The university start-up fearlessly pursuing truth. Main point seems to be to market superstar public intellectuals. Not sure these people are best suited to delivering frontier content to students.
They are superstar intellectuals because they have specialized in making themselves superstars by writing popular books for people like me that pick them up at airports.
It sounds more like a cool podcast series. And a cool podcast series is not a new university. Or it's a very different kind of university!
Another way to look at it though is like the $600 dollar steak hustle. If people want to hand over tons of cash for a piece of paper after listening to some cool podcasts, perhaps that's fine and you just have to applaud the hustle.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Old core Tory MPs. Totally ignorant numpties need upending. Entire system is a project. See 1960s Greenland rewilding or Taiwan film production. Unusual brains and fast dashboard info can rewire policy production. Smell the javascipt coffee or VL will make web war.
Classic SW1 think-tank rando. Remain to Brexit is dial-up to fibre. Whitehall simpleton-MSM is a vector of sleep. Manhatten Project was quick so anything is codable. Just need to kill procurement flunkies.
I don't think central bankers actually holding office should be proposing fiscal frameworks, or fiscal policy settings. The suggestions themselves are interesting and sensible.
The ECB, like other central banks, was given independence to protect monetary policy from politicicans who might be tempted to use monetary policy to create booms before elections; or to inflate away their fiscal problems.
This has a cost in that there is a loss of immediate democratic control over the operation of monetary policy. That is a cost if you think democratic control over policy levers is a good thing.
Obviously, the first best thing to do about climate change is to get a collective agreement to stop emitting and prevent warming to the point where climate change impoverishes us and fellow species too much more.
But if you're a small country, your own good behaviour won't make much if any difference to the global outcome: if you think the likelihood of everyone else doing the right thing is low, the best thing to do is to tilt investment to adaptation/mitigation.
And if others think that you think that + will tilt investmenet to mitigation and adaptation, they might too, validating your own pessimism. Leading to us collectivey giving up on limiting climate change, or not doing enough to limit it as much as we could.
If you want to generate a good climate for business, don’t behave as though you are up for a trade war to press economically insignificant causes in pursuit of nationalist objectives.
Instead, act in the national economic interest, and avoid trade wars almost at all costs. Over time, businesses will come to understand that this is what you will do, and grow to expect there not to be a trade war, and think it profitable to run a business in your country.
The trouble with trade wars is that they make the returns to doing business highly uncertain. You don't know if you will be able to get your inputs at reasonable cost, or at all, or export. Or if those of your customers who depend on easy trade will be able to spend with you.
We don't ask the BoE to follow instrument rules for monetary policy [like a Taylor rule, for instance]. We give it an objective [the inflation target] and let it decide how best to achieve it.
That doesn't mean such rules are useless or have no content. They can be a starting point for discussion. [Unless you happen to have named them, in which case they can be a relentless baseball bat with which to beat the central bank if the other side happens to be in].
Comments like this, a classic of the genre of non economists who haven't read the entire field they are critiquing in one tweet, are not going to affect any change. Find some papers, or a paper, and say what you think is wrong with it.
If you haven't got any evidence for a conspiracy theory, then don't bother advancing it. It probably isn't true.
So far we have 'economists don't read their classics, so they can fake originality in new work, and they deliberately use maths to hide their politics [and oppress us all]'.