Keynes - RSA podcast review

An impression that I took with me from economics classes in secondary school and university was that Keynes was hardly relevant any longer. His models were nice to explain economics and to understand anti-cyclical policy, but with those policies firm in place there were no longer the depressions Keynes had developed his ideas on.

Not surprisingly, even if the above idea was a crude misconception, just as we enter economic depression today, Keynes is back on the lips of economists and others who need to comment on the current situation. The RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) invited several of those to speak of Keynes. From this wide variety of speakers one receives the impression Keynes should not have been abandoned at all. As one of the speakers puts it: "with all of the spending you do and with asset prices going up, Keynes would have said: you are going to get a depression." So a more prolonged attempt is made to apply Keynes to today. Let Keynes and his influence on the Bretton Woods agreement be a model for today to conjure up a similar international system to keep heavy fluctuations in the economy in hand.

Keynes is credited to have discovered 'the grammar of economics', but what also is discussed is the more contemplative, poetic as it were, side of his thinking. Keynes seemed to have envisioned a limit to economic policy and economic strive. His ideas, so it is presented, were to ascertain a level of security for all and not to be applied ad infinitum for wealth without end. Terms like usury and avarice go over the table. Have I ever heard those words used by economists before? Asking the question is giving the answer.

Dhyan Sutorius - Simek podcast recensie

In de uitzending van 14 december jongstleden van Simek 's Nachts lijkt het doek echt te vallen. Heb ik het nou goed begrepen dat er nog een, of twee, uitzendingen komen? Het einde was al aangekondigd en Simek had er in de vorige uitzending die ik recenseerde voor het eerst ook aan gerefereerd, maar in de uitzending van afgelopen zondag was het haast of er een andere Simek zat. De oude Simek die we zo goed vinden.

Het moet aan hem geknaagd hebben. Het heeft in ieder geval aan mij geknaagd. Vaak had ik in het afgelopen jaar het gevoel dat Simek wat mat was. Maar nu dat het echt echt voorbij is, kwam er opeens een vechter naar boven. Het leek wel alsof hij nog een maal aan de ether wilde laten voelen waar hij toe in staat is. Zijn gast was de lach-therapeut Dhyan Sutorius en Simek pakte hem aan zonder mededogen. Onthulde de argeloze gast en pakte hem met liefde weer in.

Het is wel vaker gebeurd dat Simek zijn gast met stomheid slaat. Vaak komen ze daar wel weer uit, meestal met een beetje terugvallen in de 'comfort zone', soms door het interview grondig te verpesten - zoals Rita Verdonk deed. Maar hoe het ook uitpakt, als Simek zijn gast op het verkeerde been heeft gezet, hoe ongepolijst het verderr ook mag lopen, dan heb je de beste Simek dan heb je de meest onversneden podcast die je kan hebben. En Dhyan Sutorius had de ongelofelijke moed om op het verkeerde been te blijven staan en ook al betekent dat vele stiltes en kom je zoveel niet te weten. Het levert het meest intrigerende tweegesprek op dat ik in tijden heb gehoord.

Blijft dit een daverend slotakkoord? Niet zeker, want er zijn al geruchten dat Simek doorgaat op de een of andere manier. (Martin Simek en Gijs Groenteman)

Meer Simek:
Louis Tas,
Piet Hein Eek,
Ernst van de Wetering,
Ageeth Veenemans,
Marc de Hond.

Lord Lawson and The Alarmists - global warming review

I thought there was consensus. At the UChannel Podcast we have had many speakers who build on the assumption there is consensus about global warming and rush to tell us what dramatic policy changes we need to take up. We have had Lord Stern and more recently Thomas Friedman and many others. I can recall only one who took a contrary view in account and this was on waste management. There the word religion was applied. And Lord Lawson, in a recent UChannel Podcast speaks of the likes of Stern and Friedman as alarmists and warns of the alleged consensus also in a way of a intolerant religion.

Lord Lawson propagates a cool look at global warming and in short argues that the warming may not be half as bad as the alarmists claim it to be. He also claims that the time span in which the warming will take place gives ample window for man's adaptation so in his view, global warming, if at all happening, is not a problem. Consequently, the economics of the 'alarmists' are completely wrong in his view. Not only won't they be applicable, or if applied won't work, but also the divert the attention from much worse and pressing problems.

And just as the German Thomas Deichmann complained about the absurd investments in waste management and how the views about this take on a religious character so that discussion has become impossible, so Lord Lawson warns that the alleged scientific consensus about Climate Change is much less than it seems, but has become a rigid ideology on the level of bureaucrats and policy makers. He claims to know young scientists and politicians who refrain from voicing their doubts in fear of their careers.

