Robert Skidelsky on Keynes, AI, the future of work, and more

Robert Skidelsky argues that the best way to secure supply chains is peace, highlights three grave risks posed by artificial intelligence, and more. The PS Say More Newsletter | [View this message in a web browser]( [PS Say More]( This week in Say More, PS talks with Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, and the author, most recently, of [The Machine Age: An Idea, a History, a Warning](. To read the full interview – in which Skidelsky argues that the best way to secure supply chains is peace, highlights three grave risks posed by artificial intelligence, challenges the notion that science and religion should be regarded as opposites, and more – [click here](. Robert Skidelsky Says More... [Michael Spence]( Syndicate: Last year, you [lamented]( the reversion of contemporary policy discussions to “the age-old standoff between market-based supply-side economics and a supply-side approach rooted in industrial policy,” because it leaves out a Keynesian focus on the “insufficiency of demand.” How would such a focus alter policymakers’ approach to key issues like climate change and energy security? For example, how could the US advance the Inflation Reduction Act’s stated goals using a Keynesian approach? Robert Skidelsky: This is a really difficult opener! My main issue with the contemporary policy discussion is that it disregards Keynes’ insight that capitalist economies suffer from a chronic deficiency of aggregate demand. In other words, it assumes that economies have an in-built tendency toward full employment. But if that were true, there would be no case for expansionary fiscal policy. The IRA – which includes $800 billion in new spending and tax breaks to accelerate the deployment of clean-energy technologies – had to be dressed up as... [Continue reading]( By the Way... PS: “If we are to outsource more and more of the tasks of life to ever more efficient machines,” you write in your new book, [The Machine Age: An Idea, a History, a Warning]( “it is important to make sure that their preferences are consistent with those of humans.” But while that may require “reserving moral choices exclusively for humans,” could our growing reliance on machines produce a breed of moral idiots with diminished capacity to make such choices? RS: This is a vital point. The standard mantra is that the smarter the machine, the smarter its human controller will need to be. This explains the demand for continuous “upskilling”: we must be able to keep up with machines. But I have much sympathy for the contrary proposition... [Continue reading]( [PS. Sign up now for our free newsletters.]( [PS Say More: Katharina Pistor on financial risk, wealth creation, digital currencies, and more]( [Katharina Pistor on financial risk, wealth creation, digital currencies, and more]( Katharina Pistor highlights the government’s role in perpetuating financial-sector fragility, urges stronger enforcement of legal accountability for political leaders, explains why trading nature derivatives should not be confused with protecting nature, and more. Pistor is Professor of Comparative Law at Columbia Law School and the author of [The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality](. [Read now]( [PS Introductory Offer. Subscribe to PS Digital for less than $5 per month.]( [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [LinkedIn]( Project Syndicate publishes and provides, on a not-for-profit basis, original commentary by the world's leading thinkers to more than 500 media outlets in over 150 countries. Receipt of this newsletter does not guarantee rights to re-publish any of its content. This newsletter is a service of [Project Syndicate](. [Change your newsletter preferences](. Follow us on [Facebook]( [Twitter]( and [YouTube](. © Project Syndicate, all rights reserved. [Unsubscribe from all newsletters](.