Sunday Letters

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support! Support Sunday LettersIn this latest episode of Sunday Letters, we're in conversation with PhD, writer at bondeconomics.com and former quantitative analyst at various economic consultancies in Canada. He's the author of several self-published books on economics, including Modern Monetary Theory & The Recovery, published in 2021. The guy on the cover image of this episode, by the way, is Hyman Minsky, the guy most leftist economists cite as the father of MMT. He said, "Stability leads to instability. The more stable things become, and the longer things are stable, the more unstable they will be when the crisis hits.” Brian touches on this idea in the conversation.The discussion begins with a foundational question: "What is money?" Brian explains that money is a complex concept that serves primarily as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. In a monetised society, money simplifies transactions by eliminating the need for direct barter or reciprocal obligations. While money is commonly thought of in terms of physical cash or digital equivalents like bank deposits, Brian highlights that it also includes instruments that are not technically part of the money supply but function similarly, such as credit card transactions and business receivables.He goes on to emphasise that while individuals use money for everyday transactions, businesses and financial institutions engage in more complex exchanges involving various forms of credit and debt. This perspective shifts the understanding of money from a simplistic medium of exchange to a more intricate system of debt settlement and liquidity management.The Role of Banks and ReservesThe conversation delves into the workings of banks and the concept of fractional reserve banking. Dmitri raises a common scenario where a bank holds only a fraction of its deposits in reserve while lending out the rest. Romanchuk clarifies that while this textbook model suggests a fixed reserve requirement, the reality is more flexible. Banks manage liquidity and credit risk, ensuring they can meet reserve requirements while still providing loans and other services.Brian points out that in practice, banks often operate with minimal reserves, relying on liquidity management to balance their books. He explains that banks borrow from each other and from the central bank to maintain the necessary reserves, highlighting the critical role of central banks in providing stability to the banking system. This liquidity management is essential to prevent bank insolvency and maintain confidence in the financial system.Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)The discussion then shifts to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which offers a different perspective on government spending and money creation. Brain explains that MMT posits that governments that issue their own currencies can never run out of money in the same way households or businesses can. Such governments can create money to finance deficits, focusing on managing inflation rather than balancing budgets.He underscores that MMT challenges traditional views on fiscal policy, arguing that concerns about government debt are often misplaced. Instead, the focus should be on the productive capacity of the economy and the role of government spending in achieving full employment and economic stability. Brian also highlights that in times of economic downturn, government deficits can provide the necessary stimulus to support recovery and maintain demand.Implications and CriticismsThe episode then explores potential criticisms of MMT, such as the risk of inflation and the political feasibility of its implementation. Brian acknowledges these concerns but argues that proper management of fiscal policy and economic resources can mitigate inflationary pressures. He also notes that the political challenge lies in shifting public and policymaker perceptions about the nature of money and government finance.In conclusion, the episode provides a thorough examination of money's multifaceted role in the economy and introduces listeners to the principles of Modern Monetary Theory. Brian Romanchuk's insights offer a challenge to conventional economic thinking and a fresh perspective on how governments can leverage their monetary sovereignty to achieve economic goals. The discussion encourages a re-evaluation of traditional fiscal policies and highlights the importance of understanding the complexities of money and finance in modern economies.So, How Does it Impact You And Me In Our Daily Lives?Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that governments can and should spend more freely to ensure full employment. For the average worker, this means that in times of economic downturn, the government can inject money into the economy to create jobs and stimulate demand, reducing the likelihood of unemployment.Increased government spending can fund public projects and services, creating more job opportunities in various sectors, including infrastructure, education, and healthcare. For employees, particularly those in finance, construction, and industries reliant on credit, understanding that banks are managing risks and ensuring liquidity can translate to more stable job conditions.One of the criticisms of MMT is the potential for inflation, which is when prices rise, decreasing purchasing power. For the average person, this could mean higher prices for groceries, housing, and other essentials. However, MMT proponents argue that careful management can control inflation, preventing runaway price increases. By ensuring that government spending is directed towards productive uses—like infrastructure or technology—MMT aims to stimulate the economy without causing significant inflation.Increased government spending under MMT can improve public services, which means better healthcare, education, and social services for individuals. Proponents suggest this can reduce out-of-pocket expenses for these services, indirectly lowering the cost of living. During economic downturns, for example, government spending can support welfare programs, unemployment benefits, and other social safety nets, providing a financial cushion for those impacted by job losses or reduced income. In this sense, MMT is a socially oriented approach to the economy and an answer to the liberal free market ideas of the 1980s that, arguably, have brought about some of the greatest economic catastrophes in recent times.Unlike personal debt, government debt in countries that issue their own currencies is managed differently, so thinking about government debt as we would household or corporate debt is inaccurate. Governments that issue their own currency can take their time; they don’t owe anyone but themselves. They are the issuer of the currency, after all. The fear of government debt should not overshadow the benefits of strategic spending. For individuals, this means understanding that government investment in the economy can lead to better long-term economic conditions, benefiting everyone.Support Sunday LettersSend us a TipGet some Sunday Letters merchSubscribe on YouTubeGet in touch with Brian RomanchuckBond Economics Newsletter on SubstackBrian’s BooksBrian Romanchuck on X This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!In this episode of The Sunday Letters Podcast, I’m in conversation with former US Air Force pilot and current lecturer in digital media studies at TU Shannon, Bernie Goldbach. We talk about the contrast in Bernie’s work from the high intensity of flying missions in the Pacific region and the Middle East to the perhaps less demanding work of lecturing third-level students in Clonmel. Here’s a summary of some of the main points in the conversation.