19 Burst results for "Stanford Institute"

"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:22 min | 6 months ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"And Aztec futures down 91 The decks in Germany's down four tenths of a percent cack in Paris down 1% FTSE 100 down 7 tenths of a percent Ten year treasury up 7 30 seconds yield 2% yield on the two year 1.59% nymex crude oil is up 7 tenths percent or 68 cents at $90 55 cents a barrel combs gold down 6 tens percent or $10 30 cents at 1827 ten ounce the Euro 1.1396 against the dollar Nathan Well Karen the drop in futures follows yesterday's inflation fueled sell off We saw the NASDAQ 100 lead declines bonds were hit hard after the CPI report that showed inflation running at its highest pace in four decades Emily hill is a founding partner at bowersock Capital Partners I think there was a hope out there that inflation was moderating or at least an inflation was peaking And the numbers look like that is not the case So the market is now pricing in much higher likelihood of a 50 basis point increase in rates in March which I don't think is a huge surprise Emily hill with Bauer saw Capital Partners made the comments on Bloomberg businessweek catch the program weekdays at 2 p.m. eastern on Bloomberg radio On Nathan we also saw that selling in equities spill over to Asia overnight and we get the recap from Bloomberg Julian has Sally and Singapore Good morning Juliet Good morning Karen silver notes dropped in New Zealand and Australia where the three year yield hit its high since 2019 the MSCI Asia Pacific index Japan which was closed for a holiday dropped the most in two weeks dragged lower by tech stocks amid the rise in yields Elsewhere Chinese banks extended a record amount of loans in January providing a boost to a slowing economy $626 billion of new loans lent in the month being economists median estimate and the highest level in data going back to 1992 in Singapore Juliet sali Bloomberg daybreak Okay Juliet thanks This is all a response to higher interest rates and the call for more rate hikes this year is growing Bloomberg's running a young joins us live to pick up that angle of the story Good morning granita Good morning Nathan Goldman Sachs now sees the fed raising interest rates 7 times this year It's earlier prediction was 5 The bank expects the fed to lift rates by 25 basis points in each of its meetings this year to tame the hottest inflation in four decades Traders are also pricing in 7 fed hikes this year sending global bond yields soaring and data yesterday showed U.S. consumer prices posting the biggest jump since 1982 Live in New York I'm renita young Bloomberg daybreak I need a thank you There's also growing speculation the fed may opt for a 50 basis point rate hike at next month's meeting St. Louis fed president Jim bullard who votes on rates this year says he favors three hikes by July with one of them being a half point move Richmond fed president Thomas barkin is less convinced of the need for a dramatic increase Open to it conceptually Sure I mean there will be times where we'll need to do that There have been times in the past we have done Do I think there's a screaming need to do it right now I'd have to be convinced on that Richmond fed president Thomas Burke had made the comments at an event at the Stanford institute for economic policy research In the meantime Karen the fed's feeling pressure from Congress The top Republican on the Senate banking committee wants an overhaul of the Federal Reserve's regional bank system Senator pat toomey of Pennsylvania says the 12 regional banks reformed to manage economies in their districts but that's no longer the case.

Emily hill bowersock Capital Partners Bauer saw Capital Partners Bloomberg radio Bloomberg Julian Karen silver sali Bloomberg Federal Reserve Bloomberg businessweek Singapore
"stanford institute" Discussed on The Larry Elder Show

The Larry Elder Show

02:37 min | 9 months ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on The Larry Elder Show

"I mentioned that Biden referred to Trump as xenophobic. Accused him of racism when he banned traveled to several African countries. Biden does it not a problem. This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia and fear monger. Now today the South African president says the ban is completely unjustified, and discriminatory. We call upon these countries that have imposed travel bans on our country and our other southern African sister countries. To immediately and urgently invest their decisions. Now these restrictions are completely unjustified. And unfairly discriminate against our country and our southern African sister countries. Doctor Scott Atlas of the Stanford institute, it's the same thing. We don't know much about this variant. You mentioned what we know. What we've heard from South Africa is that it's not very lethal. We don't know. I only know what I read about this. And what we hear from them, yes, infections occur, but it seems to be a mild illness. And we have to be concerned, we have to see what's going on. We have to watch the evidence, but to incite panic to introduce policies that failed over and over and over again, like we never saw this failed before. I mean, the lockdowns do not eradicate the virus. This is almost it's bizarre that we even have to say this, but there's some kind of bizarre myth among the governors of the world that somehow we can eradicate the virus by the lockdowns. The virus is not going to be eradicated like that. The virus will become likely become endemic in the way it does that according to all first year medical student knowledge is that these viruses mutate the mutants survive and their generally less lethal. Let's hope that's the case with this. That's right. Doctor Scott Atlas of Stanford. Share excerpts of today's show from Larry elder's YouTube channel. Just go to YouTube dot com slash the Larry elder show.

Biden Scott Atlas Stanford institute Donald Trump South Africa Larry elder Stanford YouTube
"stanford institute" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

03:45 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Remember this one from the ballot harvesting balance. He's like i have about. It's i have lots of benefits. And he says one of the guy say. I don't care that it's illegal. They were really bragging on video and the new york times comes out and said well. This a disinformation campaign. So what you begin to realize. Is that what they do. Is they project onto us what they are. So they're doing disinformation. They're collaborating with stanford institute of god some professor in some room who just write some opinion. They they cite the ping and and it's not some most journalists. Don't actually materially lie. These hyperbole and circumstantial evidence in here saying the circulate source the quotes. And before you know it. You have this vortex propaganda. So we said enough is enough. We are suing the new york times. I'm suing cnn. I'm suing twitter. I will depose you under oath. Cost me ten million dollars. I don't care so help me. God will raise the money so far. We've raised the money. We got past motion dismiss. Yes that's the key though right because a judge sometimes throws the stuff and that would be the greatest travesty of injustice known to man and it happens charlie because most lawyers are risk averse cowards and they don't want their clients to talk about what's going on. I don't get it I've told my lawyers. We are going to be public about the process if any judge is so utterly irrational that they make a mockery of the rule of law. We will merely quote the order. We quote the transcripts in the new york times response to our defamation lawsuit charlie. They admitted new york times was forced to answer questions because we got past motion to dismiss the new york times admitted in court. They didn't even call one for common. They admitted in court. Got the facts wrong in the article and leave on muhammed. They said they did break the law but they reported in the article that he didn't so then you're times is admitted in court something and they still haven't corrected the article so we're making a mockery of them by virtue of what they've done. Most clients don't do that because the lawyers say don't say a word don't say a word. Don't talk about your case. Are you planning to settle the new york times offering me one hundred million dollars. I'd tell them to go. F themselves hundred dollars. You got no price. What's the market gap near times. Probably four billion dollars. That's my price. Okay is a four eight and my route right matthew. I know my load all right. What's the current market cap of the new york. Times i bet you. It's i know my the new york times cap. Publicly traded nasdaq stocks. And i don't know about that. But if the new york times off me one penny about their current market cap that might be. My certificates of ownership has your full liquidation of james. O'keefe enterprises do what they need to do is they need to correct the damn article. Listen this is orwellian thing you know to plus for. They've admitted this is very important. I know we're in the weeds here. I'm going to get in. The weeds are warned that you understand the nuances. The new york times admitted in the supreme court of the state of new york that they got the facts wrong. We got signed on your times lawyers. But they still haven't corrected the article if that isn't defamation. What is if that is an actual malice. Meaning they know they're lying. Then what it you tell me. How did you choose which internet service provider to use. The sad thing is most of us have very little choice. Because isp's operate like monopolies in the reasons that they serve they then use monopoly power to take advantage of customers data caps streaming throttles and the list goes on but first of all many. Isp's log your internet activity and so that data onto other big tech companies are advertisers. To prevent is piece from seeing my internet activity. I protect all my devices with express. Vpn so what does express vpn too simple app for your computer or smartphone than cribs..

