El Podcast

El Podcast Media

In El Podcast, anything and everything is up for discussion. Grab a drink and join us in this epic virtual happy hour!

  1. I Left Germany for Spain — Now I’m Leaving Europe (E189)

    1D AGO

    I Left Germany for Spain — Now I’m Leaving Europe (E189)

    One-line summary: Chris Consultant joins Jesse to explain why he is leaving Germany, arguing that high taxes, bureaucracy, demographic decline, energy policy failures, and shrinking free speech have made Europe increasingly hostile to productive people. Guest bio: Chris Consultant is a banking and finance consultant, entrepreneur, YouTuber, and Substack writer. He creates content about taxes, economic decline, bureaucracy, demographics, AI, and the reasons behind his decision to leave Germany for Spain, with a longer-term goal of leaving Europe altogether. Topics discussed: Germany’s tax burden on self-employed workers Public health insurance and the myth of “free” European healthcare Church tax in Germany Mandatory public broadcasting fees Free speech, censorship, and arrests for online speech Germany’s energy policy and nuclear shutdowns Europe’s bureaucracy and anti-innovation culture Demographic decline, pensions, immigration, and welfare incentives Why Chris is moving from Germany to Spain Whether Europe still has a future How AI may reshape work and consulting The widening gap between U.S. and European innovation Common American myths about Europe Quality-of-life tradeoffs between Europe and the United States Main points: Chris says Germany heavily punishes productivity, especially for self-employed workers, through VAT, public health insurance costs, and high income taxes. He argues that European healthcare is not really “free,” but instead funded through large mandatory monthly payments and taxes. He describes Germany as overregulated and bureaucratic, saying the system rewards administrators more than builders, entrepreneurs, or innovators. He believes Europe’s low fertility, aging population, pension burdens, and immigration trends are pushing the continent toward long-term instability. He argues that Germany’s shutdown of nuclear energy and rising energy costs reflect political incompetence and are hurting industry and households. He says many Germans no longer feel comfortable speaking openly because of social pressure, media narratives, and legal consequences tied to online speech. He sees Spain as a short-term upgrade in quality of life because of weather, food, lower prices, and a more relaxed culture, but not as a permanent answer. He advises younger people to stay flexible, develop specialized skills, learn AI early, and move toward low-tax, opportunity-rich environments. Top 3 quotes: “It’s not very incentivizing to keep killing yourself and being productive when most of the money you earn is not ending in your pocket after all.” “The U.S. innovates first. Europe regulates first.” “You have to enjoy life. It’s short and you’ve got to make the best out of it.” 🎙 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!

    1h 31m
  2. Do Patients Want “Diversity” or Competence? | Dr. Stephen Kershnar (E188)

    MAR 3

    Do Patients Want “Diversity” or Competence? | Dr. Stephen Kershnar (E188)

    A philosophy professor/lawyer argues that med-school “holistic” + diversity-weighted admissions are less predictive than a numbers-based algorithm—and that the stakes show up downstream in physician quality, access, and patient outcomes. Guest bio: Dr. Steven Kirschner (as stated in your intro) is a distinguished teaching professor of Philosophy at SUNY Fredonia and also an attorney; he authored the 2024 paper “The Diversity Argument for Affirmative Action in Medical School: A Critique” (Journal of Controversial Ideas). Topics discussed: Holistic admissions vs. algorithmic/metrics-based selection The “15% top GPA+MCAT rejected” claim (2019–2022) Medical error estimates and why measurement is messy Predictive validity: MCAT, GPA, boards, and what doesn’t predict Specialty selection, pass/fail exams, and ranking problems DEI/affirmative action post–Supreme Court and “relabeling” effects Workforce shortages, incentives, and productivity (incl. part-time work) Disability accommodations, testing integrity, and gaming incentives Diversity-of-thought vs demographic diversity; “underserved communities” argument The uncomfortable “should patients use demographics as signals?” question Main points: Admissions should prioritize statistically validated predictors (MCAT + GPA, etc.), not interviews/essays/“compelling stories.” Holistic admissions is inconsistent and unvalidated, often functioning like an opaque quota-by-proxy system. Medical error and accountability make physician quality a high-stakes selection problem (even if exact death counts are disputed). If underserved-service is the goal, subsidize it directly (pay, loan forgiveness, tuition incentives) rather than indirectly via admissions preferences. Credential changes (e.g., pass/fail) can make it harder to sort candidates for competitive specialties. Workforce shortages strengthen the case for optimizing for long-run productivity and retention, not symbolic criteria. The taboo question: whether individuals should use group-level stats as a decision heuristic when individual-level info is limited. Top 3 quotes: “The number one error is that we're waiting, giving diversity, um a large amount of weight.” “Medical school admissions are done through… a holistic means… and they weight things that have not been statistically validated.” “The awkward but correct approach is to say, yes, you should.” (re: whether people should use demographics as predictors) 🎙 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!

