I finished listening to Yuneman’s stream, which was announced recently. Impressions of the speakers:

• Vatoadmin. The most energetic of the four; as a humanities person, his stories are, of course, closer and more understandable to me. He believes the world will emerge from the crisis renewed, having discarded some of today’s inefficient practices.
• Bazhenov. The most high-brow economist among the four interlocutors, and is perceived as a bit of a snob because of it. He believes that nothing will change much; we will recover and carry on as before.
• Zubov. Had the most terrible connection, due to which I couldn’t make out everything he was saying. Being more of a financier than an economist, he is skeptical about the post-crisis future, because massive government interventions will, naturally, significantly worsen the structure of the global economy.
• Yuneman. The least of an economist among those gathered, but he conducted the conversation quite sensibly and structurally. He believes that the pandemic should have a long-term impact on our social practices, and this will likely be its main consequence.

A considerable and least interesting part of the discussion was devoted to the analysis of current support measures for citizens being implemented in various countries. It was full of banalites already worn out a thousand times elsewhere. Well, except that they didn’t stoop to reciting the plight of the Pechenegs.

To hell with the Pechenegs, but the word “bitcoin” was also not mentioned once, which, in my view, indicates too narrow a perspective on the situation. Bitcoin emerged as a reaction to the pumping of the economy with fiat in 2008, and in the years since, it has developed and strengthened significantly. Now, that pumping looks like playing in a sandbox, and I would be truly interested to hear an economic analysis of how the coexistence of a printing press going “brrrr” and ready-to-use deflationary money will affect the global economy. If economists believe that this influence will be negligible, again, I would like to understand why.

The prospects of some regimes simply not surviving the crisis were mentioned at the very end and only briefly, but they can be understood here: let political scientists discuss such topics.

I don’t watch streams very often, but I don’t feel that this specific one was a waste of time; the material was dense and the delivery was of decent quality.