Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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 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

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 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

There's a spectre haunting ESG, the new trend towards investment funds seeking to consider things other than their financial bottom line. ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. But there's a problem. Often firms are not well placed to improve outcomes beyond their own immediate purview. Thus divestment from high-emissions firms might seem like a good idea, but it turns out to have minimal impact on emissions. This is as one might expect because it simply passes the invest onto investors who don't care about the issue. In fact there's a more powerful reason which is that starving emissions-intensive firms of funds is likely to depress their investment which they need to reduce emissions. And since the 20% of firms with the highest emissions emit 280 times what the least emitting 20% firms emit, reducing the emissions of the high-emissions firms is very likely to be where the biggest climate change action is going to be. These are genuine dilemmas but investment firms who seek to target ESG tend not to level with their retail investors that this is what is going on. They're much more likely to do their best and then 'sell' their members some calming PR on how their investments are making a difference. We talk about a left field way round this dilemma. If you'd like to see the video of this discussion you can find it here.

In this thought-provoking episode of Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality, Nicholas Gruen and guest Jarrod Wheatley, founder and CEO of PIC Professional Individualized Care, delve into the complex issue of risk in out-of-home care for children. As they explore the challenges faced by those involved in child protection, they discuss the delicate balance between prioritizing the child's well-being and managing organizational risk. Drawing parallels to the institutional imperative and transparent decision-making, this episode sheds light on the need for thoughtful consideration and empathy when navigating the intricacies of the out-of-home care system. 0:55 Introduction 1:23 How the system humiliates 4:07 Prioritizing the best interests of the child 7:42 How the system prioritizes its own preservation, more than the children 9:56 Risks surrounding out-of-home care 13:30 It's the interests of the kids we're after 16:45 How would you act if they were your niece or nephew? 20:10 Bernie's advice 22:35 Practical examples 25:54 The role of communication If you prefer to watch this, the video is ⁠here⁠.

Another great conversation with my friend, colleague and partner in podcasting crime Gene Tunny. Gene suggested we discuss various ways in which we've placed nationally independent analysis at the centre of government, only to find that it hasn't performed as well as it might. A classic example is regulatory impact statements, which were a good idea back when Australia was among the world's leaders in introducing them in 1986. However, they've not had much impact because although notionally independent, government rewards 'can do' types both at the political and bureaucratic level. So the process degrades into a box-ticking process. Something similar happens with freedom of information as bureaucrats delay and resist release in various ways and the important stuff migrates into whispered conversations in corridors and secure and self-erasing platforms like Signal. And then there's independent assessment of infrastructure. The new ALP Government has cleaned things up a little, but could go a lot further as independent Allegra Spender suggested in this intervention. But the two major parties wouldn't have it. Ultimately this takes us to the question of how firmly democratic principles are anchored in Western Democracies. They're under threat everywhere. Yet there's a simple, radical and democratic way to secure them. Build the institutions in which the people can defend them! If you'd like to watch the discussion the video is here.