Greg Smith has a well thought out, deeply compelling and scary take on the world we suddenly find ourselves in. I thought you should hear from him and so have just recorded this conversation. I strongly recommend you check it out.
(Note: this was recorded in March but only hoisted on YouTube until now - early October. But it's still very much current.
What if technology stopped keeping us apart and started bringing us back together?
In this, part 2 of my conversation with Jim Savage, we turn from diagnosing the problem of loneliness to what we’re doing about it.
Jim introduces Feather, the platform he founded to make real-world connection easier, richer, and more meaningful. Unlike traditional social media, Feather is built to help enrich our social interactions in real life, in studios, clubs, dinner parties, and shared experiences IRL.
We discuss how Feather is building pro social design into technology: lowering the barriers to invitation, helping organisers thrive, and fostering communities that outlast the events themselves. From acrobats in North America to local yoga studios and comedy clubs, Feather is already showing how digital tools can nurture and repair the fabric of social life.
If part 1 asked why loneliness has spread, part 2 asks: what would it look like to build technology that heals society rather than harms it?
Here is the link to watch the video version of this conversation.
Why, in an age of constant connection, are so many of us lonelier than ever?In this first part of my conversation with Jim Savage, entrepreneur, dinner party host, acrobat and thinker on social connection, we dive into one of the defining challenges of our time: loneliness. From the rise of singledom and the decline of community institutions, to the way technology amplifies our tendency to seek out people "just like us", we explore why friendship has become harder and why simple acts like talking to strangers seem rarer than ever.We also discuss the paradox of being wired for human connection yet behaving in ways that drive us apart, the subtle ways our social architecture is eroding and the importance of intergenerational exchange. In that regard, check out the intergenerational initiative I talk about here: https://www.iwishidasked.com.au/. It’s fantastic. If loneliness is the silent epidemic of modern life, what can we do about it? Check out part 2 of our conversation which turns to solutions, most notably Feather, Jim’s start up designed to bring people back together in the real world.
Watch the video of this interview on my YouTube here: https://youtu.be/JPGL9E6yZRw
In this discussion with Crikey's Bernard Keane, we discuss the "don't mention the war" syndrome - how politicians' technique increasingly avoids discussing anything difficult. We start with the proposed Tasmanian AFL stadium inquiry as a case study.
Bernard draws me out on his concern that consultants' reports have become fig leaves for predetermined decisions.
I explore the way in which citizen juries just might be able to take us back to the 'glory days' of the Hawke Government. How? By answering the 'Spice Girls' question before it is debated within parliament. What does that even mean? You'll have to listen to find out!
What I call 'representation by sampling' is a retrovirus that could restore genuine deliberation to our toxic political culture and enable it to engage with our problems rather than the performative buck-passing it's become.
If you'd like to access the video of this discussion, it's available on YouTube at: https://youtu.be/7aYbf3RGktM
In this episode of "Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality," Gene Tunny and I explore the implications of President Trump's tariffs on international trade. We discuss the micro and macroeconomic aspects of tariffs, and how these policies could reshape the U.S. and global economies. We discuss the ways in which foreigners can be induced to pay some of the tariff, even if not as much as Donald Trump says they will, while also addressing the\ impacts on industries and employment. We emphasise how abstract the economists' models are and how poorly they account for supply chain disruptions.
The broader implications for U.S. foreign relations, and the rule of law are also touched upon. Why would anyone trust the US when, under this president, it breaks previous agreements whenever it fancies?
If you'd like to see the YouTube recording of our conversation, it's here.
Greg Smith has a well thought out, deeply compelling and scary take on the world we suddenly find ourselves in. I thought you should hear from him and so have just recorded this conversation. I strongly recommend you check it out. If you prefer to watch the video, it is here.
This discussion emerged from an email from my colleague Gene Tunny wondering whatever happened to Australian exceptionalism — that period during which he cut his teeth in the Treasury when Australian policy makers worked tirelessly to reshape the Australian economy to make it more productive and government politicians regarded this as one of their core tasks.