* Hauling radioactive waste on Enewetak in the Pacific* Identity and intrinsic motivation of Air Force pilots* The challenge of work-life balance in high-intensity roles* The Secret Service, working at The Pentagon and one of the greatest spoofs the US played on Russia.* Bernie’s take on Ukraine, the intrinsic motivation of Ukrainian soldiers* Why did the 1988 Ramstein Air Show disaster happen? What Bernie witnessed that day and, crucially, the night before.* Leaving the Air Force and moving to Ireland and translating his skills into teaching.* The heightened attention, perception, memory and motor skills of high-performers* Creative design and digital media in education* The negative impact of technology on young people’s development. Passive entertainment Vs practical interaction.* Finding fulfilment and engagement in work and the power of symbols of success.* The work in the post-Social Media world and the power of stories.* What would you do if money was no object?* The future of work and the impact of technology on work and jobs.Linksclonmeldigital.micro.bloginsideview.ieBernie Goldbach LinkedInTechnological University of The ShannonHow to support The Sunday Letters JournalSubscribe for FreeBecome a paid subscriberUpgrade from FreeThe Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!In our latest episode of The Sunday Letters Journal podcast, and I delved into the complex topic of the morality of money. This discussion is not just about the practicalities of economics but rather about the more profound moral questions that underpin our financial systems, our relationship with one another, and our sense of humanity and everyday existence.The discussion begins by reflecting on the importance of money in our society. It’s impossible to talk about work without mentioning money because we’ve collectively decided that money is essential to our way of life. We dedicate a significant portion of our lives to work, often at the expense of truly living. The question arises then: why do we work? What is the purpose of work? Can we survive without effectively working as waged slaves for the best part of our lives? This leads us to the fundamental question of what it means to be moral in the context of making and spending money.We both have been reading David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5,000 Years”, which provides a substantial historical backdrop to our conversation. One of the core ideas we discussed is the concept of morality itself. Dmitri explained that morality involves a set of rules or principles that govern behaviour, and these principles can be understood through different philosophical lenses, such as deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology, as championed by Immanuel Kant, posits that there are universal moral laws that apply to everyone, regardless of the consequences. In contrast, utilitarianism, or consequentialism, suggests that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, specifically whether it maximises happiness or utility for the greatest number of people.As we delved deeper, we touched on the historical perspectives of morality and money, drawing on the ideas of ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Plato condemned the pursuit of money, believing it corrupted the soul by allowing desires to override reason. While also critical of the excessive pursuit of wealth, Aristotle introduced the concepts of use value and exchange value. He argued that goods should be produced primarily for their use value – to meet genuine needs – rather than for exchange value – merely to generate profit. This distinction remains relevant today as we grapple with the implications of producing goods and services primarily for profit and the satisfaction of base-level desires.Our conversation then shifted to the role of religion in shaping moral views on money. In medieval Europe, the early church maintained a stance against commerce, just as perhaps Aristotle did, viewing profit as inherently deceitful and corrupting. However, as time progressed, the church’s position softened, recognising the necessity of trade for societal functioning. This transition highlights the evolving nature of moral perspectives on money, influenced by changing economic realities. Or it was perhaps due to the church’s increasing ties to wealth and political systems.The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.Support Sunday LettersSend us a TipGet some Sunday Letters merchSubscribe on YouTubeReferences This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!Welcome to Sunday Letters. I’m Larry Maguire, your host, and with me today is my friend and philosopher, Dimitri Belkov. In this episode, we’ll be discussing the role of money in our lives. We’ll look at where money comes from, different theories about its value, and how debt affects individuals and society. We’ll also touch on the history of money and some of the moral questions around financial obligations.We don’t get to discuss John Maynard Keynes in this episode, but we should have, and maybe we’ll dedicate a future episode to the man who prophesied the three-day week in 1936. I think he was right insofar as that’s where technology was going. Still, work seems to hold a certain moral imperative, so much so that our sense of personal worth is so deeply entwined with working prescribed hours for the best part of our lives that we can’t see the obvious sense in what Keynes predicted.So here we are.The Origins of MoneyOne predominant theory that has circulated for centuries is the metalist theory of money. This theory posits that money originated as a medium of exchange with intrinsic value, often in precious metals like gold and silver. In his seminal work “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith suggested that before the advent of money, people engaged in barter trade, exchanging commodities directly. However, according to David Graeber, the barter myth does not hold up under scrutiny. He suggests that no documented society has relied primarily on barter as a method of exchange. Instead, anthropologists have found that gift economies and credit systems were more common in pre-monetary societies.Contrary to classic economic theory, Graeber argued that the creation of money was more closely related to the needs of the state than to the inefficiencies of barter. States and rulers created standardised currency units to facilitate taxation and control of their economies.Early forms