Economic historian Tobias Straumann breaks down how Germany’s debt meltdown in 1931 crashed the global economy—and how a surprisingly generous 1953 debt deal helped spark the German economic miracle by putting growth ahead of punishment.

GUEST BIO: Tobias Straumann (Switzerland) is Professor of Modern & Economic History at the University of Zurich; author of Out of Hitler’s Shadow and 1931: Debt, Crisis, and the Rise of Hitler.

TOPICS DISCUSSED:

• 1931 as the real inflection point of the Great Depression
• Treaty of Versailles + reparations politics (why it’s not a straight-line story)
• Germany’s “double surplus” debt trap (budget + trade surplus) and default dynamics
• Gold standard breakdown and global contagion
• London Debt Agreement (1953): what it did and why it mattered
• WWII reparations vs interwar debts vs private creditors (who got paid)
• Cold War incentives vs the older “German problem” (balance of power since 1871)
• 1990 reunification, the 2+4 treaty, and why reparations weren’t reopened
• Later compensation: Israel/Claims Conference, forced labor, voluntary gestures
• Poland/Greece reparations claims in modern politics
• Comparisons: Japan/Italy reparations and postwar strategy
• Modern debt parallels (domestic vs foreign-currency debt; political will)

MAIN POINTS:

• 1931 turned a severe recession into a worldwide depression via Germany-centered financial contagion.
• Versailles mattered, but Allied policy adjustments and domestic politics shaped outcomes more than a simple “Versailles caused WWII” line.
• Germany’s foreign-currency debt made austerity + transfer demands self-defeating, ending in default and system collapse.
• The 1953 London Debt Agreement was pivotal: it reduced and restructured interwar debts and made repayment compatible with recovery.
• West Germany paid little-to-no WWII reparations (effectively deferred), while interwar private creditors recovered significant shares—morally messy but stabilizing.
• Cold War pressures helped, but Europe’s long-running challenge was integrating a too-strong Germany into a stable order.
• In 1990, the 2+4 framework avoided reopening WWII reparations to keep reunification politically and economically manageable.
• Later payments (Israel, Holocaust victims, forced laborers) partially addressed moral claims outside classic state-to-state reparations.

TOP 3 QUOTES:

• “We think that the year 1931 was the turning point… it turned into a worldwide depression.”
• “It’s probably the biggest and most important debt settlement of the 20th century.”
• “It’s morally hard to swallow… but it had the advantage of stabilizing Western Europe economically and politically.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!

A cognitive psychologist explains why college student IQ now averages about 102, why that shift is mathematically inevitable as enrollment expands, and how outdated testing norms and student-evals can quietly wreck both education and clinical decisions.

GUEST BIO
Dr. Bob Uttl is a cognitive psychologist and professor at Mount Royal University (Canada) who researches psychometrics, assessment, and how intelligence tests are interpreted and misused in real-world settings.

TOPICS DISCUSSED (IN ORDER)

• What IQ is, how it’s measured, and why scores are standardized (mean 100, SD 15)
• The Flynn Effect and why “raw ability” rose over the last century
• Why expanding university enrollment mathematically lowers the average IQ of undergrads
• The meta-analysis: how the team compiled WAIS results over time and what they found (down to ~102)
• The Frontiers controversy: accepted, posted, went viral, then “un-accepted” after social media blowback
• Clinical misuse: comparing modern test-takers to decades-old norms and the harms that follow
• Impacts inside universities: wider ability range, teaching to the lower tail, boredom at the top
• Grades + incentives: student evaluations as satisfaction metrics that push standards downward
• Employers adapting: degrees losing signaling value; rise of employer-run assessments/training
• Differences across majors and institutions: SAT/GRE as IQ-proxies; fields with feedback/standardized licensure
• “Reverse Flynn” talk: why some skills crater (speeded arithmetic, fluency) as tools replace practice
• AI and learning: hallucinations, the need for human judgment, and the possible return of oral exams
• European exam models vs North American incentives
• Final takeaways: fix misinformation about undergrad IQ; remove harmful incentives; reintroduce standards

MAIN POINTS

• IQ tests are periodically re-normed, so “100” always tracks the current population average even as raw performance changes.
• As a larger share of the population attends university, the average IQ of undergrads must move closer to the population mean—this is arithmetic, not an insult.
• Uttl’s meta-analysis argues today’s undergrads average around 102 IQ, far closer to “average” than older assumptions (e.g., 115+).
• Outdated norms and sloppy cross-era comparisons can shave ~20+ points off a person “on paper,” creating bogus diagnoses and high-stakes harm (disability decisions, fitness-for-duty, litigation).
• Universities now teach a wider spread of ability, which pressures instruction toward the lower end unless programs stratify or standardize outcomes.
• Student evaluations function like customer satisfaction scores; combined with adjunct/contract insecurity, they incentivize grade inflation and lower rigor.
• Employers respond by discounting degrees and building their own testing/training pipelines.
• Some “reverse Flynn” patterns may reflect skill/fluency loss (e.g., speeded arithmetic) as calculators/AI replace practice—not necessarily a uniform drop in reasoning.
• A plausible reform path: reduce reliance on student evals, adopt clearer standards, and consider more direct assessments (including oral exams) where appropriate.

