higher living standards, the fact that we pull so many people out of poverty, because one of the worst things. That can happen to you. If you're in a catastrophe is that you're poor. Because then you can't adapt you will live in a shantytown, you'll have corrugated roof over your head. And then when a hurricane hits, it's going to hit you dramatically. That's why when a hurricane hits, Florida. Yes, it cost a couple billion dollars in kills a few people, but the same hurricane hitting say qu demolished will cost us third of their GDP and will kill tens of thousands of people and actually demolish their economy for years to come. So the real point here is to recognize that in any realistic world. We have become much, much more resilient to woods weather. And of course, that tells us something, it tells us if you want to help future people dealing with climate change. How do you best do that? You do that by cutting carbon emissions, and hence getting them a worse climate, but a slightly less worse climate in one hundred years, a worse. Worse economy. I think. No. I, I actually start if you cut that you also deliver a worse economy. But if you cut carbon emissions, you will still see carbon emissions, go up. You'll still see temperature go up, but not by sl by slightly less. So you'll have a worse impact on climate, but slightly less worse by the end of the century. So they'll still have too many of these problems. Or do you actually wanna pull them out of poverty, which will mean that they will be much better able to tackle anything climate throws out? Plus, of course hill, better for them in all other respects, they'll be less poor their kids will die less. They'll have better nutrition. They'll better schooling. All these other things that matter immensely. I'm always surprised, by the way that people were focused very much in climate really only the, the not that we can turn is the climate knob. We can cut competitions or not cut carbon emissions. But the reality of courses we can do a lot of different stuff, and we have to ask ourselves. Where can we if you will turn the knobs so that we help the world, the most not just where we turn the knob, so we cut carbon emissions because that's the only thing I care about that's a deep and. Often the, the absolutely right way to think about it, and let me push back on that formulation. With this policy, you're talking about in the United States. We, of course, are one of the larger being a rich nation with three hundred thirty million people. We put out a lot of carbon dioxide into the into the atmosphere, and we could change that in a variety ways the most obviously being a tax on carbon directly. We could also subsidize alternatives. We'll talk about that a minute that would perhaps reduce the brise or the rate of increase, or maybe actually decrease carbon emissions, and we can do that. Congress could do it tomorrow. But we are really not good at reducing poverty, and the rest of the world. I don't think we know much about that. So I have my ideas about how to do that better than than I think other. Techniques, but I could be wrong and the track records, really bad. We've spent a lot of money trying to fight privately legibly trying to fight it with very little impact. Yeah. So it's you're absolutely right. We could cut competitions a lot. But of course, the reality is, we haven't almost no state has done so very well, the obvious exception is the US, because you basically discover shale gas and that has caused a gas to be much cheaper than Kohl's, though. You switch from coal to gas, especially in the trinity production, that's cut carbon emissions more than any other nation of the last ten years. So, so. But obviously that had nothing to do with climate policy whatsoever. But there is actually a lot of ways that we can make people more resilient. Remember, it's not just about pulling people out of poverty, but just to address the poverty point very head on. We know one of the best ways to pull people out of poverty is by allowing them to get into the global marketplace. If we have more free trade, we could have much richer, much less poor. People around the world. We estimate that had we successfully concluded the Doha around. I don't remember you know, it's pretty much just dead. Now, but of course that was the big thing that where the world could actually deliver more free trade. We estimate had we just had a successful door around. We could have lifted a hundred and seventy million people out of poverty. We could mitt every person developing world about a thousand dollars richer per person per year by two thousand thirty. That would do an immense amount more good for the world than pretty much any other policy. You could imagine. But of course, nobody talks about that because there's way too many concentrated interest to tell you don't have free trade, you know, subsidize my particular thing. And there's very little general interest in focusing on free trade because, you know, the benefits spread so thinly, and they're mostly for people who don't have a strong voice in the community, but apart from all those, but apart from this very obvious. Policy. We could also be focusing on just simply getting better food, to, to, to people around the world, that would help them become richer by themselves simply because they'd be their kids would develop better, they'd be more Lert in school. They would learn more and they've become more productive as adults. We do that by France getting GM's GMO's out, but also much more on controversial. Just simply increase the level of investment in research development into yield increases which would deliver much more food per acre heck tar that you'd be covering, and there many, many other policies that we could do, like these that are just fairly cheap and incredibly effective. So, so, yes, I do take your point that we could do. See two missions. We haven't done it really neither in US congress anywhere else. And we could actually likewise beading some other policies, which by the way, we haven't done very well, either, but would be much cheaper much more effective. And help many more people much better. So I'm sympathetic the idea that this is not a apocalyptic crisis. It's just something to be concerned about that will probably adapt to with relatively low cost, but there are people who argue that, that there is this small risk of a catastrophic event, and that we ought to respond to that. And, and I think. I think it's really powerful to realize what you just said, which is, you know, we haven't done anything, really what has actually besides crate, a wad of income for people who write about it and to research, which is I'm not against that. I think we've learned something, but that, that's one of the impacts, but it's, it's striking to me that the decentralised bottom-up solution of shale and fracking is had the largest impact the political process is totally failed and it's not just totally failed. I think it's important to point out. It's totally failed in a median virement that is constantly beating the drum for what the risks are Hollywood is caused, only making movies about how creepy it is a number of prominent American politicians have have urged the ever GE urgent action. And yet, it's not just well we haven't. Bonded, as well as we could. I think we've kind of done nothing which should give one I think it pause. I think the one way to think about that is a worrisome possibility. Is that we as human beings are just not good at taking action that is going to have consequences that taking action to fix things that are going to for while. And as you point out, you could argue well way too late. Anyway, it's kind of late. I don't I don't think that's true. I think I think there are extraordinary things could happen. Many unforeseeable like like fracking certainly for seeing twenty five years ago by most people that if not everybody in, you know, maybe we ought to be putting some bats on some wildcard, engineering subsidies, some crazy, maybe giant prize for alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources. I mean things we should be doing, but even those are. Being done even those sort of. Oh, let's have this in our back pocket just in case. So as an observer, I'm tempted to say this is all just you are just race. Start time. Even talking about. But but I do I do find it. There is a possibility that we're just we just ever had sand even though I am sympathetic to your basic point. I think there's a number of correct point in the north house. Estimates that right now the world is implemented climate policies that are equivalent to having two dollars tax on a ton of CO two and remember most most a estimates would imagine that we should be up to say thirty or forty dollars per trying to team though. So lame. Those taxes are things like gasoline taxes that were put in place, fifty years ago for highway building, not not to global warming. Right. 'cause he talking on top. It's it's murky because honestly, we have done very little, I think it's marginal cost is what he is. He's the only guy who's, I guess, had the, the audacity to China, as this for the world, the OCD did an estimate of carbon taxes around OCD, and found that there are several thousands of CO two taxes on different fuels in different situations. Different policies there's all kinds of things. So, so the reality is, it's very, very hard test might, but you're absolutely right, mentally we've done very, very little on. The other hand is also important to say that we're spending a lot of money on climate policies. The EU is proudly saying that they're spending twenty percent of the budget on climate policies. The world is spending probably around one hundred fifty billion dollars in subsidies every year just on on solar and wind few. Other things. So I was decimated. We're doing something. Okay. Yes. So it's the good sense, the are we're spending lots of money, but we're spending where we know it'll have criticized the smallest impact, and that's what's really depressing about this conversation that two very launch extent climate is much more about you. People worry about Kobe coming to get them to feel good about themselves. See all these Sola pounds while we're really doing something. Whereas, of course, has negligible impact on the total temperature range as I pointed out, even if we stopped using fossil fuels, you would only really see the divergence in about half a century in temperature outcomes, simply because it's a very very in. I don't know how to put the system is very has a huge amount of inertia in it. So there's a lot of, of sort of trend in temperatures built into the system and in any realistic outcome. We're simply not going to make a difference before the end of the century. So that's why if you really care about things changing rapidly. The only thing you can do as ginger nearing, but more realistically, I think that the take home point from the fracking that we're just talking about this to recognize the idea of trying to do global warming by. Telling everybody, this is terrible. So could you please all do stuff that you don't individually want to do, that's going to be really, really costly? And as you could see Franson in France, if you just do a little bit of it, it starts losing you, you're majority, that is always going to be a loser, what you can do and what we should be focusing on, as much more getting policies that will actually develop technologies that market-friendly that people will want so a little bit like fracking, everybody would like to have cheaper gas in matching, if we could make cheaper Sola pounds, cheaper wind turbines. Keep batteries cheaper fusion, officiant, and these many, many other technologies. Imagine if we could make a green technology, so cheap, everyone would just by not because it was green, but simply because it was cheapest energy, then, of course we would solve global warming. That's why the only real way we're going to fix this problem is by coming up with a technology that. That is so cheap that everyone not just rich well-meaning Americans Europeans. But the Chinese the Indians, the south the Latin Americans this out, these Asians. The Africans will buy this technology that is lie. I'll research shows the best investment is by far to invest in research development of green energy because a huge underinvestment and this area just like there is many other areas. This is a market failure. You don't invest in these technologies because it's very hard to reap the long term benefits or at least the full long term benefits from private patent, because that patent will have run out by the time that will actually have a huge global impact, and so there's huge public benefit but not a private benefit. That's why we should spend much more money but still much much less than what we're spending climate policies in investing in research development. Both make the world a safer place for climate Hannah be much cheaper and much better. And also, hey. Give us better energy technologies. Isn't that were a lot of that hundred and fifty billion worldwide going, though toward subsidizing research and those green technologies you would imagine? But no, unfortunately, almost all of it goes to spending it on known inefficient solar and wind right now. We're putting a lot of it, and we need to subsidize it because it's inefficient now the -ffective putting up lots of it is that we give money to these companies that will then invest some of this money in research and development into making better. Next generation Solan win. That's great. But yeah, say we doing dollars if you if you spend that and that means those companies, spend five billion on research, developed, why the hell wouldn't we have spent the whole hundred fifty billion on the right investment, namely, the investment in research development? And also remember, they're only going to be spending unav- Asian that they know they can mantras in the next five years. We need to spend it and away. They'll monetize it for civil human civilisation over the next fifty years. That's probably also somewhat different tack. What I really like about Bjorn is that you care about the numbers and a part of me recently got increasingly disturbed that we kind of spend too much time in the numbers because we tend to north things that can't be measured. But in the areas that we're talking about numbers captial lot of what we care about not necessarily in the magnitudes loss of life. And we can talk about cultural laws, which are these are hard to measure, but about people just say dying, and you have different ways to save people from dying. You wanna say more than fewer? That's the only part of the if all else is constant, that's the utilitarian a piece of me. And you argue that. We have lots of other things that people die from right now that are really we could do something about, and yet, we tend to focus overwhelmingly on climate change as the single most important environmental issue. It may not be. No. You're, you're exactly right. And I, I share with you. The idea that cost benefit analysis by no means perfect. It, it doesn't capture the everything. But again, I think of it more as a menu society. So basically, you know, we put on the prices and sizes what are you gonna get if you order this item on the menu, how much will it cost? What are the calories, what's the salt content? And, you know, the kind of guys who then you know, take a look over the menu and say, oh, you know what spinach is really cheap and it's good for you. You should eat that and you might not like spinach, and that's fine. But at least it's a good way to give you an indication of what works what is important? And certainly when you're orders of magnitude out, I think the numbers can definitely help you just to give you sense the Nord houses. I mentioned earlier, the, the guy who got the Nobel prize for climate economics. He's actually done a cost benefit analysis and climate again. You can disagree with you can say, maybe he hasn't included. Everything. Certainly, tried to include also these far tails and everything he finds that what we should do is put a higher tax on Siu to them. We have today we should do that globally. If we manage to do this globally, efficiently that is coordinate a single carbon tax across all countries from China, and the US, and the EU Latin American African everybody else across the entire century, we can actually temperatures by more than one degree Fahrenheit. But remember that still means we're going to be seeing almost as much temperature rise as we would have seen had. We done nothing. And what he also shows is that if we do much more than that would pretty much all politicians talking about not only is it going to be impossible. The one point five degrees centigrade that everybody talks about is just not doable. But if we tried to just approach that with do policies, we're going to end up spending much much more money than the. Benefits where gonna create for future generations. And I think it's important to emphasize, the guy who got the Nobel prize in climate comics tells us, we should do more than what we're doing today. But if we do a lot more, which is what all politicians are king tour will actually end up making the world worse off. That's a bad deal. And that's something we should take care. Of course as you just pointed out. I'm gonna let me respond to that. And then you can add a what you're gonna say. I don't think everything that's important in that calculation is monetarily measurable. I don't think we get the tales right. I doubt he gets the tales right. And I guess, in the most sick, a trivial example, if we lost all the wildlife in the world, and let's, let's assume that has no impact on human wellbeing directly, but we just couldn't enjoy it and all we did was was destroyed the, the kill wildlife in the world. At let's say big, big fauna, that would be a tragedy that I would have trouble putting a monetary value on. It's kind of, like Kylie Notre Dame the cathedral, which which tragically burned down yesterday to the ground. Some that was saved. It can probably be recreated in some fashion, maybe quite accurately, by the way. Be really interesting emotional question. Whether a replica of the spire will be is. We'll be okay. Well, that, you know, especially if you're if you're