It is indeed an incredible lineup. I don't know how you managed video privileges, but kudos for that. Now if only these will be saved somewhere, in case my record doesn't work.

I look forward to your reporting as you are able.

From the Institute website:

"The Institute’s objective is to expand the conversation to create an
open discussion...that spans a much wider spectrum of thinking
and incorporates the insights of other intellectual disciplines in
both the natural and social sciences."

I hope they succeed in this objective.

PWhy Can’t Monetarists and Keynesians
...learn from each other, as Krugman points out? They can only
learn from authorities. And monetarists and Keynesians have
different authorities. But then of course they both have the same
problem: if their authorities can only learn from authorities,
there is no way to acquire gaining new insights.
This explains another factor of economics. Almost every
week we read exciting reports about new discoveries in the
physical sciences. But there are no exciting new discoveries in
economic. Is that because economics isn’t important?
Economics is the cause of many of the world’s most
dangerous, most intractable political problems: the Balkans
Palestine, Venezuela, Haiti, the Congo. Are these problems less
important than the problems the physical sciences are solving?
If they aren’t less important, why aren’t we reading about
their solutions? Because the economists have an obstacle the
physical scientists don’t have: economics is not congenial to
problem solvers.

Understanding Problem Solvers
Human beings view the world through simplified models.
The models help us make connections that would be harder to
see without the modes. Our un solved problems are waiting for
better models. But it is a sad fact about human nature that our
models make it harder for us to see the others readily which this
problems unsolved problems are a reminder that we need better
models.
Not surprisingly, the people who solve our unsolved
problems tend to be people who take our existing models less
seriously—people who are skeptical about the existing models
who are curious about the complex reality behind their models—
people who are willing to risk rejecting models that are actually
true.

Problem with Academics
What is the problem with academic economists? Many of
them are bright, hardworking people. The problem is that they
are academics.
We all have the same problem with new ideas. Unlike old
ideas, which have stood the test of time, new ideas are untested.
We can’t afford to take them all seriously. On the other hand,
without new ideas, the world can’t progress.
In short, there are two ways for us to go wrong with new
ideas:
1) accept ideas that are actually false
2) reject ideas that are actually true.
In the course of his long education, the academic is presented
with time-tested old ideas. If he rejects ideas that his trader
accepts, they will think he is a dunce. So, in order to advance his
education, the academic leaves to avert the second type of error.
Academics play a very important role in society; without them,
we would have to rediscover Euclid, Newton, with each
succeeding generation.
The problem with the five types of error is that we can avoid
one entirely if we don’t mind incurring the other. If one type of
error is important to our career and the other isn’t, and our
choice tends to become, not merely habitual, but unconscious
and unexamined.
Physical scientists aren’t immune to the problem. Inevitably,
the lack of skepticism about their old ideas, their leap of
curiosity about the new, brought progress to a halt. But after
England created the Royal Society to encourage dialog between
the academics and the people who had the responsibility for
solving real world problems, the physical sciences started
moving again. One of the most important consequences was the
Industrial Revolution, which needed a set of new ideas.
The physical sciences have never forgotten the lesson of the
Royal Society. But the social sciences are too young to remember
it. This is why the two schools of economics can’t learn from
each other.

(role of politics)