Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
[00:00:02] Wie kann man Risiko im Leben reduzieren? Einen Helm tragen, fit bleiben und die Freunde meiden, die verrückte Ideen hatten. Und beim Investieren? Hier sollte man diversifizieren. Wenn du in einen iShares ETF investierst, kaufst du in einem Schritt einen Teil von Hunderten oder Tausenden von Unternehmen. So musst du dir keine Sorgen mehr machen. Du kannst dir stattdessen lieber Gedanken darüber machen, wer die Fotos von der wilden Nacht mit deinen Freunden gemacht hat. Finde iShares bei deinem Broker oder deiner Bank und fange noch heute an, mit ETFs zu sparen. Kapitalanlagerisiko. Marketinginformation.
[00:00:35] Jetzt ist Herbst und bald stehen schon wieder die Feiertage vor der Tür. Das kann auch für Hunde ganz schön stressig sein. Viele Vierbeine reagieren unter anderem mit einer gestörten Verdauung. Und das ist wiederum Stress für ihre Besitzer. Aber es gibt schnelle und einfache Hilfe. Das Probiotikum Purina Proplan Forti Flora. Streu einfach einen Beutel über das tägliche Futter. Die außergewöhnliche Zusammensetzung mit lebenden guten Darmbakterien stellt das Gleichgewicht im Darm wieder her.
[00:01:03] Natürlich kannst du Proplan Forti Flora auch präventiv oder bei alltäglichen Verdauungsbeschwerden einsetzen. Es unterstützt auch bei Ernährungsumstellungen oder Antibiotika-Einnahme. Purina Proplan Forti Flora. Jetzt auf shop.purina.de.
[00:01:23] Du get taxatst auf was du earn, du get taxatst auf was du buy und du get taxatst auf was du own. Taxes, taxes, taxes. Und dann wird es get spent auf. A bunch of the stuff you get spent on you don't even agree with.
[00:01:37] So, you know, that's why we need to reduce the size of government and just spend less money and let the people keep a lot more of their hard-earned money. You know, it's, yeah.
[00:01:50] This is the Debunking Economics Podcast with Steve Keen and Phil Dobby.
[00:02:21] But is that fair enough? If we want economic growth, then people like Elon Musk really should be encouraged, shouldn't they?
[00:02:28] I mean, it's those people on 14,500 who aren't really doing very much to help the economy grow.
[00:02:33] They're just getting by looking after themselves. That's pretty selfish, really.
[00:02:36] Whereas Elon is all about making everyone's living standard that much better.
[00:02:40] You know, I'm trying to say this with a straight face, but we are looking at income disparity.
[00:02:45] Is it essential for growth? That's this week on the Debunking Economics Podcast.
[00:02:55] Well, I sense that the world is shifting to the right. I don't think too many people are going to disagree with me on that.
[00:03:00] And it is a world of small government and allowing companies to grow faster.
[00:03:05] That is certainly why the US share market has been going crazy over the last few weeks at the prospect of a Trump presidency,
[00:03:10] less regulation, faster growth. Some people seem to think that is the best thing that could possibly happen to America.
[00:03:16] And Steve, I guess it is very easy to say that society, you know, should have a minimal amount of income disparity.
[00:03:24] But can you get growth with total income equality similarly or does it hold it back?
[00:03:31] And similarly, if you don't worry about it, could that hinder growth as well?
[00:03:34] Because obviously the very rich have to have somebody to sell to.
[00:03:37] And if they're the only ones with any money, that's not going to work.
[00:03:40] So it seems like, you know, a good topic for Christmas week, Steve.
[00:03:44] You know, goodwill to all mankind, etc.
[00:03:46] But is goodwill to all mankind?
[00:03:48] The Santa Claus coming out and taking some stuff from one house and giving it to another.
[00:03:51] Yeah.
[00:03:51] But is that profitable?
[00:03:53] Where is the – so let's look at some hard numbers.
[00:03:56] So the country with the highest GDP per capita, according to the International Monetary Fund,
[00:04:01] well, the US is well up there, 86,600 per capita compared to 52,400 for the UK.
[00:04:08] That is quite a big difference, isn't it?
[00:04:09] So 65% more in the US than the UK.
[00:04:13] But the Gini coefficient, so that measure of income disparity for the US, according to the World Bank, is 39.8.
[00:04:22] And obviously the lower it is – so 100 means one person has all the money.
[00:04:26] Zero means everyone's got the same amount.
[00:04:28] So the lower it is, the greater the income equality.
[00:04:32] So 39.8 for the United States, 32.6 for the UK.
[00:04:37] So you could look at both those numbers and say, yeah, yeah, you see, the UK is paying for that.
[00:04:42] They have less GDP per capita because they're too busy trying to make sure there's equality within income brackets.
[00:04:50] Yeah.
[00:04:51] It's very easy to make simplistic correlations like that and then say, you know, more inequality means more growth.
[00:05:03] But it depends what sort of side does that give you.
[00:05:07] And I look at the fragility – I mean, in both countries I find being on the –
[00:05:12] seeing what being on the bottom end of the distribution scale means is tragic.
[00:05:17] Whereas countries with – how does Finland rank, for example?
[00:05:23] Do you have the numbers for Finland handy or –
[00:05:24] No, but I can – while you talk, I can find out.
[00:05:28] Yeah.
[00:05:29] Okay.
[00:05:29] Yeah.
[00:05:30] So I think you'll find other countries which have lower income but also lower inequality tend to have a higher level of public satisfaction with society.
[00:05:42] And the classic in some cases I think is Finland because they're a fairly high-income country.
[00:05:49] And when the surveys are done, they're treated as the happiest people in the world.
[00:05:53] And you're not happy because you like the weather.
[00:05:56] Okay.
[00:05:57] We're talking Finland here.
[00:05:59] It's cold.
[00:06:00] But the level of provision of public services and the social – the stuff you have access to just because you're a Finnish and you're in the country is far higher than in the States or in the UK.
[00:06:16] 28.5, by the way, is the answer.
[00:06:19] 28, which is lower.
[00:06:20] Lower inequality.
[00:06:21] Yeah, much lower.
[00:06:21] Yeah, yeah.
[00:06:22] Okay.
[00:06:22] And that's the happiest nation on the planet.
[00:06:25] When you see happiness surveys, it's either them or sometimes Bhutan gets in there as well.
[00:06:29] But like Finland comes out on top of the happiness scales.