Catholic if you're French person is that going to be an acceptable change. And, you know, I don't don't know the answer that, but I wouldn't want to just say, we'd look at at the monetary cost of that of that repair to be the effect of the fire. So there's some there's some things here. That can't be quantified in my climb claim is thing even though I like your menu argument and I made it my self for many years, in defense of cost-benefit when things aren't on the menu. It's really hard. Remember him and just just mentioned that. Oh, sure. And look, I think just on your precise argument on losing all, all wildlife all other species, that just seems, you know, partly, I just can't see any mechanism by which we would. Actually see that happening. But also, again, if you actually want to conserve wildlife, it's the pricing that most people are talking about global warming. Whereas, of course, the real impacts are the fact that we're using a lot of land for human aquiculture, one of the ways that we could avoid that is by making aquiculture, more efficient. So we would use less of it. That's what happened much of the rich world. And that's what we need to happen in, in the poor world. It's about invasive species. It's about setting side of places to, to protect some of the things that we really care about those of the FEC to policies and we know those affected a much, much more effective. So, again, even if you care about some of these things, I think you really have to look hard on, whether you're getting your value also in terms of species from climate policies, but let me just because as you as you also alluded to one of the things that we tried to do with Copenhagen consensus, which is a think-tank get together. A lot of the world's. Economists to look across a wide range of areas and say, what are the cost benefit analyses for all these different things that we could do. So basically make the menu for, for humanity. Where can you spend it all and do the most good? And what we try to find as there some amazing things can be done. And there's a lot of pedestrian things. And there's also a lot of really stupid things, but we don't actually work all that harden on finding them because there's still a lot of amazing things that we want to emphasize, so just to pick off a few of those, which you, rightly talked about that are just about saving human lives expanded, my sation. We know that for about a billion dollars. The world could save about a million kids every year, that's a thousand dollars per kid, we estimate that every dollar spent will do sixty dollars of social benefits. That's an amazing thing to close to particular is sort of the forgotten disease. Everybody to talk about HIV or malaria to Berkeley, actually the. World's leading infectious disease killer, and we've known how to fix it for one hundred years. So the reason why we don't spend that much money is because it's snow boring news. But the reality is, we could save so many people with very little cost that we estimate that every dollar spent would do forty three dollars of social good. Likewise. There's many other things you can do with, with a better better heart attack medication. We know that, that works very well in the rich world, get that out too much of the poor world and you could do amazing amounts of good. But, and this is important we also try to look at a lot of things that don't specifically involve making people, not lose allies, because as you point out there many other benefits, obviously, the, the free trade point that I made with the successful, Doha around would be an amazing achievement. Basically, we'd have to pay off rich western farmers, but we'd create immense social benefits. For the rest of the world. We estimate every dollar spent with Pap stood two thousand dollars of social good. But also we look at, you know, universal access to contraception about two hundred fifteen million women still don't have access to contraception if we could get that probably cost about three point six billion dollars a year. We could have these women mostly have kids when it fits in there in the time schedule. So they simply plan, their kids better, typically that also means you space them better. That means your kids, don't die as much it means moms, don't die as much childer. So we actually made it would save about a one hundred fifty thousand kids women from not dying about six hundred thousand kids from not dying, but it would also generate more economic growth because it be more capital per kid, they'd be more taking care of these. Learn more in school so on. So you get a demographic dividend every dollar spent here. We'll probably provide about one hundred twenty dollars of social benefits and just one more thing, we talked about attrition earlier on, we know from early experiments back in the sixties, if you get kids, good nutrition, their brains develop more. So when they go to school, even if it's a crappy one they will learn more in that school. And when they become adults they'll be more productive. They'll actually be surprisingly more productive. They'll avoid a loss of income of sixty six percent. So we actually estimate for every dollar spent on early childhood nutrition, you get forty five dollars back. Also have coral reef loss. For instance, as we talked about protecting some of the things that we care about because they're beautiful will not only mean that they'll be more beautiful places for you to visit, but also mean that they'll be more fisheries. There'll be more employment. They'll be more sustainable tourism. We estimate every dollar spent on on protecting. Core Reese will produce twenty four dollars of social good. So. There are lots of this. We actually have a whole list of this, and we have a huge book and all that stuff. You can look at it on our web page cook maiden consensus dot com. But the truth is that lots of great investments where you can spend a little bit of money and doing amazing round good. And that's why I'm so concerned about the fact that we almost only talk about the policies like climate and few other policies that cost an enormous amount of money and does very little good. Because at the end of the day, I think when people look back at what we did fifty years from now, they're not going to say, oh, wow. They talk really beautifully about these problem. They're going to say that they actually fix problems that were relevant for me. And the answer is we can do a lot better than what we're doing right now. So I'm very skeptical. But all that. I, I, I salute your, your desire to improve people's lives and I, I support your attempts to try to quantify those gains just to take one of them obvious to me that let's say providing free food just to be to be dramatic to people around the world if we do that, which can't, but if we could we subsidised American farmers, and gave away an enormous amounts of food to the poorest, people in the world, they'd have our food, but we do some things to their local Connie's that are given that they're not as dynamic their labor markets understand amick. That might not be so good for them. And I have similar thoughts about even even things that invader of getting rid of debris closes and other forms of health improvement. I'm all in favor of those. I think they're, they're wonderful, but in terms of measuring them, you know, if you if you start changing people's health. And giving people access to contraception obvious how those things are in Iraq. They're not gonna probably have the same number of kids as they had before quality life. Probably be better. That gets don't have to not as many would die but you're gonna change the birth. It's gonna it just. It's very complicated. It's all, I'm going to say some all in favor, though of, of health opportunities, but I do think it's important to think about what we can do to help other people who are poor helpless, selves and minimize what we do to and encourage what they can do for themselves. Our attempts to do things for them are presumptions that they don't know how to do certain things are often wrong while the times, the choices they make it look stupid us turn out to be quite smart. We just don't have all the information. So I just would counsel some humility there. But I actually would but I also can I just sorry. Can I just because I think it's important to have that compensation and. And just on a few of these things, Princeton's it'd be terrible. If what we did was we subsidize a lot of American farmers. We sold a lot of these food in the local market, destroy the agrarian economy to help more more kids, being well, nourished. But fortunately, that's not what we're suggesting there's a number ways that you can do, the very, very effectively, for instance, by getting micronutrients into fortified week and flower of if it's rice or whatever it is that is being used in this local economies. So that's basically about subsidizing very, very small bits because for each individual flour mill it costs, a little more to put this fortification, but will actually help immensely when when you look at a giving out food. You're absolutely right. If you just try to give out food that's typically very expensive and doesn't work all that. Well, one of the ways you can do that is by getting out. More information because much cheaper. We know that a lot of people underestimate, actually also in the US elsewhere, but it's less of problem, partly because of fortification but getting the information out that it's incredibly important that your kids, eat, well, the first two years, that's very cheap. And we'll give them a huge opportunity in the future, as you as you point out, this is not about doing helping them in all their ways. It's about allowing them to help themselves better. But one of the ways that we right now see a lot of people around the world. A lot of kids around the world, they're stunned, which is a good indicator. They're basically shorter than they should be for the age. And the reasons that they permanently had a little bit too little and a little bit, too poor food to eat that basically means that for the rest of their life. They are stuck in a lesser ability of doing what they could have done. Well, so it's really about making sure that they can do the full opportunity. And we know some of these things we should absolute. Be looking at exactly how do we do that? We can do it in a way that helps them a lot with very little impact. So absolutely, we shouldn't just be barging in there, but there are really smart things that we can do that would have huge impacts. It's fairly low cost, I'm gonna I'm gonna tap into my internat- tala and employed out that fortifying things with special with GMO's may have unintended consequences down the road but hard to know. I do think so I was not suggesting for defying it with Jim owes, but just we know fortification we're doing that in many places in the in the Veld world, you're certainly most people doing it themselves by taking vitamin pill. So, for instance, sink an iron about two billion people lack iron. And it simply makes him less vigorous than they would otherwise have been and just simply providing ironist probably one of the cheapest and most effective things that we could do the world. And one of the ways we can do that by fortifying flower. We've done plenty of places as absolutely no issue. That would be dangerous. But we do know that would avoid anemia, and hence, make people more productive. It might be true in that case, I guess the other issue, which. I'm on easy about is. In the phrase, what we know we don't know much about nutrition. We have a very mixed record of having elite scientists Tristesse tell us what good for us now. I think there are some basic things we do know. And I think you're hundred percent right. That there are tragically children growing up in poverty everywhere, in the world who don't get a chance to thrive flourish, the way they could if they add a different a different diet, but I'm always a little uneasy with the top down approach because Ross one story get in the game. Limit just tell you a story that I think is amazing everybody ought to know this one back in the late sixties early. Seventies, some researchers went to oughta Mahler in found to small rural villages nearby. So identical and pretty much all respects, and they gave one village that gave the kids their good food with pro. Outing the other one only shook a water. Now, obviously, he couldn't have got this past the, the ethical board today. But the amazing thing is that our researchers refound those kids back in the early knots. So when they were late thirties, early forties, and, you know, the this is about two thousand five hundred kids and you could totally tell the difference on the impact. So, again, this is not the kind of thing where we discuss, you know as as as, as calories bad for you, and as fat better than than sugar or whatever this is simply, we know that these kids had much lower chance of being stunned it. And on average these kids have better marriages, better jobs, if they're women, they had fewer miscarriages fewer kids crucially, if they avoid it being stunned. They had about sixty percent higher wages. So we know that's what the stuff that was telling you, this is the world's longest term studying. Of course you can't do this again today. But we have very good knowledge that it's just a better idea to get more protein than getting sugar water. And I don't think this is in any way surprising. So we're talking about that. I don't deny that. I think that's an inevitably true. I'd like see data see the magnitudes. But I think the question is, if you try to implement that on a larger scale no doubt protein when you're young better than not have Brody when you're young calories, even when you're young better than not having too many. But how to implement that how to make that happen as challenging? That's all. Yes, let's talk about your book, the skeptical environmentalist, I want I wanna go down memory lane for me and tell you a story about when I, I found that book the book came out, I think, in two thousand right? So I, I get the book somebody told me about it, and it's, it's you. Channel your books in the spirit of Julian Simon and others who have come in a contrarian way said that actually getting better in a lot of ways. And you did that in a very powerful way. It was a beautifully designed visual book. And I remember when I read it, it was electrified for me. I, I called a friend of mine, and I said. I look back on this with with some embarrassment. But I I'm just gonna tell you the. History. I said, we're gonna win and by what we I meant in win. I meant those of us who understand that. The world is really not nearly as bleak is that appears the date is just so overwhelming. And it was such a powerful visual and analytical attack on the doomsday approach. And in those days, I was an incredible Optimus and listeners are become less optimistic over time. I also believed that people are rational that when they saw your evidence they just go, oh, I was wrong. And I also saw that my side all the good numbers and the other side's numbers were all bad. So I've lost most of those views in the last eighteen years, but your book was a tremendous achievement and it was a, a really important call to the world to say you know it's true that can feel depressing sometimes. But there at least some numbers, maybe most of them that are pretty cheerful. And I, I you for that, and you took an enormous amount of flack for doing that. And I'm just like to get your oppression of what that book achieved and how it change your life and how you've dealt with the responses to it. Yep. You're absolutely right. I did this, this book, actually mostly for myself because I had, you know, the very standard, sort of western somewhat left-wing, worried Greenpeace kind of approach. Oh, things are falling apart. And things are getting worse and worse. And I was inspired to read the book. Exactly. Because I read an interview with Julian Simon who said, that's actually not true go and check the data. And that was basically, what this book was an outgrowth of check checking the data and realizing that on most of the important areas things are getting better as you say, yeah. There was a lot of flack and, and, you know, when I think back on it, sometimes downed I, I know that. Here in Denmark. We had a local editor of what you could recently. Call the New York Times of Denmark sort of slightly left leaning very reputable newspaper. He published the first articles with me and, and, you know, he basically said, if it I if I'd gotten the same kind of flack, I would not have been able to stand up, and I was always surprised about because he was really strong guy. He was very sure of his opinions and willing to take a lot of flack for for things. And I think what never dawned on me was that when people are, are sort of thrown off by people by other people saying, denouncing you and saying, how dare you write, these things, the only story that I've are here is the story that they apparently tell it at Harvard Business School, sorry, Harvard Law School, where they say, if you have a strong case pound the case, if you have a bad case, pound, the table, all I heard. People pounding the table. And it was never sort of. That's not an argument, you know, show me some numbers that indicate that this is wrong. And that's really the approach that I still have. And I think most pack Emmett's probably have to most issues, this is not a popularity contest. I don't care whether you like me, not I care whether you have better numbers that show something else. And that's why when when I talk back global warming, I think you just have to point out look it, it's a problem. It is by no means and no respect the end of the world. And this is asking how much can you do if we're going to spend a lot of extra resources is this really the place where we can do the most good just to give a sense of proportion, the pairs agreement which everybody at least in principle of signed up to in the world, and even the US signed up until two thousand twenty will cost probably somewhere between one and two trillion dollars per year and it will achieve at. Absolutely nothing. You won't be able to measure the impact in one hundred years. That is probably a pretty terrible wave spending about eighty trillion dollars over the next half century. So I would suggest that we should think about how we spend it differently. Now, if people get all pop apoplectic about that and say, you can't say that that's not allowed and we should be wearing much more about. Well, yeah. Good on them. I simply want to point out there. Good data, and some of the best economist, tell us their mazing places where we could spend money instead and that's what we should be doing. So my reaction from the whole skeptical. My medalists I'm very, very pleased. Thank you very much for that. You have enjoyed the book. I'm a little disappointed that you might have given up on a lot of these these, these point. So because if we look at the general issues that really matter for people that is how much how long you live. And how much income do you have? And what's the state of your environment? Those are typically some of the three best indicators of what is the welfare of human beings? They're pretty much all increasing. They're all getting better. Now, we could still wish that they were getting even better, and I'm trying to point out that we waste a lot of money undoing bad policies. But overall despite all this. Inefficiency we're still getting better. And so a Mike Michael here, life is not contesting that simply about trying to make us slightly better than what we're doing right now which is pretty damn good. Yeah. The reason I'm passed, by the way. Pessimistic, isn't because I think the trends of changed, I think all those trends. They're better. I think human wellbeing material terms of, standard of living is extraordinarily better than it was seventeen years ago eighteen years ago. And that's despite the worst recession of of our lifetime. It's you know, enormous numbers of people have been lifted out of poverty, and China and India and elsewhere Africa in America, despite the claims of others. I believe that the average person's doing a lot better people still fight and risk their lives to come here to be in America. 