The new york times stanford institute of god charlie cnn muhammed keefe enterprises twitter supreme court of the state new york matthew james isp Isp
"stanford institute" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

08:15 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Was not going quietly. He rallied thousands of supporters near the White House to walk down to the capital, and he gave them marching orders. You'll never Take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. Within hours. Those trump supporters had mobbed the capital. They overwhelmed officers crowded used against both. Have various play in the car. Oh, explain the crowd. 140 people in uniform were injured, according to a bipartisan Senate report, and in the months since that deadly attack the seeds of Trump's lie spread across the country. This bill addresses two fundamental issues. Republicans in state legislatures planted and fed them. The confusion is created when a Voter receives duplicate being safeguards that make sure people can have confidence in the outcome. That's always been something I've requires that all voting systems have verifiable paper trail Drive through voting. 20 didn't work of all senators voted have all senators voted. More than 20 of those bills have become laws restricting how people vote and how votes are counted. One person who's been keeping a tally of these new laws is Michael Waldman, He's president of the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanded voter access and asked him which of these laws stood out as the most restrictive in practice. Georgia is the most notorious What they did in Georgia and what we're seeing in other states as well. That's particularly dangerous. Is at the last minute they put in a provision basically changing. Who would do the counting, taking the secretary of state out of it, taking county board of elections out of it and putting the right to decide who wins an election in the hands of a very partisan board appointed by the Republican Legislature, that turns out to be one of the most dangerous things in 2021. Not only restrictions on who can vote, but efforts really to rig who can do the counting. When you look specifically at limitations on voting by mail, there is some question about whether that actually affects the results. Andrew Hall is with the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and he co authored a recent study about this. Here's what he told us. We're pretty confident that Changing the precise manner by which someone can vote by mail versus vote in person. Things of that nature do not have extremely large effects on overall turnout. So Michael Waldman. How meaningful are these restrictions to mail in voting if as holes study suggests, vote by mail doesn't really mobilize significantly more people. Well, it's hard to know what the impact going forward of anyone. Bill would be. But in 2020, there was a significant expansion. A vote by mail, and the people who were using it for the first time tended to be younger tended to be more diverse. The restrictions on vote by mail or on early voting that are being pushed don't really affect everybody equally. They're very carefully targeted to affect new voters. Younger voters, voters of color I think it's a mistake and really wrong for us to be thinking. Well, you know, people put these obstacles in the way of some voters in the way of black voters in the way of Latino voters. But they can work their way around it. They can organize more and and try a little harder and it all comes out. In the end. That's not a really good way to run a democracy. Could you give us another example or two of how these laws are expected to disproportionately affect non white voters? Democratic leaning voters? Sure. In Georgia, the legislation banned mobile voting sites. That was only used in one place Atlanta Legislation in Texas makes sure that younger voters basically can't vote by mail and actually puts penalties on elected officials who try to make it easier for people to vote by mail. Those are examples where these laws look neutral on their face, but they're actually have a much bigger impact on some groups than on others. Voters of color more than others, and that's the way it was. Unfortunately, throughout much of the country's history, the Jim Crow laws did not say by and large Oh, black people can't vote. But they were written in a way and enforced in a way that had that very impact. So as we've been discussing some provisions in the state laws limit access to voting. Others actually put the decision of who won in the hands of a partisan appointee or panel. How is that different from steps like narrowing the hours are locations where people can cast a ballot? A lot of these laws go after who can vote, how they can vote? What's new, and especially worrying is the way these new laws go after who does the counting? A lot of Republicans looked at what happened in Georgia, where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger Republican eventually stood up and said, No. You know, Joe Biden won the state and we remember President Trump called him and tried to bully him into changing the results. Well, the result of that is that the secretary of state has been cut out of the counting in Georgia, and it is a time honored Anti democratic authoritarian move all over the world and now in the United States to change who can decide who won. It's a very worrisome thing. What we're seeing right now is so many people believe the big lie. And candidates are going to the voters and saying We're going to make sure that only the Republican can win if that really happens. And that happens all across the country. That would be a very dangerous moment for our democracy. And is there also a counter wave of states pushing to expand voter access? There has been in recent years of very encouraging trend of expanding voter access, and this has been something that people in both political parties have participated in automatic voter registration. Which would add tens of millions of people to the rolls and improve the accuracy of voter lists. That's something that's now in 17 States and the District of Columbia and has been signed into law by Republican and Democratic governors. Democrats in Congress. Right now we're pushing federal legislation that would expand voting rights, but given that the Supreme Court has already gutted the 1965 voting Rights Act twice Is there any reason to believe the justices would be more deferential to a new voting law? If Congress were able to pass it now? I think so. You have an extraordinary class going on right now in the country. All these states are rushing forward with these voter suppression laws. And at the same time Congress has the power. And has the constitutional authority legally and constitutionally to act. And the question is whether Congress has the political will. The legislation called the four the People Act s one. It relies on the part of the Constitution. That says that states set the times, places and manner of elections, but that Congress and the federal government can override that to protect voters. John Roberts and the Supreme Court have actually pointed to Before the People act as an example of Congress using its constitutionally legitimate authority, I think both the for the People Act and legislation to strengthen the Voting Rights Act. Both standing, very strong constitutional ground. Look, the Supreme Court can be very political. But here I think that the law and the Constitution is pretty unambiguous. Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice. Thank you very much. Thanks so much. It's w N Y. C just ahead on all things considered it once a popular vacation spot with a thriving middle class..

Joe Biden Michael Waldman Andrew Hall Trump District of Columbia 2021 John Roberts 2020 Stanford Institute for Economi Congress Senate Voting Rights Act United States Brennan Center for Justice Democrats 140 people Republican Republicans Texas trump
"stanford institute" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU

90.3 KAZU

07:55 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU

"Overwhelmed officers crowded using is against both. They have various play in the crowd. They explain the couch 140 people in uniform were injured, according to a bipartisan Senate report. And in the months since that deadly attack the seeds of Trump's lie spread across the country. This bill addresses two fundamental issues. Republicans in state legislatures planted and fed them the confusion that's created when I Voter receives duplicate opting safeguards that make sure people can have confidence in the outcome. That's always been something I've requested. All voting systems have a verifiable paper trail drive through voting. 20 didn't work have all senators voted have all senators voted. More than 20 of those bills have become laws restricting how people vote and how votes are counted. One person who's been keeping a tally of these new laws is Michael Waldman, He's president of the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanded voter access. And I asked him which of these laws stood out as the most restrictive in practice. Georgia is the most notorious What they did in Georgia and what we're seeing in other states as well. That's particularly dangerous. Is it the last minute they put in a provision basically changing. Who would do the counting, taking the secretary of state out of it, taking County board of elections out of it and putting the right to decide who wins an election in the hands of a very partisan board appointed by the Republican Legislature, that turns out to be one of the most dangerous things? In 2021 not only restrictions on who can vote, but efforts really to rig who can do the counting when you look specifically at limitations on voting by mail. There is some question about whether that actually affects the results. Andrew Hall is with the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and he co authored a recent study about this. Here's what he told us. We're pretty confident that Changing the precise manner by which someone can vote by mail versus vote in person. Things of that nature do not have extremely large effects on overall turnout. So Michael Waldman. How meaningful are these restrictions to mail in voting if as halls study suggests, vote by mail doesn't really mobilize significantly more people. Well, it's hard to know what the impact going forward of anyone. Bill would be. But in 2020, there was a significant expansion. A vote by mail, and the people who were using it for the first time tended to be younger tended to be more diverse. The restrictions on vote by mail or on early voting that are being pushed don't really affect everybody equally. They're very carefully targeted to affect new voters. Younger voters, voters of color I think it's a mistake and really wrong for us to be thinking. Well, you know, people put these obstacles in the way of some voters in the way of black voters in the way of Latino voters. But they can work their way around it. They can organize more and and try a little harder and it all comes out. In the end. That's not a really good way to run a democracy. Could you give us another example or two of how these laws are expected to disproportionately affect non white voters? Democratic leaning voters? Sure. In Georgia? The legislation banned mobile voting cites well, that was only used in one place. Atlanta legislation in Texas makes sure that younger voters basically can't vote by mail and actually puts penalties on elected officials who try to make it easier for people to vote by mail. Those are examples where these laws look neutral on their face, but they're actually have a much bigger impact on some groups than on others. Voters of color more than others, and that's the way it was. Unfortunately, throughout much of the country's history, the Jim Crow laws did not say by and large Oh, black people can't vote. But they were written in a way and enforced in a way that had that very impact. So as we've been discussing some provisions in these state laws limit access to voting. Others actually put the decision of who won in the hands of a partisan appointee or panel. How is that different from steps like narrowing the hours are locations where people can cast a ballot. A lot of these laws go after who can vote. How they can vote. What's new and especially worrying is the way these new laws go after who does the counting? A lot of Republicans looked at what happened in Georgia, where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger Republican eventually stood up and said, No. You know, Joe Biden won the state and we remember President Trump called him and tried to bully him into changing the results. Well, the result of that is that the secretary of state has been cut out of the counting in Georgia, and it is a time honored Anti democratic authoritarian move all over the world and now in the United States to change who can decide who won. It's a very worrisome thing. What? What we're seeing right now is so many people believe the big lie. And candidates are going to the voters and saying We're going to make sure that only the Republican can win if that really happens. And that happens all across the country. That would be a very dangerous moment for our democracy. And is there also a counter wave of states pushing to expand voter access? There has been in recent years of very encouraging trend of expanding voter access, and this has been something that people in both political parties have participated in automatic voter registration. Which would add tens of millions of people to the rolls and improve the accuracy of voter lists. That's something that's now in 17 States and the District of Columbia and has been signed into law by Republican and Democratic governors. Democrats in Congress. Right now we're pushing federal legislation that would expand voting rights, but given that the Supreme Court has already gutted the 1965 voting Rights Act twice Is there any reason to believe the justices would be more deferential to a new voting law? If Congress were able to pass it now? I think so. You have an extraordinary clash going on right now in the country. All these states are rushing forward with these voter suppression laws, and at the same time Congress has the power. And has the constitutional authority legally and constitutionally to act. And the question is whether Congress has the political will. The legislation called the four the People Act s one. It relies on the part of the Constitution. That says that states set the times, places and manner of elections. But the Congress and the federal government can override that to protect voters. John Roberts and the Supreme Court have actually pointed to Before the People act as an example of Congress using its constitutionally legitimate authority, I think both the for the People Act and legislation to strengthen the Voting Rights Act. Both standing, very strong constitutional ground. Look, the Supreme Court can be very political. But here I think that the law and the Constitution is pretty unambiguous. Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice. Thank you very much. Thanks so much. You're listening to all things considered from NPR news. The latest read.

