The View from Money-Town

Adam Keily: [00:00:52] Hello and welcome to comedian versus economist. We demystify the world of money and help you get a handle on the bigger picture. My name's Adam and I'm joined, as always by my little older brother and real-life economist, Thomas. [00:01:04][11.7]

Thomas Keily: [00:01:05] Yeah, G'day Adam. How are we doing? [00:01:06][1.4]

Adam Keily: [00:01:07] Very well, thank you. I'm a little bit nervous about this episode because, um, I have absolutely no idea what it's about. And I've done no prep whatsoever because you've just come at me and you've gone, hey, why don't we do an episode about the weaponization of freedom? And look, I'm all for it. I think it's good. I've got my guns, I'm loaded. I'm ready to go. [00:01:31][23.9]

Adam Keily: [00:01:34] What are you talking about? What what are you talking about? With the weaponization of freedom? [00:01:38][3.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:01:39] I think this is an idea that I've been stewing around in my mind for a little bit. But I think covid has presented a number of challenges every year on from covid and looking back at how so played out, it's kind of in the rearview mirror, enough to draw a few lessons. And one of the lessons that I'm drawing is that freedom makes democracies vulnerable. Okay, so you look at so they can the key stat here is what happens for the in the US, the US experience you had us at time recording has five hundred thousand dead. They've got four percent of the world's population and yet they account for 20 percent of covid deaths. And America until recently, well in the until the later stages of twenty twenty at least, was really struggling to pull together a coordinated, sensible approach to covid and to deal with it properly. [00:02:38][58.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:02:39] Yeah, there was, yeah. I mean the leader was a lunatic that didn't help. [00:02:43][4.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:02:44] I think it definitely didn't help. I think it definitely didn't help. [00:02:46][2.2]

Adam Keily: [00:02:47] As much a lunatic. Well I mean, you know, I don't wanna get all political. And though some say he was a visionary, of course, and things like that, but, um, but he certainly seemed like he was a large part of the problem in response to covid. You know, there was an initial denial of the fact, and everything else, from what I saw, I don't know, stand to be corrected. But I want to make this a political show or have any political bosses, really. But, yeah, it didn't help the situation already. [00:03:15][27.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:03:16] No, no, he probably didn't. But also, like, he was operating in a political, uh, particular political context where he was the champion of a very particular form of libertarianism or a particular form of freedom, which was very anti-government in sort of its general posturing. And so even though the covert response seemed to demand a strong, coordinated public policy response, his political instincts and political posture up until that point and the way he was engaging with his base made it very difficult for him to be able to embrace a coordinated top-down government-level response. So that's part of the challenge there, that, yeah, like the particular that brand of the US. Right. Had very had aligned itself with being very anti-government by nature. But covid presented itself as the perfect case of when you really do need a government because you do need a coordinated response, you do need to get people on the same page very quickly. And America really struggled to do that. And so the counterexample to the American experience is the Chinese experience and the Chinese government and the Communist Party. The regime was free to do whatever they wanted, you know, regardless of how it was sort of seen because it's a one-party state. There are no democracies, not in effect, there's no competition. So it's really what they get to choose whatever they want. And they were able to just really go like, well, what's the best solution? What stops most people from dying in the shortest amount of time? And let's just do that so that [00:05:00][104.1]

Adam Keily: [00:05:00] they didn't have to go to essentially a public vote and get a get approval for, you know, a particular course of action. They could just go, this is what we're doing, you know, and that's the end of it. Yeah. [00:05:12][12.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:05:13] Yeah, that's right. They don't they don't even have to go and build consensus, you know, like and I think Australia Australia's experience was interesting. I think there were Australians I think such pragmatic people, they sort of went like, OK, this is just what needs to be done or let's get on board. And there were some elements are a bit resistant and concerned about the government response. But, you know, by and large, people just got on, got them, got on with it, and did what was needed to be done. I think we're lucky that we were never really tested too much. Like I think if Victoria Melbourne had to go into another lockdown, I think then you would really see how deep is that consensus. How strong is it? But China didn't have to deal with that, didn't have to deal with democracy, didn't have to drive a public policy response through democratic channels, through the lenses of competing parliamentary systems. And so it was really free to do whatever it wanted and did some phenomenal things like there was a case of an outbreak in a province and officials got in and covid tested 20 million people in two days. Well, not really. Yeah, yeah, incredible. Yeah, yeah, because I just got in lockdown, lockdown, the region got into massive testing units, got everyone on board and people, and just tested everyone. So, you know, you get to try to think about doing that in Australia or America is just like inconceivable, almost lost nearly the population of Australia, 20 million people. I mean, that's yes. [00:06:48][95.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:06:49] A lot of people. It's a medium sized city in China. Yeah. [00:06:52][3.2]