'cause I think they realize correctly that their lives will be more. The flourish more here. So I think that's all true. I think I think we live longer, quote, except for the opioid crisis for, for, I think it's women, but we've lost something there. And in terms of the environment. Most of, you know, the air is, is cleaner in almost in again, in the developed world and improving in the developing world. But in the developed world. They're such improvement in places like Los Angeles through, both government regulation, and private, ingenuity, and in terms of fishes improvements in, like fracking, that we're talking about or finding ways to produce say soda cans with less aluminum and incredible things, creative people. Do we have more far? We have more forest the, the air is, is cleaner. It's our waters cleaner. Now. It's true. The temperatures getting a little bit warmer. It may get warmer still and that is something to be worried about, but overall human wellbeing is, is fantastically better. And yet, those are on the things that we can measure that I'm not gonna say we should measure them. I'm not because they don't matter. They matter a lot, but they're not the only things that matter, not just to pick on your for sex when you said the three things that contribute to human wellbeing. Our income life expectancy, and your, your physical environment. For sure. Those are all really important as are the connections, we have with others as are the feeling of mattering the feeling of dignity, the sense of belonging. A sense of connecting to other folks. Love all those things. I don't think we're doing so well on lightly now could argue what we don't know how to fix those. That's okay. Or you could argue you could argue that some of those gains have led to some of those losses and that we ought to be aware of those, and I think the natural tendency of condoms, I know the natural tendency of economists they say the way I the way as it is. There's no dignity is measured in the data set. So I can't I just I'm just gonna have to leave that out. But if you leave it out, and it's the most important thing you left out something really important. So I think the challenge for us as, as policy influencers are policy makers, or people, advise people in government is keep in mind that. What we can measure is in the whole story, and the human enterprise is rich and complex one, and our natural tendency is to not just say, well, I can't measure this. So I'll have to weigh that against which is what I say that used to say economists and I hear you saying are natural tennis to say, if I can't measure, I'm going to think about it. I know that's wrong. Intellectually rationally. I know that's wrong. But I think that's the human tendency. I'm increasingly concerned about that. So I think you both made a very eloquent argument for why things in general getting better. And I think you're absolutely right. That we should be concerned about all the things that we're leaving out as, as you also point out, we have some good technologies and techniques to make sure that we at least leave them out less. So, for instance, we did we did a lot of study in India on, on toilets which is big thing in India. And we tried to look. At what's the cost and the benefits of doing that, and wild things we kept hearing was, you know, there's a huge amount of dignity that goes into being able to go to toilet and set of city sitting outside, and defecating with others, especially for women. There's also some risk of rape, and all those kinds of things, but we also have a reasonably good estimate of, what people are willing to spend, and especially what they're not willing to spend so you can ask them and get a sense of how much is that dignity worth? But I absolutely agree with you, that when all things said and done, you can have pretty good, I sort of sense of what the menu is. But you have to remember that this is not the only thing but it certainly also is a big thing compared to what much of the conversation in, in the policy conversation that we have pretty much everywhere in the world. Seems to be much more directed by who had the cutest, animals or the most crying baby. So the best PR agency. And surely, that's not the way to do. So I smile. While we're still missing out something, and we have to work really hard and we'll probably never get all the answers having at least part of that dancer. And certainly having an order of magnitude is incredibly helpful instead of just being driven by this one story, or this one meaningful Meam, that seems to be driving. A lot of our conversations was closed with your assessment of how optimistic or pessimistic you are, you've been doing the Copenhagen consensus center for a little bit, not a longtime Erie ambitious, and I salute that, again, I salute your attempts to bring about better policy. Even if I may worry, sometimes it's a may have unintended consequences or be involved with some complex city across different policies when their combined, but you're trying to looking at the small stuff and. You should be. Outing for that. So the question I have is do you think you're gonna make a difference? So, so. Thank you. And, and yes, we have a little bit of impact, fundamentally a lot of things in the world are actually dealt almost outside of politics, you know, things. And how do you regulate your streets in your sewers and your, your international standards and all kinds of things happen sort of on the sideline? We never see it, and it's actually tangled pretty well are doctors keep on running hospitals and many, many of the things work and all of these things are helping us getting to better place. Now, then there's policy, which is often, of course about who gets what and, and to large extent. It's simply about if you get it, I didn't get that kind of thing. And you know, that's fair. And that's what politics is about. And there's no arguing on on on on the series distribution. But then there's some policies that we could do a lot better. I recognize that rational argument is. Never gonna help entirely with these issues. So, you know, when we look at this, we've done this couple of nations, for instance, we did it for Bangladesh couple years ago, where we tried to make a menu just for Bangladesh looking at where can you spend an extra their their currencies? Taka where can you spend an extra taka and do the very most good for Bangladesh's, obviously, they lots of different things we identified a lot of great ideas. And, and many of them just fell totally flat because they just not right there where the policy needs him a lot of policies that are not very effective. We'll still get an acted but we did do was we changed a few of those polishes a little bit. And so, you know, we have a saying. Yes, exactly. It's not about getting it right. It's about getting it slightly less wrong. And I think I'm actually helping with that. And, you know, for one little fish in this, the very, very busy, I'm pretty pleased with that. And I think that's the best contribution that you can do a few if you're not, you know, president and have nuclear weapons kind of thing, I guess, today has been Buren Lombard. Thanks for being part of a contact. Thanks a lot. This is econ- talk part of the library of economic liberty for Maury contact econ talk dot org where you can also comment on today's podcast and find links readings related today's conversation. The sound engineer recon talk is rich yet. I'm your host Russ Roberts. Thanks for listening talk to you on Monday.

United States Nobel prize UN congress Bjorn Lomborg Copenhagen Mount Pinatubo France United Kingdom Naza EU Russ Philippines Richard Nord Yale University president
A Conversation with America's #1 Futurist

Stansberry Investor Hour

1:03:05 hr | 2 months ago

A Conversation with America's #1 Futurist

"Broadcasting from the investor our studios and all around the world. you're listening to the stands berry investor our tune in each thursday on itunes. Google play and everywhere you find podcasts. For the latest episodes of the stands berry investor our sign up for the free show archive at investor. Our dot com. Here's your host. Dan ferris hello and welcome to the stands berry investor our. I'm your host dan ferris. I'm also the editor of extreme value published by stanbury research. Today we will talk with the one and only george gilder. I am so thrilled to have him here. He's forgotten more about technology and economics than most of us will ever learn. I can't wait to talk with him this week in the mail bag. It's a light mailbag. We got some kudos from listener bill. S and yet. Another crypto question. That will be answered by eric. Wade and remember. The mailbag is a conversation. So talk to me. Leave me a message on our listener feedback. Line eight hundred three eight one two three five seven and hear your voice on the show my opening rant this week. I'm going to talk about how we analyze. Stocks in extreme value for a very specific reason gets that and morph Right now on the stands berry investor our So i'm gonna talk right now briefly about how we pick stocks in the extreme value newsletter. Most of the time. I talked about this very sort of top down stuff. You know why the park it's gonna crash. And why i think. The level of speculative froth is just has reached absurd levels today but we just had a new presentation. That's going to be out in another week or so. So i want to get a little bit ahead of it here so in the next week. You know there'll be a presentation. i'll give you a link to it. But i'm really thrilled with it. Because yes. it's a presentation to tell new potential subscribers about our newsletter. Make him an offer. Okay but i'm really proud of it. Because there are two things in there. That i never thought i would get to do in those kinds of presentations. I never thought. I would get to talk about my five financial clues that i use as my primary screen to find new equity ideas and i never thought i would get to use the word value investing because people hear the word value investing and it just puts him straight to sleep. But you know. We did this presentation. And i talked about it and we made it more exciting. I think and i'm just really proud of that. After twenty years at this business. I finally get to you know sell the thing i do by actually talking about this thing i do and it's really exciting for me and i think it'll be exciting for everyone who gets to see the presentation whether you're by the newsletter. Not but i really want everyone to see the information in that presentation of basic league. The parts that. I'm talking about that. I'm really excited about our value. Investing is the first thing the idea that the most important thing you do when you buy stocks is understand what the value of that businesses most people go into the stock market in the. Here's something at a cocktail party them. No idea what the business is really. Who's running it where they're based you know where they're headquartered You know how much revenue they have whether or not. they're profitable or any of the five clues that i'm going to tell you about right now. They just you know. It's just like a gambling exercise. Well i say buying stock is is a stock is a part ownership in a real business and the five clues that i use to tell me. Help guide me toward the better businesses. The really good businesses are as follows. The first one the very first thing. I always look at this just a habit that developed over over several years i wanted to know they generated lots and lots of free cash flow because the value of business is based on all the excess cash. You're ever gonna take out of it for as long as you own. The business and really for as long as the business exists so i thought well if that's what the value is based on that you better darn well focus on businesses that generate plenty of it and that's free cash flow is after taxes all expenses all reinvestment necessary to maintain and grow the business. What the real cash profit that your leftover with is free cash flow and i like businesses. They'd gush free cash. That's number one number two is margins. And i like businesses with consistent margins in capitalism it's competitive and the tendency over time is for competition to win over those profit margins down and you know sometimes zero less so when you find a business that can maintain the same profit margin over long periods of time and it's the consistency not the thickness. You know like just at costco. You know it's like a consistent twelve ish. Thirteen percent gross margin a consistent. Maybe one and a half two percent ish net margin just year after year on average over time and i think that consistency shows that they're doing something repeatedly it. It repeatedly satisfies some desire in the marketplace. Something that the marketplace just feels like. It can't quite get somewhere else or even if it can get some of it somewhere else at wants enough of it from this business that that those margins can be maintained consistently the third one is just a good balance sheet and this is just like common sense right. I mean how would you feel if you had like a million dollars in debt and ten thousand dollars in the bag you wouldn't feel great and and your prospects you wouldn't be like financially safe at that point right you'd always have this thing looming over you. Well what if you had a million dollars in cash and ten thousand dollars worth of debt. You wouldn't care about the debt it would be meaningless because you can knock it out anytime you wanted right. So that's one kind of great balance. Company has a lot more cash than debt. Another kind is a business that you know I mentioned costco a moment ago. Something that just earns money so consistently you know. They're just crank in the cash flow out day after day week after week year after year decade after decade in some cases in many cases that we look at an extreme value that you know they they cover the cost of their debt. Like you know five six ten. I've seen twenty fifty times over some companies so carrying the debt is like you know. Maybe they don't actually have more cash on the balance sheet than debt. Maybe they have more debt. But it's because servicing. The debt is easy for them right so great. Balance sheet gushing creek cash flow consistent margins great balance sheet the fourth one. I call shareholder rewards. And i've changed my tune on this over the years. Shareholder awards are share repurchases and dividends. And and mostly. I thought well research shows that equity investors over the long term get like forty percent or more of their returns from dividends. So you know you'd better think about companies where the good dividend policy. But then you know. Warren buffett comes along and teaches us all that. Hey you know the best thing you could do is find a company that can just reinvest at a high rate of return on their money and not have to pay out dividends so that has actually led me to this idea that companies pay out. Dividends are exercising capital discipline. They're saying you know something. We can only reinvest so much in our business. Warren buffett has one hundred business as he can reinvest it so he can keep money around plus he's got reinsurance liabilities to worry about so he's gotta keep lots of cash around but other companies they only do one or two businesses so they can't you know the business grows and grows and then they can only grow it so much. They can only reinvest so much so they start paying out dividends regulate or repurchasing shares. And i think that is it. Shows capital disciplined. Really it. you don't want you know. Corporate managers are human beings. The money just burns a hole in their pocket the same way. Does you and me and everybody else right. Big sums of cash burn holes in your pockets as soon as you get a big stomachache. You're like oh boy. I could buy this buy that. Corporate managers are the same way. So you like it when they kind of keep the balance sheet not too bloated with cash and and pay out those dividends. So they're they're reinvesting enough in the business and the balance sheet is a good safe place like we said you know clue number three but you know they're paying out some cash to Just get rid of it really. It's