Michael Waldman Joe Biden Andrew Hall Trump 2020 District of Columbia 2021 140 people Congress Texas Stanford Institute for Economi John Roberts Voting Rights Act Brennan Center for Justice 1965 voting Rights Act United States Democrats Senate Republican Republicans
"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:03 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"J C F can maximize your charitable impact and reduce your time. Expert in visit J. C, f N Y dot or G'KAR. This is a Bloomberg money before the pandemic. Working from home was a nice idea to a lot of people. But that's all. It was the full coverage about 5% of working days in the U. S will from home, so 95% of working days were on business premises. Nicholas Bloom with the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, says that 5% of work at home days jump to 70 last spring. Right now it's about 50. What's next post pandemic A move towards hybrid working from home, Bloom says Stanford Institute surveys finds an appetite among CEOs for splitting work perhaps three days a week, the office two days at home to maximize productivity, the short run productivity's like doing the same thing over and over again. So you know, filling out reports dinner the same customers. Kind of repetitive that appears to be significantly out working from home. But Bloom says working from home all the time doesn't work. The problem is the long run so being created in coming up with new ideas, and this is where working from home is, frankly, not was good. Has face to face interaction. I'm Andrew rolled a Bloomberg radio. Hey, y'all Jeff Foxworthy here. Now, if you've ever found yourself, repeating the same thing over and over for 75 years, you might be Smokey Bear. Only you can prevent wildfires. That's why I'm filling in for Smokey to switch things up. Because there's a lot more to say. And I should know, because my grandfather was a firefighter, and one of the things he taught me is that the people that love the outdoors, the most are often the ones accidentally starting wildfires, which means Always b y O b. No. Bring your own bucket to the campfire. And be extra careful with things like burning yard trimmings don't just walk away. Our chances are you might be starting a wildfire. So for the love of the outdoors, go to smokey bear dot com to learn more about wildfire.

Nicholas Bloom Bloomberg Jeff Foxworthy Stanford Institute for Economi Smokey Bear Stanford Institute Andrew
"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:44 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is a Bloomberg money minutes before the pandemic, working from home was a nice idea to a lot of people. But that's all itwas the full coverage about 5% of working days in the U. S will from home, so 95% of working days were on business premises. Nicholas Bloom with the staff Institute for Economic Policy Research, says that 5% of work at home days jump to 70 last spring. Right now it's about 50. But what's next post pandemic A move towards hybrid working from home? Looms. Stanford Institute surveys finds an appetite among CEOs for splitting work, perhaps three days a week at the office two days at home to maximize productivity. The short run productivity's like doing the same thing over and over again. So you know, filling out reports dinner of the same customers kind of repetitive that appears to be significantly out working from home. But Bloom says working from home all the time doesn't work. The problem is the long run. So being creative and coming up with new ideas, and this is where working from home is frankly, not as good as face to face interaction. I'm Andrew all day. Bloomberg Radio. Hey, y'all Jeff Foxworthy here. Now, if you've ever found yourself, repeating the same thing over and over for 75 years, you might be Smokey Bear. Only you can prevent wildfires. That's why I'm filling in for Smokey to switch things up. Because there's a lot more to say. And I should know, because my grandfather was a firefighter, and one of the things he taught me is that the people that love the outdoors, the most are often the ones accidentally starting wildfires, which means Always b y O b. No. Bring your own bucket to the campfire. And be extra careful with things like burning yard trimmings don't just walk.

Nicholas Bloom Jeff Foxworthy Bloomberg staff Institute for Economic P Smokey Bear Stanford Institute Andrew
"stanford institute" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

WBZ NewsRadio 1030

02:15 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

"Walshes Mayor Warren calling Woo a tireless advocate for families and communities who feel unseen and unheard, who was a Boston City councilor? She announced her campaign for mayor. Back in September. Boston City Councilor Andrea Campbell also running for mayor, and ahead of the election, City Council, President Kim Janey would take over for Walsh. Once he's confirmed as labor secretary, Janey would become the first woman and black person to hold that position. And he's Bridgewater Man rushed to the hospital yesterday after firing golfed his home firefighters arriving on scene to find the home on Chestnut Street in flames, the 69 year old homeowner on the front lawn suffering from burns. It was taken a mass general and is expected to recover. Firefighters say flames were shooting out of almost every window on both the 1st and 2nd floors of the house. They got the blaze knocked down before it spread. But they say that home is a total loss and the cause is being investigated. It is 707. Let's get the latest numbers on Wall Street and the latest on business with Bloomberg before the pandemic. Working from home was a nice idea to a lot of people. But that's all itwas the full coverage about 5% of working days in the U. S will from home, so 95% of working days were on business premises. Nicholas Bloom with the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, says that 5% of work at home days jump to 70 last spring. Right now it's about 50. What's next post pandemic A move towards hybrid working from home, Bloom says Stanford Institute surveys finds an appetite among CEOs for splitting work perhaps three days a week, the office two days at home to maximize productivity, the short run productivity's like doing the same thing over and over again. So you know, filling out reports dinner of the same customers kind of repetitive that appears to be significantly out working from home. But Bloom says working from home all the time doesn't work. The problem is the long run. So being created and coming up with new ideas, and this is where working from home is frankly, not as good as face to face interaction. Andrew all day Bloomberg business on WBZ, Boston's news radio and coming up at 7 15. Another movie being made to block President Trump from social media platforms. You didn't.

President Kim Janey Nicholas Bloom Boston Bloomberg Mayor Warren Walsh Stanford Institute for Economi President Stanford Institute City Council Andrea Campbell Woo secretary Andrew
"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:56 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Thought leaders. Here's Lisa Davis Impact investing portfolio manager at P. Jem real estate. I think we used to believe in the SDU circles that climate change was the great systemic risk to financial markets that we needed to find a way to account for. And the challenge was to connect the individual investments that we were making to addressing climate risk at a systemic level. I think the challenge now that I see is that inequality around the globe is equally important, systemic risk often connected to climate risk that we have to address in financial markets. Hear more peach and perspectives at P. Jem calm that's PG. I am calm partner with Egypt, the investment management business of Prudential. These statements are not intended to be investment advice and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. This is a Bloomberg money minutes before the pandemic, working from home was a nice idea to a lot of people. But that's all it was The full coverage about 5% of working days in the U. S will from home, so 95% of working days were on business premises. Nicholas Bloom with the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, says that 5% of work at home days jumped to 70 last spring. Right now it's about 50. But what's next post pandemic? A move towards hybrid working from home? Bloom says Stanford Institute surveys finds an appetite among CEOs for splitting work perhaps three days a week, the office two days at home to maximize productivity, the short run productivity's like doing the same thing over and over again, so Not filling out reports dinner, the same customers kind of repetitive that appears to be significantly out working from home. But Bloom says working from home all the time doesn't work. The problem is the long run, so being creative and coming up with new ideas, and this is where working from home is, frankly, not was good. Has face to face interaction. I'm Andrew Rhodey Bloomberg radio Asset managers who sees change.