    1h 1m
  3. 1 in 20 Deaths: Inside Canada’s Assisted Dying System - Dr. Ramona Coelho

    FEB 24

    1 in 20 Deaths: Inside Canada’s Assisted Dying System - Dr. Ramona Coelho

    Canada’s MAiD program has expanded rapidly—Dr. Ramona Coelho argues the system increasingly serves vulnerable people, with uneven safeguards and serious ethical, legal, and social risks. Guest bio: Dr. Ramona Coelho (MDCM, CCFP) is a family physician in London, Ontario, a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and co-editor of Unravelling MAiD in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. She has provided testimony and policy input on MAiD and serves on Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee with the Office of the Chief Coroner. Topics discussed: How MAiD began in Canada (Carter decision → 2016 legislation) Track 1 vs. Track 2 and how eligibility broadened Euthanasia vs. assisted suicide (Canada vs. U.S. models) Oversight gaps, “doctor shopping,” and variable interpretations of the law Disability, loneliness, poverty, and access-to-care concerns Dementia, capacity, voluntariness, and family conflict Proposed/possible expansions (mental illness; mature minors; advance requests) Social messaging and suicide contagion risk Why jurisdictions (Oregon vs. Canada/Quebec/Netherlands) show different rates Main points: MAiD expanded from “reasonably foreseeable death” to include non-terminal cases (Track 2), increasing reach to people with disabilities and complex social suffering. Canadian safeguards and clinical interpretations vary widely, and the ability to “try again” with different assessors can make approvals easier to obtain. Canada’s model is overwhelmingly euthanasia (clinician-administered), which she argues changes the social dynamics compared with assisted-suicide regimes. She raises concerns about capacity/consent assessments—especially in dementia—and about insufficient access to palliative care and supports before MAiD occurs. She argues the policy’s public framing (“choice/compassion”) can obscure structural vulnerabilities (poverty, isolation, lack of services) and broader social harms. Top 3 quotes: “MAiD has become one of the top five ways to die in Canada.” “A patient who is very determined…can call back our centralized care coordination service and just keep getting another MAiD practitioner until they find one.” “Assisted suicide and euthanasia is sold as compassion and choice, but actually it is accessed by vulnerable people.” Disclaimer: Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by Dr. Ramona Coelho in this interview are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her employer, affiliated institutions, advisory committees, or any organization with which she is associated. 🎙 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!

    1 hr
  4. The Eavesdropper Economy: How Surveillance Built AI (E186)

    FEB 18

    The Eavesdropper Economy: How Surveillance Built AI (E186)