I find it very important and refreshing to hear these views even though they leave me utterly confused. I really do not know what to believe any more. I feel I must be critical and knowledgeable beyond my capacity. However there were three thoughts that stuck with me all the way: pollution reduction seems like a good idea by all means, so one can still make thoughts how to sensibly and effectively go about that. The other thought is: being dependent on fossil fuels for our energy is problematic even if the carbon-dioxide emissions are not a problem as Lawson argues, hence attempting to develop alternatives is sensible anyway. And thirdly: one must indeed be very careful not to lose sight of direct and practical problems such as poverty and human rights violations, while getting caught up in measures for Global Warming. Climate Change by all means is a global problem, but not as certain and as short term that it allows to ignore everything else.

More UChannel:
Terror and Consent,
Nudge: improving decisions and behavior,
Hot, Flat and Crowded,
In 2050,
The Arab-Israeli Conflict.

The Great Fire - In Our Time podcast review

In September 1666 burnt the Great Fire of London. BBC's In Our Time spoke of the fire last week and I hope you can still download the podcast, before it will be replaced today with the program made this morning.

I can be short about this issue of In Our Time. It was as good as always. The event of the Great Fire is amply made tangible and, needless to say, very clearly put in a historic perspective. The Fire not only devastated a huge part of London, but it also marked a kind of watershed in history. These connections between facts on the ground and the grand scheme of developments, are always what interest me most

What stayed with me however, were this time a few almost casually mentioned facts about London and about the Fire. For example, the fire raged on for four days and for a long time afterward, one couldn't move through the debris. First of all, because of the remaining heat - the ground was still hot for days on end. Afterward there was the great logistical problem of removing the debris. So many Londoner just left, never to return. And here is another point: who were the Londoners? Cities in those days (I remember this from Amsterdam) hardly managed to maintain their size by themselves. The death rate was enormous. The city stayed huge, on account of constant immigration. These immigrants came from everywhere, rather from far than from close by. In London there were a lot of English from remote locations and there were a lot of foreigners, French and Dutch mostly. It gives for a different perspective on the roots of the citizens.

More In Our Time:
Heat,
Baroque,
Neuroscience,
Simon Bolivar,
The Translation Movement.

Game theory - Yale online course review

Many academic institutions in the Anglo-Saxon world are putting lectures and lecture series on line for listening or, occasionally, viewing. Most of these come as podcasts, through iTunes-U or independently, however a few are available for download without any RSS feed whatsoever. An example are all the courses that Yale offers. Those are many and of great quality.

In this review I'd like to pay attention to the course in Game Theory that is served as an economics course, but basically is a math subject and has implications beyond math and economics. The lectures can be downloaded or followed on-line as audio as well as video. (Game Theory audio and video) The course involves a reasonable amount of mathematics, but the complexity of this is very low. Professor Ben Polak makes a point of putting the lessons of Game Theory in natural language and is very effective in showing the application in practical terms with examples from economics, politics and even soccer and dating. Aside from being very clear, Professor Polak is also very entertaining.

My excitement just came to a high point during the 8th lecture when Polak showed an important implication for the social sciences, where I immediately saw it profoundly important for sociology of law - my old field of specialty.

Suppose you see in mixed societies that people generally live in segregated cities or quarters. And you also see that when given the choice where to live, they will move into the areas where the people of their own kind live. Can you conclude from this that people generally prefer to live segregated? Game Theory shows that the answer is no. If people prefer to live in mixed towns, but rather not be part of a minority, their strategic choices will result in segregation. In more broad terms this means that if you see people act according to a certain pattern, this does not necessarily imply this is their preferred pattern, but rather it could be the result of a strategic choice, aiming to optimize the result, in stead of gambling to get to a maximum.

The is especially important for social sciences that attempt to make observations about normative rules, such as the sociology of law. It is sort of generally accepted that if a rule is not abided by, it may legally be a rule, but sociologists do not consider it a social norm. With the game theory lesson in mind, this may be false. Social actors can choose to break the rule for strategic reasons, but on the normative level still accept the validity of the rule. It makes the social scientific, empirical, approach of normative fields all the more complicated.

Edgy 59 - Podcast review podcast reviewed

The Edgy reviews podcast has taken up the small challenge I threw at it in my last review: explain the rather lengthy official name it carries: Edgy Reviews from That Podcast Show.

This is done in it's 59th edition which includes as usual three lengthy podcast reviews by Daniel and Sue. After that they both give their own podcast recommendation for the week and eventually Daniel explains the name of the show.

As I had already noticed, the original starting name was That Podcast Show. Even though that sounded good and maybe even definitive in the kind of way a meta-podcast should sound, it had a bad search engine implication. The name is rather indifferent in the proximity of other show names and more problematically, it doesn't carry the word review in it. Consequently, the show will react weakly to searches on 'podcast reviews' and that is quite opposite to what was to be intended.

So the word reviews was added and in order to maintain some of the original cheeky line, the reviews became edgy. Understandable, but likely to be too long for anybody to maintain. I predict it will over time become Edgy Reviews Podcast for short.

As to the contents: Edgy reviews gives the widest range of podcast reviews with professional valuation you can find on the internet.