Cato Event Podcast

Are we running out of resources? That’s been a hotly debated question since the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb in 1968. The Stanford University biologist warned that population growth would result in the exhaustion of resources and a global catastrophe. University of Maryland economist and Cato Institute’s Senior Fellow Julian Simon, in contrast, argued that humans would innovate their way out of resource shortages. He believed that people were the “ultimate resource” that would make other resources more plentiful. On Earth Day 2019, David M. Simon will recall the humanism and optimism of his late father. Gale Pooley and Marian L. Tupy will present the updated findings from their recent paper “The Simon Abundance Index: A New Way to Measure Availability of Resources” and launch The Simon Project, a new www.humanprogress.org initiative. Finally, George Gilder will discuss the link between human ingenuity, innovation, and prosperity. See acast.com/privacy for privacy

Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed new regimes for small-business beneficial ownership reporting. The aim of such legislation is to eliminate opportunities for money laundering and financial crime. However, the proposals before Congress would place heavy new compliance costs on millions of America’s small businesses while continuing to provide opportunities for bad actors to engage in illicit financial activities. Beneficial ownership reporting would add to an already onerous anti-money-laundering/know-your-customer (AML/ KYC) regulatory burden, cited by community banks as the single most costly financial regulation. Furthermore, international experience with beneficial ownership reporting requirements suggests that it will be difficult to make such requirements work in the United States. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996).Those 26 words (and not a member of Congress) invented the internet as we know it. These words protect internet platforms from lawsuits based on user-generated content, allowing them to open their doors to a dizzying variety of sentiment and speech. Absent that sentence, social media platforms would have strong incentives to suppress any speech that might cause them legal woes. Or, in contrast, they might avoid legal liability by not moderating their forums at all, likely rendering them unusable. Jeff Kosseff tells the story of the institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute. He introduces us to those who created CDA 230, those who advocated for it, and those who were involved in some of the most prominent cases decided under the law. As section 230 and the platform

Until recently, private social media companies have been free to moderate content on their own platforms. But accusations of political bias have caused some to call for government regulation of the efforts social media companies make to moderate content. Some have even suggested that social media entities ought to be nationalized to ensure they operate in the public interest. Is there a role here for government to play, or would government intervention create unintended consequences while simultaneously stifling free speech? These are just some of the questions addressed in John Samples’s recently published policy analysis, “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation by Social Media.”Join us on Monday, April 15, to hear from author John Samples and the director of Cato’s project on emerging technologies, Matthew Feeney. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Over the past two decades, Zimbabwe has been in a state of almost constant crisis. The once-prosperous nation now ranks among the poorest and most repressive countries in the world. Is there a way out of this predicament? Barry D. Wood, who recently traveled to Zimbabwe, will describe the current economic and political situation in the country. Steve H. Hanke will discuss steps that Zimbabwe’s government needs to take to achieve macroeconomic stabilization. W. Gyude Moore will explain the failure of African governments to bring Zimbabwe’s authoritarian government to heel and suggest steps that a more enlightened African leadership could take to break the cycle of violence and economic decline in Zimbabwe. Please join us for a discussion of this once promising and now deeply troubled country. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A quarter century ago, the Cato Institute released a revolutionary book, Patient Power: Solving America's Health Care Crisis, by John C. Goodman and Gerald L. Musgrave. Patient Power introduced the United States to a bold and radical way of thinking about health care.When third parties pay medical bills, Goodman and Musgrave wrote, providers come to view third-party payers as their customers, not the patients. As a result, instead of maximizing patient satisfaction, providers deliver care to maximize their revenue given third-party payment formulas. Instead of falling, costs rise. Third-party payment is the reason patients can't talk to their doctors by phone, email, or Skype. It is why patients don't have Uber-type doctor house calls at night and on weekends. Patient Power showed that if people controlled and managed their own health care dollars, the medical marketplace would change radically—almost overnight.Indeed, Patient Power changed the world. Thanks largely to Goodman and Musgrave's work, more