discipline it's a good thing and finally return on equity return on equity if a business where a bank account return on equity is just the The interest rate you earn on all the money left in it right so and you'll hear monger and buffet charlie munger warren buffett talk about you know returns on capital returns equity whatever. And they'll tell you that over time over the long term returns are going to kind of converge to that number you know even if you paid up a little bit for the stock right because the business as long as it has its competitive advantage it can maintain what it's doing you know they're always going to be able to get a nice high return. You know a good business right. The ones that get nice consistently high returns like twenty percent and above on on the capital. They reinvest so. That's it gushing free cash flow consistent margins good balance sheet shareholder reward policy that that is that makes sense and consistent high return equity those are are five financial clues that we use. We also have something called price implied expectations model. That'll be another aunt for another day. It's a more complicated thing. But but there's the five clues. So i'm just gonna leave it at that because we have a great guest today and and before we get to him. I do in a quote from his his book. Twenty-first-century case for golden new information theory of money. That i want to talk to him about. And so this quotas from george gilder and he says wealth in its deepest form is knowledge. Wealth is created by the learning curves. That result from a million falsifiable experiments in entrepreneurship by economic actors in mostly free market economies. I love that quote because it gets to the core of things. I like it when somebody can get to the core of things. What is wealth bla-bla-bla. It's this it's that it's land. It's gold is what wealth is knowledge. Knowledge grows over time so humanity becomes wealthier over time provided we don't interfere with the market forces that that bring it all about and help create it. It's really it's a pity quote and and gilders pity guy rian. I can't wait to talk to in fact let's do that. Let's talk with the one and only george gilder. Let's do it right now. For the past few weeks. I've been urging my listeners to check out a presentation. Withstands berries lead crypto analyst. Eric wade and many of you have time is running out though so for those of you. Who haven't had the time. You'll have a small window to still watch the presentation while it's still available by going. Online to crypto cash twenty twenty one dot com. Why is the presentation so important. Well because eric believes there's a good chance you may never be able to get into bitcoin. Or other crypto opportunities. He's recommending at low prices. Ever ever again consider this upcoming catalysts that could send billions of dollars flooding into the sector if theory the second largest crypto in the world after bitcoin it's scheduled to receive a major update to its blockchain this week the update will overhaul and optimize a theory of networks transaction fee models and it could be a major bullish catalyst goldman sachs says if theory of could overtake. Bitcoin wouldn't be wild and that's not all former. Sec chair jay. Clayton is urging the sec. To approve a bitcoin. Etf well a bitcoin. Etf could give more traditional investors away to invest in bitcoin that they're accustomed to and feel comfortable with so pour money into it once again. This is the last time. I can share this opportunity here on my show. So for all the details go. Online to crypto cash twenty twenty one dot com. That's crypto cash. Two zero two one dot com. Today's guest. i'm very happy to say. As george gilder george gilders chairman of george gilder fund management host of the gilder qasem forum senior fellow at the discovery institute and a founding member of the board of advisors for the independent institute. He studied under henry kissinger at harvard. University he later pioneered the formulation of supply side economics chairman of the lerman institute's economic roundtable program director for the manhattan institute and frequent contributor to the editorial page of the wall street journal described as america's number one futurist. I'll have to ask him about that. Gilder is one of the leading economic and technological thinkers of the past forty years. He's written twenty one books including wealth and poverty life after television knowledge and power life after google and his latest were gaming. Ai why can't think but can transform jobs. George gilder welcome to the show. Were really happy to have you here. Great debate here all right. So i like to focus on the topic of money Specifically what what you've written about gold your case for gold in the twenty first century fascinates me. Because i've never heard anyone say these things about the value of money where the value of money comes from and specifically this idea of money as information and it fascinates me i to me. I always related i. I've always heard it related as well. The value of gold comes from simply from you. Know it's it's the cost of bringing this thing. And the capital investment of bringing this thing out from the earth you know it's relative scarcity in its other properties of divisible ity. And you know it's fungible. All gold is the same and so forth. You know these things right but you say that it's time to sort of upgrade and bring this thing into the twenty first century and that gold is information that money is information and gold is good form of money while while that's more or less right. Let me do my formula quickly for you. The key is that wealth is knowledge. And we know that. Because the as thomas soul told us back in nineteen seventy one the neanderthal and his cave at all physical resources. We have today every out. On the molecule. The entire difference between origin in the stone age is the accumulation of knowledge and a wealth is knowledge what is economic growth. It's learning and i've been an expert on learning curves for twenty five years or thirty years. Learning curves are the most thoroughly documented phenomenon in business strategy all consultancies baton on learning curves and learning curves are ubiquitous across the economy. Every from lines a software code to trucking miles to insurance policy dollars to transistors on microchips. Moore's law is famous. Moore's laws just another learning curve and the risen learning curves are ubiquitous across the economy is economic. Growth is most fundamentally learning if it's if new and new knowledge new information as not being accumulated there's no real economic growth you could have you could print money but you can't really learning and if growth is learning. Then what's what's money. Money islam measuring that is not a magic one for central bank. Says it's been used today. It's a measuring stick for value and it's ultimately like all other measuring sticks and suspended internationale and paris. From the grant to the malta. The loman to the abc here All these measuring sticks are ultimately based on a frequency time and money is ultimately time. Its token is tie. It's the way this twenty four hours a day immutable distributed all human beings Equally that money is ultimately time and When the central banks just want laid print money they're trying to steal from the future though steal from our children. they're stealing from our pensions. They're still in from our savings there depleting our future in order to pay off cronies and the president. That's essentially what's going on today. So how does gold fix that. I i know that's a very. It's a very basic question. It's asked over and over again. But but in fact both gold and bitcoin fix this do they not do they fix it. Besides by some other way than their scarcity the reason gold is has been prevailing money for millennia is the time to extract and then criminal and get of gold incremental troy ounce of gold has scarcely changed in a thousand years. You know in the days of man. The seven river could pan in good. Have gold today. You build Multi-million dollar factory over a mine over ten years with modern seismic and extraction gear and and you mind ever deeper loads the more capital you apply to it and so today it takes about the same amount of time to extract and criminal ounce of gold as it did a thousand years ago. Gold is money because it reflects the continuity and scarcity and infinitude of time and the reason. Bitcoin does not yet suffice. Says money is because it's capped. Gold is not tabbed gold. You can always mind more gold. You move from mining slag heaps to mining ever deeper loads to extracting gold from the seas to mining on the mon with ilan moss gotten in their goals is not capped and the great mistake that's toshi made when he Defined bitcoin a was an active genius sentence as a huge step forward. but the great mistake was to caps. and if you cap money then The price of money changes with the demand for so it's not a measuring it. It becomes a volatile speculative asset. And that is what. Bitcoin is it useful and it can be Haven of value asset but essentially. It's a speculative asset and goal as remains. The only money i think digital money is going to emerge from the current currency efflorescence. They're gonna arrive at an uncapped of form of money can accommodate fractional reserve banking. That can respond to the real need for more money for vast but not by changing the value of the measuring stick but by increasing the volume of money. This is what milton. Friedman never really understood he and As a result a we've had just tremendous confusion over the nature of money over the last thirty years that hasn't been discussed appel to this day. And which is embodied bitcoin. And many of the other cryptocurrencies. They think scare city is a crucial factor. But it's it's not scarcity you want. Its accuracy you want an accurate measuring stick that response to the the actual resource that remains scarce when everything else grows abundant namely the passage of time. And yet and yet george. It sounds like you're telling me you know the created scarcity from bitcoin being the problem that that scarcity it's relative because you you refer to the infinitude before you you talked about scarcity finito together. Yeah that's that's the paradox of money right it's gotta be it's scares but it's also alleged infinitely into the future and time as what it has to partake of those conflicting properties of time. It's both scarce inexorable an open an unlimited horizon into the future right so we learn we real wealth by learning that changes that grows. Bitcoin doesn't grow. So it's got this crazy volatility but gold gross. Yeah gold girls gross and so we got a gets not impossible to create digital goal. But we haven't quite done it yet. Yeah there are different folks working on that in in different ways but We're we're not quite there. So when does when does the You know jim grant is called The us dollar the coca cola of currencies you know when people Issue coke for her digital gold. When when does coke finally go out of style. Well coq is is really. It's it's delusional today. I mean here's what to think of this. The jerry we talk about Phya currencies somehow bid valid money. But when gold was the world was on the gold standard until about nineteen seventy-one. Most of the time we've experienced the greatest Economic growth in the history of the world. The it accommodated the industrial revolution. At empowering the british empire where the sun never sat and today to reproduce the functions of gold we have seven almost southern trillion dollars of of currency trading. Every day. the laurels leading industry is not food or clothing or a housing or shelter medical care. It's currency trading and for all less seven trillion dollars a day some seventy times the value of all goods and services and the globe traded every day. It's you don't even get a valid currency values you get central just accommodate the endless manipulations of the measuring stick by central banks. And it's it's and by governments of hula central bags and so Seven to replace the gold standard. We have seven trillion dollars a day of currency trading. And it's a most of the province go to about eleven banks and and there are people around the world who play this lottery it's And and it Hardly manages to contrive a stable environment for world trade while currency trading went up thirty percent over the last three or four years i. The world economy flattened so we have a hypertrophy of finance while we can no longer manufacturer because the spurious fears of climate change of. We just shuffled cards is massively and pretended economic growth. All economic growth comes from learning learning does precede an can be measured by time prices and by the time it takes an hours of work for two to buy goodson services and time prices have been steadily improving a because of the constant learning that precedes in defiance of the monetary manipulations of governments around the world. So i'm glad you mentioned time again because as i read. Read your your work on on Gold it seemed to me. I had always thought of time is just another of the ingredients in the cost of bringing gold out of the ground. But you have. You've separated it into something altogether on its own and made it the most important feature of that cost. And i've just never heard anyone do that before. It's very interesting to me. Well i'm in hayek wrote when money is information really comes from high arc on monday as a measuring stick comes from hayek. All i did was Scrutinized more closely. What's the meaning of measuring stick and had because in technology what makes trade work around the world or all measuring sticks and Internationale in paris. The the second the meter the kilogram lumina abc care all those measuring stokes that allow you to make microchip and taiwan and have it assembled and then san and and made into a system in tel aviv and and built into a computer and so an all measuring sticks ultimately rely on a frequency really the speed of light limit is the foundation of all the measuring stokes and money is another measuring stick as high and von mesa's both pointed out and and the great debauch of money in recent years as turn money into a sovereign of as to a instrument of sovereignty. That's what people climb. Mrs bizarre was money was gold which was available anywhere in the world. You could screw up your money in relation to goal and you played paid the penalty but money always had that route in goal which derived its consistent. See as money from its continuity of. It's a the time to extract. That's my thesis. So if fiat is a bad measuring stick were saying. I want to immediately jump to. The idea of vitkin shines ruler. Right are we. Are we measuring a table with a ruler or is the table measuring the ruler. And it sounds like and i think that gets worse the worst the measuring stick. I think the worst that gets so what is it that you know. Lots of people use dollars. They've used them for a long time. It must be. It must be okay at measuring but if it's bad what is it. That is being measured. You see where. I'm headed with his vitkin stein's thing what what. What is the problem with the dollar. We think it's supposed to be measuring time. It's supposed to be measuring value right. But what is what is really being measured here. It's it's not. It's it's measuring the appetites of governments to play off their supporters and and to endow their bureaucracies and their administrative states and they're communist parties and other parasites that afflict the world economy. That's what money is become the side. This allusion grew that it was an instrument of sovereignty. Everybody says says if it's as if it's plausible a monetary measuring stick cannot be an instrument of sovereignty. It's it's a measuring stick. It's a reflection of reality. And and the meza. It's what's amazing to me. I have two points. One as the the dollar and all the other currencies have been manipulated and twisted and and debauch as an instrument of central banks and governments but at the same time amazingly the entrepreneurs of the world seen through the veils of money. The fog of war to actually continually advanced technology and technology is continuing to advance and all is indices that you read about in the newspapers and that are calculated by a huge buildings full of account economists in washington and new york get in london and around the world. These purchasing power parodies this and flesh and adjustments the gdp deflators. Cpi's all give way to a single concept of time prices and time prices show interesting realities and measured by the time it takes for workers earn the fifty key commodities of the sustain human life of the growth of the chinese economy for the last twenty years has been about twelve percent a year and time prices almost twice as fast as even the chinese government letters claimed that china's communist don't have any idea of the real of vibrance say of their entrepreneurial economy that are now attempting to suppress and our economy as well as as has not grown is about a third or fourth as fast as china. But still it's been gone a lot faster than rcpi's cpi's investigated and william nord house of yale who won the nobel prize a couple years ago for his worst idea of which was taxing carbon of but But he actually showed how the all these efforts to measure. Economic growth. Grossed are just vastly misconceived when a studied the real price of light and time prices the time a worker asked to spend to light a wrong from the time of the fires and caves of the caveman through the candles. Advair size through whale oil lamps. Cara saying on Fluorescent ballgames so now ellie days. The progress of light increased hundreds of thousands of times faster than any and economist calculated. They're just while they wrote about dark satanic mills and does mall up projections of malthus in exhaustion. A technology advanced just huge faster than anybody. Estimated in the amazing thing is that that continues today. So we have. I have a upside storybook where governments are really pressing the envelope. Today's there provoking. Needless wars there Finding and punishing leading tech companies for illusory privacy invasion and