[00:06:32] And I think it comes down to say a wonderful comment that John Kenneth Galbraith made decades ago when he talked about America being characterized by public squalor and private affluence.
[00:06:46] And that really describes the States.
[00:06:48] If you are wealthy in the States, you've got enormous wealth.
[00:06:52] You know, your lifestyle is a highly uproar lifestyle.
[00:06:56] But you've got to drive through these absolutely awful areas or, you know, walk through them sometimes.
[00:07:00] Americans do – some of them do have feet.
[00:07:03] Walk through these awful areas which you feel dangerous in all the time.
[00:07:07] And, of course, that amplifies the desire to go back to your rich enclave and to whack up walls and have gated communities and all this sort of stuff.
[00:07:14] And that leads to a level of tension.
[00:07:17] Now, I feel when I'm just walking around the city streets of countries and cities like New York, everybody seems to be afraid.
[00:07:25] And I think one of my Twitter correspondents made this comment.
[00:07:29] Everybody seems to feel like they're one paycheck from being on the streets.
[00:07:34] Now, of course, you're highly wealthy.
[00:07:35] You're not one – you have more than one paycheck.
[00:07:37] But if you're working in a startup and it fails or if you're working for a major company, it's going to be retrenchments.
[00:07:46] If you have a major firm and it goes potentially bankrupt, that fear that you have to be making the dollar I think is a huge part of the American psyche.
[00:07:54] And it's an unhealthy part of the psyche.
[00:07:56] Yeah.
[00:07:57] Well, there's not very much protection, that's for sure, which is probably why they're not very happy.
[00:08:00] But on the other side, you know, $86,600 per capita in U.S. dollars.
[00:08:08] Finland, by the way, is pretty much the same as the U.K.
[00:08:10] They're both sort of like a little over $50,000.
[00:08:13] So, I mean, the wealth that is created in the United States – and you imagine that that is only going to – you know, if Donald Trump gets his way, the difference between the United States and the rest of the world is only going to increase, isn't it?
[00:08:26] Well, it depends where these policies work.
[00:08:28] But there is that.
[00:08:29] We have to entertain the idea that, yeah, his policies won't work.
[00:08:32] They might work.
[00:08:33] Some of them will.
[00:08:34] Well, but one of the reasons that the States is so successful is it's the biggest contiguous market on the planet speaking one language.
[00:08:45] And that includes China because China doesn't speak one language.
[00:08:48] China writes one language, which is quite remarkable.
[00:08:50] Anybody in China can read script written by anybody anywhere else in China.
[00:08:53] But I think there's about seven different language groups.
[00:08:56] And the – so you can – like packages, writing, advertising, yada, yada, yada.
[00:09:02] They're all uniform across China.
[00:09:03] And this is potentially why China is growing so rapidly right now, this enormous domestic customer base.
[00:09:11] So before China came out of the Mao days and after the damage done to it by colonial periods as well, which we should never forget.
[00:09:20] But before that, the biggest contiguous market speaking one language, you're being unified by a language, was America.
[00:09:27] And you have like the Rockies on one side, the Appalachians on the other, the middle, huge planes in the middle.
[00:09:34] The capacity to move goods and to get economies of scale is enormous.
[00:09:40] And that is still the case.
[00:09:42] Whatever has happened with the politics, the geography of America hasn't changed.
[00:09:45] So that geographic base is a major reason why it could build such an enormous market.
[00:09:52] And when you hit domestic strength, you then expand into international markets.
[00:09:56] So that initial sheer size – size does matter.
[00:10:01] And I think that's a major reason why America has reached the scale it has.
[00:10:07] But the issue, though, is – I mean, the size of that market means, as we know, capital accumulates.
[00:10:14] If you want to make it, you're going to make it in America.
[00:10:17] And I just wonder whether the situation – you know, where we are now, we're just going to see more of that concentration.
[00:10:23] So 813 billionaires in the United States, according to Forbes, that's 2.4 billionaires per million people.
[00:10:30] In the UK, 0.8 billionaires.
[00:10:33] Australia, interestingly, 1.8 billionaires per million people.
[00:10:40] So is that a problem?
[00:10:42] Does Britain need to have more billionaires?
[00:10:44] Would that make the UK economy work that little bit better?
[00:10:48] If we had more very rich people, is that going to spare the economy on?
[00:10:52] And I hate to use that expression, trickle down, but maybe it does a little bit.
[00:10:56] Does more billionaires in a country help the economy generally to grow?
[00:11:01] I think economists often argue there's a sweet spot in some particular thing.
[00:11:07] So you've got the idea of the Laffer curve for a sweet spot in the tax rate.
[00:11:12] And the idea of rates of innovation or rates of pollution, some ideal level of pollution, yada, yada, yada.
[00:11:21] But I think we have to start from a basic given of human civilization.
[00:11:26] There's always inequality.
[00:11:28] I mean, if you wanted to measure the inequality in ancient Egypt, you start with a pharaoh and work down to the slaves.
[00:11:36] So inequality is a characteristic of human civilizations.
[00:11:40] The question is just how extreme it is.
[00:11:42] And can the inequality get to be too high?
[00:11:47] So physicists love playing a little game where they model income distribution as like interacting particles bouncing into each other and then see the distribution that comes out of the collisions.
[00:11:58] And they often find that if you simply have like a random number of collisions per entity representing a human being and random numbers amount of income generated out of that, you get what's called a power law.
[00:12:12] That gives you a small number of people with large amounts of money and a large number of people with small amount of money.
[00:12:17] And if you draw – have the logarithm on one axis and the logarithm on the other.
[00:12:22] So you go, you know, one person, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, and the same on the income, $1, $10, 100, et cetera.
[00:12:30] When you plot that, you get a straight line.
[00:12:32] And that is a sign fundamentally of a healthy income distribution, funnily enough.
[00:12:37] So inequality is a necessary feature of an exchange economy.
[00:12:43] And that's just – we're leading up issues of money creation and asset speculation and so on.
[00:12:53] We're deliberately staying away from money creation this week, by the way.
[00:12:57] I thought we'll – given the correspondence we've had over the last couple of weeks, I thought we'll just let that one rest for a while and then we'll come back.
[00:13:04] I think so, yeah.
[00:13:05] We might do it next week, yeah.
[00:13:08] But so you're going to get inequality.
[00:13:11] What can – in fact, you can have a superpower law.
[00:13:14] So you get more than a power law.
