Economics of the Ukrainian Crisis
With Russian on the march in Crimea, NPR’s Planet Money podcast recently discussed the economics of the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine and the role natural gas plays in the dispute.
Here is a description of the podcast from the Planet Money Blog:
On today’s show, how a policy that made natural gas very cheap for every household in Ukraine almost bankrupted the nation. And how that led, in part, to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Are You Thinking What I’m Thinking?
A fundamental skill which all good lawyer possess is the ability to effectively communicate ideas. According to the most recent episode of the Freakonomic Radio podcast, “the brain’s greatest attribute is knowing what other people are thinking.” This attribute is key to communication.
This episode, although not explicitly about public policy, is helpful for any lawyer or layman in understand how the brain works and how to better communicate and negotiate.
Here is a description of the show:
In the episode, Stephen Dubner talks to Nicholas Epley. Here’s how Epley introduces himself:
EPLEY: I’m a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago. I’m in the Booth School of Business, and I study mind-reading.
What’s a B-school professor doing studying mind-reading? Well, as he says:
EPLEY: If you can’t understand what other people think [and] how you’re being seen by other people, it’s very hard to lead or manage them effectively.
Epley has written a book on research in the field of mind-reading, including some of his own studies. It’s called Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want
. A few things you’ll learn in the episode that you never thought you wanted to know, but do:
A Barry Manilow t-shirt can teach us a lesson about the spotlight effect.
Stephen Dubner is a “fanilow” (sort of).
“Another One Bites the Dust” — when played backward — contains a secret message that, in the end, may help people communicate better.
Are You Thinking What I’m Thinking?
A fundamental skill which all good lawyer possess is the ability to effectively communicate ideas. According to the most recent episode of the Freakonomic Radio podcast, “the brain’s greatest attribute is knowing what other people are thinking.” This attribute is key to communication.
This episode, although not explicitly about public policy, is helpful for any lawyer or layman in understand how the brain works and how to better communicate and negotiate.
Here is a description of the show:
In the episode, Stephen Dubner talks to Nicholas Epley. Here’s how Epley introduces himself:
EPLEY: I’m a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago. I’m in the Booth School of Business, and I study mind-reading.
What’s a B-school professor doing studying mind-reading? Well, as he says:
EPLEY: If you can’t understand what other people think [and] how you’re being seen by other people, it’s very hard to lead or manage them effectively.
Epley has written a book on research in the field of mind-reading, including some of his own studies. It’s called Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want
A Barry Manilow t-shirt can teach us a lesson about the spotlight effect.
Stephen Dubner is a “fanilow” (sort of).
“Another One Bites the Dust” — when played backward — contains a secret message that, in the end, may help people communicate better.
After a brief (Spring) break, the SLACE Archive has returned. The most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze radio programme, lived up to its name–tackling the vexing issue of physician assisted suicide.
Here is a description of the show from the Moral Maze website:
There are few more emotive subjects than assisted dying. It captures both the hopes and the fears of the age in which we live. Advances in medical technology have been a triumph, extending our life expectancy almost exponentially. 33% of babies born today can expect to live to 100. 80 years ago the figure would have been less than 4%. But along with the undreamt of levels of longevity have come the nightmares of a lingering death; robbed of our humanity by the indignity and pain of diseases. The government has just announced that it will give MP’s a free vote on the latest legislative attempt to allow people to get help to die and campaigners believe that decision will give the bill a strong chance of becoming law. It will allow adults to ask a doctor to help them die if they’ve been given no more than six months to live. But it won’t go as far as some campaigners would like. Why is it morally acceptable to help someone to kill themselves if they’re already close to death, but not to help someone who might have many years of pain and suffering ahead of them? And if it’s right to allow adults assisted suicide, why not children? After all is it moral to expect them to endure the suffering we would not? At the heart of this issue is personal choice and moral agency – it’s my life and my death. But is the brutal truth that in almost every circumstance we already have that choice, it’s just that we want someone else to administer the coup de gras? Or is that point? Assisted dying – a very compassionate and humane answer to help people when they are at their most desperate or a law that will in reality help only a small number, but put many more vulnerable people at risk? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser.
Witnesses are Graham Winyard, Colin Harte, Gerlant van Berlaer and Ruth Dudley Edwards.
After a brief (Spring) break, the SLACE Archive has returned. The most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze radio programme, lived up to its name–tackling the vexing issue of physician assisted suicide.
Here is a description of the show from the Moral Maze website:
There are few more emotive subjects than assisted dying. It captures both the hopes and the fears of the age in which we live. Advances in medical technology have been a triumph, extending our life expectancy almost exponentially. 33% of babies born today can expect to live to 100. 80 years ago the figure would have been less than 4%. But along with the undreamt of levels of longevity have come the nightmares of a lingering death; robbed of our humanity by the indignity and pain of diseases. The government has just announced that it will give MP’s a free vote on the latest legislative attempt to allow people to get help to die and campaigners believe that decision will give the bill a strong chance of becoming law. It will allow adults to ask a doctor to help them die if they’ve been given no more than six months to live. But it won’t go as far as some campaigners would like. Why is it morally acceptable to help someone to kill themselves if they’re already close to death, but not to help someone who might have many years of pain and suffering ahead of them? And if it’s right to allow adults assisted suicide, why not children? After all is it moral to expect them to endure the suffering we would not? At the heart of this issue is personal choice and moral agency – it’s my life and my death. But is the brutal truth that in almost every circumstance we already have that choice, it’s just that we want someone else to administer the coup de gras? Or is that point? Assisted dying – a very compassionate and humane answer to help people when they are at their most desperate or a law that will in reality help only a small number, but put many more vulnerable people at risk? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser.
Witnesses are Graham Winyard, Colin Harte, Gerlant van Berlaer and Ruth Dudley Edwards.