and other We're just abusing. Both china and the us are now abusing their technology sector wantonly of because of their Because their political power is what is their prime motivation beyond rather than the welfare and prosperity of the world right pure power-mongering. Do you think there is though a legitimate. There's legitimate backlash in what you might call a term from from life after television. Dome unedic if there's a legitimate backlash isn't there not against this technology. You made the point in that book. Even we got all this wonderful technology and look what the hell we're doing with i. I think there's a backlash but i don't I think the backlash is against the fact of constant intrusive government regulation on on our tech sector. I think these these tech leaders when when government intervention government has the guns government has the tags of so when the tech sector come that when the government comes in and mandate some absurd requirement like network neutrality to nuder our networks and tries to deprive all benefits from telecom infrastructure of. I think they Tech sector sitcoms to government pressure and tries to appease whoever is in control of gogol hired trump conservatives for their political lobby during the trump administration. Now they're hiring. Black lives matter ideologues. Uh-huh they do what the government demands so then the but the narrative george is. Is you know the government and and hyper liberal companies like facebook and And google are all in it together but no you disagree with that i i. I'm in peter. Thiel founded facebook pretty much. He brought zalka berg to california. Berg's bergh's libertarian. Kind of silicon valley type. They particularly want to regulate hate speech and fake news and always delusional categories. That can't even be defiant. They the government says they got to regulate this stuff and and they hire people coming out of college and our colleges are are now centers of indoctrinated -sation and leftist ideas of engineers. Don't want to look at hate speech. They're interested in betson bides and shannon capacity limits and off. You know if it's just or culture has become anti manufacturing an anti of anti technology to some degree and and the tech companies are just trying to accommodate their political rulers. And and some and dorsey at twitter as a leftist wet. That's true but the reason these people are behaving as they are is because every few months Some government body. Find some five billion dollars for some violation of some elusive regulation. That doesn't have any real meaning. They're just trying to appease their bosses all right. So where do you see. So then you know knowing what i know about you. You wouldn't regulate these companies that all you don't think their monopolies out of control there. The government administrative state is a monopoly completely out of control. Now i mean they're just they're printing money and nod and buying whatever they want you serve usurping resources at will and they are adopting a new kind of mercantilism. And they're they're. They're just completely out of control stealing the future from our kids. What one might almost say real monopoly comes out of the barrel of a gun. Absolutely you're you've got it right. Well by way of chairman mao right does that. What is he's well he said government comes out of the barrel. Then you got you got almost everything wrong. But bit into the ultimate source of his own power. It wasn't his marvelous thoughts. Oh yeah those folks knew what they were up to. They knew how to they knew how to do the evil awful thing they were doing. They were ruthlessly efficient at it. So i i don't know i guess i'm fascinated with the the difference of views and this common narrative because i keep hearing it again and again and again from people and and it's interesting to me throughout the whole covert episode. How you know otherwise libertarian. Folks said well. Okay maybe we really do need to. You know get the government involved and maybe facebook and google really are quashing. Our freedom of speech. And maybe we really do need to regulate them. But you say no no. I'm in our government educational institutions are suppressing our freedom of spins who massively all across the country and private ones too. Well the private ones too but private when she can start new private ones but with the government loans essentially taken nationalizing our entire educational system. Trillion dollars of government debt and The government administrators of always colleges just took the money and ran. They didn't improve education with his trillions of dollars of loans for students that they took the money and created new departments a gender studies and diversity and affirmative action and black critical. Whatever it's called and at all as teaching indoctrinating in various government is designed to divide the people and render the more manipulable and more subject to the administrative state. It almost seems like it's done on purpose while it it is the strategy. The the current strategy of the democratic party in washington is to divide the country and concrete by creating a grievance mentality having everybody resent the billionaires who the giant corporations and and pretend that these people these people there l. liquid the money that it's not income that they're making these billionaires as they call they're they're mostly illiquid and if they sold their shares most of the time the shares with drought value as fast as they sold them it. It's just a it's it's a false model of How capitalist economy works and and and we are now in The process of solar strangling golden goose. And it's it's a tragedy. I think we'll know capitalism. Usually you know moves around the world. it's it's sadder. Actually for the united states moved to israel surprising for Israel and taiwan are the centers of global capitalism and technological progress at the moment all our major tech companies have the crucial aren. Dave facilities and manufacturing plants and in israel and tell is really an israeli company. It's fast as girl comes from mobile. I which is their autonomous car. Division and and their best way for fab is incur- got an israel. Their their research facilities are all over israel and Gal singer pat gelsinger the new Had avantel understands that and their best chip designers have been in israel. It's where we are our economy. Our government our universities all had a revulsion against an industry manufacturing technological progress of we're all can failty to the fantasy of climate change. That's what it that's that's the ultimate that's what governs our current administration in washington is an effort to suppress the oh to the chinese are so stupid. That's why they're willing to provide us solar panels if we had says stan cluttering our landscape with solar panels. Which don't even produce energy that just You know they'd cost more to process the erotic energy that they yield your toxic waste. By the way i mean we're just doing things that are so incomparably stupid the it's amazing that technological progress advances as fast as it is and it continues to advance lordly from israel partly from taiwan all the computer industry all of infrastructure for manufacturing our smartphones and devices is really and taiwan and hsien zan allow people complain that china hurt the united states. China bailed out. The united states is tax doctor and manufacturing sector when we chose climate change as our sovereign gall. I i agree with everything you just said. I think climate change is a silly to focus on and very damaging to our economy and just our way of life you know. You started talking about You mentioned tom soul when we started talking. And i'm reminded of how he discussed ideas that feel. Good the policy based on ideas that feel good and sound good verses. What actually works and and i. I've always wondered when i attend when i attend like libertarian. Type event you know like the freedom fest or something. I almost feel like. Libertarians are too scared of ideas that that sound good and don't work and i almost feel like their shoes scared of government. They don't in fact. I would even say that most libertarians. Don't believe deeply enough in the actual. The power of free markets agree. Gale tollway gale real genius behind the current time priced movement jail poway with marian tupee of The jail as a discovery and byu hawaii and he did a presentation a brilliant presentation on time prices at freedom fest issue with about twenty people in the audience and time prices show. How freedom how entrepreneurs irrepressible continue to advance a despite all the slings in arrows of fly inflicted on by all is administrative nomenklatura that run our economy and at sun. It's it's really. But but i. When i when i made the claim that we don't need a lotta at the freedom fast. This year was really advocating. Increased government regulation of beg tack. I believe it's lab share these are people talk about cease steadying in complete anarchy and and And they were talking about increasing regulation of these supposedly monopolies Which are no more monopoly than microsoft beer. Ibm before microsoft. It's or standard oil or these companies. That were not monopolies. And we're not really a benefited any way by the so called eddie. Trust and dramatically reduced time prices of the things that they offered is right in every case that one when i looked at the standard oil. You know history. I was amazed at the drop in the price of a barrel of oil birds. That labour ten dollars pennies credible and yet they were some evil market force. They were using their market power. There was no argument to be made for that whatsoever in the one measuring. Stick the one term that meant anything and yet you know here we are. We have this regime where we went it again. Yup we're just believe in it. We believe in breaking up big companies. We don't like the bigness of them for something reason all right george. We've covered a lot of ground here. And i do. I have a final question that i ask. All my guests whatever's on your mind you can go far and wide with your answer. Usually we're talking about finance and stock picking and things but whatever's on your mind and my final question is always the same if you could leave our listener with a single thought today or a single idea. What might that be. Can't wait to hear what it what it is from you. Well i think. I'll go back to my that really a the economy is a learning process. And if you are learning you're growing and you're acquiring wealth and that is the crucial wealth. You can assemble that that wealth of knowledge and learning and economic growth is not like learning. It is learning but it's a proceeds through the darkness of time. And so it's not certain. It can't be certain if you try to guarantee growth use suppressive because growth is always surprise shannon said information as surprise assay growth is surprise. I if you darren tear it of the surprises of learning are suppressed and so government guarantees actually suppressed growth and that is the crucial thing to understand. There's no guarantees in life and it's proceeds in the darkness of time and money measures. The progress of time and money is token is time. It's way the way we administer this scarcity across a whole economy and have transactions that reflect the fundamental reality of our lives which is the speed alight and the span a life are the limits and this infinite universe brilliant. I love that answer. Thank you so much and thanks for being here. Well they give interview It's a great opportunity. Thank you so much. And by the way. Qasem qasem conference with peter till kaifu lynn. Newt gingrich nile fergus. And all will be at November ten to twelve qasem technol- causing dot technology and it's a great conference and and a lot more of these themes discussed and the future of technology illuminated at this conference at bellevue washington november. Ten to twelve qassams. Co so. thank you so much. Excellent all right. thanks. George bye bye. That was invigorating for me. I hope it was for you to. I've been wanting to to get george on the show I met him a couple of years at the stands berry meeting that we have every or the alliance meeting in our conference. It's a three event in las vegas and we're gonna finally do it again this year. It feels like we haven't done it forever. Even though we just skipped one year. And a and i met george and he said sure email me call me and we finally got him on and there is no one else like him. I highly recommend his book life after google. We didn't get into those topic so much. Because i really wanted to talk about gold and money and you can find the book about money. It's free it's on the internet for free and you can find it easily. Just all you have to do. Is google the title of it. You could probably just google george gilder gold. But it's called the twenty first century case for gold a new information theory of money by george gilder and it's a free one hundred six page. Pdf available for anybody to read. It is fascinating. I highly recommend it. I promise you you'll have. You'll see ideas about gold and money in there. The scene in other places all right. Wow that was wonderful. It's time to do the mailbag. let's check it out. Let's do it right now. I've talked about inflation. Plenty on my show with crazy government spending and frankly how the government could care less about you and your financial situation. But today i have to share a truly unsettling fact thanks to actions taken by the us government forty percent of us dollars in existence. Right now were printed in the last twelve months alone. Let me say that again. Forty percent of all the us dollars in existence right now were printed in the last twelve months alone this is astounding there is an astounding twenty nine trillion in us debt outstanding. It's it's hard to even imagine what that means. Let's put it in context. If you made one dollar every second it would take you thirty two years to reach a billion dollars but it would take you another thirty one thousand years before you reached a trillion if you make a dollar every second this is incomprehensible and yet our political leaders talk about trillions of dollars in new additional programs without batting an eye at people are waking up to the reality that the government is not interested in protecting the value of your savings. And you should too. There's a brand new interview that you should watch. If you're concerned about inflation in the us dollar just go online to inflation interview dot com again. That website is inflation. Interview dot com. Check it out in the mail bag each week. You and i have an honest conversation about investing or whatever is on your mind. Just send your questions. Comments politely worded criticisms to feedback at investor. Our dot com. I read as many emails as time allows and i respond to as many as possible or give us a call at our new listener feedback. Line eight hundred three eight one two three five seven. Tell us what's on your mind. You hear your voice on the show kind of a like mailbag this week. Bill s writes in for these new listener. He says i recently gotten into the stock market. And i just really like your investor our so much. there's always something new to learn. It's so interesting you have great guests and your personal and nice to listen to. I really appreciate all the hard work you do to make the show so great. Thank you bill asks. Well thank you bill. Thanks for the kudos and next and unfortunately last this week we have mark g and mark g. He doesn't even have a question for me. There's no questions for dan this week. They were offer. Eric wade and mark g says just finished listening to episode two sixteen. Where eric wade spoke of in theory contract to loan money and said it can't be changed. Its private and secure great but how is it. Enforced of his friend doesn't follow the provisions of the contract. Does he have to take his friend to court. Takes first born or take a lean on some tangible property written into the contract marci g. i sent this question to eric wade. And he shot back with a quick answer. He says defy that is decentralized finance and smart contract lending operate simply put more like a pawn shop than a credit card at this stage in that the vast majority of the loans are collateralized. So there so you're you implied and you're right marci. There's there is collateral involved and when there's collateral involved of course you can pawn shop just keeps the clattering if you don't pay a back right. I hope that helps That's another mailbag. That's another episode of the stands berry investor. our hope. You enjoyed it as much as i did. We provide a transcript for every episode. Just go to investor our dot com. Click on the episode. You want and scroll all the way down. Click on the word. Transcript and enjoy if you liked this episode send someone else linked to the podcast so we can continue to grow anybody you know who might also enjoy the. Just tell them to check it out on their podcast. App for an investor. Our dot com. Do me a favor would just subscribe to the show. And i tunes. Google play or wherever you listen to podcasts. And while you're there help us grow with a rate and a review follow. Facebook and instagram are handle is at investor our follow us on twitter handle there is at investor underscore our guest. You want me to interview. Drop me a note at feedback at investor our dot com or call the listener feedback line. Eight hundred three eight one two three five seven. Tell us what's on your mind. You hear your voice on the show until next week. I'm dan farris. Thanks for listening. Thank you for listening. This episode of the stands berry investor our to access. Today's notes received notice of upcoming episodes. Go to investor our dot com and enter. Your email. have a question for dan. Send him an email feedback at investor. Our dot com. This broadcast is for entertainment purposes. Only and should not be considered personalized investment advice trading stocks and all other financial instruments involves risk. You should not make any investment decision based solely on what you hear stands. Barry investor our is produced by stanbury research. It is copyrighted by the stands berry radio network.