[00:13:16] The top people – there are a smaller number of people at the top with a larger amount of money than you get out of this log-log, straight line distribution called a power law.
[00:13:25] And that I don't know.
[00:13:28] I haven't done the empirical research on this front.
[00:13:30] But trusting the work of colleagues of mine like Blair Fix, we're at that point where there's a super level to the power law.
[00:13:38] And what's coming out of that is people benefiting from speculation on the value of financial assets, not from producing physical goods and selling them to the rest of us.
[00:13:50] So, obviously, there's no need to guess who the person is at the top level of the income distribution in the United States.
[00:13:57] No, not at all.
[00:13:58] Is he something to do with electric cars and spaceships and that sort of thing?
[00:14:01] Something to do with electric cars and spaceships, yeah.
[00:14:03] Now, his – and if you want to – you know, I know Musk is a person people love to hate and hate and eagerly hate.
[00:14:14] I'm ambivalent.
[00:14:15] My one thing is I want to get to Mars.
[00:14:16] So I'm backing him on that one and only one issue.
[00:14:20] But his – certainly, you can't argue that whether it's his own work or it's the work of the people he hired, he has definitely brought about innovations which are responsible for the income his own.
[00:14:30] But you also get people who have made it out of property speculation.
[00:14:35] You get people who have just inherited their wealth and so on and so forth.
[00:14:39] And the inheritance is clearly one thing, which if you have inherited wealth and that's the basis – you know, one of my favorite cartoons from Punch decades ago had two portly and obviously well-off gentlemen chatting to each other in a gentleman's smoking room in a club.
[00:14:57] And one said to the other, the secret of my success, Harry, is some advice my father gave me as a child.
[00:15:02] He said, son, here's a million dollars.
[00:15:04] Don't lose it.
[00:15:05] Now, if that's the basis of your inequality, then you basically have frivolous things being produced for people of that nature.
[00:15:12] They're not contributing new ideas.
[00:15:13] That inherited wealth is the thing which even if you're an extreme capitalist, that's something you would say, well, that is not a feature.
[00:15:21] That's a bug because you have like the second generation of Musk or the third generation of Musk.
[00:15:27] Let's take a family you and I know well, the Packer family.
[00:15:30] Remember them?
[00:15:31] Yeah.
[00:15:32] From Australia?
[00:15:33] Of course.
[00:15:33] Yeah.
[00:15:34] Channel 9 and –
[00:15:35] So you had Frank Packer who – ruthless newspaper man.
[00:15:38] And he made Rupert Murdoch look like a gentleman.
[00:15:41] Then you had Kerry Packer who battled it out with Rupert quite frequently but established a range of innovations, taking his family empire from newspapers into, first of all, magazines and then sport with the way he innovated cricket.
[00:16:00] The one-day cricket stuff is an invention of Kerry Packers.
[00:16:04] But he spent most of his spare time in the casino and that's what his son has ended up doing.
[00:16:09] And you have the classic third generation effect.
[00:16:12] The first one innovates, the second extends and the third loses.
[00:16:16] And that's one way in which inherited wealth doesn't mean that the people who inherit it do the best possible thing with it.
[00:16:22] In fact, they often trash the family fortune.
[00:16:24] So there's an argument that the inherited wealth side of capitalism is what breaks it away from being dominated by people who innovate.
[00:16:35] Now, I'm –
[00:16:35] But I mean is that a problem though?
[00:16:38] So you get that inherited wealth in that third generation gets passed on.
[00:16:43] It gets wasted.
[00:16:44] I mean that money doesn't disappear.
[00:16:46] It just means that that family is less well off at the end of their lifetime than they were before.
[00:16:50] So that money is –
[00:16:51] They don't – they do far less creative stuff with the money they get than what they –
[00:16:57] You know, if you gave – there are plenty of potential innovators.
[00:17:00] But the money circulates in the economy.
[00:17:01] So they spend it badly.
[00:17:03] But they have to spend it with people.
[00:17:05] Yeah.
[00:17:05] So other people get hold of that money and perhaps they do something innovative with it.
[00:17:09] So it's just the family that loses that.
[00:17:11] But ultimately, it doesn't necessarily mean the economy loses that.
[00:17:14] But there's a healthy level of – I think as you can say, there's a healthy level of income distribution inequality, which is the power law, which just tends to apply.
[00:17:23] Like everything, every natural evolutionary process we see on the planet follows a power law.
[00:17:29] So the number – there's the entire earthquakes.
[00:17:32] We've seen a couple of reports of earthquakes just this last week or two.
[00:17:36] So earthquakes and, you know, five – there was a magnitude seven earthquake somewhere, I think.
[00:17:41] In LA.
[00:17:42] Five, six, and seven.
[00:17:43] Or San Francisco.
[00:17:44] So the number of this –
[00:17:45] In Southern California anyway, wasn't there?
[00:17:47] Sorry.
[00:17:48] Not –
[00:17:48] Yeah.
[00:17:49] There's a small number of very large earthquakes and a large number of very small earthquakes.
[00:17:54] And when you plot the magnitude of the earthquake on the vertical axis against the number of earthquakes on the horizontal, and you do that, and the axis goes, you know, one, ten, a hundred, a thousand in both directions.
[00:18:06] As it happens, the Richter scale actually has that characteristic.
[00:18:10] You find a straight line.
[00:18:11] So natural evolutionary processes generate a power law distribution.
[00:18:15] And in that sense, if you get a power law distribution of a capitalist economy, that's actually a sign that it's healthy, not that it's, you know, bad inequality.
[00:18:24] So there's an extent to which I accept a level of inequality that a lot of people who have similar politics to me say, oh, that's terrible.
[00:18:32] They're making far too much money.
[00:18:33] It's part of the evolutionary process of capitalism.
[00:18:37] But if they make a disproportionate amount of money, though.
[00:18:41] So I think –
[00:18:41] Yeah, that's one thing.
[00:18:42] It's interesting, isn't it, in America?
[00:18:44] Because there's a different psyche in America where very poor people don't mind having very rich people because they see that as an aspiration.
[00:18:51] They feel like, you know, if they apply themselves, they could get there.
[00:18:55] And it's, you know, it's curious how they'll keep on believing that.
[00:18:58] Whereas in the UK, I think everyone feels like, you know, they're hard done by and it's not fair.
[00:19:02] And they start to win.
[00:19:04] So there's two very different approaches.