    A lively tour from Cold War “The Thing” to today’s surveillance capitalism—showing how audio capture, too much data, and automation pressures helped turn listening into AI. Guest bios:Dr. Toby Heys — Professor at the School of Digital Arts (SODA), Manchester Metropolitan University; co-founder of the AUDINT sonic research unit; co-author of Listening InDr. David Jackson — Senior Lecturer in Digital Visualisation at SODA, Manchester Metropolitan University; researches AI’s cultural impact; founded the Storytellers + Machines conference (2023); co-author of Listening In.Marsha Courneya — Canadian writer/editor; teaches Digital Dramaturgy at the International Film School of Cologne; doctoral researcher in Digital Culture and Communication at Birkbeck, University of London; co-author of Listening In.Topics discussed:“The Thing” (1945): passive bugging, resonance, why it went undetectedCold War escalation: normalization of listening, Five Eyes, PRISM/SnowdenStasi data glut: informants, dossiers, “collecting as mania,” behavior changeLanguage under surveillance: cryptolects, slang, coded speech, hip-hop as evasionSurveillance capitalism: smart homes, smart toys, wearables, “data promiscuity”Kids + data: baby monitors/crib cams, school biometrics, “data twins” before birthAI training + intimate life: accidental recordings, human review, terms-of-service realityFuture tensions: convenience vs autonomy, regulation lag, ownership erosion (“enshittification”)Main points:Audio surveillance scales into an “automation problem.” Once you can record everything, the bottleneck becomes listening fast enough, pushing intelligence services toward automated analysis.Surveillance changes behavior—even when nobody is actively listening. The possibility of being overheard bends speech, jokes, and self-presentation (Stasi dynamics → modern smart devices).“Too much data” doesn’t make it harmless. The danger isn’t only what’s heard today, but the creation of a searchable “permanent record” that can be reinterpreted later.The home becomes the most valuable capture zone. People drop the public mask at home; that intimacy makes in-home audio uniquely revealing and therefore lucrative/powerful.Children are captured early—often via “safety” and parental anxiety. Baby tech, smart toys, school systems, and medical records create a data trail before kids can consent or understand it.Snowden shocked—but didn’t trigger lasting mass refusal. The episode argues leaks often lead to resignation/memeification (“the intel officer listening”) rather than sustained backlash.AI + ownership is the next front. Beyond privacy, the guests worry about erosion of ownership (you can’t fully “own” digital goods or refuse totalizing platforms as easily).Top 3 quotes:Toby: “There was nothing to detect.”Marsha: “It ruptures language completely.”David: “data isn’t secure and safe.” 🎙 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!

    1h 1m
  5. Managerial Class Ruined Tech (E185) - Darryl Campbell

    FEB 10

    Managerial Class Ruined Tech (E185) - Darryl Campbell

    A former Silicon Valley insider explains how MBA-style “spreadsheet management” is breaking software—and why it’s making tech, AI, and everyday products worse. Guest bio:Darryl Campbell is a former tech industry insider who spent 15 years in Silicon Valley at companies including Amazon and Uber and at early-stage startups. He’s the author of Fatal Abstraction: Why the Managerial Class Loses Control of Software. Topics discussed:What “managerialism” is and how MBAs took over techWhy software moved from serving users to extracting valueIndustrial-era management vs. internet-scale systemsBoeing 737 MAX, Uber self-driving, and systemic riskEnshittification and the decline of product qualityAI hype, weak ROI, and incentives to do harmful thingsMonopoly power, captured regulation, and why markets don’t self-correctWhether real innovation has slowed since the 1970sWhat comes next: backlash, regulation, or a paradigm shiftMain points:The “managerial class” optimizes for financial metrics that don’t capture safety, quality, or real-world harm.Industrial-era management worked better because physical constraints forced slower feedback and respect for expertise.Software removes constraints: you can ship instantly at global scale, so errors and incentives can become catastrophes.Enshittification is a predictable outcome when monopoly power + financial targets replace user value.AI is under extreme financial pressure (huge capex vs. limited revenue), which encourages risky monetization.Traditional checks—shareholders, competition, regulators—often fail against near-monopolies.Meaningful improvement may require a broader public backlash or a major “paradigm shift.”Top 3 quotes:“Anything, literally anything, is permissible as long as it makes you more money.”“It’s impossible to ignore… the only way to stay current is to pay us $200 a year for the rest of your life.”“It feels like we’re in a black and white phase right now, and I’m really interested to see what the color phase afterward looks like. 🎙 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!