Nicholas Bloom P. Jem Stanford Institute for Economi Lisa Davis Bloomberg Prudential portfolio manager Stanford Institute Andrew Rhodey SDU partner Egypt
"stanford institute" Discussed on Scientific Sense

Scientific Sense

04:36 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on Scientific Sense

"Mike yesterday. expensive. Feed clean all who specific policy in school of humanities sciences at stanford university he's also senior fellow stanford institute for economic policy research but copied driving it. Thanks for doing this. So i want to start with one of your people from twenty sixteen to set the context for a larger conversation and tape was entitled the gdp bet set across countries. And time. you save you. Propose that somebody statistic for economic wellbeing of people in the country incorporates consumption leisure mortality inequality fuss for nazi countries using detailed might rotate and more broadly using multi-country datasets. But one of the issues. I see peak than economist. Talk to talk to the public When be used to like a utility at share Sometimes those limbs some too technical too abstract for people to really really connect with so so so you have a qualitative Measure due to get let so some more gently. What do you mean by. Yes so we'd like to look at what people are willing to pay in terms of consumption that they sacrifice in order to say try to live longer or Enjoy more leisure time So utility is just our way of saying you know how much what people are trying to get out of consumption. Leaser living along. Boeing lights But utilize are meaningless like. There's no units called utilize that we care about. That's why in this..

stanford institute for economi stanford university Mike Boeing
"stanford institute" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

06:57 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Talking with some of your covert 19 experts about where we stand and the path forward. We're joined on limit after J. Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University. He is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research in a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Talk about China. Thanks so much for joining the show. It's my pleasure to be here. So why don't we start with sort of an update on where we currently are with covert? Obviously, we're seeing these massive numbers of positive tests. Come back. We're seeing hospitalizations. Rise on. We're seeing deaths started rising usually trail. So what is your assessment of where we are as a country right now? And I think many parts of the country that we're not hit so hard earlier or getting get some. So like, you know, certainly Midwest, you're seeing a spreading cases. But striking to me is this death star dust? I have not risen quite as much as we knew. If you if you put your expectations from what would happen from March, you'd expected much sharp break peace in death. So the sense that it's less of Ah, shocked and it would have been early on. It's clear. We've learned to treat the disease that everyone do how to do it. There's been a lot of talk about renewed lockdowns certain governors and reclaim a particularly he's now shutting down schools. Apparently, even though he acknowledges that schooling for under the age of 10 does not actually pose a significant risk of a viral transmission we've seen Dr Michael Osterholm was a member of Biden's advisory came suggesting a 4 to 6 week locked down, But we are seeing some pushback from sources. What kind of unusual doctor Fauci is pushed back against lockdowns. Now you've seen a toga Wanda, another member of Biden's transition team, suggesting that lockdowns are a bad idea. Where do you think we stand in terms of walks? In politics. I mean, I think First of all schools should be open. There's no the science on this is absolutely solid and schools around the time of the work on the world of open Despite rising number of cases closing schools does not slow the spread of the disease kids for whatever reason, our last efficient spreaders of the disease than adults. And closing schools harms kids in ways that are irreparable. There was just a study Those notion jam. Others found that you know if you have less schooling last years of schooling, it has long term consequences, including shorter life spans, So the estimate is that just from the closure and March in April We cost our kids and this this country 5.5 million life years in expectation. 5.5 billion lives. That's more than the number of light years and lost in covert. So I think closing schools should be should not be an option. Ideology completely off the table school should be open everywhere. Assed, far as walk down on really hard to see the pushback sort of spreading in the scientific community against lockdown. The lockdown policies in March very clearly didn't stop the disease. March and April didn't stop the disease is spreading. Didn't didn't have the disease. In fact, everywhere they've been tried. There's not a single face where they stopped the disease from from entirely spreading with you. But when you spin you oppose them in a in a setting where there's already widespread, Widespread cove, it For instance, Peru is locked down all the way across. And yet still, they still advises in cases. Argentina, Belgium, Despite of this very severe, long lockdown, is seeing a huge explosion in cases. Block down. Do not work on that. They've been closed enormous cost on people both both domestically internationally. So everybody's talking about it, Carrie when when we talk about, you know, partial lockdown, shutting down indoor dining. Is that something that's worth considering I mean, I think in places where there's a huge amount of spread, and there's some evidence that there's you know, certain scenarios. You mean I think you need more evidence than we usually provide The evidence like What sort of blunderbuss kind of ham hammer like policies with very little evidence that they actually are effective. Um, so I don't I don't. I don't think it could be in principle a policy, but you need more evidence than I think people generally provide on the nature of the place. Everything I say about those kinds of restrictions. Um You know, we designate some businesses essential Other business not essential. The key principle shouldn't be essential Nous, the key principal port for deciding sort of what to do is who's actually vulnerable to the disease. Older people over workers. We asked them to go out and get exposed to the disease. Even though there may be a high risk him maybe have, like diabetes or some other conditions. If you're over 16 diabetes and your Constable Clark, you're gonna be exposed to high risk. We should be designing policies to protect them, as opposed to the fight The idea that we can just sort of slow the spread by These economic united restrictions and that'll protect people that's clearly failed. Think we just need to rethink the policy? Let's protect the vulnerable as opposed to protecting its they're supposed to closing closing businesses is waiting. Yes, of slow. The spread is if that's that would work, but it hasn't Seeing the doctor J. Bhattacharya, professor of medicine and Stanford University we've seen of wide variety of politicians who really have destroyed their own credibility here, saying things like you shouldn't go to a Thanksgiving Day dinner with your parents, But then they will just go into giant birthday party with like work friends, his Gavin Newsom did or you'll see Muriel Bowser in D. C. Talking about shutting down Thanksgiving men shall travel out of state for a celebration of Joe Biden on then return and not quarantine. Or you see various politicians like Bill de Blasio talking about shutting down schools, and then he'll actually just go out and party. In the streets with a bunch of people who are unmasked in order to in order to celebrate Joe Biden's supposed victory. The All of this seems like it's undermined public credibility with that said it still seems like it should be worthwhile being a little careful with parents or grandparents. Yeah. I mean, that's exactly the right principles. So I I mean, Dr Spending this hypocrisy is and then hypocrisy And obviously that does undermine public telephone. But the key thing to be and so what's the right message to send to the public about what to do? It's the same principle we just talked about. Older people, people with chronic conditions are more vulnerable. So what you want is a Thanksgiving dinner where they don't think that they're they're relatively safe. Sometimes having Thanksgiving is really important. It's a It's a way to connect with people and families, people, So it's really important many, many people putting me Um, So how do you do it safely? I think what you do is if you're going to have a mix of, uh, younger people, you know, and and also older, not more vulnerable people get maybe the younger people can get tested with these rapid energy and tests. You know the week before the Monday before something In the most like you do any negative When they show up, you could have a much more safely than you could have a big dinner. With the intermingled population as long as as long as you know that the people that are vulnerable or not like you get exposed. You just use the testing resource is and things that are available. If you want to do that someone have symptoms. Stay home. Those kinds of sensible things you could have a bigger Thanksgiving. That force comes to worst. Maybe the oldest rocks have Thanksgiving together and younger folks, and it's Thanksgiving together, and they could they could, you know, college other from the phone or something. I think that you have to be way do have to acknowledge there is there's an epidemic and we have to acknowledge what about the vulnerable are but that that shouldn't mean that we should stop everything that we hold. Here to us and say, Say, OK, let's just close up,.

Joe Biden lockdowns Stanford University J. Bhattacharya Stanford Institute for Economi professor of medicine National Bureau of Economic Re Dr Michael Osterholm China research associate Midwest senior fellow Bill de Blasio doctor Fauci Peru Carrie Constable Clark Muriel Bowser
"stanford institute" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

