Complexity, clichés and bullshit: Me versus Rory Sutherland
Rory Sutherland suggested that the host of Simplifying Complexity have me on his podcast a while back. In that interview, I was critical of those who peddle ‘complexity’ as a new paradigm in economics. It's not. It's a bunch of new models. But the idea of 'complexity' as some new lens really runs rampant in numerous discourses around society and, for instance, new approaches to social disadvantage. The idea is constantly peddled that the current system is blinkered in its thinking. The word 'linear' will be thrown around. However, to me, this misdiagnoses the problem. The reason existing systems don't work very well is that they're not, ultimately built to work for users. They're built to address the needs of those building the system. Building them so they do work takes more than some consultants coming in with a new 'holistic' view of the problem. And if the consultants do have a better view of the problem and how to fix it, how are they going to get it to stick and to grow once it's been developed and all the forces that produced the initial dysfunction remain.
--------
1:09:35
Me on ABC Hobart on the proposed Hobart Stadium (after Minister Abetz)
An interview that took place with me at 5.20 on the 1st April 2025 on the release of the Tasmanian Planning Commission draft integrated assessment report.
--------
21:03
Trump's tariffs and trust in the US
I discuss Trump's tariffs with Leon Gettler, how economists aren't telling the whole truth about those Tariffs. Trump is wrong when he says foreigners will pay them. But he's not all wrong.
--------
12:35
The dirty electoral funding deal: How to get something better
I talk to Leon Gettler about the way electoral funding is manipulated by the major parties to entrench their own power. Democracy is supposed to be a competition, not a rigged game, yet we see politicians making decisions that serve their own interests rather than the public good.I argue that it's absurd to have politicians determining the terms of political competition — they should have no more to do with that than they should with setting electoral boundaries. We need a new kind of institution—one that takes key decisions like electoral out of the hands of politicians and puts them in the hands of a jury of everyday Australians. I discuss the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, a model that has helped clean up gerrymandering in the U.S., and how a similar approach could work here.
--------
10:54
A role for juries in electoral democracy?
In this after-dinner talk to the Radix conference on Resilient Democracy at St George's House on Feb 20th, I lay out a different way of thinking about democracy — one that challenges the assumption that elections are the only legitimate form of representation. Democracies mix two approaches: representation by election and representation by sampling. But in modern politics, we’ve sidelined the latter, except in the judicial system.Elections don’t just select representatives; they shape the kind of people who rise to power. The system favours self-promotion, rewards spin, and turns politics into a competition for attention rather than a forum for governing. We assume elections will keep politicians accountable, but in practice, they reinforce a cycle where honesty is a liability and persuasion takes priority over substance.Representation by sampling works differently. When people are selected by lottery to deliberate on political issues, they tend to engage with one another in ways that cut through party lines and ideological divides. I explore examples of how this has worked, from ancient Athens to modern citizen assemblies, and outline a proposal: a standing Citizens’ Assembly to sit alongside existing institutions, providing an independent check on government.This isn’t about replacing elections, but about balancing them with another democratic principle—one we’ve neglected for too long.The Conference Website is here. The video of the talk can be found here.
Australia