of money included metal coins minted by kings to reflect their wealth. These coins, however, did not always have a value directly correlated with their metal content. Anthropological evidence shows that people often debased coinage; their actual metal content was less than their face value, leading to practices such as coin shaving. One of the most notorious episodes of monetary manipulation in English history was that of Henry VIII in the 1540s.The Role of the State and Fiat MoneyContrary to the metalist view, another theory suggests that money’s value comes from its acceptance by the state as a means of payment for taxes and debts. This perspective is captured in the concept of fiat money, which holds value not because of its intrinsic worth but because of the government’s decree. This theory posits that the state played a crucial role in creating markets and stimulating production by issuing money.The transition to fiat money marked a significant shift. Money became a promise by the government to accept it for tax payments, thus ensuring its widespread acceptance. This system allowed states to control the money supply and influence economic activity without relying on physical commodities like gold.How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.Support Sunday LettersSend us a TipGet some Sunday Letters merchSubscribe on YouTube This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!Mark Twain referred to it as the Gilded Age. Given his wit and occasional cynicism, I’m not sure that was entirely in celebration of the growth and expansion of industrialisation in America at the time. It was a gilded age for some, such as the industrialists and capitalists, but not so much for the common worker. With the new “opportunities” that opened up for the people of the New World after the Louisianna Purchase of 1803, the next one hundred years would witness dramatic change and a conflict between the capitalists and the workers.The Pullman Strike of 1894 is one of the most significant events in American labour history. It reflected the intense struggles between labour and management during this century of economic growth. This strike not only highlighted the harsh working conditions and economic disparities workers faced but also marked a pivotal moment in the development of labour unions and federal intervention in labour disputes.George Pullman was a carpenter by trade from New York, who, in the 1850s, headed west to seek his fortune. He made his reputation raising houses and other buildings to the newly required street level. Later, he turned his hand to manufacturing luxury railroad sleeping cars that allowed wealthy passengers to travel in luxury from East to West. Pullman envisioned a utopian community for his workers, establishing the company town of Pullman, Illinois. This town included housing, shops, churches, and schools, all owned by the company. Pullman believed this controlled environment would foster loyalty and productivity among his workers.Read the full article; https://sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/p/the-pullman-strike-of-1894How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.Support Sunday LettersSend us a TipGet some Sunday Letters merchSubscribe on YouTubeReferences This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!With the progression of artificial intelligence, many voices are heralding the end of work as we know it. It is not just one trade or profession that will be impacted, they say. There will be many, from data analysts to legal professionals, those in the arts and media, truck, bus and rail drivers, food delivery, security, teaching—you name it. There is no domain of work that will not be affected. Over the next twenty to thirty years, vast swathes of people will have no job. So what are we going to do? How will we earn a living (as if we should have to work to earn the right to live and be comfortable in the first place)? Universal Basic Income (UBI) may be the solution. In this week’s episode, Dmitri and I discuss this idea and the results of recent trials of UBI in various countries around the world.Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a financial policy model that involves regular, unconditional payments made by the government to every citizen, regardless of their income level or employment status. The core idea behind UBI is to provide all citizens with a living wage that can support basic needs, thereby reducing poverty and its associated negative health outcomes and increasing equality within society. This concept has gathered both acclaim and criticism over the years and is backed by various philosophical, economic, and practical arguments.The idea of a universal basic income isn't new. One of the earliest proponents of a form of UBI was Thomas Paine, an 18th-century political activist, who proposed a capital grant for all individuals upon reaching adulthood in his work "Agrarian Justice" (1797). In the 20th century, economists like Milton Friedman introduced the concept of a "negative income tax”. Although not strictly a UBI policy, it parallels the ideas of UBI in providing a financial safety net to the less affluent. These early ideas laid foundational thoughts that challenged traditional welfare systems, proposing instead a simpler and potentially more effective means of redistributing income to support economic and social welfare.In recent years, several pilot programs and studies have been launched to test the feasibility and effects of UBI. One notable example is the 2017 to 2018 Universal Basic Income experiment in Finland, where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 per month without any conditions from January 2017 to December 2018. The findings, published by Kela, the Finnish social security agency, suggested that while the UBI did not significantly improve employment outcomes, it did increase the beneficiaries' well-being, giving them a sense of better financial security and mental health.Another significant case study from the United States was conducted in the city of Stockton, California. It was conducted involving 125 residents who received $500 monthly and operated for two years. The preliminary results indicated improvements in employment and stability, debunking myths that financial aids discourage work. These contemporary experiments provide crucial data points and insights into how UBI could be structured and implemented effectively in different socio-economic contexts.The future of UBI is a subject of vibrant debate among economists, policymakers, and the public. Proponents argue that UBI could be essential in addressing the challenges posed by automation and the precarious nature of modern work environments. It's seen as a tool for promoting consumer spending and economic stability. Critics, however, caution against its high costs and potential to dissuade individuals from seeking employment. Although, these arguments seem to be based on personal moral values rather than solid research findings. For example, a trial in Namibia from 2008 to 2009 found that UBI had a significant reduction in poverty and child malnutrition, an