unSILOed with Greg LaBlanc

Even though central banks have become independent over the years, is it fair to say they still face political challenges? Could inflation be viewed as a political problem or a technical one?Stephen D. King is a senior economic adviser at HSBC and has been writing about global economics for years. His most recent book, We Need to Talk About Inflation: 14 Urgent Lessons from the Last 2,000 Years, examines the root causes of inflation through a historical lens. Stephen and Greg discuss whether inflation is inherently tied to politics, why deflation is not necessarily a scary thing, and the greatest challenge facing central bankers today. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Inflation tends to create a world for winners and losers07:00: So, inflation tends to create a world of both winners and losers. And it's a profoundly undemocratic process in that sense because that process of creating winners and losers is pretty arbitrary. But of course, the problem there is that if you happen to be a loser initially, you're going to want to push for your own wage increase or your price increase later on because your next-door neighbor has already had one of those, and you're waiting for your turn. So when you try to stop inflation, you are effectively trying to stop it when some people have already perhaps benefited from it. And other people feel quite rightly quite justifiably that they haven't; in fact, they're actually worse off in some sense. So stopping it once it's started becomes a lot more difficult.Have we forgotten the adverse consequences of inflation?05:47: With the advent of central banks becoming politically independent, I think there was a habit of thinking that inflation was a technical problem. It was a technical challenge for central banks, but not really a political challenge in any significant way. But actually, I think inflation is a huge political challenge.Does the central bank overestimate the degree of control they have over velocity?33:22: It's not just how much money you print; it's what the public thinks of what it is you're doing. Do they trust you? Do they think you're on the right track or the wrong track? In other words, the velocity partly depends on how the public rates you as a credible monetary institution. So, if you're doing stuff that seems to be overly experimental or peculiar, you may suddenly discover that what you thought was a relationship between money and the economy breaks down one way or the other.Will we be entering into a new era where the central banks reassert their independence and reestablish their credibility?57:27: I think that where inflation is relatively high and economic growth is relatively low, it's going to be a very interesting situation to monitor over the next three or four years to see whether central banks, first of all, are able to reassert their sort of independence. And secondly, whether, politically, they can get away with it and have the legitimacy to do so.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Hugo StinnesAdam SmithPaul VolckerArthur F. BurnsLawrence SummersJason FurmanMartin WolfGuest Profile:Professional Profile on BruegelSpeaker’s Profile on London Speaker Bureau AsiaStephen D. King on LinkedInStephen D. King on XHis Work:We Need to Talk About Inflation: 14 Urgent Lessons from the Last 2,000 YearsLosing Control: The Emerging Threats to Western ProsperityWhen the Money Runs Out: The End of Western AffluenceGrave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sometimes, the ideas that end up being the most revolutionary come from outside the scientific mainstream. People who can approach the problem with different eyes and thoughts and see solutions from another angle. For medicine, the idea that revolutionized trauma wound care came from a complete outsider and accelerated when he joined forces with another outsider to promote a new way to clot blood.Charles Barber is a professor at Wesleyan University and the author of several books. His latest book, titled In the Blood: How Two Outsiders Solved a Centuries-Old Medical Mystery and Took On the US Army, recounts the story of the unlikely development of Quikclot and the hurdles that were along its path to adoption. Charles and Greg discuss what doctors had tried before Quikclot came along and then the story of how Frank Hursey and Brad Gullong turned heads and changed minds with the effectiveness of their new product to clot blood quickly and save the lives of those who had wounds that would previously have been fatal.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:How two outsiders and three combat veterans revolutionized medicine25:39: One of the reasons they don't go in for the very expensive things that the army went in—these high-tech blood-clotting things that eventually failed—is they just didn't have the budget. They didn't have the money for it. And the Quikclot that was produced out of the Zeolite, which, by the way, was deployed very early in Iraq war and saved a lot of lives, was like $15 a packet. And so it was this kismet of two outsider inventors with no credentials doing things that would allow them to lose their medical license had they had a medical license, putting a rock in the bloodstream, and then meeting up over a number of years with these three outsider medical people. What they all shared was combat, raw combat experience, and an intolerance for the bureaucracy if it got in the way of the phrase that they all used independently, saving the kids in the ditch.Prioritizing insights over credentials17:32: We live in this age of experts, where you have to have PhDs, MDs, and everything at the same time. And we don't pay attention the way we did even a hundred years ago to people who don't necessarily have the credentials but have the insight.Does our approach to medicine create fertile ground for pharmaceutical company marketing?46:22: If you were to pick one thing that changed the commodification of psychiatric drugs, it was the television advertising of drugs. And New Zealand and the US, then and now, are still the only countries that do it. And so, it's not far afield from this sort of American Wild West of grabbing highly potent, sometimes effective, often not effective technological solutions without going to the undergirding issues.Mental illness is complicated48:45: Mental illness is nothing if not extraordinarily complicated, and we've grown up with even advanced psychiatry. It's all this: either medicines or therapy, genes or character, environment or hereditary. And for some reason, we can't seem to understand that it's not that complicated.