Adam Keily: [00:06:53] Yeah. Amazing. I mean, it's a good point. So you know, you can't help but feel that whatever decisions that politicians are making here in Australia or in the US, they always have to do it with one eye on what it's going to look like or what the perceptions are going to be off of them or as of them, as leaders or of them as politicians. What it's going to do to their chances in the upcoming election, what it's going to mean for the chances of the party being reelected. Therefore, what's it going to mean for their job security? You know, like, yeah, there's a lot there's a kind of a lot riding on the decisions that politicians make. I know they get paid, you know, to make the decisions. But you can't you kind of lose that that total objectiveness about the problem if you are trying to protect something else at the same time, if you're trying to protect your position or protect, I don't know, whatever it might be. Yeah. Your point of view, then you can't deal with a problem like covered with pure objectivity. [00:07:49][55.6]

Thomas Keily: [00:07:50] Yeah, I think yeah, that's close. I mean, I don't think the CCP has the luxury of complete objectivity around problems as well. They have particular agendas that they've got to, you know, create policy through. But and to be consistent with. But, yeah, I think much more in terms of his health crisis and in a way, a health crisis should be a relatively simple crisis to respond to. You know, it should be people who are getting sick. We want to stop them from dying. This is what we have to do to stop people from dying. That's a relatively easy process. Yeah. [00:08:22][31.1]

Adam Keily: [00:08:22] Yeah. Well, yeah, I don't I think you're trivializing it a bit by saying it's an easy Krause's. I mean, because every, every action has a has an equal and opposite reaction or whatever the saying is. So, you know, you stop people getting sick. If you could do that by putting everyone in a box, you lock everyone in a box and you give them some food coming through a straw in the roof and no one gets sick. But then everyone has some has a pretty bad time because they're locked in a box. And you've got a range of other issues to deal with. Crap. [00:08:55][32.5]

Adam Keily: [00:08:55] you to have boxes,. [00:08:59][3.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:09:01] Magnesium deficiencies. [00:09:01][0.7]

Adam Keily: [00:09:06] That's right. Vitamin D window in the box. Um, I mean, [00:09:12][6.7]

Adam Keily: [00:09:13] yeah, there are some serious, some serious ramifications of just locking everyone up. [00:09:17][3.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:09:17] That's like I guess I guess. But still, it's more like, say, inequality is another thing you could say is a crisis. Inequality is getting worse across the western world is creating problems. There's unequal access to health care, education, all these sorts of things. But like try and build a consensus around that. That's hard, you know, like or the opioid crisis in America, like try to build across like a consensus around that. That's hard. And like I was saying, like a pandemic, relatively like it's you know, it's a massive challenge, obviously, but [00:09:51][34.4]

Adam Keily: [00:09:53] relatively you heard it here first documented. Was the current pandemic pretty easy to solve, right? Oh, I've got to tell. Only then come to terms with The Economist when the pandemic broke, we will all be living in a box. Yeah. Yeah. [00:10:10][17.6]

Thomas Keily: [00:10:13] So but this is what I like. So it was a real test for liberal democracies. Covid was a real test because authoritarian regimes were able to mount an unopposed, straightforward response. Science base. We just have to go. This is what we're doing. Everyone's getting on board. That's it. And the story liberal democracies didn't have that luxury and struggled as a result, I think. [00:10:37][24.0]

Adam Keily: [00:10:37] Well, we did. Well, hang on. We did well in Australia. [00:10:39][2.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:10:40] We did well, but we're doing well. Yeah, but we've got a big moat that's a big help through. And the outbreak was very small and we got on top of it very quickly. And the policy response, locking down Melbourne, was a strong response. And so we were lucky enough. I think that Australia, Australia actually there's a survey sort of like how much population's trust their governments. Australians trust their government more than almost any other Western democracy. [00:11:10][29.7]