george gilder berry Bitcoin stanbury research Dan ferris dan ferris Warren buffett costco Eric wade charlie munger warren buffett Google george gilders george gilder fund gilder qasem board of advisors for the inde lerman institute
Learning About Leadership

The Pest Posse Stampede Podcast

1:01:09 hr | 11 months ago

Learning About Leadership

"Learn to the test posse stampede. Podcast hosts are kristen. The disney and creator and foster brusca the head wrangler colon check and the pest policy rolling on track. The best coffee is your trusted resource for training and information that the past management professional means to their skills and knowledge in the professional trust control industry. Welcome to the pest posse stampede. Podcast visionary and creator here at the pez posse. And who are you talking to me down here. Oh yeah hey. I'm foster veterinary visionary. I am the visionary here access your title. Kelly got kicked out again worthless. No you're not worthless without you. This thing wouldn't have taken off and anyway so yeah. I had rang alarm trying to keep everything together. And i'm getting senile as the days. Go on but that's all right. You know one day. You'll find underneath a deaths rocking back and forth wondering what i'm doing but hey that's all good. Are you doing up there in silicon valley where silicon ride along. Good guess what. We got movie theaters open. Wow that's amazing for up there. I mean what. We have theaters here open yet. Yup well guess what. There's no concessions allowed resume any say i know. We went to the movies over the weekend and he was like this. We felt we felt like we shouldn't have been food at a restaurant. But i can't get worn at really well. What's kind of silly. Is that the next county over san mateo county to movie theaters have been for a couple of months and there's concessions there so we add fewer cases the cove it per capita knows but we got movie theaters back. So we're we're all excited about that. So that's good we got on me. I've got a wapping hundred and fifty thousand people in the entire county and don't have theaters open yet. And you've got like three million. Yeah not not yet expand the the. Yeah the county to county stuff. It just doesn't make any sense but owns right. Because i just had to sit on my back patio and enjoy the view. We've had absolutely the most spectacular sunsets the last few days. Did i know you've not sent me pictures. It has been off the chart and all the wean we. Actually our neighbors across the street brought a friend in from fresno. Who's a musician and we had a live concert for halloween nice. Who is that. that's awesome. Well yeah for. you don't know about it. Kelly is down his mel beach. He's up on the hill their asthma beach. He's got his back. Patio overlooks the beach in the sunset. The view there's just amazing and we probably need some of that stuff up on our social to really show everybody his modise there that kelly's living in so I love it when down into filming them in in field stuff. It's really pretty cool. So that's some stuff there ex low today. We have an amazing guest. Yes we do. He is a leadership expert. And he will. Who's he work with. This is mark davidson and he works for pest tech solutions. Ease the ceo there. And he's got you know he's. He's studied leadership. He's actually gone to school for that and learning about it. He is going to bring some great insights to us about leadership company culture This was our live youtube episode that we had we had a lot of good questions. Came up from that which was awesome. So that's why we're bringing it out here to you guys for the podcast because some really good information for for really for everyone so i really liked about mark with that. He comes at it from the academics. A lot from the academic now with that said he's got plenty of application where he's at as ceo of that company and whereas i come at it from more of an almost more of an emotional aspect and so it kinda makes a good play on each other and But yeah he really has some great great stuff to share this and we were really encourage people to listen to the end. Yeah it's some good stuff so without any further do like i say. Let's let's flip over to that. Discussion with mark dantonio mic. Drop away every go now. We got him. I'm so sorry i'm good. How you guys doing this morning. we're doing great mark. How are you doing this. Not too bad. Not too bad a pleasure to be here. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to be on your show. Oh well we'll see. Yeah well what we appreciate you being on our show. Yeah this is like i said earlier. This is one of my favorite topics. Yeah so i think we're actually. I believe this right. Here is the topic that sets accompany aside from other companies. Exactly you'd get locked down. You will master of the industry. Yes yes. I totally agree with that. That's you're looking at leadership just from general point of view. It's a great thing to study but if you're worried about it As as some kind of to help you be successful. If you ever organization you can master wander many styles of leadership. It's going to help you and giving you direction on how to be a better leader. And i promise you people will appreciate that. Oh yes de so mark on introduce yourself. Everyone watching today. Let's no you know where you were what you do. What your topic was at pestworld. Short short answer. My name is mark davidson with pets. Pests solutions we service upstate. New york in little pieces of new jersey and pennsylvania near for good measure. I i spoke at pestworld about leadership actually gave a case study about leadership. failure Because i come from the school of thought of. It's great that somebody can stand up there and lecture you and tell me what to do. X y and z to be successful but at the end of the day we as human beings or programs to learn from failure. If somebody tells you something's hot you can touch it. Aren't you and last. I probably shouldn't touch that thing. It's hot that's what we all do. So we talked about a severely leadership failure and where it At got the people who managed to live through the experience and talk. What should have been done i think. Hopefully if the pm peachy attended that could take that back with him. They'd be able to implement one or more of those principles in their own organization. Become more successful. I think that's really important because you can only learn so much from your own leadership failures but if you can learn from other people's leadership failures as well as their experience now you can exponentially learn about leadership right exactly at and that's what i thought was so fascinating mark when you and i were talking as far as what you're talking about with with pests world. That's why i thought it was great to bring you on here. The sly episode to really talk about leadership in stock. I thought that was a great way to to kind of bring up the you know the topic is basically you know your whole talk with about you. Know the leadership failure how that all broke down and everything and i thought that was interesting. I actually went through the story about that. That experience there. And i thought that was pretty amazing. So you know It's too bad unfortunately didn't see you're talking passport. We were busy doing other stuff and when the platform with available after password. I was going to go in and watch your talk but i just didn't and now the platforms aren't available. So so i understand. I didn't watch either. Makes you feel any better. I hear my own worst critic. I try not to watch. those recordings. probably won't want this interview either promote it. And i'll tell everybody how great it was but i'm just taking notes about what i should have done in the next interview. I'm just gonna go much. Should i do now. What should i do the bigger shoot. So it's a really mark you know. What is the theory of leadership. I you know. Oh my goodness. that's like asking physicists. If they can give you the unified theory of the universe. What i can say is so speaking at a lot of this academically Is there's sixty five Leadership styles that are recognized right now and each of them breaks down into different components of various length. But what it all comes down to the end of the day. It's a one person or a group of people who are trying to get another group of people Sometimes known as followers although many textbooks are now changing that because it's not as as politically correct as it was maybe in the eighties and nineties But trying to get those followers to accomplish a task and so leadership can be just member of a team It could be running. Show like this where you guys are the league for me. I'm following along. And i'm accomplishing the task. That you guys were sitting out for me. I won't be running an entire organization and that doesn't have to be for profit. that could be nonprofit. This applies to everything But the textbook definition is going to tell you that leadership is having somebody who runs a series of processes their followers will follow and find success in whatever it is. The league wants to accomplish. Yeah i think that's a really good. That's a really good way to break that down for people. I appreciate that so. I've all heard of leadership being referred to as influence. There's a on that topic. There's a depending on who you wanna go with. As many as eighteen different types of power and influence on every list that i've ever seen If you go by appear north house who has written numerous textbooks on the subject of leadership theory and study. He says that they're six but influences on that top sex and Some people see leadership and influence in the assume all while if you're Influential that's not really how it works. You have to work up to that. You have to build credibility. No one's gonna follow you just for the sake of following. You're just 'cause you have great haircut or like the color. Your shirt doesn't work that way. No well it's like difference between management and leadership right great you can manage an organization but there's a whole different ballgame to eating an organization apps. Absolutely there's if if you were to go to formal studies there's leadership studying. And then there's organizational management studying. They're two completely different schools but completely different curriculums and different degrees. You end up with. If you were to pursue it formally they very rarely overlap And then each one of them has several sub sub parts that you could also study formerly that may take you in one direction or the other but again they don't really overlap that much. So management is not the same leadership. Right bram explain to us what servant leadership is. We've heard styles you you just right for the hot button issue right so we don't. We don't mess around. We go joining so servant. Leadership is very popular right now It's a robert greenleaf. I believe his last name is in one thousand. Nine hundred seventy something. Maybe i just seventy for an essay about servant leadership and said that servant leadership is basically of being a servant to the people who are within your organization and and bachelor and help them develop into their own leadership style which should eventually become servant leaders over time. And you're basically leading by making sure that everybody always has the resources they need and understands their goals and can Accomplish them on their own but being a long-term they can accomplish them by being a servant leader to others So that's the basic gist of servile without going too deep into the nitty gritty of it. Now but it is getting a lot of traction over the last. i'd say five years. I've suddenly gone from hearing it as a a thing like. Oh yes servant. Leadership is is very interesting. Let's study this. What's today the origins of all the way up to those people who are preaching it as the end all be all of leadership styles. Which whether you agree with or not It it certainly out there and seeing airtime but i do want to point out that greenleaf sign servant leadership. He just formalize Essay that people can understand and could apply to businesses actually came from a story in the twelve hundred thirteen. Th century i forget the name of the author. I'm sorry i should come prepared with that. But he Wrote a story about a knight and his squire and they were on a quest which now is kind of a fantasy story trump but back then it was actually just a normal story for them and as they went along their quest they picked up other members of their entourage and The squire started helping all of them to accomplish their goals and as each one of them became disenchanted with whatever it was. They were trying to accomplish throughout the story The squire would actually go in and talk and make them feel good about it and they didn't want to disappoint esquire so now. The spider was actually the leader of the group. Even though formerly was recognized as the night the squire was the servant leader. He made sure that everybody had what they needed. That they were motivated and that they were able to accomplish their goals. And really that squire. He's the one who formally recognize everybody's goals for them As as one cohesive thing that they could accomplish together as a group and help them. Toward that i just wrote or just read did right. I wouldn't not about to write a book. Really kelly no no. The focus is not there. A great book called the dream manager. Okay and that was. Basically the concept is they. Were you know the book was not a real story. But you know the guys actually consulted. And he's worked this program out in numerous companies and Seen results on it but basically the concept was is they had a cleaning company and of course the people who are doing the cleaning very level position not really a lot of room for growth people. You know got disgruntled. The owner was like you know turnovers off the chart wishes pay these people more. Maybe they'll stay and the actual manager was like. I don't think that's going to do the job. I think there's more here that we need to do. And they eventually came up with this idea of hiring. A dream manager in that guy's position was to help people pinpoint their dream their personal dream and then help them accomplish that by setting goals financial goals. Different things and the neat thing was the company. Wasn't there to buy it for them. Like weren't lady wanted to own a house. She'd always known a house well. They didn't go buy her out house you know. He helped her set the financial goals. And then also connected her with the right real estate agent. The right Loan guy who get her alone. That would work for her fi financial situation and You know she had a house in story in less than a year and and of course then steamroll throughout the company you know but it was. It spoke to me. Because i think that's one of the big things pest control that happens we gets a lot of times. You're out there. You're doing the maintenance. It can get really boring when all you're doing is spraying house. Frame house sprain house brain house spring house and So it's i think there's an aspect where that can be really You know it can be kind of just a mental shift to start looking at your employees is more than just a number. And maybe there's more you can do for them without taking. Lana hugest spence. Yeah yeah so. That was wide. Cut a recent experience in some ways of servant leadership. Now that's a good example. Yeah that's a good book as well too so that to me to read and i have not done that yet. For good comment just came up. This is from jio brusca. Is this your relative foster. Yeah hey go. That's that's yeah. Hey you go back. That's that's my son. Who's who's down in mexico wrong with actually a sales manager down there in mexico At a timeshare resort. So i think that's pretty cool. I came on the live episode. Hey there haven't seen you in awhile undocumented. Alex he's got something era saying goal setting and helping your employees with their y is huge integral part of keeping a moat and motivated and efficient team. And i would agree with that definitely so he would know that with time share sells. yeah cute. Timeshare advocate. I love mine. Yes you do and we have used it a lot. Oh all right so yeah so kind of you know. There's there's another you know type of leadership style talk about. Which was the you know this one here. The stewart leadership. Can you explain this to us. Mark what's what is this about. What's the difference between what we talked about so stewarded leadership first off is different from stewardship. That's completely different. Avenue and stewardship is not actually one of sixty five recognized leadership. Avenues that you can pick stuart. Leadership is kind of more formalized version of it so stewardship is really about making people out of the resources. They need to do whatever it is trying to accomplish a steward leadership. arose over time from behaviors in leadership roles We don't know exactly way it started out by what's formalized by group believed. We're doing a study up. See you Around the world with air based in london And what they discovered was that as leaders aged ginger their roles meaning that got the roles and they they stayed there for a long time and they picked up many years wisdom and so on from within the organization they were started to issue their own values. Things like money entitles and so on and start to adopt the organization's goals and values and make them their own and they will start to live that In front of the people that they let and so there's an element of stewardship to it. All that is a part of steward leadership But The main thing is at the leader is living the the the goals the values of the organization and leading the organization according to those so as opposed to somebody saying hey. Our values are x y and z. And we try to live by these and and you should adhere to them and so on these are people who are actually doing that and not just saying it and our run leading by example in relation to that and company culture is such a huge topic over the last say nine ten years oria and having steward leadership becoming more and more popular as a result as a formalized leadership theory a religious follow suit. It seemed like the natural progression With everybody becoming more and more aware of what the company culture was sending value statements. And so on and so forth and