[00:19:05] But even in America, you know, if the powerful become too powerful, well, first of all, there's a cost associated with that, isn't there?
[00:19:15] Because you've got to hire security.
[00:19:17] You've got to live in a house that people can't get access to.
[00:19:22] You've got to, you know, almost hire your own police.
[00:19:25] You can't walk the streets.
[00:19:26] You can't – exactly.
[00:19:27] So all of that can't happen.
[00:19:28] And, you know, you look at the CEO of that health fund.
[00:19:33] Yeah, that's why I said walk the streets.
[00:19:34] He was shot down.
[00:19:35] Yeah, exactly.
[00:19:35] Almost certainly.
[00:19:36] He was assassinated because the cost of health care has got so large in America.
[00:19:41] So you reach a point where – and then on top of that, who are you selling to?
[00:19:46] So you're making money selling stuff.
[00:19:50] If you've got all the money and no one else has got the money, who are you selling to ultimately?
[00:19:54] That's the problem.
[00:19:54] And capitalism requires upon having a market to sell into.
[00:19:58] And so if you have too much inequality, you don't have customers.
[00:20:02] And then you get caught up in the – and then you get a – as our old mate, Yanis Varoufakis, said when he was on the show some time back, you get techno-feudalism.
[00:20:11] You end up with a feudal structure coming out of it.
[00:20:14] Now, like, literally, we are affected by that because just recently Patreon told its customers – of course, and one of course – that they had to either increase their prices by 30% or cut the revenue they get by 30%
[00:20:31] because Apple is insisting that all sales of Patreon access go through Apple's online store.
[00:20:41] And therefore, Apple is taking a 30% cut of my revenue and everybody else who owns income out of Patreon.
[00:20:46] And I literally can say, what has Apple done for me recently?
[00:20:51] Because, you know, there's no way that Apple's contribution to what I put out on my blog posts and so on is worth 30% of what I earn.
[00:21:02] Get lost, okay?
[00:21:03] This is just a classic techno-feudalism.
[00:21:06] They've got the dominance position.
[00:21:08] They've said they're getting 30% of all revenue going through their app stores.
[00:21:11] They're telling an independent group like Patreon that they've got to use Apple's store to sell or they'll shut them down on Apple.
[00:21:21] They won't let them sell at all.
[00:21:22] So, you know, people can be signing off from Android.
[00:21:25] They can be signing off on their laptop.
[00:21:27] They're not going through Apple itself specifically.
[00:21:30] And yet Apple's going to take 30% of the revenue of every producer on Patreon.
[00:21:34] Now, that is a –
[00:21:34] Is that right?
[00:21:35] Yes, yes.
[00:21:36] I hope is right.
[00:21:37] I'm going to sue it if I'm wrong.
[00:21:38] But that's the implication of the letter that I got from Patreon saying they weren't happy about it but there's nothing they could do.
[00:21:45] And that is a case where you're using, you know, financial power to exploit.
[00:21:52] And that's the danger people see that if the high concentrations of wealth give you the possibility to use that as a form of power.
[00:21:59] And the other – like we mentioned the Packers recently and the only – you know the Packer family.
[00:22:06] Everybody is a Rupert Murdoch.
[00:22:08] And the extent to which he's used, the wealth is accumulated as a power to distort the political system, as they put it, into his preferred form.
[00:22:17] That's huge.
[00:22:18] And so that is the type of the sour end of that level of income inequality.
[00:22:23] Right.
[00:22:24] Okay.
[00:22:24] So we've said that you do – you know, it's accepted as a norm, a part of the healthy functioning of an economy that you do have income disparity.
[00:22:34] But it's got to be a straight line, not a curve, not a steepening curve.
[00:22:40] Yeah, not getting more extreme at the top end.
[00:22:42] And the other thing about it is down at the bottom end, it's got to be sufficient for people to live.
[00:22:47] And this is the problem.
[00:22:49] If you have extreme inequality at both ends of the scale, then there's a large number of people who simply don't get enough to survive.
[00:22:56] Well, there's a thought for Christmas, isn't it, which is what we're looking at this week, the income inequality that exists in the planet.
[00:23:02] What is the happy medium which still allows for growth?
[00:23:05] More on this when we come back.
[00:23:06] It's the Debunking Economics podcast.
[00:23:08] Stay with us.
[00:23:12] Herbst.
[00:23:13] Und bald stehen schon wieder die Feiertage vor der Tür.
[00:23:16] Das kann auch für Hunde ganz schön stressig sein.
[00:23:19] Viele Vierbeine reagieren unter anderem mit einer gestörten Verdauung.
[00:23:22] Und das ist wiederum Stress für ihre Besitzer.
[00:23:25] Aber es gibt schnelle und einfache Hilfe.
[00:23:27] Das Probiotikum Purina Proplan Forti Flora.
[00:23:31] Streu einfach einen Beutel über das tägliche Futter.
[00:23:34] Die außergewöhnliche Zusammensetzung mit lebenden guten Darmbakterien stellt das Gleichgewicht im Darm wieder her.
[00:23:39] Natürlich kannst du Proplan Forti Flora auch präventiv oder bei alltäglichen Verdauungsbeschwerden einsetzen.
[00:23:46] Es unterstützt auch bei Ernährungsumstellungen oder Antibiotika-Einnahme.
[00:23:50] Purina Proplan Forti Flora.
[00:23:52] Jetzt auf shop.purina.de
[00:23:59] Wie kann man Risiko im Leben reduzieren?
[00:24:01] Einen Helm tragen.
[00:24:02] Fit bleiben.
[00:24:03] Und die Freunde meiden, die verrückte Ideen haben.
[00:24:05] Und beim Investieren?
[00:24:06] Hier sollte man diversifizieren.
[00:24:08] Wenn du in einen iShares ETF investierst, kaufst du in einem Schritt einen Teil von Hunderten oder Tausenden von Unternehmen.
[00:24:14] So musst du dir keine Sorgen mehr machen.
[00:24:16] Du kannst dir stattdessen lieber Gedanken darüber machen, wer die Fotos von der wilden Nacht mit deinen Freunden gemacht hat.
[00:24:20] Finde iShares bei deinem Broker oder deiner Bank und fange noch heute an, mit ETFs zu sparen.
[00:24:26] Kapitalanlagerisiko.
[00:24:27] Marketinginformation.
[00:24:32] This is the Debunking Economics Podcast with Steve Keen and Phil Dobby.
