Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality

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

My friend Antonios Sarhanis is a philosophy graduate turned software guy and runs a software business in Melbourne. Whenever I'm detailing various bizarre practices in ordinary white collar workforces Antonios will often say that that doesn't happen in the management of software development. That's because it's really a 'blue collar job' which is to say that it's producing an output which is very tangible — and where there's a fairly straightforward relationship between doing a good or bad job and the software working well or badly. In lots of white collar jobs that's not the case. The upshot is that software development eschews oodles of bad practices that are endemic. We discuss everything from the value of formal education in the field to the intricacies of being a ten x engineer. There are a cast of characters you've heard of — like Bill Gates, Paul Keating, Steve Jobs and the Doge of Venice. If you'd like to access the video, it's here. Timestamps 00:00 - Trailer 01:08 - Start 03:47 - Introduction and the value of a Ph.D. in software 04:40 - The real-world skills required in software development 12:26 - The unique characteristics of software developers 24:03 - The concept of a ten x engineer and their financial remuneration 31:20 - The evolution of software development methodologies 36:47 - The impact of software on global economies 41:33 - Discussion on Paul Keating and his understanding of economics 56:05 - The future of software and its societal implications 1:03:05 - Closing thoughts and the essence of the conversation

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 chat with Sam Rosevear, the Executive Director, Policy, Government Relations and Research of Philanthopy Australia we discuss the plan he’s been working on to double donations to charity in Australia by the end of the decade. That’s an additional $13 billion per year! And as you’ll see from our discussion it shouldn't be that hard to do. It shouldn't cost government much because most of the action involves a few nudges. If you'd like to access the video, it's here 00:00 Trailer 01:02 Introduction 20:24 Nudges and Financial Initiatives in Charity 29:17 The Role of Government in Education 31:50 The Meritocracy Trap and Education Inequality 37:26 The Potential of Super Bequests 49:20 Local Community Foundations and Giving 57:12 Partnering with Civil Society and Business

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

Of all the podcasts we’ve done so far, this is my favourite.  We discuss Peter Heather’s marvellous book “Christendom: the triumph of a Religion”. It covers the thousand years from the time Christianity becomes embedded in the Roman Empire, via Emperor Constantine’s conversion. Heather’s book shows how much Christianity was spread not by those ‘meek’ whom Jesus would have inherit the earth, but by the powerful for whom conversion offered improved relations with the Emperor’s court. Over time, and through the period of Charlemagne it infiltrated European life via various drives for Christian piety.  By the 12th century, the Church had deeply infiltrated people’s lives through the seven sacraments — which marked the weekly rhythms and major milestones of people’s lives — they included baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, and marriage. And by the 12th century, the church was in many ways more powerful than any king or emperor. It controlled Europe’s operating system — it’s systems of information and learning and its transnational legal code. The church is also the template for a specific organisational form. The church was a unitary organisation governed by a monarch supported by a skilled bureaucracy administering an elaborate and time-honoured legal code. Nation states took their form from the church. So too, later on did corporations.  If you prefer watching the video, you can find it here.

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.

A couple of months ago I read and admired this article on Palladium, a new(ish) website that “explores the future of governance and society through international journalism, long-form analysis, and social philosophy”. It seemed that there was sufficient overlap between its concerns and mine that I asked if the author, Tanner Greer, would join me on the podcast. The essay begins with this assertion: The first instinct of the nineteenth-century American was to ask, “How can we make this happen?” Those raised inside the bureaucratic maze have been trained to ask a different question: “How do I get management to take my side?”  It then elaborates and explores with examples, speculates on the causes of the change and discusses the means by which we might get back to a healthier situation. Greer argues that the 19th-century institutions combined three characteristics: the aspirational ideal of public brotherhood, a commitment to formality and discipline in self-government, and organizational structures that combined decentralization with hierarchy. I hope you enjoy the discussion.  If you’d rather watch the episode, it is 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.