We talked about how past leaders made big changes, like reducing tariffs and improving education. I painted a picture from my own — unusual — point of view which is that my father was an important figure in helping 'sell' economic reform to governments in the 1960s and then became part of early neoliberalism as an academic advisor to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet beginning shortly after the election of the Whitlam Government to around mid-1976.*
I argue that early neoliberalism was highly successful. It picked plenty of low hanging fruit and saw itself as problem solving. As it became a dominant way of thinking, it became formularised — and understood as a summary aesthetic that 'market based' solutions were better. This idea was way too vague and vibey to be of practical use, but it operated to systematically bias the way people thought about things and set them up to make mistakes that were so large that there’s a fair case to be made that late reform did more harm than good. As I wrote in this op ed in 2014:
"Australia was a standard-bearer in areas like trade and agricultural protection, the two airline policy and shopping hours. There, with the stroke of a pen, we swept away the detritus of a century’s ad hoc political favouritism. And unlike our peers in the Anglosphere, we also expanded funding for the safety net – bolstering equity.
But beyond that, as we’ve learned (or have we?), considering policy alternatives against a criterion as crude as how ‘free market’ they are doesn’t work so well. In infrastructure, utility and financial reform, where monopoly and asymmetric information problems abound, regulation remains inevitable and new rent seeking political pathologies lie in wait for those unpicking the old ones. Here our reform efforts brought forth excessively priced mortgages, toll-ways, desalination plants and airports with the political and official insiders championing the changes parachuting into lucrative careers with the corporate beneficiaries of their reforms to lobby their successors. We’ve seen massive over-investment in electricity transmission and under-investment in other infrastructure."
Gene and I discuss a range of policy questions, but Gene is interested in my experience in reforming car manufacturing in Australia and we spend a fair bit of time on that. We also discuss the Higher Education Charge (HECs) and the outsourcing of the Commonwealth Employment Services to illustrate some of the good and the bad of the new approach. And we also talk about the disasters like public-private partnerships for infrastructure, particularly toll roads. We also swapped some ideas about how New Zealand has done so much worse than Australia since the '70s. I don't know about Gene, but my speculations on that subject should be taken as just that — speculations and pretty uninformed.
* In case you're interested, the new PM, Malcolm Fraser did not get rid of him. Instead Dad had always felt bad about giving the ANU only half of his time so he withdrew from the arrangement with PM&C when there seemed to be less interest in his services.
The very terrific Dan Davies and I discuss his new book, and how Stafford Beer’s management cybernetics can help us make sense of what’s going wrong, and do something about it. Hint: we’ve fallen for the idea that massive systems can be effectively self-governing. But they can’t be. 00:00 - Highlights 01:52 - Introducing Dan Davies and The Unaccountability Machine 03:05 - The book in a nutshell. 06:08 - Marx 08:04 - Critical thinking, the professions and academic disciplines 11:35 - Economists and in particular Friedrich Hayek 19:14 - Ideologies 24:01 - Why humour is so often one of the best forms of insight and critique 25:52 - The purpose of a system is what it does 29:20 - The idiocy of mission statement 34:57 - Systems and governance 38:36 - Dan's marvellous metaphor of two ways to solve Rubik’s cube 41:46 - Management and managerialism 49:12 - Governments during covid: the failure to think critically 52:39 - Brand managers 56:32 - Thames water 59:42 - Debt as the driver of 'hollowing out' 1:02:57 - The CAMO response to an intellectual impasse. 1:05:45 - Back to humour as our conclusion
Competition policy created jobs and economic growth but sometimes it harmed smaller communities as rural services were rationalised. So Australia Post thinks it's on a PR winner when it argues that other logistics firms should be denied access to the 'last mile' of their rural network (from rural post office to home address) to deliver parcels to rural customers.
But whereas the letter monopoly is legislated specifically to fund a cross-subsidy from the city to the bush, Australia Post's monopoly on its last mile of delivery to the bush is a 'natural monopoly'. It only exists because it's uneconomic for anyone else to invest in that infrastructure — because it's not heavily utilised.