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Faculty Profile for Demetrios DemetriadesFrank HurseyBart GullongZeoliteJohn W. HolcombQuikclot WebsiteWilliam JamesGuest Profile:Faculty Profile on Wesleyan UniversityAuthor’s Profile on Penguin Random HouseCharles Barber's WebsiteCharles Barber on LinkedInHis Work:In the Blood: How Two Outsiders Solved a Centuries-Old Medical Mystery and Took On the US ArmyPeace & Health: How a group of small-town activists and college students set out to change healthcareCitizen Outlaw: One Man's Journey from Gangleader to PeacekeeperComfortably Numb: How Psychiatry Medicated a NationSongs from the Black Chair: A Memoir of Mental Interiors (American Lives) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Humans have a tendency to see the glass as half full. What arguments can be made on behalf of the half-empty perspective? Whether it's evaluating your life or making decisions about becoming a parent, viewing things through a pessimistic lens could ultimately help reduce suffering in the world.David Benatar is a professor of philosophy and director of the Bioethics Centre at the University of Cape Town. He is also the author of several books. His latest book, titled The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life's Biggest Questions, explores the meaningfulness of life. David and Greg discuss optimism versus pessimism and the positive and negative qualities that they both possess. David talks about suicide and the historic and where our views on it have evolved from. David and Greg talk about the ethics of having children, what true immortality would really mean, and how to get the most out of our time on the hedonic treadmill of life.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:General broad pessimism is a product of the clear-eyed view48:48: General broad pessimism is a product of the clear-eyed view. If you look at the human condition realistically, you're going to reach unhappy conclusions about all the things I've said that you should reach unhappy conclusions about. But now the question is, "Well, what do you do with that information?" Do you just become morose? Do you withdraw? What do you do with this information? And one mistake would be to become overly morose about it, to derive no joy, because then what happens is there's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy there where you're making; there's another feedback loop. You're making it actually worse for yourself than it would be if you didn't have that kind of response to the pessimism. At the same time, I don't think you should fall into optimism because now you're going to lose the clear-eyed view. So, what I would say is preserve the clear-eyed pessimistic view but be pragmatic.Is there a feedback loop between the subjective and the objective?18:29: If you think your life is better than it is, it objectively becomes a bit better. That doesn't mean it reaches the level you think it's at. It doesn't completely eliminate the gap between the subjective and the objective, but the subjective view makes it a little better. And similarly, when we're speaking about negative evaluation. So, there is that feedback loop.Life’s meaning doesn’t have to be broad22:05: I don't think that we should conclude from the absence of that kind of meaning that our lives have no meaning. Because they do have meaning at more micro-levels, and we matter to other people. We can have a positive impact on people and beings around us. And I don't think we should pretend that isn't the case simply because our lives can't have a broader kind of meaning.On the relationship of quality and meaning of life13:29: There are different views about what the relationship is between quality and meaning. Some people want to treat meaning as part of the quality of life. Others want to separate it out. There is some value in separating them, but I don't want to be committed to that view. I don't think we need to be.Show Links:Recommended Resources:A. J. Ayer Wikipedia PageHedonic Treadmill Wikipedia PageGuest Profile:Faculty Profile from the University of Cape TownHis Work:The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life's Biggest QuestionsBetter Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into ExistenceThe Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and BoysConversations about the Meaning of LifeThe Fall of the University of Cape Town: Africa’s leading university in declineDebating Procreation: Is It Wrong to Reproduce?New Yorker Article  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Amy Edmondson, a professor at Harvard Business School, discusses the concept of psychological safety in the workplace and the importance of learning from failure. They explore the 'failure industry' and Amy shares her research on medical errors and teamwork. They also discuss the aversion to being wrong, the misconception that psychological safety means a lack of accountability, the challenges of teaching a growth mindset, the importance of post-mortems, and the necessity of recognizing failed experiments in academia and science.

Does the way we rank colleges prioritize status over educational quality or the public good? Colin Diver is the Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., Professor of Law and Economics, former dean at the University of Pennsylvania, and former president of Reed College. His book, Breaking Ranks: How the Rankings Industry Rules Higher Education and What to Do about It, explores the methodologies of U.S. News and others to evaluate higher education institutions.Colin and Greg discuss the pitfalls of college rankings, how they fail to measure important aspects of education,  how they distort the incentives of college administrators, and what a better system could look like. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Why are the SATs becoming less popular?27:43: I realized that in this day and age, the SAT is becoming less and less popular, and I understand why—it does tend to favor privileged students that are economically and academically privileged students. But I still think that it is a force for democratizing higher education. It's a way of identifying talented students from out-of-the-way places, unfamiliar high schools, maybe even kids who didn't have a high GPA for whatever reason, but still have a lot of raw talent.Do we have the capacity to opt out of rankings?26:23: Yes, we dislike the rankings. We may even hate them, but we can't afford to fight them. And we can't afford to pull out. I understand that calculation. It's like we depend on the rankings to signal our value to our primary constituency, which is potential undergraduate students.How does early decision admission contribute to economic inequality?27:43: If you apply early, we'll give you an answer early, but if we admit you, you've got to accept our offer. And so, that way, you drove up your yield rate because everybody who applied that you admitted was going to come because they had agreed ahead of time that they would come. And, well, what was wrong with that? What was wrong with that was that it favored the rich because the poorer students can't afford to commit early. They need to see what the competitive financial aid awards are. And so, it was well demonstrated in the literature that early decisions tended to favor rich applicants and disfavor poor applicants.The value of Ivy League education is a function of its exclusivity55:23: The apparent value of an Ivy League education is a function of its exclusivity. We want to be a club that only a few people can join, is the sentiment. And that is unfortunate. It's a reflection of the competitive conditions in higher education.Show Links:Recommended Resources:U.S. News Best CollegesBuild Your Own College Rankings (New York Times)NichePresident John F. Kennedy’s Frost Speech Guest Profile:Faculty Profile at University of Pennsylvania President's Profile on Reed CollegeColin Diver on LinkedInColin Diver on XHis Work:Breaking Ranks: How the Rankings Industry Rules Higher Education and What to Do about ItArticle on The Chronicle of Higher EducationArticle on Los Angeles TimeArticle on The New York Times Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The double helix of DNA twists in the heart of every human cell, and it comes with some editing software known as epigenetics that power what parts turn on and off and when. Scientists are still still working to understand exactly how genetics and epigenetics work, but we are learning more every day.Nessa Carey is the former International Director at PraxisUnico and the author of several books on genetics. Her latest book is titled Hacking the Code of Life: How gene editing will rewrite our futures.Nessa and Greg discuss how genetics and epigenetics work and are related, with some concrete examples. Nessa discusses how genetics have been used to clone species and cells in laboratories and the differences between other animals and humans. Greg and Nessa talk about the uses and limitations of gene technology and the exciting possibilities of the gene editing technology CRISPR.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Not all scientists are the same01:00:39: We have to get better at recognizing that not all scientists are the same. Some are really good problem solvers, some are really good creative thinkers, and it's about finding the right ways to support those people to maximum effect. And we need both. We need the problem solvers as well as the genuinely, deeply creative people. And that is expensive, but on the other hand, you don't get the great breakthroughs. If we only had the problem solvers, all we would have now are better iron lungs for polio. We'd never have a vaccine. But sometimes you need those problem solvers to get other things done as well. So we need to be supporting all different types of research.On the complexity of biology17:27: The reality is biology is very, very complicated. All of those systems need to work. If any of them fall apart, the whole thing falls apart. But we're surprisingly tribal and surprisingly wedded to our own theories. I think in biology, we quite often don't realize we're constantly putting ourselves on Gartner's hype cycle, and everybody gets very invested in whichever bit they like and where it's in the cycle at the time.The beauty and cultural value of funding science01:01:52: It's a mistake to think we should