05:15 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Stanford University. He is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic and Policy Research. Talk about Charlie. Thanks so much for joining the show. It's my pleasure to be here. So why don't we start with sort of an update on where we currently are with covert? Obviously, we're seeing these massive numbers of positive test. Come back. We're seeing hospitalizations. Rise on. We're seeing deaths. Azi usually trail. So what is your assessment of where we are as a country right now? And I think many parts of the country that we're not hit so hard earlier or getting hit some so like, you know, certainly Midwest, you're seeing a spreading cases. But striking to me is this death star dust? I have not risen quite as much as we knew. If you refuse you put your expectations of what would happen from March. You'd expected much sharp break recent deaths, so the sense that it's less of Ah, shock and it would have been early on. It's clear. We've learned to treat the disease better than once I do how to do it. So there's been a lot of talk about renewed lockdowns certain governors and require more particularly he's now shutting down schools. Apparently, even though he acknowledges that schooling for under the age of 10 does not actually pose a significant risk of a viral transmission we've seen Dr Michael Osterholm was a member of Biden's advisory came suggesting a 4 to 6 week locked down. But we are seeing some pushback from sources who are kind of unusual doctor. Fauci is pushed back against lockdowns. Now you've seen a told Wanda, another member of Biden's transition team, suggesting that lockdowns are a bad idea. Where do you think we should? And in terms of lockdown politics. I mean, I think First of all schools should be open. There's no the science on this is absolutely solid and schools around kind of the work on the world of open. Despite rising number of cases closing schools does not slow the spread of the disease. Kids for whatever reason are less efficient abettors of the disease than adults. And closing schools firm kids in ways that irreparable there was just a study. Those motion jam understands that you know, if you have less schooling less years of schooling, it has long term consequences, including shorter my spans, So the estimate is that just from the closure in March in April We cost our kids and this this country 5.5 million life, years in expectation, $5.5 million. That's more than the number of light years and lost in covert. So I think closing schools should be should not be an option that although she completely off the table school should be open everywhere. Um, a Zara's lockdown. I'm really hard to see the pushback sort of spreading in the scientific community against lockdown. Um, the lockdown policies in March very clearly didn't stop the disease. March and April didn't stop the disease is spreading didn't didn't end the disease. In fact, everywhere they've been tried. There's not a single face where they stopped the disease from from entirely spreading with you. But when you when you oppose them enough, you know, setting what has already widespread, you know, Watch Better cove. It So, for instance, Peru's locked down all the way across and yet still, they still advises. In cases Argentina. Belgium is despite of this very severe long lockdown, Seeing a huge explosion in cases block down to not work, and they've imposed enormous cost on people both domestically internationally known about these Bhattacharya when when we talk about You know, partial lockdowns and shutting down indoor dining. Is that something that's worth considering? I mean, I think in places where there's a huge amount of spread, and there's some evidence that there's you know, a certain scenarios E. I think you need more evidence than usually provide. You have this like What sort of blunderbuss kind of ham hammer like policies with very little evidence that they actually are effective. Um, so I don't I don't. I don't think it could be in principle a policy, but you need more evidence than I think people generally provide on the nature of the place. Everything I'd say about those kinds of restrictions. Mm. You know, we designate some businesses essential Other business not essential. The key principle shouldn't be essential nous the key principle for for deciding sort of what to do is who's actually vulnerable to disease. Older people were workers. We asked them to go out and get exposed to the disease. Even though there may be a high risk him maybe have, like diabetes or some other conditions. If you're over 16 diabetes and your Constable Clark, you're gonna be exposed to high risk. We should be designing policies to protect them, as opposed to the fight the idea that we can just sort of slow the spread by these economic economic restrictions and that'll protect people that's clearly failed. Think we just need to rethink the policy? Let's protect the vulnerable as opposed to protecting. That's good that there's going to closing. The floating businesses has waited years of slow the spread, is it that that would work when it hasn't Student, Dr J. Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University's doctor about it, Charlie. There's been a lot of talk among various politicians and and doctors also about what to do for Thanksgiving. We've seen of wide variety of politicians who really have destroyed their own credibility here, saying things like you shouldn't go to a Thanksgiving Day dinner with your parents, But then they will just go into giant birthday party with like work friends is Gavin Newsom dead or you will see Muriel Bowser and D. C talking about shutting down Thanksgiving. Then she'll travel out of state for a celebration of Joe Biden on then return and not Corentin. Or you see various politicians like Bill de Blasio talking about shutting down schools, and then he'll actually just go out.

Joe Biden lockdowns Stanford University Dr J. Bhattacharya Charlie Stanford Institute for Economi National Bureau of Economic Re Dr Michael Osterholm research associate Bill de Blasio senior fellow Midwest Gavin Newsom Fauci Muriel Bowser Wanda Peru Constable Clark
"stanford institute" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

06:53 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"He is also research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Talk about China. Thank so much for joining show. It's my pleasure to be here. So why don't we start with sort of an update on where we currently are with covert? Obviously, we're seeing these massive numbers of positive test. Come back. We're seeing hospitalizations. Rise on. We're seeing death as they usually trail. So what is your assessment of where we are as a country right now? And I think many parts of the country that we're not hit so hard earlier are going to get some so like a, you know, certainly Midwest, you're seeing a spreading cases. But striking to me is this deaths are deaths that have not risen quite as much as we knew. If you if you put your expectations of what would happen from March, you'd expected, much sharper increase in deaths. So the sense that it's less of Ah, shock and it would have been early on. It's clear. We've learned to treat the disease that of them wants to do how to do it. There's been a lot of talk about renewed lockdowns certain governors and reclaim a particularly he's now shutting down schools, apparently, even though he acknowledges that schooling for under the age of 10 does not actually pose a significant risk of a viral transmission we've seen Dr Michael Osterholm was a member of Biden's advisory team, suggesting a 4 to 6 week locked down. But we are seeing some pushback from sources who are kind of unusual doctor. Fauci is pushed back against lockdowns. Now you've seen a told Wanda, another member of Biden's transition team, suggesting that lockdowns are bad idea. Where do you think we stand in terms of lockdown politics? I mean, I think First of all schools should be open. There's no that the science on this is absolutely solid, and schools around the end of the world around the world have open despite rising number of cases closing schools does not slow this relative to these kids, for whatever reason, our last efficient betters of the disease than adults. Closing schools harm kids in ways of irreparable. There was just a study Those motion jam mother found that you know if you have less schooling less years of schooling have long term consequences, including shorter my spans, So the estimate is that just for the closure in March and April We cost our kids and this this country 5.5 million life years in expectation. 5.5 billion like that's more than another life years in Boston, Corbett So I think closing schools should be should not be an option. Ideology completely off the table school should be open everywhere. A star is locked down. I'm really hard to see the pushback sort of spreading in the scientific community against lockdown. The lockdown policies in March very clearly didn't stop the disease. March and April didn't stop the disease is spreading. Didn't didn't have the disease. In fact, everywhere they've been tried. There's not a single face where they stopped the disease from the from entirely spreading with you. But when you spin you oppose them in a in a setting where there's already widespread, you know, watch Better Cove. It The prince is Peru's locked down all the way across. And yet still, they still advising some cases. Argentina, Um, Belgium, despite of this very severe long lockdown of seeing a huge explosion in cases, um, lockdown did not work and that they've been posed enormous cost of people both both domestically and actually talk about the music Bhattacharya When when we talk about, you know, partial lockdowns and shutting down indoor dining. Is that something that's worth considering Honey, I think and in places where there's a huge amount of spread, and there's some evidence that there's you know, a certain scenarios E. I think you need more evidence than we usually provide. You have this like What? It's a blunderbuss kind of ham hammer like policies with very little evidence that they actually are effective. Um so I don't I don't I don't think it could be in principle a policy but you need more evidence than I think people generally provide on the nature of the place. Everything I say about those kinds of restrictions. Um You know, we designate some businesses essential Other businesses essential. The key principle shouldn't be essential Nous, the key principal port for deciding sort of what to do is who's actually vulnerable of the disease. Older people were workers. We asked them to go out and get exposed to the disease. Even though there may be a high risk, and maybe have, like diabetes or some other conditions. If you're over 16 diabetes in your hospital, Clark, you're gonna be exposed to high risk. We should be designing policies to protect them, as opposed to the fight the idea that we can just sort of slow the spread by These economic you know restrictions and that'll protect people that's clearly failed. Think we just need to rethink the policy? Let's protect the vulnerable as opposed to protecting that Zoe goes to closing closing businesses has waited Yes, slow. The spread is if that's that would work when it hasn't Seeing the doctor J. Bhattacharya, professor of medicine and Stanford University's doctor about it, Charlie. There's been a lot of talk among various politicians and and doctors also about what to do for Thanksgiving. We've seen of wide variety of politicians who really have destroyed their own credibility here, saying things like you shouldn't go to a Thanksgiving Day dinner with your parents, But then they will just go into giant birthday party with like work friends is Gavin Newsom dead or you will see Muriel Bowser and D. C. Talking about shutting down Thanksgiving men shall travel out of state for a celebration of Joe Biden on then return and not Quarantine. Or you see various politicians like Bill de Blasio talking about shutting down schools, and then he actually just go out and party in the streets with a bunch of people who are unmasked in order to in order to celebrate Joe Biden's supposed victory. The All of this seems like it's undermined public credibility. What that said. It still seems like it should be worthwhile. Being a little careful, you know, a parent's or grandparent's on Thanksgiving. Yeah. I mean, that's exactly the right principal been. So I I mean a proper spending their democracies and then hypocrisy. And obviously, that doesn't undermine public telephone. But the key thing to me and so what's the right message to send to the public about what to do? It's the same principle we just talked about. Older people, people with chronic conditions are more vulnerable. So what you want is a Thanksgiving dinner where they don't think that they're they're relatively safe. Same times. Having Thanksgiving is really important. It's a It's a way to connect with people and families, people, So it's really important Many, many people putting me um so how do you do it safely? I think what you do is if you're going to have a mix of Younger people, you know, and and also older get not more vulnerable people get. Maybe the younger people can get tested with these rapid energy and tests that you know the week before the Monday before something in the most likely gonna be negative when they show up. You could have a much more safely than you could have a big dinner. Intermingled population as long as as long as you know that the people that are vulnerable or not like you get exposed. You just use the testing resource is and things that are available if you want to do that similar to have symptoms stay home. Um, those kinds of sensible things you could have a bigger Thanksgiving and that force times doors. Maybe the oldest rocks have Thanksgiving together and younger folks, and it's Thanksgiving together and they could have taken them. You know, so college other on the phone or something, and I think that you have to be way do have to acknowledge there is there's an epidemic and we have to acknowledge what about the vulnerable are but that that shouldn't mean that we should stop everything we hold. Dear to us and say, Say, OK, Was this close up, close up and hold off until what? Until it's done. I think that's worse than the disease. More things after J..