In fact Australia Post can't take advantage of the monopoly without charging the bush a monopoly price — which it does. This podcast explains why the government should require Australia Post to grant access to its facilities and how that would be great for rural post offices, generate around two thousand new jobs with half of them being in the bush.
Most of us have heard of the idea that, for a proposition to be scientific, it must be falsifiable — an idea associated with Karl Popper. And Thomas Kuhn's idea of 'paradigms' slid into the language following the publication of his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". In this podcast, I argue that Polanyi should be as well known as Kuhn (Kuhn seems to have got his core idea of the incommensurability of paradigms from Polanyi). And Polanyi scholar Martin Turkis and I ask why that is. I think the answer is also related to another somewhat surprising phenomenon. A remarkably large number of those studying Polanyi today have a particular interest in religion. Though religion was very important to Polanyi, he only mentioned it as a parting thought at the end of his major publications.
The corresponding video is here.
I talk with Seamus O'Mahony who has written a unique and marvellous book. It's about the origins of psychoanalysis, and it's the first serious history I've ever read that is written as a comedy! O'Mahony brings this off brilliantly, and it enables him to skewer the madness and quackery of the early psychoanalysts without any self-righteousness. In the background of all this is O'Mahony's experience as a (now retired) doctor, older and wiser than when he began. The hero of the book is the now obscure Wilfred Trotter, a man of prodigious natural gifts both intellectual and practical. He baled out of psychoanalysis early and went onto become the greatest English surgeon of his generation while remaining a model of modesty and self-restraint, unlike the other two protagonists of the story. In the end, he stands for the centrality and the indispensability of care in medicine. And yet, as O'Mahony laments, care receives short shrift in modern medicine. All up a marvellous conversation. If you want to dive in from the deep end, start from the 16.04 minute timestamp below.
00:00 Trailer 01:00 Unlocking the Writer's Journey: From Medicine to Literature 06:21 The Intersection of Medicine and Writing: A Personal Reflection 11:24 Critiquing Modern Medicine: The Golden Age and Beyond 16:05 The Making of a Masterpiece: Trotter, Jones, and Psychoanalysis 21:26 Behind the Book: Unearthing Letters and Lives 26:53 Psychoanalytic Pioneers: The Congress and Contrasting Views 31:14 Wilfred Trotter: The Surgeon-Thinker's Legacy 36:01 Empathy in Surgery: Trotter's Influence on Medicine 41:16 Literary Inspirations: Embracing a Comedic Lens 46:28 Reflecting on Medical Evolution: The Primacy of Patient Care If you prefer the video, you can find it here
Here's the audio from a great event in London held on the 15th of November in which I outlined my proposal for a privately funded standing citizen assembly. You can find the video at this link.
In this episode I chat with Brink Lindsey about his ideological trajectory — he began as an adherent of schlock philosopher Ayn Rand and has gradually transitioned towards the centre of the political spectrum via libertarianism and Hayek. (Rand regarded Hayek as poisonously, treasonously left wing). Sadly Hayekian libertarianism had embarrassingly little to say about the emerging problems of our time — noticeably cultural, political and environmental degradation. We built the conversation around the title of Brink's Substack, "The Permanent Problem". This was inspired by Keynes's essay "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren", in which Keynes sketches out the problems he expects to emerge by around the early decades of the new century. For by then, as Keynes prophecied, we'll have solved the economic problem — and that leaves us with the permanent problem — how to live agreeably and well. Brink's 2007 book, "The Age of Abundance," was optimistic, speaking of a time when humanity underwent a revolutionary change with the advent of mass affluence. However, Brink admits, the world didn't turn out as he'd hoped. Timestamps 1:27 Introduction and getting our bearings. 8:07 The social and economic challenges we face now. 14:47 Technology's impact on social structures and behaviour. 21:27 The interplay between political and societal changes. 28:07 Widening class divisions and social cohesion. 34:47 The mental health crisis. 41:27 The changing roles of education and employment. 48:07 The rise of identity politics, and its effects on societal norms and values. 54:47 Potential solutions. 1:00:27 Final thoughts, summarizing key points and reflecting on the future outlook. If you prefer video, it's here.