Please join us on Monday, April 8, for a special discussion of Michael Tanner's newly published book, The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America's Poor. In it, Tanner sets aside the traditional conservative and liberal responses to poverty and explores a fresh approach to this persistent problem. The result is a compelling blend of social justice and limited government. Following Tanner's presentation, Cato research fellow and director of polling Emily Ekins will discuss her ongoing research on Americans' attitudes toward welfare policy, poverty, and work.Attendees will have access to copies of The Inclusive Economy and an opportunity to discuss the issue of poverty and poverty programs with our distinguished panelists during and immediately after the event. To attend, please register by noon on Friday, April 5. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Of the myriad policy priorities established by the current administration and congressional leadership, the tackling of skyrocketing prescription drug prices may have the best chance of moving through the legislative process over the next two years. Bipartisan proposals to address rising prescription drug prices have been introduced in both the House and the Senate; President Trump identified the issue in his State of the Union address as his next major priority; and Speaker Pelosi’s first speech to the 116th Congress listed it as a top issue for the new Democratic majority.Rising prescription drug prices have major budgetary implications for Medicare in particular. Can the program single-handedly place downward pressure on prices without having a negative effect on the rest of the health care system? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What most frightens the average American? Terrorism. North Korea. Iran. But what if none of those are probable or consequential threats to America? What if the world today is safer, freer, wealthier, healthier, and better educated than ever before? What if the real dangers to Americans are noncommunicable diseases, gun violence, drug overdoses—even hospital infections?In this compelling look at what they call the "Threat Industrial Complex," Michael A. Cohen and Micah Zenko explain why politicians, policy analysts, academics, and journalists are misleading Americans about foreign threats and ignoring more serious national security challenges at home. Cohen and Zenko argue that we should ignore Washington's threat mongering and focus instead on furthering extraordinary global advances in human development and economic and political cooperation.Join us as Zenko and Cohen discuss their book, with additional comments by Sharon Burke of New America. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In recent years, libertarians and progressives have found common cause in their concern that the growth of executive power is far in excess of constitutional limits. Our Constitution gives the president few explicit emergency powers, but presidents have invoked national emergencies as justification for a wide variety of actions. After Watergate, Congress created a framework for regulating this authority, in the 1976 National Emergencies Act. With President Trump’s decision to circumvent Congress and declare a national emergency so that he can construct a wall on the southern border, the propriety of the National Emergencies Act and broader separation of powers issues can no longer be avoided. For example, building the wall would entail seizing private property through eminent domain and reallocating funds that Congress has authorized for other purposes. Has the National Emergencies Act become part of the problem, rather than a solution? Should it be reformed? And how, more broadly, can we still allow presiden

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options.Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options.Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options.Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options.Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options.Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a

Justice John Paul Stevens’s majority opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) has become among the most hotly debated topics in legal circles. The “Chevron Doctrine,” which says that courts should defer to the interpretations of executive agencies on ambiguous statutes, divides scholars across ideological lines. Chevron’s growth from a “puny little precedent” into a landmark decision makes for an intriguing discussion about administrative agencies, judicial deference, and unintended consequences. What actually happened in Chevron v. NRDC? How much should courts defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of statutes? Is Chevron the ultimate legal example of “be careful what you wish for”? Administrative law experts discuss these topics and more in Chevron: Accidental Landmark, a documentary short from FedSoc Films. Join us for a screening of the film and a panel discussion about the past, present, and future of the Chevron Doctrine.

The first few generations of American leaders made a sharp distinction between advancing the legitimate interests of the republic and taking on foreign causes that purported to overthrow tyrannical rule and establish democratic systems based on respect for fundamental rights. Within the last half-century, however, a number of foreign insurgent groups have been able to manipulate U.S. policymakers and opinion leaders into supporting their causes. Sometimes those efforts have even entangled the U.S. military in bloody, unnecessary, and morally dubious wars, as in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.In Gullible Superpower, Cato Senior Fellow Ted Galen Carpenter examines the most prominent cases in which well-meaning Americans have ended up supporting misguided policies. He underscores the need for future U.S. leaders to adopt a policy of skepticism and restraint toward foreign movements that purport to embrace democracy.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

“Mass incarceration” has been a ubiquitous term in criminal justice circles because of the extraordinary number of people behind bars in the United States. Many partial solutions have been implemented on the state and federal levels, mostly concerned with sentence length and re-entry services for nonviolent offenders. Those changes have been improvements, for the most part, and have been life changing for thousands of inmates, returning citizens, and their families.However, the fundamentals of our criminal justice system remain unchanged, and our policies continue to put too many people in cages for too long. The politics surrounding crime policy are often driven by fear and vengeance, not experience and data, and thus many jurisdictions are one tragedy — or a crime-rate increase — away from another wave of bad criminal laws. Our collective desire to punish wrongdoing through our criminal justice system too often outweighs the data that suggest better ways to improve public safety and reduce crimi

Increasing political polarization and rising conflict over identity, race relations, immigration, and LGBT rights have left the American political landscape with two increasingly divided extremes and a seemingly elusive moderate middle. Many Americans have come to view religious institutions as a major contributor to this ever-increasing divide — a catalyst for increased intergroup societal conflict rather than a possible cure.However, new research by Cato Institute Director of Polling Emily Ekins finds that religious participation may moderate conservatives’ attitudes on other important culture war issues, particularly matters of race, immigration, and identity.In Religious Trump Voters: How Faith Moderates Attitudes about Immigration, Race, and Identity, Ekins finds that Trump voters who attend church regularly are more likely than nonreligious Trump voters to have warmer feelings toward racial and religious minorities, to be more supportive of immigration and trade, and to be more

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.