    1h 14m
  6. 55% of MIT Faculty Self-Censor — Here’s Why (E184)

    FEB 5

    55% of MIT Faculty Self-Censor — Here’s Why (E184)

    MIT Free Speech Alliance president Wayne Stargardt explains how a few high-profile cancellations can drive widespread faculty self-censorship—even at a STEM powerhouse like MIT. Guest bio:Wayne Stargardt is the president of the MIT Free Speech Alliance (independent of MIT) and an MIT alumnus (Class of 1974) who focuses on academic freedom, free expression, and open debate at STEM universities. Topics discussed“Silencing Science at MIT” and what MIT faculty surveys suggest about self-censorshipThe Dorian Abbott Carlson Lecture cancellation (2021) and the alumni responseWhy faculty fear student retaliation (bias reporting, administrative escalation)FIRE campus free-speech rankings and what they measureMIT’s revenue model (research/endowment vs tuition) and why incentives differ from most schoolsK–12 socialization, in loco parentis, and why students arrive primed for “shout-down” normsDEI rebranding (“community and belonging”) and the claim that pressures went undergroundRisks to MIT: recruiting/retaining top faculty and research dollarsMIT reinstating SAT requirements (post-2020 test disruption)MIT vs Harvard: data/analysis vs decision-making under uncertainty (“intuition”)AI as a tool: value depends on the questions/tasks you setMain points:Multiple MIT faculty surveys—asked different ways—cluster around ~50–55% reporting some self-censorship in at least some settings.You don’t need “many” cancellations: a few public examples can trigger self-protective silence across a campus.The Abbott episode was a catalyst: MIT was “caught by surprise,” and faculty + alumni backlash made repeat events less likely—but speakers may be quietly filtered out earlier.FIRE rankings reflect student attitudes + institutional policies; MIT’s rank improved partly because others worsened, not because MIT’s score surged.MIT’s finances reduce tuition dependence; the bigger vulnerability is faculty environment → research strength → prestige/funding.Administrative culture shift (more “professional administrators”) can amplify complaint systems when they’re sympathetic to activist norms.Stargardt is cautiously optimistic: broader American free-speech culture pushes universities either to course-correct or fade amid demographic headwinds.Best 3 quotes:“You don't have to cancel too many professors at a university… they catch on real quick… and… self-censor.”“MIT is a multidisciplinary research institute, which happened to have a small specialized trade school attached to it.”“You don't have to cancel a whole lot of people to scare the faculty. You just have to cancel a few.” 🎙 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!