In the wake of my column proposing that central banks should hold open forecasting competitions - and particularly suggesting it for Bernanke's review of the Bank of England's forecasting, Gene Tunny and I discuss the issues in more detail and some of the reactions to the column appearing in the comments section.
Kenneth Grahame and Wind in the Willows comes up. And why not?
I think you’ll find it pretty interesting.
If you'd like to watch the video, it's here.
00:00 Trailer
00:53 Proposal for Economic Forecasting
06:19 Comments & Criticisms
10:05 Modeling & Judgements
13:47 Feedback on Gene's Article
16:12 Museum Visit and Kenneth Graham
17:13 Closing Remarks
If you'd like to watch the video version, find it here.
In this podcast I got two wishes. What two things would I fix if I could. Chris Vanstone from The Australian Centre for Social Innovation (TACSI) asked to interview me as part of TACSI's thinking about its own future. I agreed but made two suggestions. First, that we record the discussion and make it a podcast.
Second, given his description of the process as exploring “what futures do you want to see”, I said that I'd expect to critique that as a starting point right off the bat. Why? Because this kind of framing suffers from grandiosity. I'm not some hero charting a course to the future. I'm a little munchkin noticing things, trying to figure out what problems and opportunities exist in what Humphrey Bogart called our "crazy mixed up woild" in Casablanca.
The ensuing session was really engaging I thought. Kudos to Chris for being an unfazed master of silence while he thinks. Oh, and the two things I want to fix?
We talk as if we'll scale up social programs that work and scale down the less successful ones. But we haven't done it since, now let me see. Since … Well ever actually! And that's the case in most countries.
Oh and democracy — I want to fix that (and this'll make you laugh) I don't think it's that hard! I think we just need to introduce jury-like mechanisms into our democracy. If you're interested, have a look at the trailers for this documentary.
If you'd like to listen to the video of this podcast, it’s here.
00:00 Trailer
01:00 Introduction to Democracy and Citizen Juries
11:01 The Texas Experiment: Deliberative Polling
26:01 East Belgium's Standing Citizen Council
41:01 Challenges and Triumphs of Scaling Solutions
51:01 Addressing Democracy's Gaping Wounds
1:01:01 The Future of Citizen Participation
My friend Antonios Sarhanis is a philosophy graduate turned software guy and runs a software business in Melbourne. Whenever I'm detailing various bizarre practices in ordinary white collar workforces Antonios will often say that that doesn't happen in the management of software development. That's because it's really a 'blue collar job' which is to say that it's producing an output which is very tangible — and where there's a fairly straightforward relationship between doing a good or bad job and the software working well or badly.
In lots of white collar jobs that's not the case. The upshot is that software development eschews oodles of bad practices that are endemic. We discuss everything from the value of formal education in the field to the intricacies of being a ten x engineer. There are a cast of characters you've heard of — like Bill Gates, Paul Keating, Steve Jobs and the Doge of Venice.
If you'd like to access the video, it's here. Timestamps 00:00 - Trailer 01:08 - Start 03:47 - Introduction and the value of a Ph.D. in software 04:40 - The real-world skills required in software development 12:26 - The unique characteristics of software developers 24:03 - The concept of a ten x engineer and their financial remuneration 31:20 - The evolution of software development methodologies 36:47 - The impact of software on global economies 41:33 - Discussion on Paul Keating and his understanding of economics 56:05 - The future of software and its societal implications 1:03:05 - Closing thoughts and the essence of the conversation
Why can’t economists forecast better? The short answer is they don’t try.
The four-day weather forecasts of today are as good as one-day forecasts 30 years ago. Economic forecasts have been consistently lousy throughout the period with no sign of improvement. And yet there's evidence they could improve, though probably not by as much. How could they do that? By taking a leaf out of the weather forecasters' book.
We discuss Ben Bernanke's review of the Bank of England's forecasting and ask why Philip Tetlock's work on superforecasting has received so little attention. The answer is "no reason", it's just that he's not an economist. And the profession of economics puts its store in the cleverness and technical prowess of its forecasters, rather than in their ability to consistently outperform other forecasters.