Adam Keily: [00:11:11] Really? Yeah, it's got to be remarkable. [00:11:12][1.2]

Thomas Keily: [00:11:13] Yeah, that's what I thought. [00:11:14][1.0]

Adam Keily: [00:11:14] I was in government. [00:11:14][0.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:11:19] Right, maybe people thought that about council. Yeah, they're very reliable for my business. We know who is number one, China. Like something like 80 percent,. [00:11:31][11.8]

Adam Keily: [00:11:32] They gotta told to put number one on the form, probably also like here do this survey, this is how you fill it out. [00:11:41][8.5]

Thomas Keily: [00:11:43] It probably is. There probably is some of that. But also think like Chinese people, in my experience and as it's presented to us in the West, are, you know, patriotic by nature. They are quiet down with what their government is about, like there's a sort of a particular inculturation that that seems to be happening in China that supports the Chinese Communist Party. Um, you know, it's not that result. That's statistics, not an accident. But yeah, like, yeah, we Australia is is there are a few things we had going for us, in fact. And we're relatively like the sort of pragmatic and we don't get too worked up about politics through. [00:12:22][38.7]

Adam Keily: [00:12:23] No, we're not. Well, I don't know. You know, we saw yeah, we see we see protests and people marching on the streets. I mean, we don't get violent about it. I think it's probably fair to say, but maybe things Australia's got a pretty good way of life. I guess so. It's I don't know, by and large, I mean, those issues don't get me wrong. [00:12:40][17.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:12:42] No, I mean, compared to Europe, for example, that the French or the Spanish, the Italians, we don't have a culture of protest. Know it's very unusual that we get mass mobilizations of people. But the point is that having a democracy slows you down. It you're not as agile as a one-party state. But I would argue that that's a price worth paying. It's worth being slow to do that democratic work, get everybody on board involved, not crush people's freedoms in the name of anyone particular agenda. And if that means being a bit slower, then fair enough. But covid sort of makes you ask the question like, well, what price are people willing to pay for democracy? How slow are you willing to be. Mhm. Yeah. So it it's a chink in the armor of a country like America and it's shown itself to be American. Had a really pretty brutal experience. It seemed to almost lead to a revolution. [00:13:44][61.9]

Adam Keily: [00:13:45] Yeah. We'll start of this year and people storming the Capitol building, storming the wearing, wearing masks and horns. Yeah. [00:13:52][6.5]

Thomas Keily: [00:13:54] So what I'm talking about like with the weaponization of freedom is I think authoritarian regimes are looking at this experience and going like that's a weak point. [00:14:02][8.0]

Adam Keily: [00:14:41] Hi again, you're on comedian versus economist. We're talking about the weaponization of freedom. And Thomas, you were saying before the break that authoritarian regimes maybe see democracy as a sign of weakness. Can you tell us a bit more about that? [00:14:57][16.1]

Thomas Keily: [00:14:58] Yeah, I think I think they're looking at the covid experience, looking at the struggles America has had because they allow for a diversity of opinions within the political system is like it's built on having a diversity of opinions. And that's what democracy is. And that's what's awesome about it. But it slows down the crisis response. And so I think China, China and Russia, and other authoritarian regimes, like if you're looking to take down the US, you would see this as a chink in the armor and see it as a potential point to exploit, and that if you can create this tension and drive these tensions that prevent consensus being reached, that prevent collective unified action, then you weaken America and you weaken America's strategic position. And I think we saw that with Russia and influencing the US elections and getting into Twitter and Facebook and pumping out different conspiracy theories and different things. And people some people are saying that Russia is pro-Trump because they like military strongman or whatever. But I think Russia's game there is really just like let's just like inflame division, because as long as there's the vision, then it's difficult for them to get anything done. [00:16:15][76.9]

Adam Keily: [00:16:15] Yeah. You can't have a coordinated response against Russia if, you know, as if there's infighting going on within the United States, if there's, you know, there's disharmony there. Then again, it's like they're not worried about you. You kind of creating a distraction, like, hey, guys. Like what? My kids all the time, you know, [00:16:35][20.2]

Thomas Keily: [00:16:37] invade Iraq and stuff and have kids. [00:16:40][3.0]