being emotionally aware and things of that nature. Yeah actually Stewardship would fit pretty well. What year was talking about. With relating the company to the the employee personal goals Owning a house for example like we brought up So the steward leader. What's suspend for you down Hypothetically employees down and explained to them. Hey this is how you can accomplish your goal with us by doing it. According to the values that we happen organization by you living these values and so the stewardess kind of while the being steward But they're they're Ushering in a continuous age of Staying relevant within the organization based on what the organizations Relation is to the people that are there the stakeholders the environment that they're in and Just staying up to date on what the company values are even a volvo over time. Yeah you know. I think that's a that's super important. I think the two while we're going to the next question. Was you know which one's better. I don't think either of these are better. I think they're these can get meshed really well. Together I see these is being almost an integral part of good leadership program. They're different. I think the steward part is your core. You know those values are important. Pest posse company. I'm all about peace of mind. My slogan is bringing you peace of mind nature's way but it's the peace of mind. That's my goal. I walk into these customers. House like fostered. I just did a bedbug job for a retired couple. Their son has multiple sclerosis. They had a big company in there who botched the job we came in. We found we found the main area where the bedbugs were. We able to do a full thorough. Good treatment answer questions that they didn't get answered before and in fact that were give answered incorrectly previously. But the fact that by the time we were done you could see the peace in their demeanor. You know they were now calm. They felt secure. This problems can be solved. You know that is what. I'm all about as what you know as i get to the point where i'm hiring employees. That's what my employees are gonna. You know they're going to have to be it's not a and then it's part of it's not a it's just a matter of do they relate to that you know People always ask us well. Are you intimidated by all. These other. Testudo podcasts of are no. We're not about them being better than us or us being better than them. It tends to be more of a personality thing. This is who we are the people who relate with us or gonna watch our show the people who don't they could go watch the other guys. That's all right though. Stores have their place. They're not out there spouting stuff. That is bad. it's just different and so that's the same thing i see with the with the steward site. You gotta pick your values But it's super important just like you were saying you gotta lock into values and live those values. Those values are true for me. This is how i live my life. You know i'm always about wanting to bring value and peace to people if i can. I'm not perfect at it but when people come to join my team i sa- first thing. I'm looking at people. Ask me. oh. I wanna work with first concern is will are. Your values can a matchup with by. Are you going to be able to fit into this culture. I could eat you everything else but can you fit the culture alter. Yeah exactly. Yeah that that's a big deal in a lot of companies now. I think we're finally getting a handle on that. And they're making value statements in their sharing them outwardly. If you go on and look at a lot of the job postings for some of the big companies you see that. They've listed their values and examples of what they do. Those values out there As a way of being upfront and honest with the people who are applying for out so you already know what it is. You're getting into it and that and they're trying to do exactly what color saying they're trying to say he's right values. Kenya live by them. Can you be a part of our organization if you're to it. Imported not a question for all of us. You see how this a good one here is horse as much outside of the workplace as inside the workplace especially the limit turnaround in staff a healthy business culture thriving half happy employees so previously geo- I was limited. Because i worked within another company and i had to work within their culture. I always had questions on this. But i was also very young leader so And didn't have as much experience as i do now The way i am going to formulate my company my plan to do exactly what. I'm saying now Going to stick with the. I'm going to stick with the peace of mind thing but that's gotta be again like we're talking about. That's be for everybody that's not just for the. That's not just for the customer that's also for my staff And i'm not gonna go into a bunch of detail here on how. I plan on accomplishing that. But that is then going to move on to. I am going to have a jury manager i've already You know my wife's talked about retiring and looking at doing something else. And i told her well you know. She's never really wanted to be a part of the company but she might be wanting to be my dream manager and help those employees set. The goals help them with accountability. On those goals. Up and move forward in those things So that's kind of how we you know again. We're small just me right now. So it's it's all talk you know is to have that implemented to help people because i really believe people need to see more than running route every day. Some of us thrive on that. I love being out there solving problems. But you know not everybody and not everybody foster. I've worked with feels that way. You know some people. So that's my answer. Your way don landmark. Take on that one there. So you know what what's your. What's your thought on this mark. So i feel that worked balances extremely important. Maybe up at specific age group that tried to pioneer that into into the idea of business but the work like balance. What we're essentially talking about here is is. Are we going to give the employees enough time away from the office to also be able to work on themselves yet. But there's also a little it here where you could kill two birds with one stone and add perceived value to your employees giving them soft skills training things like that things that are going to help them to be Help them better themselves in their own eyes but also help them be better members of your team and be more productive so it's win win all the way around. It's worth the investment on the part of the company do that now. There's a line if a foster wants to buy a house and his boss he's not gonna come to into. Hey buy me a house. I'm just not buying a house but not gonna go that far but if we can relate Him buying a house to what we're doing and we can find some kind of training or coaching bend by all means absolutely if he can't meets at all i'm thinking about buying a house for the first time and i don't know really know where to go and we're just having a conversation. Say well know what i think so and so over there in the office next door just bought a house. Why are we call them in. Let's have a conversation. Let's have lunch together and talk about doing little things like that really cost you nothing a few minutes of your time but invest too great deal into the employees and they feel like they are A beloved member of the team is important. Because they are a stakeholder your organization you want them to be happy with it ever positive outlook. It's totally worth it. Plus years leaders can make you feel good about yourself. You helped somebody accomplished something. Great some big milestone of their life. Yeah definitely that i. I'm a firm believer in that. I think I don't think yeah you're not again. You're not going to give him a down payment. You're not going to buy them the house. That's dysfunctional and you're not really helping them either. Big hearted the accomplishment of buying a home. Is that you saved the money you were able to come up with the down payment. You did all those things absolutely but to have somebody walk you through that. It's just like anything You wanna i think huge benefit have some kind of coach mentor. You know to help walk you through ideas you know and notre on the right track resold our house in san jose area. We found the right real estate agent and she walked us through the steps. she was almost. She sold the house which she was. Also more of a almost like a coach in the process. You know And she got us top dollar for that house we did. We did very well. We have no complaints. She made the process super easy. Even though it was still difficult and i mean. I just think that that's hugely important. But knowing and having that accomplishment one buying it to sell it for Profit a you know you feel good about that. You -ccomplish something yep exactly. Allocate brought up the coach effort. Second yeah definitely i. I actually had a similar experience from home Hopefully that person's not watering. But i didn't know what i was doing. And they did not They didn't really have the drive to help me be successful in this endeavor and we looked at a few houses and communicate a little bit. So you'll we're not meshing. And then we founder second realtor shortly thereafter and. He wanted to be a coach and a mentor for us. Through this process. He did not mind taking a phone. Call on tuesday at five o'clock and go saying here's what you're gonna have to talk to. These people were home. Inspector looks like a cetera et cetera And i didn't know any of that stuff back then but he helped me through it and to this day. We're actually still friends. And he and. I have actually helped advise. On each other's businesses or charitable efforts that were both working on Through through communication and it ended up being a great networking opportunity if nothing else and then other people in my life now. The coaching method is extremely important and build a long lasting relationship with somebody. You'll see an former leadership study. There is one lisu style called coaching But coaching as a step or as a subset is present in almost every single one of the formerly recognized leadership styles. There are because it's important to do and there's really no other way that you can say it. It's a coaching somebody toward success. They're going to be thankful toward you. You've built a relationship with that person. You're going to continue working with them. Oh yeah no definitely. I totally agree with that hundred percent so rats finder says. Can you fit the culture. That is the key i rat. Find her. I don't understand what you're saying. I think you need a horseshoe zaman anybody else. Yeah can you fit the culture. That is the key i. I'm not quite sure what he what he's saying. That yeah. I don't know idea mark. I think that came through earlier. Wendy talking about posting values and trying to attract the right people to be part of the coloring your company. Oh yeah the culture is something that if you're doing interview that's something you should be looking for. And that's not really a question you can just ask You're gonna get of the conversation. You're having her rich. I'm gonna go on a tangent. But i think it's worth it and i'm biased. But that's okay. I really think that when you do an interview it should be a conversation and for somebody with questions have a conversation and get to know them a little bit. Of course every state has their protected classes and information. You're allowed to ask and so on and you should always gloss over that if that ever comes up because we want to make sure that you're saying objective now but when you're having an interview it's not a list of questions on a piece of paper in your checking box and saying okay. This person can do it. That's a very old seventy style way of doing thanks. This is twenty twenty which is a great year but it is a good year. That where advanced the mass. Yeah he's having a conversation with someone getting to know them. That's how you're going to figure out if they're going to fit your culture and we have. We have our values on a little like a little card that actually fan folds out has all fifteen of our family values on it and we give out during the interview and if we do trust interviews over zoom more goto meeting or whatever. We have a j. bet that we put up on the screen and we talk about it a little bit and try to judge the reaction of the person on the other end. Is this the right fit for you. Are you going to be able to Sign in bold ink and say yes. I take responsibility for everything. I do and i give a damn about the quality of my work. We over those seeing by talking to a lot of people in management positions in leadership positions within our industry. That's becoming the norm because we're putting so much emphasis on culture that's not just pest control. That's a business as a whole within our country. But i'm seeing it a lot with with pmp's and that's what they're doing. And i think it's fantastic. We really should be doing it that way. So yeah i agree. I totally agree with that. When you're doing that interview having a more of a natural conversation. I think you get a lot more out of it like you said you really can can can get to know the person who really find out if they are going to fit into your company and i just getting that warm body and unfortunately i've been in those circumstances before were on a need the body because you're busy and overwhelmed but i think it's it kind of it backfires on you inevitably and i think just having that that natural to really learn who that person is. I think is a lot better in a year. I think that that's that's exactly the thing. Says you don't just want a warm body. Don't settle for. I have around it's worth x. Amount of dollars. I get it done in order to settle. The person who's doing that. Route is probably not the right person. And you're going to lose money in call backs or lost production Or even lost customers because maybe their customer service skills aren't up to par. It's it's not enough just to say they're willing and able. Let's do it. You have to make sure that they're really going to be able to uphold the values of the company and and represent you proudly and with respect to the customer if an upbringing their best foot forward for you in all aspects quality of service customer service and so forth You're going to be disappointed later on. You know it really will cost you money at the end of the day if you look at it at the end of the year. I promise if anybody wants to get on right now and tell me that that happen. A looking at comments right now. Anybody got anybody anybody act. I'm obviously right here. Let's just go with that. Yeah exac exactly. oh yeah. we're we're few questions here. John kass just one here and it says how do you guys identify individuals with leadership potential. What stands out when you're dealing with a company. That's thirty or so employees i can. That's kind of a question foster. What's that you want to take that one i've been i've been refers to answer most of these. Well it's because you're passionate about. I have i want to. I'm just over here. Made in the board. Make sure everything's gone right but it doesn't bother me at all What what's your thought on that you know your guest here so you know what your thoughts on that i think are twofold one keeping my every organization is different and how people can advance within your organization is unique to you I know a lot of in this industry used the same job titles with similar job descriptions you know technical manager. My company is probably very similar to a technical manager at somebody else's company But at the same time how people get evaluated and Told yes canner can't move up to the next position That's that's something you get to decide on the just because we all need technical managers or go even if more genetic just because we need a collections manager and accounts receivable. We all need that at a certain point doesn't mean that We all have a cookie cutter way of advancing that person to that position exactly You're gonna be looking for certain qualities person has one I'm going to heart back on company. Culture again are they Exemplary when it comes to company culture are they active within the within the organization As far as community its internal community goes Do they represent the company away as positive outwardly. to people that got positive reviews from customers. Are they a go getter. Do they want a continuing education Do they ask for things. Do they bring up positive. Constructive criticism were good ideas to the table and then inevitably every technician is going to work with another technician at some point. Talk to those people solicit feedback about one another have to be targeted. Then keep that in mind. Maybe keep jot down. Keep it in a log of those things and you're gonna know who your leaders are and it's not just based on. Oh i gave bob a project and bob did pretty well. Let's promote him There's many many many different people in this profession. Who will tell you that if you promote somebody just because they can. You're probably promoting them to the level of incompetence then you're going to lose it at the end of the day the hackley so into them based on a number of different factors a lot of them are going to be unique to you And how you run your organization. But i will say There's a couple of companies spreaker comes to mind In the pacific northwest they You wanna have Something for once you get to a certain size that shows people with path might look like it doesn't have to be set in stone with a specific milestones would to be set but it should give an idea of what it takes to go from one level to the next and the people who worked toward that are probably the people who are automated enough to become leaders actually had a conversation just this morning bringing something anecdotal Somebody from another organization halfway across the country and we were talking about. How did i get my operations manager. Who i have currently often position that he's in and he started out as a technician us technician for seven or eight years and One day a he comes into the office without any provocation says a manager. I want disposition. He named the tunnel that he wanted us. Okay so let's see what happened in that position opens up. I won't absolutely keep your mind will interview. And what he did in between he went ahead and got on how to be a good leader