Joe Biden lockdowns Stanford Institute for Economi principal National Bureau of Economic Re Dr Michael Osterholm China research associate Midwest senior fellow Boston Better Cove Bill de Blasio Fauci Wanda Peru Honey Gavin Newsom
"stanford institute" Discussed on WJR 760

WJR 760

05:46 min | 1 year ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on WJR 760

"Back here in the second quarter of the rich Paul show with Steve and a rich Paul certified financial planners at R. W Fallin Associates, too, for a 305 99 11 year number to call. That complimentary review of your retirement situation that complete planning review. Get yourself on the calendar. Stop in and see him or have a phone call or do a virtual chat. Whatever makes you comfortable either way, they're here to help 248305 99. 11. Don't forget. You can also check him out online at big three retiree dot com. If you're an auto worker, great site for you to go check out and look at the book for pension versus Lump sum on so there's a good website to get some more information. Big three retiree dot com. Right guys that we were talking about the economy and the wild week in the weekend, and we're a couple days away here from the election and so on and so forth. What else have we got? On the economic front? We talked a little bit about the election. We talked about Cove in 2020 asshole. It's a lot of negativity, So let's just let's talk about something. Positive. Some good news. Go for. Let's talk about the GDP numbers that came out on Thursday. Okay? Yeah. Yeah, that's ah, that that number's huge. I think the record GDP increase off to go back and research. This was seven or 8%. I mean, that's the all time record for GDP increase in a quarter increase your order in you and by this time because we're not a new show, So So you went up to the minute news you just going to Internet but 33. 0.1% holy moment of GDP. Is that nuts or, you know, I think that's gonna, you know, get the market really going on because durable goods orders were up this last Tuesday, and I think that was the precursor Teo on up substantially that to the 33% number. Coming into play because at one point they thought it could be as high as 37%. That's amazing, So so that really puts that's a telltale sign. I believe of what's to come. As we go into this next year, you you just cannot hold this economy down. And that's why you know, you know, he's a doctor, I think is it's Boche Achara hits the Stanford and get the big words today. I mean, I think this thing's like 14 18 metres long this the Stanford ensued. He's a senior fellow, he says. Look, lockdowns, you know. No lock down in history when it comes to the virus has ever worked. And so to think that we can lock down the nation and have people going to go about thes medical tests that we talked about cancer screenings and all that, then you end up with a bigger problem than he had in the first place. And I mean, look at Europe. They're a mess, and so let's get the economy back on track. Let's get things going. Let's get thes Ah therapeutics out to the folks. And and let's get this thing behind us. I think that's the one of the reasons a lot of people are nervous is is you hear about what Australia did? I mean, you're talking. It was a 111 day locked down the total lock. You couldn't even leave your house for more than an hour couldn't go more in that I was in Australia or New Zealand, Australia. Okay, Australia. New Zealand is pretty heavy stuff, too. Way can't do that. You just well, you cannot shut down this account me. You cant do that. That's why that's why this doctor here, Stanford Institute. Guy says Hey, look, lockdowns haven't worked. You can't lock down a virus. It's like trying to hold a baseball underwater. Okay. How long can you do that? Exactly A couple clients bring up to me yesterday. I'm very concerned about this because if Biden does get in, he said, I'm gonna listen to the scientists. What is Val Q saying right now about the Australian situation. Yeah. I think everyone would like way find certain will listen to the scientist. And so so, I mean, I wouldn't doubt that he would move right into a locked down and maybe on a selective basis, But he seems to be kind of more pro lock down and think found dead earlier this week. He was not in favor of mass mandate or least didn't see one coming anyway. Maybe I maybe I got that wrong. Yeah, well, the latest and greatest from from Fauci is that that he He's leaning back in that direction. And so I mean, it is a means it is, you know, you might see some random shutdowns. I mean, a lot of these happened to be tied to Who's your mayor? Who's your governor? That type of thing and Was he here? Here's the thing. When do these tests you know, in the APC over 40% are asymptomatic, You know, just like you know, the Kelly McEnaney. The press secretaries like I got it. I can't tell though its system and the other 40% of today are better in one or two days. It's like Trump, he added. 34 days later. It's like, okay, let's go Campaign. Can I get out of this hospital? And and so, so we're moving. We're moving in a direction I think is very positive here, You know. Are we gonna cure this thing over now? It's not gonna happen, but but I think we're getting there. And I think everybody should be just a little bit patient here. And well, well, there's somewhere we need to be. There is such a broad range of how people react to it. And sometimes we do put a little bit too much. Think stock and you know, vaccines and things. I mean, we have vaccines for things like malaria, but still half a million, you know, plus people die every year of it. So you have to take it with, you know, grain of salt and say it's not the be all end all and that's why we have to have regular life going and things of that nature because there's just too many. There's too many people and you can't keep something like that under complete lock down in control. There's no way to do it. You're trying to control something that's uncontrollable, uncontrollable. No question. Absolutely. Well, Ari. So folks stick around. We're going to talk about More financial stuff. We've covered quite a bit here, obviously, always day on the kind of current state of things If you will, and his rich pointed out, we're not a news show. So you know if you want to stay right up to the minute you can check in some of those other resources for that, But we're going to talk about some financial income gaps on the other side of the break. So if you're getting close to retirement or as you're thinking about it, you may encounter some of these income gap so Stick around for that. We're gonna have a conversation on some of those. There's probably more than you actually think so. Stick around. This is the rich Paul show 248305 99.

Australia Paul scientist New Zealand Europe R. W Fallin Associates Stanford Institute Teo Cove senior fellow malaria Boche Achara Guy Val Q Biden Fauci Trump APC
Reid Hoffman and Fei-Fei Li on Human-Centered AI

WSJ Tech News Briefing

03:03 min | 1 year ago

Reid Hoffman and Fei-Fei Li on Human-Centered AI

"I'm Llewellyn for the Wall Street Journal and I have a guest co host today are artificial intelligence report jared council hey jared. Thanks for having me. Okay. So last week, Lincoln founder Reid Hoffman and the computer scientists faith Lee or part of a session at our Tech Live Conference, and we sat down with them for a conversation as a special episode of Tech News Briefing we'll get to their conversation but I want to tell you a little more about what you're about to hear dared verse things first who are Reid Hoffman and fairly so reid. Hoffman was one of the CO founders of Lincoln which he sold to Microsoft in two thousand sixteen. And he's now a partner at the venture capital firm gray lock. He's been involved with a number of Tech Company boards, including Microsoft, and AIRBNB. Our other guests doctor Faye Faye Lee is a professor of computer science at Stanford University. She's widely considered one of the leading experts in a I. Computer. Vision. She used to be the chief scientist of machine learning in. Google and the to work together at Stanford's Institute for Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. Dr Lee is one of the CO directors air and Mr, Hoffman is a member of its advisory council. Okay. Got It. So Hofmann and Lee were at tech live to talk about human centered ai you guys will get into what that means in the interview but I wonder if you could just give a little background information as our artificial intelligence reporter, why is it such a hot topic of conversation right now? Yeah. Hey, I is a is a hot topic because it's becoming ingrained in a just so many aspects of our lives from predicting next next word or phrase in an email to recommending products on Amazon or songs on spotify. Those kind of innocuous aspects but also more high stakes decisions like what kinds of sentences. A person may serve or what kinds of jobs opportunities they may have access to so. Has Benefit Society but there's also a lot of a lot of risk know one of the biggest ones has to do with bias. There's been studies out there that that show that facial recognition systems for instance are better at detecting white male faces than they are at detecting women and people of Color, and so you know when you have a technology that is really infiltrating our world, there's going to be a lot of attention paid to it. Especially, some of the the issues that come with it and for read and Faye. Faye, with they're trying to do is really elevate somebody ethical issues and concerns and try to get as many stakeholders as possible whether it's businesses or governments to think hard about an of course developers to think hard about what they're creating in in how they're designing.