Adam Keily: [00:16:43] Yeah, that's right. You know, if you just want them to focus on something else, you go like, oh, whose turn is it to watch TV that's relative. [00:16:51][7.9]

Adam Keily: [00:16:52] Well, good day. They're not asking about Lolly's anymore. Yeah. [00:16:57][5.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:16:58] That's how politics works by and large. [00:16:58][0.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:17:02] So I think [00:17:02][0.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:17:03] yeah. It's, it's, it's it's a challenge. And I think we live it's where that kind of influence and that kind of where meddling has sort of political meddling has sort of got to the stage where Russia is just trolling people on the on Facebook like it's kind of weird. But then, you know, social media has the ability to reach such a huge number of people. You have this sort of polarization happening through Facebook and social media algorithms already so that there aren't they're only seeing they're living in bubbles. They're only getting the opinions of things that they already agree with. So that's sort of pushing people to the edges already. Um, yeah. And I think that good like outside actors can see that as a point of weakness and try to weaponize that so that that freedom as one to like weaponize that freedom as a tool against democracies. [00:17:51][48.4]

Adam Keily: [00:17:52] Right. Is there do you reckon, is there a middle ground between democracy and authoritarianism in that? Could you kind of have someone that you just like a call, someone like the big red button, it's like right when things go bad, we're just going to do whatever this this this person says where this person in times of crisis is our supreme leader. It's not going to be Jacomo. It's going to be someone, someone, someone else. He's someone who's not [00:18:24][31.5]

Thomas Keily: [00:18:26] David Boone. I know it's a global pandemic. What do we do? [00:18:35][9.2]

Adam Keily: [00:18:39] Yeah, like I don't know. Is there a way like is it a case of one or the other? Can you have a democracy but then have some sort of a safety blanket or some sort of a, you know, typic typically those kinds of emergency powers haven't worked well in the past. [00:18:55][16.2]

Adam Keily: [00:18:56] Right. People just start redefining [00:18:57][1.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:18:58] what an emergency is. [00:18:59][1.0]

Adam Keily: [00:18:59] Yeah, yeah. [00:19:00][0.5]

Thomas Keily: [00:19:02] No, no. I mean, seriously, that's kind of how every, like, the dictator has taken control is is through a mode like using a crisis to grant themselves emergency powers that just never, never get unwound. I think my feeling is that the solution is in the social fabric and is in the cultural fabric. And it's about creating a bit like I think, you know, I think Australia's maybe, oddly enough, ahead of the game here, a bit like I think having that sort of level of pragmatism, but also like having a way that we can have these discussions, that it doesn't end up polarizing into ridiculous positions, that we can have a fact based scientific discussion, you know. Right. Bring bring out dissenting voices, bring out differing opinions, but then we them into the mix and still find a way forward. And I think the key to that is civic engagement and people taking an interest in getting involved and holding leaders to account. [00:20:04][61.9]

Adam Keily: [00:20:05] Yes, that's one that's that's your solution, which is not bad. [00:20:09][4.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:20:10] You are a big red button. [00:20:11][0.8]

Adam Keily: [00:20:12] No, well, I have been penciling one doodling do some early design concept. [00:20:20][8.7]

Adam Keily: [00:20:21] I know. Well, personally, you know, while we're giving away our personal opinions here, I think that we need to take away the ulterior motives from the politicians. So so you can't have the people in charge whose livelihoods and careers rest on the outcomes of the decisions that they make. Like you can't decide before. You can't remain objective in that space. You mentioned scientists and researchers and whatever else who I'd much I like it when a scientist comes on the telly and starts talking about covid. I don't really like it when a politician comes on the telly and starts talking about covid. And because I find and maybe it's interesting you mention that the Australians trust the government more than anyone else. I don't that doesn't resonate with me. I find not that I have a distrust for them, but everything's spun so much these days. Everything's so rehearsed and practiced that I don't even know that there's any point in listening to generally the speeches anymore. Because they're not just the facts. They're spun to make to present a certain way that that is going to protect, you know, their interests. And so to me, that they're conflicting ideals. When you go, well, we've got someone here who's who needs a popular vote, like that's the way to stay in, is you get proper you win the popular vote. Therefore, you need to be popular. And so how do you view. [00:21:49][87.7]