[00:24:44] Okay, so we're looking at income disparity and is it a good thing or a bad thing?
[00:24:48] And so far we've concluded basically it's an acceptable thing so long as it doesn't get out of control.
[00:24:54] I wonder whether, and we mentioned that the CEO of the health insurance company, Steve, who got shot down.
[00:24:59] And I mean the numbers perhaps give some of the reasoning behind that.
[00:25:03] So if you look at the cost of healthcare, figures from the World Health Organization and the Global Health Observatory,
[00:25:10] the cost of healthcare per capita in the US is almost $11,000 per year.
[00:25:17] In the UK it's $4,300, which is a little bit less.
[00:25:21] It's the same ballpark in Canada, Japan and the Netherlands.
[00:25:25] They're all around the $4,300 mark.
[00:25:28] In the US it's $11,000 and rising.
[00:25:30] So the US is spending twice as much as just about everywhere else.
[00:25:35] Their life expectancy is less than 79.
[00:25:38] In the UK it's over 81.
[00:25:39] In Holland and Canada it's over 82.
[00:25:42] In Japan it's 85.
[00:25:44] So they are spending twice as much for less life.
[00:25:49] And obviously the difference is it's very much a private healthcare system,
[00:25:54] whereas a lot of those other countries it's a public healthcare system.
[00:25:59] So there's an example of where you've got to be wealthy to be able to afford it.
[00:26:05] I mean $11,000 a year for most people is a phenomenal amount of money to be spending.
[00:26:09] And this is actually one of the points.
[00:26:11] I mentioned that power distribution.
[00:26:13] In fact, there's a correction to that.
[00:26:15] And this probably comes back to why there's such a level of angst in America amongst the poor
[00:26:22] and such a level of relaxedness amongst the poor in countries like Finland, not the UK,
[00:26:28] but Finland and a lot of the European, the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Denmark,
[00:26:33] and the Nordic region countries.
[00:26:35] And that is that at the very bottom of the distribution,
[00:26:38] you find it's no longer a power law.
[00:26:41] And this is a fascinating paper that I was actually the referee for.
[00:26:45] The title is called An Out of Equilibrium Model of the Distributions, plural, of Wealth,
[00:26:50] by Nicola Scarfetta.
[00:26:52] So it's S-C-A-F-E-T-T-A.
[00:26:54] If anybody wants to search it up, get a hold of this paper.
[00:26:57] Because this was a bunch of physicists who were trying to do that power law fitting
[00:27:00] I was talking about earlier.
[00:27:01] You know, random interactions generating a power law.
[00:27:05] And they tried to fit this to the data and found it didn't work.
[00:27:09] So they added completely.
[00:27:10] They could fit the top end of the data's income distribution, but couldn't fit the bottom.
[00:27:14] So they added two parts to it.
[00:27:16] They said there's one part of society that gets their income from investments.
[00:27:20] And that is fundamentally, you know, everything up to your real on must.
[00:27:23] Those are people who earn money out of capital in one sense or the other,
[00:27:26] whether they inherited the money or they created industries which made them wealthy.
[00:27:31] So that's the power law.
[00:27:32] And so down the bottom, there's a trade-based distribution.
[00:27:36] So people are exchanging things.
[00:27:38] They're not earning out of investments.
[00:27:40] In other words, they're selling things.
[00:27:41] So investments, you get a rate of return.
[00:27:44] You're selling a product.
[00:27:45] Now, the thing that they found that they couldn't comprehend,
[00:27:49] and this is one of the reasons I became the referee for the paper,
[00:27:52] they found the only way they could make this two-part distribution fit the data
[00:27:56] is that they had what they call the investment part and the trade part.
[00:28:00] They had to foresee that the trade part was biased in favor of the poor.
[00:28:05] Okay?
[00:28:06] So the poor, if you had a measure of value, the poor got more.
[00:28:11] The price that the poor were paid was above the value that what they were selling.
[00:28:15] The price that the rich got was below the value.
[00:28:17] Now, the thing which most people sell is their labor.
[00:28:21] Okay?
[00:28:22] And what they're saying is, and this actually contradicts what people think is what Marx is about.
[00:28:27] Marxists themselves will probably choke when I say this.
[00:28:30] They found that workers were paid more than their value.
[00:28:32] That's the main thing people sell in trade.
[00:28:34] You sell your labor and you get paid a wage in return.
[00:28:38] But the only way they could fit the data was the opinion that was higher than the value.
[00:28:42] The workers got paid more than they were worth.
[00:28:45] Now, this sounds weird unless you've actually read Marx.
[00:28:49] Marxists, and most so-called Marxists, in my opinion, haven't read Marx.
[00:28:53] They've read a bit of chapter, Volume 1 of Capital, and they've gone off on the socials.
[00:28:58] But they would say that they're getting paid less than they're worth, which is how companies take their profits.
[00:29:02] Yes, and they're wrong.
[00:29:02] And they're wrong.
[00:29:03] Yeah.
[00:29:03] They're not only wrong about the empirical data.
[00:29:06] They're wrong about what Marx himself said.
[00:29:08] Because when I got this paper to read, I was quite stunned in seeing the results.
[00:29:13] And then I thought a bit more about it.
[00:29:14] And having read everything Marx ever wrote on economics, I knew, and I said this in my master's thesis,
[00:29:20] that every time Marx mentioned the wage and the value of what he called labor power in the same sentence,
[00:29:27] so he did it seven times in – quite seriously, seven times in one sentence or one paragraph,
[00:29:33] he'd mention the wage rate and the value of labor power.
[00:29:37] And that was from, you know, Volume 1, 2, and 3 of Capital, Theories of Ingenuity, Surplus Value,
[00:29:45] all these works, only seven times.
[00:29:48] Each time he did, he said the minimum wage was the value of labor power,
[00:30:01] and therefore the actual wage was higher than the value of labor power.
[00:30:04] Now, my thesis explains why he had that argument.
[00:30:08] So basically he said workers only get their value if they only are paid the very minimum wage.
[00:30:14] So the normal wage is going to be above the value of labor power.
[00:30:17] Now, this – what Marxists argue is that capitalists make profit by exploiting workers,
[00:30:22] by getting – they work, you know, 12 hours.
[00:30:26] It takes six hours to make the men's subsistence for them.
[00:30:30] The extra six hours is where the profit comes from.
[00:30:32] And Marx does make that argument as well in Volume 1 of Capital.