    52 min
  7. E183: Why Corporate America Will Never De-Woke | Law Prof Explains

    FEB 3

    E183: Why Corporate America Will Never De-Woke | Law Prof Explains

    In this episode, Jesse talks with Fordham University School of Law corporate-law professor Sean J. Griffith about why “go woke, go broke” hasn’t really played out—and why big, publicly traded firms can stay “woke” even when consumers or politicians claim there’s backlash. The core theme: modern corporate power often runs through managers, compliance systems, and financial intermediaries, not “owners,” and that structure changes what accountability looks like. They unpack: Managerialism and the separation of ownership from control in modern corporations (why founders can still get pushed out, and why shareholders often don’t steer day-to-day governance).How “woke” agendas persist inside firms through HR/compliance, regulatory levers, and asset-manager/proxy-voting plumbing.Why vague, non-falsifiable goals (DEI/ESG/sustainability) can become a perpetual project that reduces accountability and can substitute for clearer objectives like returns—or even employee compensation.The politics of corporate speech and compelled trainings, including the Florida “Stop WOKE Act” litigation.The “what now?” question: what reforms (especially around intermediaries and voting) might actually change corporate behavior. Key ideas & quotable moments “Woke doesn’t vanish; it rebrands.” Words change (DEI → “belonging,” ESG → “sustainability”), structures stay.Modern corporate governance isn’t “owners calling the shots.” It’s boards, managers, compliance, and intermediaries.Compliance departments can function as political “levers” inside firms—often not aligned with shareholder-return logic.Passive funds concentrate voting power. People hold the economic exposure, but big fund complexes often hold the vote.Vague goals reduce accountability. If you miss financial targets, point to ESG wins; if you miss ESG targets, point to financial realities.Topics covered “Woke capitalism” as organizational inertia, not just marketingManagerialism and the separation of ownership/controlBoard governance: fiduciary duty vs stakeholder goalsHR’s growth, compliance logic, and internal “mission” narrativesRegulation as governance-by-proxy (disclosure rules, compliance guidelines)Passive index funds, voting power, and “engagement” with CEOsProxy advisers and how voting guidance can steer outcomesStatus incentives for executives (elite conferences, reputational capital)The Florida workplace-training case and corporate First Amendment rightsAI and the possibility of “automating” bureaucracy (for better or worse)Political strategy: targeting intermediaries vs hoping markets self-correctLinks & references mentionedSean’s article “Woke Will Never Go Broke” at Chronicles Magazine. Sean’s faculty page at Fordham University School of Law.Sean’s papers on SSRN (example paper page).Business Roundtable “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” (2019).Securities and Exchange Commission climate disclosure rule (press release).Florida “Stop WOKE Act” workplace-training litigation (Eleventh Circuit case page).The Economist: “How HR took over the world… Will AI shrink it?”Guest bioSean J. Griffith is a corporate and securities law professor and director of the Fordham Corporate Law Center. His work focuses on corporate governance, securities regulation, and related questions of institutional power inside public companies. About this episodeIf you’ve ever wondered why “boycotts” don’t seem to change corporate behavior—or why the same internal programs persist no matter who wins elections—this episode is a deep dive into the  structure  of modern capitalism: boards, managers, compliance, regulators, and the intermediaries who often control how shares get voted. 🎙 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!

    59 min
  8. E181: Politics Is the Best Predictor of Academic Research — Prof Mark Horowitz

    JAN 27

    E181: Politics Is the Best Predictor of Academic Research — Prof Mark Horowitz

    Political beliefs often matter more than data or methods in shaping how social scientists think about controversial issues. In this episode, sociologist Dr. Mark Horowitz explains why many professors line up by politics on hot-button questions, drawing on moral psychology, groupthink inside universities, and the idea that some topics become treated as morally untouchable “sacred victims.” Guest bio:Dr. Mark Horowitz is a Professor of Sociology at Seton Hall University whose research uses large surveys of faculty to study political bias, motivated reasoning, and viewpoint diversity in the social sciences. Topics discussed:Why politics predicts social-science positions on controversial questionsMoral Foundations Theory (Jonathan Haidt): care/fairness vs. loyalty/authority/sanctity“Bio-resistance” / discomfort with biological explanations in parts of the academyAnthropology & sociology survey findings (e.g., plausibility of evolved sex differences; biology & STEM gaps)“Sacred victims,” ingroup policing, and why some hypotheses become morally “off-limits”Postmodernism vs. “postmodern vibes”: activist scholarship without explicit postmodern labelsGrievance studies hoax + “idea laundering” and how ideas move journal → curriculum → common senseTenure realities: how dissent can be managed without formal firingReplication/reliability worries and what “fixes” might actually help: introspection + viewpoint diversityMain points:Humans reason with motivated cognition, and academics aren’t exempt—political identity often tracks judgments on contested claims.Moral intuitions shape what feels plausible: some explanations trigger moral disgust (e.g., claims perceived as “naturalizing inequality”).Fields with extreme ideological skew risk narrowing hypothesis space, intensifying policing, and losing public legitimacy.The issue isn’t “one side evil”—it’s how moral communities become interpretive communities (and vice versa).The best corrective mechanisms are viewpoint diversity, active engagement with opposing arguments, and self-awareness about bias.Top 3 quotes:“Do you believe it because the evidence suggests it—or because it’s congenial to how you feel?”“Interpretive communities become moral and emotional communities—and then disagreement feels morally wrong, not just empirically wrong.”“The only way to minimize distortion is introspection plus viewpoint diversity—actively seeking ideas that unsettle us.” 🎙 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!

    1h 8m
5
out of 5
9 Ratings

About

In El Podcast, anything and everything is up for discussion. Grab a drink and join us in this epic virtual happy hour!

You Might Also Like