increase in school attendance and healthcare utilisation, and an increase in economic activity as recipients invested in small businesses and increased their purchasing power.Universal Basic Income remains a compelling yet controversial idea in the discourse on economic reform and social welfare. As societies continue to evolve and face new economic challenges, the lessons learned from past and ongoing experiments will be crucial in shaping the future of UBI. Whether it will become a standard policy remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly represents a significant shift in thinking about welfare, work, and economic security in the modern world.The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.Support Sunday LettersSend us a TipGet some Sunday Letters merchSubscribe on YouTubeReferences This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!In this week’s episode, we’re discussing David Graeber, anthropologist and activist, who introduced the concept of "bullshit jobs" in a 2013 article in Strike Magazine titled “On The Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs”. He hit a nerve and later expanded into a full book titled Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, published in 2018. Graeber defines a "bullshit job" as a form of employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence. At the same time, they feel obliged to pretend that this is not the case. He argues that these jobs have proliferated due to societal and economic factors that prioritise employment for its own sake, rather than for the productive contributions it may offer people and society. He also discusses second-order bullshit jobs; the ones that are created to support the higher-order bullshit jobs. Think about the cleaners, security staff, electricians and plumbers needed to maintain a building filled with people administering speculative investments.There are five categories of bullshit jobs according to Graeber;Graeber argues that meaningless, soulless jobs not only cause severe psychological distress but also represent a misallocation of economic resources and human potential. His theory has implications for understanding organisational inefficiencies, worker dissatisfaction, and the societal value placed on work.How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.Support Sunday LettersSend us a TipGet some Sunday Letters merchSubscribe on YouTube This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!In this week’s episode, and I discuss one of the fundamental dichotomies of human behaviour: cooperation versus competition. Are human beings inherently competitive, or are we more socially oriented and naturally cooperative? The question is important because the workplace seems primarily oriented towards competition. We compete for a limited number of clients and projects, departments within the same organisation may be adversaries, and workers are encouraged to compete for recognition, bonuses and promotions. In parallel, we also find workers in these same situations cooperate, albeit reluctantly at times, to achieve goals and get things done.Ultimately, however, jobs require people to be agents of the profit-seeking organisation within a system of apparently limited resources. Making a profit is necessary, but the competition for it never stops, and it’s rarely shared equally among those who generate it (although that’s a topic for another day). Businesses, especially larger corporate ones, are never satisfied, and they demand that you and I, in our jobs, keep pushing for more. They squeeze as much as they can out of every human being, often until we are dry, broken husks of people. In this sense, we work in the metaphorical vice of competition for what are perceived as limited resources (again, a topic for another day).The Capitalists argue that competition is good for society; it has given us all the technology, goods and services we take for granted. It has improved living conditions and made life better for all, or so the argument goes. Socialists offer a counterargument - competition has destroyed the fabric of life, raped and pillaged the planet, treated human beings and the natural world as objective means to material ends, and will kill us all. Cooperation and mutual aid, they say, are the keys to our survival. Read moreThe Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.References This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here. Many thanks for your support!On Tuesday, I wrote about the false promise of the future of work. I highlighted, amongst other things, that education helps school us towards direct paid employment or waged slavery, according to some, and not towards the freedom of self-employment, for example. Self-employment is too risky, it seems. If we take the chance and fail, we’ll lose everything we’ve earned. In this, we accept the prison of our employment over the freedom of the unknown.The structure of the workplace provides us with a degree of certainty. But what if this apparent ground of our belief was not factual but something the system taught us? Maybe it is the pursuit of hedonic pleasure and the avoidance of pain that keeps us there. wrote this week that the philosopher Karl Marx believed work was a natural thing human beings seek to do, and in this need to express ourselves, we are manipulated by capital. In contrast, Plato and Aristotle believed manual work was of the lower order and not for sophisticated men. They also believed that slavery was right and proper, so perhaps not the best judges on these matters.The question remains: Do we work to attain the means to live or merely survive, or do we seek fulfilment of a deeper, more innate human need? What would we do if we didn’t need to work to meet those basic needs? What would we do with our time? Is contemporary work designed to line the pockets of the capitalists, and do we comply through blind habit? That’s several questions, yes, but you get the picture.Read more This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here. Many thanks for your support!I mentioned on Monday that change was afoot; well, here’s the story…Welcome to the relaunch of the Sunday Letters Podcast. It has been some time since the last episode, and recently, I felt the urge to get this thing operational again. In doing so, I’ve managed to convince my learned friend and philosopher, to join me here and help build this thing out. Over the years, we have conversed privately on many topics we cover here on Sunday Letters, so the partnership seemed like a natural choice. Sunday Letters reflects how we both feel about and see the modern workplace - a fake plastic environment that, despite its best efforts to the contrary, seems incompatible with human welfare. This forms the basis of our forthcoming discussions on work.I will publish new written content on Tuesdays on the Future of Work. Dmitri will publish the general topic of the week on Thursdays. New podcast episodes will be published weekly on Fridays with a full (but raw) conversation transcript. We will cover the issues affecting people's working lives and the role work plays in global politics, economics, and broader social issues. Work, after all, is so intertwined with all human affairs; it’s hard not to connect it with what’s happening in the world. From pollution and the global climate crisis to the conflict in the Middle East to the mistreatment of the vulnerable in society and the abuse of workers in the Global South, our jobs and our daily work play no small part.In case you missed the hint, The Sunday Letters Journal is firmly on the Left—we are for people first, organisations second… at best. One of the most challenging problems in society today is that the interests of organisations often come before those of the people and the environment. A misalignment of values and motivations is at its core, and we think there’s something we can do about that.Alright, thanks for being here. We’re looking forward to engaging with you in the comments, and if you’d like to support this work, become a subscriber today and get 20% off forever. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here. Many thanks for your support!You might be wondering where the several hundred older episodes of Sunday Letters have disappeared. Well, I have drafted them all. I did so primarily because most of them were pure shite and also because things like intros, titles, and formatting were quite inconsistent. The best move available was to take them down and republish the best of them under new titles. I’ll be going through those over the next few weeks and months.In the meantime, check out episode 001 for more on what to expect from the new Sunday Letters. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com

My wife walks the dog, that’s her job. It's a job in the sense that she feels obligated to do it, but it’s not really a job because she likes to walk for 4 or 5 km with the dog whenever she can. For me, I feel I could be more productive with my time than aimlessly walking for an hour. My dominant thought is that I could achieve a lot in my work with that time so it’s a bit of a waste.I’m a bit of a utilitarian in that sense.How did I get this way?Am I unique in this line of thinking?At the same time, I like to take my time with certain things. I like to sit in the kitchen in my chair with a cup of coffee and stare out the window for thirty minutes. I like to take an hour to chill out after the gym on a Saturday morning. So in my own way, I “waste” time too.But it’s not wasted, is it? (rhetorical question).This morning, my wife is working so couldn’t take the dog on her usual 5 km walk. So I suggested that I’d do it after I walked our youngest to school. It was rather a run around in an enclosed space in the park than a lengthy walk, but the dog enjoyed itself and that’s better than nothing. Even so, the voice in my head said, you’ve work to do. You could be using this time to get things done.So I fought my worky brain and walked the dog.In doing so, there was a mild sense of enjoyment, of just taking time to do something that didn’t have an end in mind—an ulterior motive. I met a fella I know too, he was walking his dog. We chatted about things, random stuff like the temperament of each dog, kids’ football and the local club, working from home and so on.The point is that doing things as we’ve always done them means we’re likely missing out on the ordinary everyday encounters that give life colour and make it enjoyable. We’re too caught up in utility, in achieving objective things, attainment, and material wealth and all the while we’re missing out on human wealth.According to Richard Ryan and Ed Deci’s Self Determination Theory of human motivation, these human experiences are the nutriments of life, without which, human beings become ill and suffer. It is through the overbearing pressure to produce, to meet the demands of the market and the workplace that we begin to deteriorate.Through these practices of just walking for the sake of it, of meeting people by chance and having one-to-one conversations about our lives we make connections and build relationships. These, in turn, fuel our needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness; the three legs on the stool of motivation and well-being.It’s a constant battle with oneself but it’s one worth having.Oh, she says well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope.I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know...And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.- Kurt VonnegutThe Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

We leave ourselves open to ridicule. We have no observable sense of direction by all external means of assessment. We flip-flop between ideas and try many things, some of which work and most of which don’t. What do we mean by “work”? Is it to be commercially successful? Is it to be recognised by our peers? Regardless of the subject matter and its perceived objective success or otherwise, we drop what we are doing and move to something else.I did some drawing a while ago — a portrait in charcoal. It was my first effort, took me ages and it was good. I enjoyed the process and the result and I learned something universal that words find hard to convey. I shared it on social media and the response was very positive, to say the least. My family said I should draw more, I was “talented” apparently. I took a stab at a few other portraits but I dropped the practice pretty much completely. The easel I made sits fragmented in the shed, my charcoal and drawing tools sit in a drawer in my office, and attempted portraits lay tucked into a gap between the wall and a bookshelf in my office.So what was the point of even trying?Why bother if you drop whatever it is for something else on merely a whim?Would you not just stick to one thing and perfect that?Well, for me and others like me, there is the thrill of trying new things. Objective externally measured success means little. Ok, I get a short-term thrill from recognition, but the truth of the matter is that I run a mile from it. I really don’t like attention, and that’s a bit of a problem, because like most people, at the same time it’s nice to be recognised. We are social animals after all, and without community and relatedness, we fragment completely and die. And so there is an internal fight with oneself. Freud said we (das Ich) are not masters in our own house. This is true, it seems. But recognised or not, the value of the work must be in the doing of it for its own sake, for the inherent challenge and enjoyment we receive from it. Because the doing of it is our life and we live that now. Expectation takes us out of now, out of our hearts and into our heads. Now is the only place we can be effective. Regardless, the recognition of others doesn’t last. The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

To join live every Friday on Peak, go here. I’ll be reading from the book of the week and follow with a discussion with you and others on the core message of the book. Tonight I was joined by philosopher and friend Dmitri Belikov. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.comThis is a bonus episode of Sunday Letters. If you’d like access to it, become a supporter of The Sunday Letters Journal. This episode is a reading from a speech by Juliet Schor, author of The Overworked American, to students at Tilburg University in 1997 titled Beyond An Economy of Work & Spend. In this essay, Schor offers a detailed breakdown of why th…