fund science because, eventually, it'll fund us back. We should fund science because it's beautiful. We should fund it because it's a magnificent cultural activity that adds to the wealth of human gorgeousness in the same way that fine arts and great literature do. Stuff shouldn't just be funded because it has an economic imperative. Isn't it just beautiful to understand more about how the world works?Why is epigenetics a notable example of scientific paradigm shifts?14:49: Epigenetics has been a great example of how you get paradigm shifts in scientific fields. You get this situation where there's the prevailing theory, and it survives a lot of onslaughts. But then eventually, it crumbles, and the new theory emerges. So, it's been great both scientifically and in terms of the philosophy of science.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Waddington LandscapeThe Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerGartner Hype CycleJohn Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka’s WorkAnne Ferguson-SmithGuest Profile:Profile on The Royal SocietyNessa Carey's WebsiteNessa Carey on LinkedInNessa Carey on XHer Work:Hacking the Code of Life: How gene editing will rewrite our futuresThe Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology Is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease, and InheritanceJunk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the GenomeHuffington Post Articles Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When it comes to data privacy laws these days, it’s still sort of like the Wild West out there. There’s no federal agency holding software makers responsible for security holes, consumers don’t understand how much risk there is, and the laws that are on the books are inadequate.Daniel J. Solove is a leading authority on privacy law and is a professor at the George Washington University Law School. He’s written numerous books and articles on data security and privacy laws, including his most recent book, Breached!: Why Data Security Law Fails and How to Improve it and his textbook, Information Privacy Law.Daniel and Greg discuss why current privacy laws are counterproductive, what a useful federal law regulating data security could look like, and why being forced to change your password regularly is actually bad advice. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:The need for a human element when it comes to security38:32: Security does need to think about the human element. And that's a different kind of thinking than what might be best for security. And that's what makes security so tricky. There are good technologies and weaker technologies for security. I think two-factor authentication is good. There are a lot of things that people can do that will make very effective security. But there's also this human dimension, and that's a dimension that a lot of them are not trained on. It's just they're not experts in human psychology, human cognitive abilities, and what humans are likely or unlikely to do. But we need that expertise involved if we're going to create the right security framework for a company.Is the law focusing on data breaches so much that it's making them worse?13:25: The law, unfortunately, has focused way too obsessively on breach and failed to focus on things that could actually address this problem in a much more effective way. The role that companies play in data breaches32:51: If we had companies devise ways that they authenticated themselves to people, then we would be a lot safer, and fewer people would be falling for hacker tricks. And if the company is doing some practice that is miseducating, you should be penalized.Do we make exceptions for technology when it comes to security?17:40: There's a bit of exceptionalism when it comes to technology, where we accept the risks and dangers of technology and don't hold the makers of it accountable in ways we would never do with any other product. Show Links:Recommended Resources:TortBenjamin N. CardozoLouis BrandeisRalph NaderBruce SchneierKatz v. United StatesLoomis v. WisconsinOlmstead v. United StatesJohn Marshall HarlanGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at George Washington UniversityDaniel J. Solove's WebsiteDaniel J. Solove on LinkedInDaniel J. Solove on TwitterDaniel J. Solove on Talks at GoogleDaniel’s company: TeachPrivacyHis Work:Breached!: Why Data Security Law Fails and How to Improve itInformation Privacy LawUnderstanding PrivacyThe Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information AgeNothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and SecurityThe Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the InternetThe FTC and The New Common Law of PrivacyThe Limitations of Privacy RightsMore scholarly articles Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Edward Chancellor, columnist and author, delves into the history of lending and interest rates. He discusses the problems with centralized banking, financial repression in China and the US, and the relationship between inflation and interest. The podcast explores the significance of interest rates in corporate finance and macroeconomics, the impact of financial engineering, challenges of debt and government bonds, and the potential of cryptocurrency as an alternative to conventional banking.