[00:30:35] But he meant to write a number of other volumes which he never got around to writing.
[00:30:39] One was a book on wage labor, and he would explain why normally the wage was higher
[00:30:43] than the value of labor power.
[00:30:45] Now, this – I don't want to go into the dialectical philosophy that he used to explain it,
[00:30:50] but basically Marx said workers are going to be paid more than their value.
[00:30:54] Now, this turns up in the data.
[00:30:57] This is what the –
[00:30:58] So just so we're clear on what that's saying, though.
[00:31:00] So if I'm working on a production line, for example, and –
[00:31:03] Yeah.
[00:31:04] Adding something to a widget costs – they're paying me more than the value I'm adding to that product?
[00:31:12] No.
[00:31:13] No, they're paying you more than your means of subsistence.
[00:31:15] If workers were paying exactly their value, they'd only be getting enough to stay alive.
[00:31:20] You couldn't go on holidays to Italy, blah, blah, blah.
[00:31:22] You know, so we get paid more than our value.
[00:31:24] Because everyone would be negotiated down to the minimum amount.
[00:31:28] Yeah.
[00:31:29] But companies are saying, well, we have to pay a bit more than that because otherwise no one's going to be able to buy our products.
[00:31:33] Yeah.
[00:31:33] And it's also because workers aren't commodities.
[00:31:36] Workers are humans who – if they're paid just enough to stay alive, they'll go out and do things like, you know,
[00:31:42] shoot a random person outside of a corporate meeting.
[00:31:45] So you have to pay.
[00:31:46] So what's that saying is – all it's saying is that it's saying companies are not screwing people into the ground to the maximum extent till they squeal.
[00:31:53] That's all that's saying, isn't it?
[00:31:55] But a bit more than that because what it's saying is you should have higher wages than just the subsistence,
[00:32:01] just the value of workers.
[00:32:04] They should get more than their worth in that sense.
[00:32:07] And this is for a healthy society, not seen from a conventional economic point of view now,
[00:32:12] but actually from Marx's point of view.
[00:32:14] They should get more than their value.
[00:32:16] Now, that means that if you're going to have a healthy society, you have to be making sure that people aren't at the level of subsistence.
[00:32:24] So if you have an income distribution which is so extreme that at the very bottom people are subsistence or starving,
[00:32:30] they've got to break the law.
[00:32:31] They've got to get money in illegal ways.
[00:32:33] They've got to shoot people, et cetera, et cetera.
[00:32:36] So the sense of angst you find in America in particular and England as well,
[00:32:42] the feeling of despondency at the bottom of the scale,
[00:32:44] that's because a lot of this competitive orientation of mainstream economics is pushing the argument that you're paying workers too much.
[00:32:53] No, you're not.
[00:32:53] You're paying enough of their own claim.
[00:32:55] And then at the other end of the scale, you're saying that people should be getting paid less than they are.
[00:33:00] No, no.
[00:33:01] It cuts off at a point.
[00:33:02] See, the distribution of income from those who have capital is a rate of return on investments,
[00:33:09] and that fits the power law data to it like a glove.
[00:33:12] But down the bottom end, to fit the actual data distribution, this is a paper back, I think, from 19 – about maybe 20 years.
[00:33:22] Actually, I'll take a look at this if I can see the date on the paper.
[00:33:25] Yeah, 2004.
[00:33:27] So it's only 20 years ago.
[00:33:29] But you find to fit the actual distribution then, you had to say that trade was based in favor of the poor
[00:33:35] for those who live by trading, by selling something, and it's fundamentally workers selling their labor power.
[00:33:40] But the top end, it's still a power law distribution.
[00:33:43] Now, all the obsession about cutting regulations and the terrible standards of American infrastructure and health
[00:33:53] and basic things like that, which the poor cannot afford to pay for,
[00:33:57] that is going against that need to bias income distribution in favor of the poor,
[00:34:03] and that's an essential part of having a well-functioning system.
[00:34:07] So it's not so much inequality at the top that's the problem.
[00:34:10] We don't want inequality at the bottom that means people who are receiving a wage get less than they need to survive.
[00:34:18] So when you look at countries like Finland and the Nordic region in general with lower incomes in America
[00:34:26] but high levels of happiness, it's mainly because at that level the society itself is saying
[00:34:32] we have to provide publicly available services that mean that the poor people are content.
[00:34:38] Now, Americans are trying to make them disintended.
[00:34:41] That's not a good recipe.
[00:34:43] No.
[00:34:43] So where does growth come from then?
[00:34:45] Does growth, you know, in reality and in an ideal world –
[00:34:50] so if you've got that, you know, that layer of society who are trading,
[00:34:54] imagine that's part of where innovation comes from.
[00:34:57] We were talking about this actually in a recent podcast.
[00:34:59] Or does it come from the big companies that are just growing faster?
[00:35:05] You know, you need – I'd imagine that the really good ideas actually come from the smaller companies.
[00:35:10] So wealth is actually in that sense being created from the bottom up.
[00:35:14] And yet the focus is very much on investing in those bigger companies so that they can grow faster
[00:35:19] and they can take the liberties like you've talked about where, you know, through the position of power.
[00:35:26] So they're not actually particularly innovative.
[00:35:27] They're just using their power to gain more control which is not good for society.
[00:35:34] And that's actually – there's another fabulous author that I promoted his views
[00:35:40] who were quite some time called Bob Hagen.
[00:35:42] And he talked about what he called the inefficient markets hypothesis
[00:35:45] because the conventional thing basically says, you know, do what the rich people do
[00:35:49] and that's how you're going to succeed.
[00:35:51] And he then said if you actually look at where success comes from in corporate growth over time,
[00:35:57] it's from the companies that don't end up being the magnificent companies as they were once described.
[00:36:03] So it's new firms coming forward.
[00:36:06] And he actually had incredible success in portfolio allocation.
[00:36:10] You chose companies which had the lowest price-to-earnings ratio and not the highest.
[00:36:16] And that's actually a large part of Buffett's success because you find the growth comes,
[00:36:21] the innovation comes from the new firms, the new entrants and so on.
[00:36:24] Whereas once you have that accumulation of power that gives you a General Motors or a Ford,
[00:36:29] it's maintaining their market dominance that matters rather than innovating.
[00:36:32] And they continue to lose out to the small companies that still have to innovate
[00:36:37] to become competitive with Ford.
[00:36:38] Yeah, well, there's not a lot of innovation coming from the American car industry, that's for sure.
[00:36:42] But is that the risk then that in the United States that Donald Trump's policies don't work
[00:36:48] because they will be very much geared towards, well, let's make those bigger companies…
[00:36:54] Wealthy people wealthier.
[00:36:55] Yeah.
[00:36:55] Yeah.
[00:36:56] It would be potentially entrenching the extreme inequality that doesn't lead to innovation,
[00:37:03] leads to complacency.
[00:37:03] And does that therefore create an opportunity for the rest of the world to say, well, okay…
[00:37:09] Well, that's where China, hands down, has won the innovation contest with the Americans
[00:37:16] over the last 40 years.
[00:37:17] And now it's even doing in electric cars.
[00:37:19] I mean, when you said there's no innovation in the American car industry,
[00:37:22] you've got to include our little musketeer there.
[00:37:26] He's definitely innovated.
[00:37:26] Yeah, well, I can't help from him.
[00:37:27] And I'd like to…
[00:37:28] There's other…
[00:37:29] The other end, I've seen some small solar car manufacturers being developed in the States
[00:37:34] right now.
[00:37:35] So, it's a small car, but a small car entirely powered by solar power.
[00:37:41] It's sufficient just leaving it in the street.
[00:37:43] You don't need to recharge the battery.
[00:37:45] The battery recharges from solar power.
[00:37:47] That sort of innovation is taking place.
[00:37:49] But when you look at what's happening with, say, companies like BVD, you find American
[00:37:54] and European manufacturers going across and seeing what they're producing.
[00:37:59] And they're stunned.
[00:37:59] So, the innovation rate is higher, far higher in China than it is in America.
[00:38:04] So, why is that not happening in Europe and in the UK?
[00:38:07] Is it just because the markets are too small?
[00:38:10] Or is it because this…
[00:38:11] I think it's that, but it's all…
[00:38:12] I hate to go back to money creation, mate, but it's got a lot to do with the Chinese
[00:38:17] not obsessing about running a government deficit.
[00:38:19] The government deficit in Japan and China has been running about 9% of GDP for ages.
[00:38:24] And that's the amount of money turning over and the pressure on firms to innovate from
[00:38:29] the government itself.
[00:38:31] That's a major reason why there's such a rate of growth of innovation there.
[00:38:35] Whereas Europe and the UK in particular are forever strangling the creation of government
[00:38:40] money, thinking that's a good thing.
[00:38:42] It's cutting back the amount of cash flow that exists for corporations to allow new ideas
[00:38:46] to come through.
[00:38:47] So, sorry to bring you the topic we weren't going to talk about, but stifling money creation
[00:38:52] is a European hang-up that's even worse than what America has done thus far.
[00:38:58] But if Musk gets his way and here he's going to innovate in the wrong direction, they might
[00:39:02] well have America join Europe and England in being slow innovators and let the Chinese…
[00:39:08] But do you want big companies to grow faster or do you want smaller companies to grow
[00:39:13] faster or do you want governments to help grow the economy?
[00:39:17] Which is the…
[00:39:18] Yes.
[00:39:18] It is a mix of all, isn't it?
[00:39:20] That's why I said yes.
[00:39:21] Okay.
[00:39:22] There's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one, between those arrangements.
[00:39:27] So, the main thing for growth in an industry comes out again of the power distribution of
[00:39:31] firm sizes, which inspires the small firms to try to innovate because the only way they
[00:39:36] can get a share, become one of the big firms, is by product differentiation and getting
[00:39:41] it's something new which takes over the majors.
[00:39:43] So, like if we go back 40 years ago in the computer industry or maybe even 50, the major
[00:39:48] companies were…
[00:39:49] There were six major companies, IBM, Burroughs, Unisys, National Control Data, Honeywell and
[00:39:55] I think I've missed out one.
[00:39:57] They were called the bunch, B-U-N-C-H, IBM and the bunch.
[00:40:00] Was Compaq one of them?
[00:40:01] Did that fit in?
[00:40:01] No, no.
[00:40:02] Compaq was one of the small ones.
[00:40:03] The Compaq didn't exist.
[00:40:04] Okay.
[00:40:04] So, all the innovation came from the small firms.
[00:40:06] Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, K-Pro, if I go way, way back.
[00:40:10] And those small firms saw the incredible power and wealth of the rich ones and wanted to
[00:40:15] join them and the only way they could do was by innovating a product that those firms
[00:40:18] didn't have.
[00:40:19] So, that's a major part of the…
[00:40:21] So, that the rivalry, the presence of the big firms that you can see that you hope
[00:40:26] to emulate, that's a large part of where innovation comes from.
[00:40:29] And Dell, for example, with their sort of like made-to-order computers that they'd ship
[00:40:33] out to you was very innovative at the time as well, wasn't it?
[00:40:36] So, yeah.
[00:40:37] So, that's…
[00:40:38] But you've got to help those smaller companies to grow.
[00:40:40] And then, I guess that…
[00:40:41] How does that help the income divide?
[00:40:45] I guess it does because the investors in those smaller companies and the workers in those
[00:40:52] smaller companies are getting the benefits.
[00:40:55] But is it helping?
[00:40:57] Do they just become the uber-wealthy themselves?
[00:41:00] It's an evolutionary process.
[00:41:02] And we should be doing things which encourage that evolution rather than stifle it.
[00:41:06] And to a large extent, what major corporations like, for example, Apple are doing is stifling
[00:41:12] innovation because they've got the market power to do it.
[00:41:14] And so, that is the element you'd be wanting to look at.
[00:41:18] You don't want…
[00:41:19] A lot of the regulations that people are thinking they're going to target and improve America's
[00:41:25] growth prospects, some of them will definitely help there.
[00:41:28] But others will be regulations which are there to stop the powerful companies abusing their
[00:41:33] market power as a political weapon.
[00:41:35] And I can think, again, back to Murdoch.
[00:41:37] I mean, you don't want lots of Murdochs…
[00:41:41] Well, actually, you want lots of Murdochs in preference to one Murdoch, okay, in terms of the dominance
[00:41:46] and power and capacity to distort the political system.
[00:41:50] The more the merrier in that sense.
[00:41:51] They just tend to dilute each other.
[00:41:52] But you get these concentrations.
[00:41:54] And that means that it isn't just that they produce greater products.
[00:42:00] They're able to twist the market in their favor.
[00:42:03] So, final question then.