Support Sunday LettersSubscribe for freeTranscript ExtractI’ve been experimenting with transcriptions. Here’s an extract from this week’s monologue.(00:04)Welcome to episode 222, On The Merit of Doing Nothing. This is the Sunday letters podcast, part of the Sunday letters journal. Read, and listen to all previous episodes and issues of the newsletter over at sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com. There's a link at the top of the show notes, probably one or two in between, and one at the bottom. This podcast is free. Although if you decide to become a paying subscriber cost about three euros or €3.50 or $3.50 about the price of a good cup of coffee, you'll get subscriber-only episodes, short, little extracts, and other articles that are reserved for paying subscribers and supporters of the Sunday letters journal. So if you decide to do that I'd be very grateful. If not, you can listen for free. It's a free episode. And if you're so inclined, give us a review on apple podcasts or wherever you happen to listen to your podcasts.(01:11)Tell us what you think of the show. Give us a few stars, help people find what I'm doing and lets me know what you think of this material. So this week, I'm talking about the merit of doing nothing or switching off and tuning out of doing the opposite of being busy. And what got me on this topic this morning was I had planned something completely different, but an item appeared in my feed on LinkedIn about a piece of research that was reported in the Guardian, on the merits and the benefits of, and the ability to access air creativity. When we actually switch off from thinking, and it is true. And it's been reported in a number of different places by many writers that the benefit of switching off and going off for a wander and doing things that are not associated with work, call it rest, recuperate, recuperation, whatever you want to call it.(02:14)But it's, it's the absence of thinking and then, and trying to solve the problem or get where you want to go. We live in a world. That's very much hinged to the idea that you've got to be active. You've got to be productive. You've got to be working your ass off. You've got to work all the hours that are sent in order to make enough money in order to be of enough value to other people, to the corporation, to the company, to your customers, whoever. And it's really a foolish idea where we're, we're so welded to the nuts and bolts idea of life, to the practicalities of life, to(02:59)The ones and the zeros. And if it's not a one or a zero, if it's not, if we're not active enough if there's no data to read, if we're acting on a whim or an apparent whim, well, then that's in, that's not valuable at all. In fact, it's useless. So to play, for example, is something you do when you finish work, when you're finished being active and getting stuff done, you know because you're a practical human being. And, you know, in order to get ahead in the world, you've got to be a doer, and you've got to go after it, you know, embrace the hustle and all this kind of nonsense. And it's because I suppose we live in a technological society a digital society, and we've been this, this, our hegemonic common sense about work suggests that you've always got to be active and it's the value is in the data.(03:59)And the data will tell you everything you need to know, like as if we can predict the future. And we know we can't. The weather forecast can't even be predicted. And why do you think as a human being, as a kind of single cell in this multicellular organism we call life. Why is it did you think that you can predict and determine your future when nothing else can be predetermined, it arrives, and it's magical almost, and we should be content with that, but instead, we want to analyze the shit out of everything, and we have to work our asses off in order to be valuable to ourselves and other people. And it's a nonsense. So what do we do? We keep working and we work and we work and we work and we try to make things happen. And we try and circumvent the inevitable. We try and get around through the back door and cheat and try to get ahead of all the nasty shit that we , that we think is gonna come. And it does come because life is, life is a crime of two sides, but it's all a waste of time. A lot of it.(05:15)So this article appeared in my feed this morning and it was about the importance of taking time out. And it, it really is critical. I immediately thought of three books, four books, maybe even more where I previously read about the importance of taking time to do nothing. I couldn't find his book this morning, but Carol Ravelli is a quantum gravitational physicist, an Italian bloke. He probably read this stuff. There are a couple of really good books and audiobooks on the nature of reality time and space, et cetera, et cetera,(05:57)Very readable. It's not too heavy, you know? And I think it's in the introduction to, I can't remember the name of the book, but he speaks about how, how valuable his time away from study. It was like a year maybe I think he took a year off to just kind of loaf about in the states or whatever. And and just to kind of do whatever he felt like doing. And he, his commentary was around the idea that we often think that this time young people take to do nothing and to loaf off and do whatever they want to do is wasted. And no one particular adult parent of, of a, of a kid. I know, and she couldn't wait to get her son into school. And I think he'd be like 16 or not far gotten 16 when he is finishes leaving cert when he is left school and ready for tour level.(06:55)And it strikes me that the kid doesn't, and hasn't been afforded the time to just do nothing, you know, and we discount the value in it. Anyway, I'm, I'm rambling. So read this article and it was in the guardian just wanna pull it up here. So the article says that losing oneself in one's thoughts are letting the mind wander is an underrated activity that is most rewarding. The more it is practiced. An academic study has claimed like, as if you need, as if you need an academic study to tell you that, right. Psychologists who studied a group of more than 250 people encourage them to engage in directional contemplation or free floating thinking said that the activity was far more satisfying than the participants had anticipated.Support Sunday LettersSubscribe for free This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.comI discovered Bukowski a few years back and was immediately caught by the sharp end of what he wrote. He wrote from the inside out, saying what he saw and what he felt without censorship, often to the point of being crude and offensive. I think he was hated as much as loved, but it seems that despite it all, he stuck by his principles. He hadn’t outlined any particular philosophy as such, other than that most