he got educated on the aspects of operational management. You would need to know for that job so that when it came time to do the interview. He blew everyone out of the water. He's moved up three positions since then in our operations manager for the entire organization while she was a prime example of somebody who they wanted it and they cared about the organization and now look at where they are. They've accomplished something. That i feel really good about having him here. And when he talks in front of people or brings in clients or teaches Internally or anything like that. I'm proud of that. That like that feeling and i think that If if you can have that as the end result you know you did. The right thing didn't promote somebody to the level of incompetence identified a future leader. And you help them get there. That's that's really the one. The promoting the level of competence. I've seen that so many times so many times. So that happens really sad for the company and its sad for the individual The other thing is it. You just pointed out as one is yet employees one who asked. I remember when. I got my first supervisor. Position in pest control and One of the other employees. Let me know he was a little disgruntled about it. And i just asked my will teach you. Tell them you're interested. He goes will no. That's the difference between me. You been more qualified. But i asked. I made sure they knew that. I interested and then the other thing with that is. Do you act like you. Have that position before you have it franken. You just showed that right. The guy went out and did the preliminary work to already know how to do that job before he ever had that job right. You know. I remember one of the things. My boss usa about me that he always impressed him at that. Time was whenever i you know. We've gone over. I won't go over it. Just the fact that i was not well trained but when i got to this company one of the things i did with my supervisors i whenever i called him. I already had a solution. I just wanted verification. That i was on the right track again. I didn't have any training. I wasn't sure that actually ever told me before that this how you handled it so i always said hey. This is what the situation is. This is what i'm thinking of doing. This is what the label says. Is this correct. And he would typically tell me. Yeah you're you've got to do that and or he might make you know a tip here. Well try this first or whatever. But the fact that i always walked in with a solution i i didn't just ask you know with nothing you know. Be my god you know. Kinda thing I always was thinking on my own. I think that was one of the reasons i was. The one asked do that. Because most is that. I found once. I got to be a supervisor. They wanted you to tell them what rate to us. They want you to tell them what material used for. What s they wanted. They wanted you to do all their thinking for them. And i had to learn you know. What's the label. Say that was always my response. What's the label. say. Because i i got tired of being their their mind in doing their thinking they gotta do their thinking. And it's like that's one of the big thing you're looking for leader you know. i know. i went like way overboard on that but but make sure they're doing their own thinking not having to do it for them. Exactly what that for supervisor. No you're absolutely right. And those people who say here's my problem fix it. Those are drones. Recall them drones. You have remote control you control them and then they do something that you're controlling. Spend all the time running the remote control to get them to accomplish the task. He really want drones and your organization. Nope no point. We're talking about this. Because if you implement good leadership alive times you can take that drone and make them into a good employee. But i think geos question next question goes right into that. Yeah that's gonna say you know. I'm not gonna put on the screen. It has got a little bit long hair. Bow basically Business culture would you. Would you hire employees. Who potential or prospect. Who's got everything you know. He's got all the right credentials but doesn't fit your culture yes My personal opinion is yeah. No regret it. you're gonna regret it allow. You can get them to buy in eventually. But it'd be hard especially especially if you're in a position of company you know i don't want to go back to that warm body thing but i think it's gonna hurt you in the long run if you have somebody in in your company that doesn't fit into your culture or whatever the i it's going to be hard one you know. People are not easy to change. I mean let's face it and you don't want to bring somebody in the early. Got a mold and you gotta change. And you've got to try to ban to your will because that's just gonna make things just awful all the way around and there you know. Yeah we could. We could go into that for a while. But you know yeah i. I personally wouldn't do that. I don't care how much credential somebody had how great they were what they did. I mean i don't know what what your thoughts on that mark. Sounds like your kind of agreement with while. I absolutely agree with you guys. I've had right now. We're looking for a member of our human resources department and i have had Counting this morning at seventeen interviews meets the minimum credentials. None of the culture. That's been the deciding factor for every single one of them except for one who did an offer to who received a counter offer in florida. We're in new york. I can't really do about this. I mean you know it's warmer there so you the the cultures. Actually what has kept us as they sat across the district. We talked and i said you. You're going to be working together on a daily basis. just like this on projects. Maybe it's over zoom. Because he or she may be working from home. But we're going to be working together collaboratively in that also do the same thing to work with the other people in leadership team here at your organization and then you have to be able to work collaboratively with the people who are injured apartment down and so on and i just didn't think that they'd be able to do that on the other hand. I would like to point out so we have had situations where we brought people in who just barely met where we're just shy or the credentials we were looking for but they were. They were talent and fit the culture and we saw the potential for them to grow with us. And you know what every time we bring one of those people. They stay a long time. We've been in business thirty two years and going on thirty three years in december and we've had a many people come in that i've seen before i was in this role and doing the hiring many people who have come in. Who weren't quite what we were looking for at the end of the day But they were able to grow into that role and they were fantastic people and there's almost all of them are still here today Because not only getting great loyalty because you're investing in the person and helping them get the career that they want but they're growing with the company and you can't put a price on that no you can't put a price on that so we can tell my client. He hired a general manager and a company culture at all in foster nights thought immediately immediately immediately he was gone in four months and so is half the staff while kind of stand him. Well he was. He was not hard as a gentleman. He was actually hired as a ceo. Any given in car blanche to company and you could really see it was very very sad because it was pretty much employed at the company and it was really sad. The sooner i wasn't gonna bring it up but right to mind but ellie wanted to bring it up. But israel see because the name and We were working with very closely and it was really sad to see that you know he he had you know he's he's basically gone back to first base you know and it's just it's kinda sad because it. It really really hurt. That person just did not fit the culture alcohol and did not fit the vision of the company at all thought that they could come in and it was kind of kind of really too bad. Really really hate to see that happen to down. You know we said firsthand. It was like it's just. It's just an example of why why we're saying what we're saying you know you gave good examples of that. This is one that we've seen happen. and foster night both been in situations where we were supervisor's but we didn't really have a full full say on who is hired and so we ended up with people all the time who didn't fit the culture without a choice. We just work with him and make and do the best you and it's makes for a very tough work environment. It does it absolutely. Does you harvard business review If you follow them a link. If you don't i'm gonna plug them because they post great two and three minute read articles. That are very helpful. In order. recent side full Earlier this year. They did a top ten list. For why talent walks And i think number two or number three was toxic culture. Now one was Was competition over collaboration. And those three things kinda go hand in hand but they're worth bridging. I think and i agreed with that decision when they have read the article. Bet but you you don't wanna have that toxic culture that toxic work environment. We will lose everybody. Half the company was gone. When that's a year went reapply completely believed that my first Eastern conference some years ago. So i went and they the speaker. I wish i could remember his name. I should be giving him his credit. Fill the story from bike shop owner and his His close friend knew everything about bikes. And he's so the owner decided. I'm to. I'm going to hire him. He's going to be our subject matter. Expert essentially If any sales people and support staff in the company grew over time But the close friend who knew everything about rights was unprofessional. Created a toxic work environment and people don't like him there is high turnover and that person was cited as one of the reasons a lot. He knew more than anybody else. Technically speaking about icicles. So what happened Enough enough eventually. The decided i have to let him go minnow. Let him go by the end of that year. Their sales were up twenty percent and they didn't need the expertise so that person brought in because culture and everybody was being more positive more productive and they ended up doing better as result for years to come. You higher knowledge. You can buy knowledge from any number of sources you cannot hire or it's much higher harder to get culture. It's much more important exactly exactly app so this has been some some really good information we've had here today you do you have Kind of enclosing kind of wrapping this up here Do you have any resources for everyone out there as far as learning more about leadership that you would really recommend. I could make a couple of recommendations. But i'd like to point out just just i know where we're wrapping up but i just wanna make a point i feel that One specific style of leadership is not necessarily the silver bullet You can you can subscribe for one and say this is what i'm going to do but at the end of the day you're only going to do it. Ninety nine percent of the time your organization's don't grow and change evolve. Your workforce is going to change the environment which operate is going to change. And even the people within your organization your. It guy is probably going to need a different leadership style than your chief sales guy coming given from your brand new technician You can't assume you're gonna be able to lead everybody the same way. And so i feel that you really need to understand more than one mode of leadership Or at least understand. Parts of different modes. That might work for you or that you can identify with and then make it your own. I said in the beginning that there sixty five Styles of leadership vets an academic standpoint. That's for people who are studying it and then going to teach it's i. I only know that. Because once upon a time i was getting a doctorate in organizational leadership. Put it on hold. So i could spend more time with my birth family. That was one of the first. Things i tossed. But you have to learn all sixty five of these things and reality. Maybe one of them went ever be relevant to me as a leader in an organization. You have to find what works for you. So i'm not gonna say you should read this book or you should divest website where you should use this tool because i personally. This is just my opinion. I don't think that that's the way to go Unique to hybridize a bunch of different approaches and get educated on what the approaches are and make them your own and then the color leadership has been at work for him foster ships going to work view the mark leadership is going to work for me etc total youth you mark under hundred percent you can. You can say that you prescribed one. Just give people an idea of what it is that you stand for if they're familiar with it like servant leadership Best earlier especially as some kind of recognition but at the end of the day. It's really about what you do. And the cultures gushing really ties into the leadership because the leader is one is generating that culture nip. So all of that. That's also relevant reading. Go off on a tangent rear You know a true sense now. But when i can say is so. Npa has a couple of really good resources that you could use the mentor. Match program sponsored by link You can get leadership award astro organizational management. And they'll up with somebody who's qualified to help you with that. And they're essentially a coach and i would recommend bats as a way before i would recommend going for a specific book or video to watch Also along those same lines the executive lucia program if you want to apply for through. Npa i did that. I was class number two and it was wonderful for me if nothing else i got. Great plethora of resources to refer back to you on the subject of leadership and some great networking opportunities. Where i could go in and get more mentors for myself as i progressed and actually two of the people i hope for that program In a mentorship astill still mentor me today. And it's been a couple of years since. I graduated event as far as things that you can do on your own. Go ahead and do your own research on leadership go. Google put in leadership than put and then put in what you want to know about. And i promise you will find some results. That are going to pertain to what you're looking for you'll probably lead you down. A rabbit hole was going to say. I say you need to go find pierre nord house richard clawson or even One of one of the great self help people like john c. maxwell or any of those looking bookshelves remember but he's names it. It may not be worth it to you because none of what they say may resonate with you and then you. You can't really live it if it doesn't resonate with you. Go ahead and go come down the rabbit hole and be alice and and get stuck in in wonderland learn all things that are relevant to you and then take all that and make it your own. I think that's good. I really appreciate that and really appreciate your insights insights on this. I think this has been some good stuff on leadership Collie sound like you were going to say something. I agree with what mark was getting at. I don't think you'll like avid john maxwell fan but i don't think that you're helping yourself by locking into one person Just you need perspective. I mean if you pay attention to maxwell he. He listens to all kinds of people from various authors. He don't want self into one thing no and I think that's the same as what we should be doing. I think that's super important. If you want to develop a leadership mindset. You need to be doing that. Daily yup fifteen to twenty minutes reading. Podcasts whatever it is you need to be exposing your brain to that positive leadership mentality every single day. Chen is what changes us. Whatever we associate with. That's what we're going to be like baked the decision to every day. Expose yourself to whatever it is. You wanna be like you know because if you don't you're we just human nature is to fall apart. The love entropy folks it is brunei. yeah so excellent. well great. well this has been. It's been some great stuff margaret. Certainly do appreciate you coming on here and coming on this show. Today with as agony lasts. Rake our nation. Yeah no really really good conversation and everything and Yet i want. I want to bring this up. I thought this was just the kind of enclosing. I'm going to bring this up on the screen. I don't this was pretty good. Because it's really kind of pertains everything we were talking about here as far as quote here by this. This gentleman Hike in here are like that. He was the chief amazement. Officer of shepherd presentations. I kind of like that but you know. If we can exceed the expectations of our employees they will consistently exceed the expectations of our customers. I think that's kind of report. Is ours kinda just goes with everything we were talking today. So you do that. your company is gonna grow. You're going to be successful. that's what we're all about. That's that's information that we are trying to bring everyone. Today's everyone that you need to. We all need to grow in their certain ways. We need to do it and you need to be a good leader nor to do that. So that's pretty much. All i got you got anything else kelly. No i'm just completely agree with that. Co gary employees. Your blazed will take care of your customers exactly we taking care of and consequently so hurry will thank you very much mark. I appreciate your time today. And i'm sure we will. We will be in touch. That sounds great. Thank you again guys. It's been a blast can do it again someday or if not. I look forward to connecting with you guys and you're talking about leadership in the future. Yes definitely we'd love to bring him back on definitely. Thank you for listening to the past st stampede. Podcast follow this podcast and the pest posse on facebook and lincoln also be sure to check out the past posse weekly series on youtube until next time remember. Pest control isn't adventure. So get out there and enjoy the adventure with the cast prophecy.

mark davidson mel beach modise robert greenleaf Kelly Lana hugest spence jio brusca nine ten years mark dantonio kelly san mateo county mexico kristen fresno bram greenleaf asthma disney John kass one day