If you'd like to access the video, it's here.
00:00 Trailer
00:58 Start
05:15 Introduction to Forecasting
06:27 Philip Tetlock and His Legacy
07:58 The 2008 Economic Downturn: A Case Study
11:38 The Essence of Super Forecasting
12:38 Psychology in Forecasting: Kahneman's Perspective
17:17 The Weather Analogy: Forecasting's Gold Standard
20:39 The Future of Economic Forecasting
23:09 Concluding Thoughts and Reflections
In this chat with Sam Rosevear, the Executive Director, Policy, Government Relations and Research of Philanthopy Australia we discuss the plan he’s been working on to double donations to charity in Australia by the end of the decade. That’s an additional $13 billion per year! And as you’ll see from our discussion it shouldn't be that hard to do. It shouldn't cost government much because most of the action involves a few nudges. If you'd like to access the video, it's here 00:00 Trailer
01:02 Introduction
20:24 Nudges and Financial Initiatives in Charity
29:17 The Role of Government in Education
31:50 The Meritocracy Trap and Education Inequality
37:26 The Potential of Super Bequests
49:20 Local Community Foundations and Giving
57:12 Partnering with Civil Society and Business
In this episode of Policy Provocations, Gene Tunny and I discuss liberty or freedom in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As I argue, one can think about liberty in the way most of the demonstrators against lockdowns and vaccine or mask mandates did. They asserted their right to be free to make their own decisions. But I think that's freedom as licence. It's important that we not be needlessly constrained. So it is certainly important for people to raise those issues. But the ability to impose constraints is actually fundamental to liberty.
If you think of the London Blitz, imposing blackouts was necessary for preserving liberty. In this case, liberty from German bombing!
My point is not just that we impose some constraints on people because not doing so imposes harm on others. It is that what really matters to our liberty is the legitimacy of law-making. In that regard what is remarkable is that there are any number of relatively easy ways our constitution can be subverted by would be authoritarians. You'd expect the champions of liberty to be concerned with this. If they were concerned with liberty wouldn't we be making sure that governments don't appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions? If the US Republicans or the Democrats are really concerned about liberty, wouldn't they be bringing plans to the next election to reign in the presidential pardon power. This is as one presidential candidate openly talks about giving himself a pardon from gaol!
The blogpost I mention is here.
If you prefer watching the video, it's here.
00:00 Trailer 01:03 Liberty and Policy during the Pandemic 02:01 Contempt of Parliament 05:27 Government powers and safeguards 07:32 Government actions and citizen involvement during the pandemic 10:15 Government's reliance on opinion polling and the need for citizen juries 11:19 Pandemic policies: Scrutiny and overreaction. 15:02 Discussion and compromise in politics 17:35 Institutions to improve political discussion 20:09 Housing policy and crisis management 22:04 Crisis and the presidential Pardon power
Of all the podcasts we’ve done so far, this is my favourite.
We discuss Peter Heather’s marvellous book “Christendom: the triumph of a Religion”. It covers the thousand years from the time Christianity becomes embedded in the Roman Empire, via Emperor Constantine’s conversion. Heather’s book shows how much Christianity was spread not by those ‘meek’ whom Jesus would have inherit the earth, but by the powerful for whom conversion offered improved relations with the Emperor’s court. Over time, and through the period of Charlemagne it infiltrated European life via various drives for Christian piety.
By the 12th century, the Church had deeply infiltrated people’s lives through the seven sacraments — which marked the weekly rhythms and major milestones of people’s lives — they included baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, and marriage. And by the 12th century, the church was in many ways more powerful than any king or emperor. It controlled Europe’s operating system — it’s systems of information and learning and its transnational legal code. The church is also the template for a specific organisational form. The church was a unitary organisation governed by a monarch supported by a skilled bureaucracy administering an elaborate and time-honoured legal code. Nation states took their form from the church. So too, later on did corporations.
If you prefer watching the video, you can find it here.