people were full of shit and incapable of being real. At poetry readings, he’d abuse his audience. I think that’s why they came to see him. Regarding the work of an artist, his advice was to do it or don’t do it. If it is there, go with it; if it isn’t, wait. Trying is counter-productive. In the commercial world of goods and services, we can’t tolerate this philosophy of work. It is an offence against our consumerist common sense. Whatever you want, it is yours—just set yourself out in the world and get it. You’ll find some of Bukowski’s thoughts and feelings on the craft of writing and other topics in the collection, On Writing.In 1964, Bukowski wrote to author Jack Conroy about Conroy’s novel The Disinherited, a work of fiction that tackled the plight of the working classes in the 1920s and 1930s United States. Bukowski insisted that from his point of view, the poverty of the 1920s working classes portrayed in the story was still relevant forty years on. When we read what Bukowski said about work, we’d be forgiven for thinking that it was today. Those of us in western industrialised nations may have a materially better standard of living and fancier gadgets than in 1964, but there remain many who are marginalised. Given the current energy crisis and increasing cost of living, many who were already struggling to stay afloat are probably drowning.Here’s Bukowski;

Today in the Sunday Letters Journal article, I’m taking the opportunity to introduce you to Peak Performer–a community space I created for readers interested in achieving peak performance in their work. I’m a work and organisational psychologist, and as you likely know by now, the focal point of most of what I write is daily work—that thing human beings spend the most time doing. Better that daily work is by our own design serving our basic psychological needs than by someone else’s design and profit motives. However, the unfortunate fact of modern work is that most of us work jobs designed by others, and as such, it often lacks the necessary meaning and purpose we need to sustain us.Get your invitation to PeakPeak is a response to this situation. Here’s a little more about the space and what you can expect.Peak, is a place where you can discover the means to direct your own work and develop the mental skills necessary for success. It’s a space for self-employed people and others who aspire to work for themselves, be it as a solo worker or the founder of a larger organisation. It is a community for people who seek to command their own meaningful and fulfilling work. Being a part of Peak means you have decided to do work on your own terms and by your own design.The community is new, and membership is FREE until we get off the ground properly. So consider this a soft launch. Once the membership exceeds 100 people, the joining fee will apply. Now’s your chance to get in for nowt forever.What's Peak all about?Peak is a place where self-motivated, self-determined, self-employed people can develop the mental skills necessary for success. There are many communities for the self-employed, but few of them focus on the development of the person–that's what makes Peak different. Whether you currently work for yourself or have aspirations to do so, the same basis of motivation, personality and the seeking of meaning and purpose in work apply. As we look back on our lives as we enter our final days, we want to be able to say that we lived life on our own terms and that life was fulfilling. None of us likes being pushed around, told what to do, where to go, how long to spend there, and how long our rest should be—if we are afforded any at all. That’s not freedom—it’s slavery. Wages, their quantity or not is irrelevant. To be free and to work free at things of our own design is a basic human need. Work without that feature might as well be done by automatons, not human beings.Get your invitation to PeakMy Philosophy on WorkMy philosophy on work is grounded in the idea that work, first and foremost, must be done for its own inherent enjoyment and fulfilment. Without this, our focus will be flawed, and our efforts to succeed will be misdirected. This aligns with Abraham Maslow's concept of "Peak Experience", Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi's concept of "Flow", and Ryan & Deci's concept of "Self-Determination". These theorists recognised that to be creatively successful, human beings must work free, be fully integrated, and independent yet interdependent in their work. For our work to make a difference in our lives and to be meaningful and fulfilling, in other words, we must transcend the self-oriented, narcissistic personality structure that dominates the business world. We must find work that commands our interest and curiosity, and we much strive to do this work as often as possible and under our own terms.So, who are you, and why should I trust you?My name is Larry Maguire. I am a work & organisational psychologist in private practice with 20+ years business ownership experience. I earned my BA in psychology from DBS in Dublin and my MSc. in Work & Organisational Psychology from DCU Dublin. I am a graduate member of the Psychological Society of Ireland and an ordinary member of the International Association for Coaching.My research to date has focused on the well-being of self-employed people at work, and coupled with insights gained from this, my time in business has taught me many lessons. I want to share them here, and maybe you can gain some advantage from it. You also have experiences worth sharing that will benefit others, so I'm hoping you'll join me in developing this community.Who Is Peak For?Peak is for solo workers, freelancers, consultants, small business owners, and people who aspire to work for themselves. But Peak is not like other communities for the self-employed. Rather than focusing on the functions and structures of a business; sales, marketing, finance, HR, accounts, IT systems and so on, Peak is focused on aiding the development of the person–the business owner.How Much Does Membership Cost?Membership costs €29 per month, nothing for now. Membership is free for a short period, so you can join and access the benefits of membership immediately. In a few months, when we officially launch, new members will need to shell out for access. There may also be pay-walled areas for exclusive content added as we progress.Get your invitation to PeakWhat You Will LearnWith the resources and learning materials and the support of other members, Peak aims to be your catalyst for positive change and facilitate growth in the following areas;Leadership skillsDecision-makingFocus & AttentionEmotional RegulationStress ManagementMotivation & BehaviourCreativity & InnovationIf you wish to command your own work successfully and grow it beyond yourself (if that's what you want), then you must develop the necessary mental skills. The process will be difficult, but within Peak, you have the comfort of the support of others like you. You'll also have free access to coaching, resources, and information to help you along your way.A New Definition of WorkWork, as defined here, is that thing we do