Thomas Keily: [00:21:49] But I think I think you look at what happened in Australia. I think Australians rallied behind their leaders. Leaders had strong popular opinion polls all through the early stages of covid, and there was a real tolerance for mistakes. So, you know, in Victoria, the covid escaped the hotel quarantine and go down to the broader community. Melbourne had to go into lockdown. Dan Andrews as a premier didn't cop any flak for that in the polls as far as we saw, because people were like, it's a crisis. We don't expect you to get this one hundred percent right. We expect you to do your best. We expect you to put in the hours and to take it seriously. But if you don't, Nailer, it's an unprecedented crisis. We're not going to hold you fully responsible for that. And I think so. I think that that that was kind of democracy working really well. I think that was a great case of people going like, OK, there's a crisis, you have a crack, do your best. If you moved up here and there, that's OK. Just keep doing your best. And I think leaders took that on and genuinely. [00:22:54][65.5]

Adam Keily: [00:22:55] Yeah, I think that in particularly in Dan Andrew's case and across the board, like the. I mean, is premier across the board. Did outstandingly well, by and large, throughout the whole thing, and, you know, [00:23:07][11.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:23:08] I think at a federal level to like I think I'm not generally known to, you know, going into battle, I guess [00:23:13][4.9]

Adam Keily: [00:23:13] when I talk about, you know, the sound bites that you get and the speeches and whatever, that's more generally, I guess I'm thinking more general day to day political announcements and political whatever that just become noise that becomes pointless in listening to because they don't actually mean anything. So, you know, promises during elections are just like, what are they worth? You know, so they're all just they all just become sort of noise that that doesn't mean anything. And that's why that's when I'd much rather hear from scientists and people who researched different topics and understand them and, you know, in-depth, in-depth accounts of reasons why they're doing X, Y, Z and and and be honest and be open about that. This isn't the perfect solution. And what I'm proposing here isn't the silver bullet that's going to fix everything. Like a lot of people, you know, a lot of I think politicians often try and make try and sell things that don't they don't present them. They try and sell them as a solution. [00:24:11][58.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:24:14] No, I think yeah, that's right. I think we did listen to the science. There was a real hunger. Media agencies pivoted towards the scientists there because that's what people wanted to hear from. And I think, you know, props to the Australian people for that. I think it was really good. I mean, I think there's there's another flavor in the American culture and American libertarianism that is an extra spin on it. And we don't have such a strong concept of that here. Like, I love Scott. Scott Galloway is a tech investor, but he says the great challenge America faces is that too many people have conflated liberty with selfishness. They think that being free is the same as having is being totally selfish and have no responsibility. I think liberty is a birthright that no longer requires sacrifice or collective action. And I think that's sort of like the interesting thing is, like the freedoms that we enjoy, we enjoy because at some point we got together collectively and created them and continue to collectively empower them and force them. So liberal democracies are constantly dancing with this individual freedom and the collective good. But there's a real drive in America and that that kind of really sort of picked up that and sort of and ran with it hard was the you know, there was no need for any collective action. And it was all about preserving individual freedoms at all costs. And that's, you know, a that's a that's a vulnerable position because sooner or later you're going to bump up against something that needs a collective response. [00:25:48][93.9]

Adam Keily: [00:25:49] Yes. So everyone can't have their own stance. Freedom is not a personal thing. It's a collective thing. [00:25:56][6.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:25:57] Yeah, yeah. The freedom of the individual is guaranteed by the collective. [00:26:00][3.5]

Adam Keily: [00:26:01] Hmm. Interesting. Or I reckon we need to wrap it up there. But this has been a fascinating discussion. I had no idea where this was heading at the start. So hopefully it's been enjoyable and informative for the listeners out there, I'm sure. I think there's almost certainly there's going to be some viewpoints on this. There are going to be some comments, I'm sure, that we've made along the journey that people are going to agree with and some that are going to vehemently disagree with, which is totally cool. Thankfully, we live in a democratic society. So you're more than welcome to have your say. You can, of course, send us an email cve@equitymates.com Or head over to the website equitymates.com/cve . We love getting your emails and your feedback, so keep those coming through until next time. We'll catch you later. [00:26:01][0.0]

[1391.1]