Faye Faye Lee Reid Hoffman Institute For Human Centered A Microsoft Wall Street Journal Llewellyn Jared Professor Of Computer Science Benefit Society Stanford University Lincoln Google Stanford Advisory Council Founder Airbnb
How social media impacts human interaction

TechStuff

02:12 min | 2 years ago

How social media impacts human interaction

"Here's a lot of fear there. I think in a lot of a lot of news stories. That are kind of amp that fear and there have been several studies that that talk doom and gloom about like about like. Oh no social media media is so big that we're not going to talk to other in person anymore right Could total communication breakdown cats and dogs living together that that kind of thing Nice and Ah pop stuff but like just yes anyway. You know. We'd quote documentaries all the time here on tech stuff. It's perfectly fine and I agree entirely Lauren from an armchair psychology perspective. If I were to just look at the the whole idea of social media And human interaction in general Part of me would think hey. Social media is replacing that face to face human interaction that we tend tend to think of as being really important as part of our development as a person right or that seems to be really important for a very long time. Yeah I mean it's it's part of socialization and and the worry is that without that face to face interaction with something else replacing it we would be less capable of dealing with those interactions when they come up and a lot of the the information about this tends to be anecdotal. which anyone who's done any science knows is not reliable when it comes to actually remeasuring science There have been a few studies. There's one that you will hear quoted. All the time was from the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of society and This one said This one was in two thousand and five to be fair so this was a few years ago it was before twitter and facebook were a really huge but but it found that compared to people who do not use the Internet frequently. Those who do Spend seventy minutes minutes less per day. Interacting with their family twenty five minutes less per day sleeping and thirty minutes less watching television. Although I'm not sure why that's necessarily a bad thing way way. But that but that family thing that seventy minutes less a day talking to your family that sounds that sounds awful into interacting with your family online exactly Klay and that's and that's what we're I think it turns out that that is what we are

Klay Lauren Quantitative Study Of Society Stanford Institute Twitter Facebook Seventy Minutes Twenty Five Minutes Thirty Minutes
"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:15 min | 3 years ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Bank and Commerzbank merger talks are said to intensify. Wrapping things up game. Stop was downgraded at Bank of America. Exxon Mobil downgrades remarkable form, Ed Cowan and rising pharma upgraded to overweight over at Morgan Stanley. Live from the first you breaking news desk. I'm Bill Maloney. Karen? Thank you to hear live breaking news of your Bloomberg type squawk on your terminal s-q-u-a-w-k. That's a Bloomberg business flash. Tom John Jaren thanks so much Bloomberg interactive brokers studios. This job stay in New York. We welcome all of you coast to coast cross, Canada and the United States. Good morning, London and continental Europe Joan major show to the evening. The dark of night across Asia. Massa cricket turn out in Australia earlier this week. I'll you in. Hers and shot out this morning halfway between Manila and Ello. Ello city Ruth is listening. She wants more Manchester. United more Ruth wants more Man United. Can we continue to Hilo wherever that we'll recap the games on Monday morning, shall we something you should look out for a little bit later on this kind of slipped beneath the radar this week? Jay Powell, we'll be speaking this evening, quite light. Ten pm eastern. You'll hear from the Federal Reserve. No, this was a little bit later today. So Jay Powell be discussing monetary policy normalization and a review of it. At the Stanford institute for economic policy bender. Sippers speech. Eight to from a moderator. So that's going to happen at ten eastern time. Believe also he's going to be speaking on sixty minutes this weekend to today. I think so. You're going to hear chairman, Jim. JP Morgan let's rip up the scripture on job say the chairman goes out to Stanford. The land of John Taylor in a rules based theory, Mr. Boskin with a conservative tone that we get out of Hoover in Stanford. And the other giants of Stanford economics are they dated a pendant or are. They looking for a new theory from chairman Powell. Well, I think she's suggested the state is going to be thinking differently about its inflation objectives thinking about targeting average inflation that's a different idea than what they've been talking about out there. So I think I think the key point is rules based things I mean, it's a good start. But honestly has evolved in ways that the Santa's had to make the damn adjust to we don't know where the natural rate of unemployment is places not behaving the way all of our models told us that it should right. And so I think people who are wedded to rule rules have to be a little more flexible, and I was just Thomas soul. The great conservative of the Hoover institute would say when guys economists men and women say, it's a fully employed, America's soul falls off his chair and protests. Are we fully employed? We don't really know. I mean, if you. The only way we go by is are we seeing inflation problems? Well, not really I mean wages are doing better. But we're not really seeing the kinds of problems that make you think, gee, we're match employed. I mean, there's always gonna be people out there who are unemployed. I think what we've seen in the last year or so is that the young adult population of participation of young adults twenty five thirty five back to where we were back in two thousand seven we still have a lot of people who are in their forties and fifties probably have been displaced by disruptive innovation, and I don't know what they can do gym during a tough to retrain a lot of people would argue that is pretty difficult to argue. We're at full employment if we keep pumping out in and around two hundred thousand jobs every. Good point. I mean, it makes sense to them by now we should have been seeing slower job growth. This matched out a full employment. I think it's a sober reminder that maybe we don't quite know how much hidden unemployment. There is out there is that enough fuel for the doves to push back against the hawks in the back half of this year. If they start making some noise. You know, I think I think it's not so much about the liberal marks anymore. It's how you manage is. She should you be that obsessed with keeping inflation at two percent or you look at inflation over the course of the cycle and say to yourself in good years inflation goes up and bad usually goes down. And it looks to me like they're making a major change in the way, they think about here inflation objective. Because they don't really wanna see inflation expectations moving below two percent because that kind of anchors nominal interest rates and that limits their ability to respond in crises. Yeah. So I really think I think the argument really is more. Let's take a longer term view of the cycle particularly given. We don't really haven't really got her hands around the inflation dynamic. So Jim there is a very public debate plank out about how they talk it. This two percent inflation target how they hit it. I just want to right now we discussed this earlier on this program. The Federal Reserve keeps saying that data dependent. There's a lot of confusion as to how they're dependent on the data. And I just wonder whether this very public debate about how you hit your inflation target actually hinders the message or whether it helps or not. I don't know how if it helps or hurts. I think going to data dependent idea makes sense to me because when you have the interfaces zero and then you saw the economy now is flying cruising altitude. It's time to get your rates up to from zero. And they were kind of on automatic pilot for a while. But but now they're getting close to where they think is normal. So it makes it figure out to stand back. And as we were where's the economy going? So data dependent makes sense to me. I don't I I personally think the two percent inflation target was a great innovation from Denver Nike because against the market a precise anchor. Right. Look to and installation people's worries about political pressure on the fed. Let's come back Jim Glassman with us on this jobs day. We're going to get his perspective as we see the data. And then migrate over to Abby. Joseph Cohen, give perspective. Look all of us into what we saw yesterday, which was a new lower interest rate regime that was an ugly morning, but it has improved in the last. Ninety minutes. Maybe an hour euro one twelve twenty one sterling even lifts a little bit one.

Jay Powell Jim Glassman Bloomberg chairman Federal Reserve Ruth Bill Maloney Exxon Mobil Bank of America Stanford Morgan Stanley Ed Cowan Bloomberg interactive brokers Bank Stanford institute Karen Hoover institute Hilo JP Morgan
"stanford institute" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

01:50 min | 3 years ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

"Wayne going into the Stanford institute Stanford University the Hoover Institution, I'll be back with Richard Norton. Smith, president say show too. If and when news happens anywhere, you'll hear it here. First. Hewitt continues. Spring is just around the corner. So now is the time to get those home projects done so you can spend spring and summer being with your loved ones. Homeadvisor makes it easy to find the right pros for any project. Seriously. Whether it's a small project like fixing a leaky faucet or a big project, like remodeling your kitchen. Just go to homeadvisor dot com and tell them about your project in just seconds. You'll be match with the best pros in your areas. For your exact job. You can read verified customer reviews, compare prices. Check availability, even book appointments online and with their project cost guide. You can check but others paid for similar jobs in your area. No matter what home project you've been thinking about painting getting your gutters. Clean even a big job like a new roof. Homeadvisor makes it easy to find. And hire the best pros in your area. Find a great pro now before the busy season hits. Go to homeadvisor dot com or download the free app to get started. That's home advisor. Her dot com. Are you fed up with paying maintenance fees on a timeshare that you never ever use? If that's the case, I'm sure getting out of your timeshare at the top of your to do list, especially when that maintenance Bill just came to during this time, it's a concert reminder. You have to get out. I know how hard it is to find a company you can trust. I wanna tell you about my friends at lonestar transfer. They had helped over eight thousand timeshare owners get out.

Homeadvisor Stanford University Hoover Institution lonestar transfer Richard Norton Smith Wayne Hewitt president advisor Bill
"stanford institute" Discussed on KNBR The Sports Leader