in our waking hours - it's how we expend energy getting things done. It doesn't necessarily have to be paid work, it can be voluntary work, hobbies, amateur sport, and so on. The only requirement for membership is that you want to command your own work and perform it to a high level. If that's you, then Peak is your place.This is a private space by invitation only where you can ask questions, get answers to burning questions, and share advice on achieving higher quality results in your work. If you want to be part of a close-knit and private community dedicated to a successful and fulfilling work experience, then I think you'll like it here.A Note on SuccessYou’ll often come across the word success in the content I and others write and share in the community. When we talk about success and peak performance, we're not necessarily talking about commercial, financial, or some other form of objective material fulfilment. These things might come about as a consequence of the work you do, but they cannot be the primary aim. At least not in terms of becoming The Performatist.What we are focused upon instead is the discovery and development of self through daily work. Work being the thing that has captured our interest, engaged our curiosity and provides fulfilment and purpose. It is an expression of who and what we are.Material success is fine, but that's not our goal. Our goal instead is to become the autonomous, self-directed, independent yet interdependent agent in command of its own work and life. It is, as Maslow said, the full and total expression of a self-actualised organism at one with its environment and in cooperation with others.The pursuit never ends. We are always developing and expanding, and that pursuit is challenging and difficult. Fortunately, you don't have to navigate the territory on your own. In this community, you'll find like-minded people to share your experience and find solutions to challenges. I'm glad you are here and look forward to talking with you regularly.Get your invitation to Peak This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Subscribe to The Sunday Letters JournalIn last weekend’s Sunday Letters essay, I discussed the stubborn idea that talent is born rather than made. In truth, it is more likely that apparently innate abilities and genetic endowments combined with environmental stimulation produce what we see as displays of exceptional talent and genius. In this week’s episode of Sunday Letters Podcast, I’m sharing the story of world champion high jumper Donald Thomas, as the late Anders Ericsson detailed in his book Peak.Malcolm Gladwell's 2008 book Outliers suggests that anybody can become an expert with enough practice. Gladwell, a journalist, says that “ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness”. Sounds like the magic of getting people's attention rather than a maxim of human performance. In any event, Gladwell latched onto Ericsson's work and was selective about how he presented this apparent rule for success. In his book Peak, Ericsson was later critical of Gladwell, stating that "unfortunately, this rule, which is the only thing that many people today know about the effects of practice, is wrong in several ways." He went on to outline these errors. Case Western Reserve University psychologist Brooke MacNamara agrees, saying, “The [10,000-hour rule] idea has become entrenched in our culture, but it’s an oversimplification. When it comes to human skill, a complex combination of environmental factors, genetic factors, and their interactions explains the performance differences in people.”After extensive research, Ericsson's 1993 study of violinists and pianists titled "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance" found that those with the most experience (practice) were better than those who had less experience. The average top-ranked violinist had clocked an average of 10,000 hours of practice by age 20. This finding refutes claims of natural talent and suggests that other factors like hard work are more important for success. In their repeat of Ericsson's study, MacNamara and Maitra found that the factors influencing success depend on the skill being learned: in chess, it could be working memory; in sport, it may be how efficiently a person uses oxygen. MacNamara says, “Once you get to the highly skilled groups, practice stops accounting for the difference. Everyone has practised a lot, and other factors are at play in determining who goes on to that super-elite level.”MacNamara and her colleague Megha Maitra set out to repeat part of Ericsson's 1993 study to see whether they reached the same conclusions. The research team interviewed three groups of 13 violinists who were rated best, good, or less accomplished. Recording their testimony regarding their practice habits, the musicians were then asked to complete daily diaries of their activities for one week. The results showed that by the age of 20, while the less skilful violinists had an average of about 6,000 hours of practice, there was little to separate the good from the best musicians, each averaging around 11,000 hours. All told, the number of hours spent practising accounted for about twenty-five per cent of the skills difference across the three groups.Subscribe to The Sunday Letters JournalBecome a supporter of The Sunday Letters Journal This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Subscribe to Sunday Letters for freeBecome a paying supporter with this discount.In this week’s (lengthy) episode, I’m in conversation with Dr Jonathan Murphy, Senior Executive and Programme Manager in Leadership at Enterprise Ireland. His work is in programme design and delivery for management and leadership capability development. His expertise is in the areas of cognition, decision-making, human performance, creativity, innovation, critical thinking and communication with the aim of growing psychological literacy in decision-makers and bridging the gap between research and practice. We discuss the concept of free speech in the digital world and its importance for a healthy, functioning society. We also discuss work, social responsibility, meaning and purpose in work, motivation to work, inclusion and diversity, remote working, work and personal identity, past and future of work, AI and the loss of manual jobs.Get in touch with Dr Jonathan MurphyTimestamp02:50 Free Speech23:00 Education & Critical Thinking28:00 Psychology as a Discipline32:00 Trusting Expertise38:00 A Place for Violence40:52 What’s your work?45:20 How does work make you feel?48:40 What did you want to be when you were a kid?52:33 Meaning & purpose in work53:20 Social & environmental responsibility57:15 Micheal Porter on CSR01:03:18 Remote working, well-being at work01:05:00 Work and Personal Identity01:13:20 What would you do if all your financial needs were met?01:14:30 Past and future of work, universal basic income01:28:40 AI, the Turing Test, Redefining WorkThe Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. https://sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe?coupon=849ce4d3 This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe