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.

What if technology stopped keeping us apart and started bringing us back together? In this, part 2 of my conversation with Jim Savage, we turn from diagnosing the problem of loneliness to what we’re doing about it. Jim introduces Feather, the platform he founded to make real-world connection easier, richer, and more meaningful. Unlike traditional social media, Feather is built to help enrich our social interactions in real life, in studios, clubs, dinner parties, and shared experiences IRL. We discuss how Feather is building pro social design into technology: lowering the barriers to invitation, helping organisers thrive, and fostering communities that outlast the events themselves. From acrobats in North America to local yoga studios and comedy clubs, Feather is already showing how digital tools can nurture and repair the fabric of social life.If part 1 asked why loneliness has spread, part 2 asks: what would it look like to build technology that heals society rather than harms it? Here is the link to watch the video version of this conversation.

Why, in an age of constant connection, are so many of us lonelier than ever?In this first part of my conversation with Jim Savage, entrepreneur, dinner party host, acrobat and thinker on social connection, we dive into one of the defining challenges of our time: loneliness. From the rise of singledom and the decline of community institutions, to the way technology amplifies our tendency to seek out people "just like us", we explore why friendship has become harder and why simple acts like talking to strangers seem rarer than ever.We also discuss the paradox of being wired for human connection yet behaving in ways that drive us apart, the subtle ways our social architecture is eroding and the importance of intergenerational exchange. In that regard, check out the intergenerational initiative I talk about here. 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 discussion with Crikey's Bernard Keane, we discuss the "don't mention the war" syndrome - how politicians' technique increasingly avoids discussing anything difficult. We start with the proposed Tasmanian AFL stadium inquiry as a case study.Bernard draws me out on his concern that consultants' reports have become fig leaves for predetermined decisions.I explore the way in which citizen juries just might be able to take us back to the 'glory days' of the Hawke Government. How? By answering the 'Spice Girls' question before it is debated within parliament. What does that even mean? You'll have to listen to find out!What I call 'representation by sampling' is a retrovirus that could restore genuine deliberation to our toxic political culture and enable it to engage with our problems rather than the performative buck-passing it's become.If you'd like to access the video of this discussion, it's available on YouTube at: https://youtu.be/7aYbf3RGktM

In this episode of "Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality," Gene Tunny and I explore the implications of President Trump's tariffs on international trade. We discuss the micro and macroeconomic aspects of tariffs, and how these policies could reshape the U.S. and global economies. We discuss the ways in which foreigners can be induced to pay some of the tariff, even if not as much as Donald Trump says they will, while also addressing the\ impacts on industries and employment. We emphasise how abstract the economists' models are and how poorly they account for supply chain disruptions. The broader implications for U.S. foreign relations, and the rule of law are also touched upon. Why would anyone trust the US when, under this president, it breaks previous agreements whenever it fancies? If you'd like to see the YouTube recording of our conversation, it's here.

Greg Smith has a well thought out, deeply compelling and scary take on the world we suddenly find ourselves in. I thought you should hear from him and so have just recorded this conversation. I strongly recommend you check it out. If you prefer to watch the video, it is here.

This discussion emerged from an email from my colleague Gene Tunny wondering whatever happened to Australian exceptionalism — that period during which he cut his teeth in the Treasury when Australian policy makers worked tirelessly to reshape the Australian economy to make it more productive and government politicians regarded this as one of their core tasks. We talked about how past leaders made big changes, like reducing tariffs and improving education. I painted a picture from my own — unusual — point of view which is that my father was an important figure in helping 'sell' economic reform to governments in the 1960s and then became part of early neoliberalism as an academic advisor to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet beginning shortly after the election of the Whitlam Government to around mid-1976.* I argue that early neoliberalism was highly successful. It picked plenty of low hanging fruit and saw itself as problem solving. As it became a dominant way of thinking, it became formularised — and understood as a summary aesthetic that 'market based' solutions were better. This idea was way too vague and vibey to be of practical use, but it operated to systematically bias the way people thought about things and set them up to make mistakes that were so large that there’s a fair case to be made that late reform did more harm than good. As I wrote in this op ed in 2014: "Australia was a standard-bearer in areas like trade and agricultural protection, the two airline policy and shopping hours. There, with the stroke of a pen, we swept away the detritus of a century’s ad hoc political favouritism. And unlike our peers in the Anglosphere, we also expanded funding for the safety net – bolstering equity. But beyond that, as we’ve learned (or have we?), considering policy alternatives against a criterion as crude as how ‘free market’ they are doesn’t work so well. In infrastructure, utility and financial reform, where monopoly and asymmetric information problems abound, regulation remains inevitable and new rent seeking political pathologies lie in wait for those unpicking the old ones. Here our reform efforts brought forth excessively priced mortgages, toll-ways, desalination plants and airports with the political and official insiders championing the changes parachuting into lucrative careers with the corporate beneficiaries of their reforms to lobby their successors. We’ve seen massive over-investment in electricity transmission and under-investment in other infrastructure." Gene and I discuss a range of policy questions, but Gene is interested in my experience in reforming car manufacturing in Australia and we spend a fair bit of time on that. We also discuss the Higher Education Charge (HECs) and the outsourcing of the Commonwealth Employment Services to illustrate some of the good and the bad of the new approach. And we also talk about the disasters like public-private partnerships for infrastructure, particularly toll roads. We also swapped some ideas about how New Zealand has done so much worse than Australia since the '70s. I don't know about Gene, but my speculations on that subject should be taken as just that — speculations and pretty uninformed. * In case you're interested, the new PM, Malcolm Fraser did not get rid of him. Instead Dad had always felt bad about giving the ANU only half of his time so he withdrew from the arrangement with PM&C when there seemed to be less interest in his services.

Dan Davies, author of "The Unaccountability Machine," discusses how Stafford Beer’s management cybernetics reveal the flaws in our belief that large systems can self-govern. He critiques the ineffective strategies in politics and corporations, particularly during COVID-19, highlighting the dangers of unaccountability. Davies dives into the impact of ideologies, the superficiality of corporate mission statements, and this 'hollowing out' of political systems. With a dash of humor, he emphasizes critical thinking and the need for deeper understanding in governance.

Competition policy created jobs and economic growth but sometimes it harmed smaller communities as rural services were rationalised. So Australia Post thinks it's on a PR winner when it argues that other logistics firms should be denied access to the 'last mile' of their rural network (from rural post office to home address) to deliver parcels to rural customers. But whereas the letter monopoly is legislated specifically to fund a cross-subsidy from the city to the bush, Australia Post's monopoly on its last mile of delivery to the bush is a 'natural monopoly'. It only exists because it's uneconomic for anyone else to invest in that infrastructure — because it's not heavily utilised. In fact Australia Post can't take advantage of the monopoly without charging the bush a monopoly price — which it does. This podcast explains why the government should require Australia Post to grant access to its facilities and how that would be great for rural post offices, generate around two thousand new jobs with half of them being in the bush.

Most of us have heard of the idea that, for a proposition to be scientific, it must be falsifiable — an idea associated with Karl Popper. And Thomas Kuhn's idea of 'paradigms' slid into the language following the publication of his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". In this podcast, I argue that Polanyi should be as well known as Kuhn (Kuhn seems to have got his core idea of the incommensurability of paradigms from Polanyi). And Polanyi scholar Martin Turkis and I ask why that is. I think the answer is also related to another somewhat surprising phenomenon. A remarkably large number of those studying Polanyi today have a particular interest in religion. Though religion was very important to Polanyi, he only mentioned it as a parting thought at the end of his major publications. The corresponding video is here.