So, Professor Van Binsbergen was one of my favorite professors while at Wharton, and I learned a LOT in his Investment Management class However, in the most recent episode a few glaring things occurred. Effectively fawning over Trump’s communications style while not discussing the potential downfalls of what this may mean for our relationships with our allies. A discussion on his negotiation style should have also looked at how he views negotiations, especially with respect to The Art of the Deal. Trump views the world seemingly from a purely distributive lens, or at least that’s how he presents things. Maybe these strong man tactics are the most effective negotiating tool and all MBA courses should solely teach “slice the pie even if there’s a chance to grow it and be as selfish as possible in every negotiation” In addition, glossing over the forced displacement of 2 million people as “making people think differently” instead of “this is one of the textbook definitions of a human rights violation” and not pushing back in any way makes me question Professor Van Binsbergen’s ability to actually lead the Lauder institute. You can do better. I know you can. Please understand that human lives have value that is greater than a casino in Gaza, and we can maximize created value while maintaining human dignity in the world.

Great discussion of the various methods to characterize the level of debt and which measure is the most “correct”. Also great discussion for the options to increase GDP growth. It would be nice if you could summarize the key ideas from each episode is some central learnings document that you could tie to the show notes. Also- would a good subtitle for the show be (“All Else is Never Equal”)?

This excellent podcast is a public service.

Thank you for this. Solid learning material for entrepreneur/starter as myself. Keep going!

In general, I love the show. Ep23, however, was a real disappointment. You made many of the mistakes that you are always cautioning against, presented your opinion as absolute fact, offered strawman alternatives and misidentified causation. There were some points that were somewhat valid, such as that banks do have some government subsidies, but most of those you identified aren’t them, specifically, FDIC insurance is not a subsidy; the banks pay for it. The more important issue is your supposition that banks exist essentially due to regulatory capture. There are some subtleties to the macro point but, in general, I think it’s wrong. The systemic need and purpose of banks is liquidity. It is difficult to construct an institution that provides zero risk and nearly instant liquidity. Certainly, none of the proposed alternatives do. in fact, they couldn’t because there is a cost to holding the money. Most people aren’t especially sensitive to bank deposit interest rates but they would not be willing to pay a bank to hold their money and would likely go elsewhere which would end up being a mattress which would, in turn not only effectively take a large amount of currency out of circulation, it would also create additional incentives for theft. Part of what was missed here was how much “dead money” is in banks. There are numerous other problems but, suffice it to say that i believe acting on the opinions expressed in this episode would lead to a far worse outcome. Do better.

Fantastic episode! Mr. Cohodes is a #Legend

Interesting take on corporate “insurance “ of employees. Government seems to take the security/insurance thing to a whole other level. Your thought? Louis

Business Major and I can’t get enough. Thank you!

Engaging, clear, and thoughtful. Keep it up!

superb clarity of thought from two leading financial economists. The guests are excellent too.

My second favorite All Else Equal podcast!

The authors are clearly knowledgeable about business decision making and can link current practices to historical developments in the thought of decision making. However, the podcast felt too scripted. The guest was given little latitude and opportunity to talk and instead was pressed into giving the answers the hosts expected. Something along the lines: Host: “data driven decision making is important, right?” Guest: yes, it’s important, I agree.

Great podcast analyzing deep insights into business decision making!!

Thanks Professor!