KNBR The Sports Leader

12:09 min | 3 years ago

"stanford institute" Discussed on KNBR The Sports Leader

"Well, guess what? As we welcome. Huey Lewis to the airwaves that book that Bradman gin and Kirk Reynolds put together for Dwight about all the all the lunches at Capitola in whitefish in the final meeting up. There was called power of love. That's what they call the book. So very very cool and what a Pebble Beach tradition. It is to have the legend the rock and roller. Huey Lewis on the Huma gasline Huey. We always look forward to having you on the Murph and MAC show. It's great having you back, man. Happy Pebble Beach Wiki. We how you doing. Pretty good. Pretty good. You know, I can't hear very well. But I'm I'm still playing golf. So that's good. Oh, gosh. Tell us just kind of get that other. 'cause I know your fans out there wanna know is there an update on on on the hearing. Yet, still still no good. I, you know, they don't know what I have I've been to. Healthier institute Stanford institute. UCSF mayo clinic. Mass General I or nobody knows what I got the call it Miniere's disease, but that's really just a syndrome based on symptoms. If you do the and you lose hearing, and yeah, a little candidates than they say it's been years. But they really don't know what I have. It fluctuates. Maybe that's a good sign because if you can get better it just hasn't yet. Huey. I remember Pete Townsend famously with the who back in the late eighties spoke a lot about his hearing problems and how he was almost completely deaf. But I will say in this at this point in time in two thousand nineteen I understand Pete Townsend's hearing has improved dramatically. So have you ever reached out to Pete or other musicians who are going through a similar situation because I think it actually can get better. Yes. I have David pack the keyboard player with their brochure. The producer is a wonderful musician and a great guy. He has the same thing. One ear and he connected with me. And we will you know, each out to believe he knows what he understands what I have. And and he actually reached out to Pete. Me of sweet note about embracing embrace it and chill and hope for the best. Yeah. Which is which is what I was doing anyway. So right. Yeah. So he just to kind of keep everybody up who wants to hear your music right now. No tours or no just until further notice. No, no, live, no live gigs. Right. Alive. This. We have a new record is going to come out. Yeah. We just signed a deal with Jeeva. We're going to excited western new music coming up this year. So that's good. But you know, we kept late. We can't wait till I can hear music better. So that's that's the heartbreak heartbreaking. You're never was that greatest singer, always reliable. Reliable. Could get a couple of good lines off their Huey Lewis is the voice you hear at Pebble Beach. How's it affected the golf experienced? At least maybe it keeps you you. Don't have to hear any distracting noises in your backswing. Right. Maybe we'll look at the positive side here. True. I wish I wish you was positive. But you know, frankly, but, but you know, you gotta get on with your life. And and I'm trying to stay creatively of a musical hard rock musical, which we just put up in San Diego for six weeks. And so we're trying to get that to Broadway. And you know, you try to stay positive and creative. It's all you can do very good. How about Pebble Beach as a recall a you had to miss one recently? But you're back how many years now Huey how many at a is it like thirty thirty five or thirty five out of forty or what's your what's your run right now? Thirty out of thirty three or something. Man. Do you still get the thrill going down through the gates and seeing the green and the and the and the blues and the trees and the alive? You still get the thrill. It's the most beautiful place on the planet. You know? It's really fun. And Steve gentlemen team has done such a great job just pushing the tournament for it. I mean, it's amazing anymore. You know, the the players lounge and that stuff the way we're taking care of is just fantastic. It is really good. Steve. As Steve does everything he moves having a earth to get the best players to get the best avent's. And so I agree with you on that one too. So did you get your pairing? Do you know who you're pro is playing with Chris drought? Nice got excited. Oh boy. It'll be fun. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the the old days when it was you and and Jake and in the crews still doing their thing. Do you still see Peter Jacobsen around? Yeah. He was gonna play with me here. But he got it need operated on three weeks ago. And he's rehabbing so we could make it. But. I was scared. I bumped into Kenny Perry who I played with here with Dwight would wait, wait, wait with Kenny partner and Nolan Henke was my partner, and I think it was our very first one ever probably eighty seven. And you know, I I bumped him. Remember, it was thirty one years ago play together. Memories. I remember Katy Perry. You know, the the Niners are winning Super Bowls, and we're all over the charts. And so we had a great big crowd following us. And I remember at the end of the at the end of the tournament. Katy Perry said he said above. Ingest, of course. But he said, you guys are great guys. But I hope I never play again. The too much mania. Right. Totally. Well, that leads us. Yeah. That leads us to DWI and Huey were like everybody else. We're still missing them. And we still talk about him a lot. And and we talked about the statue unveiling, and we talked about the book the power of love that was out. And now, there's a new book coming out that I am lucky enough to be a part of call letters to eighty seven Matt maiocco. NBC sports berry did the documentary MTV where people wrote letters about where they were about the catch and how it impacted their lives, which is what Dwight wanted. I was lucky enough to be with him two weeks before he died up in whitefish. And he said, I want a book on where people words, Matt maiocco is fulfilling his wish so I didn't know if you knew about the book, but it's it's the garrisons photos from the eighties black and white Zemun. And Ronnie wrote an essay Eddie wrote an essay Kelly wrote an essay I wrote about our last visit up there. So tell us give you could share with us anymore. Thoughts you've had since since he passed away. He died in June and your last time you were up there with them. And we saw some great pictures. Are you surprising him and all the laughs that went down Hughie? Yeah. You know, we miss him every day, especially Pebble Beach here because he was the one I convinced me to play in the tournament. I remember the previous year. I watched it on television like an eighty six or eighty five. Limited bunker at a right lane. Seven raining like crazy. Sideways, and he's in the bunker at eighteen. AM seven I thought to myself that I didn't do this. But Dwight convinced me that it would be fun. And so he really kind of dragged me down eater. So I always think about. Was as you know, an unbelievably special diet, and he was just everybody loves him. He was just because he just loved people just loved people he loves life. And that's really that's really the sad part of this whole thing is that, you know, he nobody appreciated life more than Dwight clerk, you know. It's very very true when you were up there in the big party that Eddie through with him. And and Charles Haley, and Kevin Cogan, Ronnie and kina and everybody was up there. Is there any story that you can any memory, you can share with the listeners out there of what it was like that week and to be with all those old greats entity and Huey. And then he knew what was going on. But at the same time, I've seen the pictures. There was a ton of laughter going down. Yeah. We got a lot of fun. It was. So I mean, Eddie so wonderful to do that, you know, just bring everybody together, occasionally what other whatever team does that now nobody. And so, and it's so much fun to just. You don't remember we we actually go through the games? You know? I remember the Chicago the freezing Chicago game with Jim McMahon where we were supposed to lose by three touchdowns one by and I remember specific plays that I was able to share with Carl Williamson and Ronnie Lott. His way. We're talking about the best defensive backfield industry. He puts us all together. So we can just reminisce which is wonderful. It was so much love in the room for you know, they unveiled a document the first documentary that we did for adult films did on Dwight football life. Because what are they what do they call it? Yeah. So, and I I narrated it and they unveiled it there for us. All eddie's. I mean, it was so powerful, and so many tears and not a dry eye in house. It was a wonderful time you'd be within. I've heard that documentary fantastic. If only NFL network air at one day, we get to see it. But you released when he when he died you guys released on your Twitter feed a footage of him. Singing. I believe it was hip to be square the weight. Nice vocal talk. Huey about vocals like, dude. This dude could sing. We'll flat out. Only had a good voice. Right. You could flat saying no question about it. He can sing great. And in fact, I tell people this I kinda screwed. He he he Joe Montana. Ronnie Lott and Ricky Ellison sang on hip to be square there in the background. They would air everywhere. Nicely. Put harmonies on top of that. Yeah. But we instantly realized that Dwight could sing when we got him in the studio. So I had him sing a few lines solo on the on the right out on the end of the song. And actually the very lap square is Dwight Clark on the record. Nice. That's awesome. Man. I didn't know that it up. I go home. Yeah. Just on the fade the last one you hear is Dwight. A huge put him in throughout. Yeah. You don't get Wally pipped here by Dwight Clark man that. What are we going to do before? We let you appreciate you coming out. We look forward to watching you play by the way, he was going to be a Pebble Beach on Thursday at eight fifty five and then Monterey peninsula Saturday. And then Spyglass Hill are pardon me. Monterey peninsula, Friday, Spyglass Hill Saturday. What are we going to do about this Tom Brady thing? Huey because I refuse to let go of Joe as the greatest of all time. And and people are telling me I've lost. I'm losing credibility by the minute. I can't trust your radio show anymore. Brady's the goats. What do we do? What are we doin' Huey who roots for those Boston for those New England Patriots? Anyway. This not us there about one million of them on the streets yesterday somewhere. I think that's what I think. That's where the line with two points. It probably could have been eight point. Everybody hates the patriots. I mean, you gotta keep your down Brady mean. He's a great quarterback. But yeah, I'm with you. I'm Joe guy and always will be there Tom Brady might be as good as Joe Montana. But I don't think there's anybody better than Joe Montana. How's that? Yeah. I'll take that. Okay. That works. I'll take. Well. He it's great to hear your everybody's rooting for you, man. I mean, we know it's tough on you've been very candid about the hearing deal. And now the fact that you're out there playing golf at Pebble Beach is a good thing and hang in there man again Huey. I saw the who last year at outside lands in Golden Gate park. And I'll tell you what towns had the electric guitar on. And he was kicking up a major racket. So again, I'm just telling you he can get better. Just hang in there. I also I also hopes up. That's what I'm that's what I'm open for. Thanks for sharing a few minutes. The Murph and MAC Shawn Campbell. And we'll in him straight, man, fairways and greens. You all right. Thank you. Huey Lewis bless him. Great trivia about him to be squaring..

Huey Lewis Dwight Clark Pebble Beach Ronnie Lott Huma gasline Huey Joe Montana Pebble Beach Wiki Tom Brady Pete Townsend Eddie whitefish New England Patriots Katy Perry Matt maiocco UCSF mayo clinic Miniere Stanford institute Steve Joe guy