The financial revolution in Europe was an outgrowth of the scientific revolution, and the greatest minds of the time were studying, commenting on, and even participating in the emerging world of finance. Then came the 1720 South Sea Bubble and the financial crisis that followed.Thomas Levenson is a Professor of Science Writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is also an author, and his latest book is titled Money for Nothing: The Scientists, Fraudsters, and Corrupt Politicians Who Reinvented Money, Panicked a Nation, and Made.Thomas and Greg discuss the circumstances of the South Sea Bubble and how it connected to famous minds like Isaac Newton and Edmond Halley. They relate the financial crisis to other bubbles, like the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Thomas draws out the fascinating parts of what happened with the South Sea Bubble and what lessons can be learned from it and applied to today’s financial markets.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Insights on the role of innovation and government purpose in bubbles33:51: The point of the bubble is that at the core of the bubble was a really good idea that actually served the government's purposes. In fact, served the government's purposes so well that one of the reasons you don't get joint stock companies going forward and in particular, you don't allow private companies to have access to the bond markets, the debt market, in the same way that the government has, is because the government wants to make sure it essentially has a monopoly on that form of finance so that it can continue executing its purposes. And you don't see a private bond market emerging, at least in Britain, until the second quarter of the 19th century.You can have truth in mathematics29:02: Mathematics is this sure and certain science. You can have truth in mathematics... The best that physics can be is demonstrated, and there's a difference. And so, if the mathematics work out, then, of course, this is a safe, sound, and perfectly acceptable way to spend your money until it isn't. So there's a rhetoric in the use of mathematical arguments that shouldn't be ignored. It was present in the 1720s bubble and in that era, and it was very much present recently.Humanities teach you to think about the future in ways that are simply useful01:01:24: If you try to train for the present, what you're doing is making sure that the future is going to catch you by surprise. And one of the things that the humanities do is teach you to think about the future in ways that are more flexible, more interesting, and, dare I say it, pragmatically, simply useful.A perspective on continuous evolution and profound shifts13:29: I see events as a continuous flow rather than as sudden, momentary revolutionary breakthroughs. But if ever there was a profoundly changing, rapidly changing sort of thing, you can experience it in your own lifetime. The late 17th century was remarkable.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Isaac NewtonEdmond HalleyCalculated Values by William DeringerThe South Sea Bubble of 1720The Financial Crisis of 2007-2008Tulip ManiaExchange AlleyHorace WalpoleGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyThomas Levenson WebsiteThomas Levenson on LinkedInThomas Levenson on XHis Work:Money for Nothing: The Scientists, Fraudsters, and Corrupt Politicians Who Reinvented Money, Panicked a Nation, and Made the World RichMoney For Nothing: The South Sea Bubble and the Invention of Modern CapitalismThe Hunt for Vulcan: . . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the UniverseNewton and the Counterfeiter: The Unknown Detective Career of the World's Greatest ScientistEinstein in BerlinArticles from The AtlanticArticles from Aeon Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Is the smartest person in the room also the wisest? Not necessarily. So what does it mean to be wise, and how do you go about finding that wisdom in life? Thomas Gilovich is the Irene Blecker Rosenfeld Professor of Psychology at Cornell University. His work in social psychology includes the key textbook in the field, and has written books that touch on topics such as behavioral economics and the fallibility of human reason.Thomas and Greg discuss what it means to truly be wise, whether or not more wisdom leads to more happiness in life, and how to train ourselves to see beyond our subjective perception of the world. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Should we start with an understanding of the self in order to gain a better understanding of other people?54:05: We have this great capacity to zoom in, zoom out, look at things from a variety of different angles. And, if you do that well, that's going to give you a better understanding of other people and a better understanding of yourself. So, let's look at it from my perspective. Let's look at it from their perspective, and so on. That is part and parcel of what wisdom is—turning things around to look at a hard problem from a variety of different angles. And, if that's a big component of wisdom, it would be surprising if wisdom was located in one area rather than the other.Wisdom is where rational understanding meets human insights03:45: To be wise and effective in this world means that you need to understand all that we've learned about rational choice, logic, etc., and combine that with knowledge of people.Why construal principle is a big component of wisdom25:26: One of the biggest principles of social psychology is the so-called "construal principle," which is that there's a reality out there. But we don't respond to that reality. We respond to how we interpret that reality. And knowing that's what we're reacting to is a big component of wisdom; it allows us to understand where other people are coming from, especially when their behavior on the surface immediately may not make sense to us. So, what does it mean to them that they're reacting that way? It's a big part of wisdom.Considering happiness as a talent, not just a trait34:35: We think of happiness as a trait, which at some level of description it is, but maybe it's better to think of it as a talent: happy people have the talent to make all these mental moves and arrange their lives in such a way that they will be happier.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Solomon AschGeorge Carlin - Idiot and ManiacLeon FestingerThe Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom by Jonathan HaidtHappy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design by Charles MontgomeryKurt LewinDaniel KahnemanThe Replication CrisisGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Cornell UniversityAuthor’s Profile at SageThomas Gilovich on LinkedInHis Work:Social Psychology (6th Edition)Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive JudgmentHow We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday LifeWhy Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes And How To Correct Them: Lessons From The New Science Of Behavioral EconomicsThe Wisest One in the Room: How You Can Benefit from Social Psychology's Most Powerful InsightsMore scholarly articles  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.