[00:42:05] And maybe this is a subject…
[00:42:07] Well, it almost certainly is a subject for a podcast on its own.
[00:42:09] But the importance of productivity in all of this, in driving growth, but driving growth
[00:42:14] in an equitable way.
[00:42:15] So, I mean, rich companies can get bigger.
[00:42:18] Good for them.
[00:42:19] And they can probably do that in a very productive way.
[00:42:22] You know, they can get bigger by employing less people and therefore, you know, greater
[00:42:27] output per hour worked and all that.
[00:42:29] But that's not good if everyone is left unemployed at the end of the day, where you get a load
[00:42:35] of people who aren't working at all.
[00:42:38] So, or, you know, they're working slowly because they're not getting paid a great deal.
[00:42:43] So, is there a happy balance on productivity?
[00:42:46] Because productivity has sort of grown to a halt, hasn't it, in the West?
[00:42:50] Well, productivity is the basis of technological innovation.
[00:42:53] And it's also the basis of exploiting free energy.
[00:42:57] And that's, I think, the major dilemma we face now is the days of cheap energy are over,
[00:43:01] as in as a cheap fossil fuel energy.
[00:43:04] And so, that's more than...
[00:43:07] A lot of what we call productivity is the capacity to harness more energy to enable, you know,
[00:43:13] more energy be applied to a particular process.
[00:43:15] So, we've gone from manual toothbrushes to electric.
[00:43:18] The reason they're better, they're using more energy to clean your teeth, that sort of thing.
[00:43:23] The energy availability is essential for that to happen.
[00:43:25] And if we're reaching a point in our civilization where that energy availability is no longer there,
[00:43:30] and that's going to slow down our rate of growth no matter what.
[00:43:32] But if machines are doing everything and improving that productivity and replacing people,
[00:43:38] then you are going to have that income divide, aren't you?
[00:43:41] Unless you say, well, actually, let's, you know, let's let people do jobs that, you know,
[00:43:45] machines could perhaps do.
[00:43:46] At least we're paying them some money.
[00:43:47] Unless you say, well, we'll get machines to do it and we'll pay the money through welfare payments,
[00:43:53] which is not a, you know, I suggest...
[00:43:55] That's one potential.
[00:43:56] I mean, one potential with the development of robots that are actually semi-autonomous
[00:44:00] and can actually learn from watching a human,
[00:44:04] then that means the process worker part of getting an income disappears.
[00:44:08] And, you know, that's one of...
[00:44:09] I think that's such a critical...
[00:44:11] And then all of those robots are owned by Google or the, you know, or the Big Six or the Magnificent Seven,
[00:44:17] probably really the Big Six rather than the Magnificent Seven.
[00:44:20] It could be down to four by then.
[00:44:22] Those companies are running robots.
[00:44:23] They're making all the money.
[00:44:24] They're doing everything.
[00:44:26] Then we've got a massive income divide because, you know, there's no one left with any jobs at all.
[00:44:32] And jobs are the way we transmit money through all sections of society.
[00:44:36] Yeah, yeah.
[00:44:37] And employment is not a challenge in the world we're in right now.
[00:44:40] And that is going to make the income divide that much greater.
[00:44:43] Yep, that's right.
[00:44:43] So I think that's a major challenge we should actually be considering.
[00:44:47] How do we enable people to have a living in a world which we can no longer earn a living by work?
[00:44:51] While having small government and not paying much in tax for the very wealthy people.
[00:44:55] There you go.
[00:44:56] Yeah, yeah.
[00:44:57] Merry Christmas.
[00:44:58] That's Elon's view of the world.
[00:44:59] Merry Christmas, Elon.
[00:45:01] Yeah, well, we'll see what the year brings with Donald Trump, won't we?
[00:45:05] Okay, well, Merry Christmas.
[00:45:07] Okay.
[00:45:08] Merry Christmas, Steve.
[00:45:09] To you too.
[00:45:10] I'll catch you next time.
[00:45:11] Okay, mate.
[00:45:11] See you.
[00:45:11] The Debunking Economics Podcast.
[00:45:21] Jetzt ist Herbst und bald stehen schon wieder die Feiertage vor der Tür.
[00:45:26] Das kann auch für Hunde ganz schön stressig sein.
[00:45:28] Viele Vierbeiner reagieren unter anderem mit einer gestörten Verdauung.
[00:45:32] Und das ist wiederum Stress für ihre Besitzer.
[00:45:34] Aber es gibt schnelle und einfache Hilfe.
[00:45:37] Das Probiotikum Purina Proplan Forti Flora.
[00:45:40] Streu einfach einen Beutel über das tägliche Futter.
[00:45:43] Die außergewöhnliche Zusammensetzung mit lebenden guten Darmbakterien stellt das Gleichgewicht im Darm wieder her.
[00:45:50] Natürlich kannst du Proplan Forti Flora auch präventiv oder bei alltäglichen Verdauungsbeschwerden einsetzen.
[00:45:55] Es unterstützt auch bei Ernährungsumstellungen oder Antibiotika-Einnahme.
[00:46:00] Purina Proplan Forti Flora.
[00:46:02] Jetzt auf shop.purina.de
[00:46:08] Wenn man Leute fragt, was macht einen Investor aus, bekommt man oft diese Antworten.
[00:46:13] Investoren sind reich.
[00:46:15] Sie tragen teure Anzüge und haben Designertaschen.
[00:46:17] Sie waren Einserschüler und sind Mathe-Genies.
[00:46:20] Interessant, aber das stimmt so nicht ganz.
[00:46:22] Man muss weder reich noch Experte sein, um zu investieren.
[00:46:25] Mit iShares ETFs kannst du in hunderte und tausende von Unternehmen mit nur einem einfachen Schritt investieren.
[00:46:30] Schon ab einem Euro.
[00:46:31] Finde iShares bei deinem Broker oder deiner Bank und fang noch heute an, mit ETFs zu sparen.
[00:46:37] Kapitalanlagerisiko.
[00:46:38] Marketinginformation.
[00:46:41] If you've enjoyed listening to debunking economics, even if you haven't, you might also enjoy the Y-Curve.
[00:46:47] Each week, Roger Heering and I talk to a guest about a topic that is very much in the news that week.
[00:46:53] It's lively, it's fun, it's informative.
[00:46:55] What more could you want?
[00:46:56] So search the Y-Curve in your favourite podcast app or go to ycurve.com to listen.