BEST 3 QUOTES

• “The decrease in average IQ of university students is a necessary consequence of increased enrollment.”
• “Student evaluations of teaching are basically measures of satisfaction.”
• “We need to remove the misinformation about what is the IQ of undergraduate students.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!

Jeff Davis breaks down why the Highway Trust Fund has been insolvent since 2008 and what fixes (and tradeoffs) are realistic as EVs grow.

GUEST BIO
Jeff Davis is a Senior Fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation and Editor of Eno Transportation Weekly. He has more than 30 years of experience in federal transportation policy, including eight years working in Washington, D.C., advising on the federal budget, the Highway Trust Fund, and long-term infrastructure funding and governance.

TOPICS (IN ORDER)

• What the Highway Trust Fund is (created to fund interstates via fuel/trucking taxes)
• Why it broke in 2008 (spending > dedicated revenue)
• The 3 drivers: slower VMT growth, higher MPG, tax politics
• Federal vs state roles (federal-aid network + shifting cost shares)
• Reform options: gas tax bump vs mileage fee; privacy/admin hurdles
• EVs: accelerant, not original cause; state fee/VMT pilots
• Transit account inside HTF (how it got there; mismatch perceptions)
• Federal rules vs state flexibility (states using state $$ to avoid red tape)
• AVs: uncertain impact + liability/legal mess
• Underreported issue: safety mandates raise car/rail costs
• International models: truck tolls abroad; toll resistance in U.S.

MAIN POINTS

• Gas tax was a proxy for driving; that proxy is weakening (less VMT growth + better MPG).
• Politics prevented rate increases; since 2008 Congress has plugged holes with general-fund transfers.
• Mileage fees are “fair” in theory but hard in practice (privacy + enforcement + admin scale).
• Registration-based fees (incl. EV fees) may be more feasible.
• Transit funding in HTF is coalition-driven and not a clean “users pay” match.
• Federal dollars come with heavy conditions; some states route federal money to maintenance to minimize paperwork.

TOP 3 QUOTES

• “There’s three big reasons… driving doesn’t increase like it used to… gasoline is a worse proxy… and no one can agree on tax revenue increases.”
• “GPS-based VMT tracking… is perfect economically… [but] the biggest privacy nightmare.”
• “We’re going to miss the gas tax… it’s a very efficient tax.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!

Harvard’s Shane Greenstein explains why Acquired wins by treating each episode like an audiobook—high-signal, audience-first, and built for durable value.

GUEST BIO: Dr. Shane M. Greenstein is a Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, where he teaches technology, operations, and management and writes HBS case studies on modern businesses.

TOPICS DISCUSSED (IN ORDER):

• WHY ACQUIRED WORKS: Breaking podcast “rules,” competing with audiobooks, high-signal editing, host chemistry, and durable content that doesn’t expire
• AUDIENCE & NICHE STRATEGY: High-income aspirational listeners, “big niche” logic, Slack feedback loops, and expanding breadth without losing focus
• BUSINESS & MONETIZATION MODEL: B2B advertisers, high-value contracts, season sponsorships, rejecting 95% of ads, and protecting audience trust
• OPERATIONS & CONSTRAINTS: Extreme prep, editing workflow, no staff beyond an editor, time scarcity, and intentional limits on scaling
• CASE STUDY ORIGINS & RESEARCH: How the HBS case began, analytics access, third-party validation, and teaching-case methodology
• MEDIA LANDSCAPE & FUTURE: Podcasting vs legacy media, audience balkanization, video tradeoffs, and the role of live, unpredictable formats
• RISKS & UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: Reputation exposure, topic selection risk, family/work tradeoffs, AI slop, and platform uncertainty

MAIN POINTS:

• Acquired “breaks rules” but follows classic business rules: match product to audience, align advertisers to audience, build operations around constraints.
• They win by not wasting time: heavy editing + high density of insight, built for repeat listening and long shelf life.
• Their edge is durability: they target ~80% of content still relevant a year later, so the back catalog keeps earning.
• Their advertising works because it’s B2B + high contract value: a few conversions can justify huge spends; they protect audience trust by rejecting most ads.
• Avoiding video is a control tradeoff: YouTube distribution can mean less control over ad experience and more audience annoyance.
• Scaling is intentionally limited: the “team of 3” model preserves quality but raises risks (time pressure, topic selection errors, burnout).
• Biggest threats aren’t competitors—they’re reputation risk, platform/tech shifts, and AI-driven slop reducing trust.

TOP 3 QUOTES:

• “They deliberately don’t waste anybody’s time.”
• “Their primary substitute… is someone going out and buying an audiobook.”
• “A niche on the internet can be six people in your hometown times a billion.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!

Tenured sociology professor Mark Horowitz explains why falling preparedness, grade inflation, and perverse incentives are eroding college standards—and why “broke, woke, stroke” helps describe the pattern.

GUEST BIO: Dr. Mark Horowitz is a sociology professor at Seton Hall University and co-author of a survey-based study of tenured faculty perceptions about academic standards, grade inflation, student preparedness, and institutional incentives in higher education.

TOPICS DISCUSSED IN ORDER:

• Why the authors ran a higher-ed “crisis” survey (faculty perspectives vs pundit/parent narratives)
• Horowitz’s “honors student with junior-high-level writing” anecdote
• Key survey findings: perceived decline in preparedness, increased pushback, grade inflation
• “Broke, Woke, Stroke” framework: market pressures, egalitarian/compassion impulses, therapeutic ethos
• “Most shocking” claim: some functionally illiterate students graduating (and why that happens)
• Which factor matters most: Horowitz argues “broke” (economics/market incentives) is decisive
• Admin growth and student-support infrastructure; retention/compassion language vs rigor/merit
• Taboo around ability/intellectual differences; political psychology and educational romanticism
• Concern about watering down harming gifted students; standards vs equity tensions
• Potential solutions: admissions tests, exit/credentialing signals, eliminating student evals; bigger structural funding conversation

MAIN POINTS:

• Many tenured faculty report signs of a standards problem: lower preparedness, more grade pressure, more pushback.
• “Broke” incentives (enrollment/revenue pressure + reduced public support + debt-financed model) push institutions toward admitting and passing more students.
• “Woke” sensibilities (egalitarian compassion for disadvantaged students) can combine with market incentives to reduce rigor and resist sorting/standards.
• “Stroke” dynamics (therapeutic/mental-health framing, protecting student feelings) further discourages hard grading, failure, and frank talk about ability.
• The result is a weakened “signaling function” of the degree: if everyone gets A’s/B’s, employers learn less from credentials.
• Fixes are hard because incentives punish the people who enforce standards (evals, backlash, institutional pressure), but small reforms could still matter.

TOP 3 QUOTES:

• “We use that kind of cheeky mnemonic of broke, woke, stroke.”
• “We think the incentive structure in higher ed right now is perverse.”
• “It’s kind of a tragedy of the commons in a way. No university can afford to raise standards, but if none do, the long-run tendency is to have the system collapse.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!

Independent journalist James Corbett joins Jesse to trace how media, tech, and elite power have reshaped the information landscape—from Time’s 2006 “You” to today’s post-truth, AI-saturated world.

GUEST BIO:
James Corbett is an independent journalist and documentary filmmaker based in Japan. Since 2007 he’s run The Corbett Report, an open-source intelligence project covering geopolitics, media, finance, and technology through long-form podcasts, videos, and essays.

TOPICS DISCUSSED:

• Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” and the early optimism of user-generated media
• Smartphones, YouTube, and the shift to always-on, short-form video
• Legacy media vs podcasts, Rogan, and long-form conversation
• Adpocalypse, subscriptions, foundations, and “post-journalism”
• AI “slop,” dead internet theory, and human vs synthetic content
• Left–right vs “up–down” (authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian) politics
• Elite networks and foundations: Rockefeller, Gates, philanthropy as power
• Climate narratives, health framing, and energy demands of AI
• Future crises: hot war, financial bubbles, AI and labor, UBI and control

MAIN POINTS:

• The early internet briefly empowered ordinary people. Corbett’s own path—from teacher in Japan to reaching millions—shows how 2000s platforms genuinely opened space for bottom-up media.
• The smartphone changed how we think, not just what we see. Moving from long-form text/audio to short, swipeable video has compressed attention and pushed politics toward slogans and clips.
• The business model broke journalism before AI did. As ad money fled to platforms, outlets turned to paywalls, patrons, and foundations—pulling coverage toward causes and away from broad public-interest reporting.
• The real divide is power, not party. Corbett argues we miss the “up–down” axis—authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian—so we keep swapping parties but getting similar outcomes on war, finance, and surveillance.
• AI and automation are economic and political weapons. If AI displaces labor and the state replaces wages with universal income, whoever controls those payouts gains unprecedented leverage over everyday life.
• Long-form human conversation is still a resistance strategy. Despite dark trends, he sees deep, sustained, human-made media as one of the few ways left to think clearly and build real communities.

BEST QUOTES:

• On the shift since 2006:
  “We went from ‘You are the Person of the Year’ to ‘You are the problem’—from celebrating amateur voices to treating them as a disinformation threat.”
• On media form and attention:
  “I started in an era where you could play a ten-minute clip inside an hour-long podcast. Now if you go over two minutes, people think you’re crazy.”
• On politics:
  “Left and right exist, but the missing axis is up and down—authoritarian versus anti-authoritarian. Once you see that, a lot of ‘flip-flops’ make sense.”
• On AI and control:
  “If the state is the one feeding and clothing you after AI replaces your job, then the state effectively owns you.”

🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright
💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/
📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us.

Thanks for listening!