Cato Event Podcast

It has been a dizzying year in the world of surveillance: In June, nearly two years after Edward Snowden shocked the world with unprecedented leaks revealing the scope of National Security Agency spying, Congress moved to limit the bulk collection of domestic communications data via the USA FREEDOM Act — first introduced at a Cato conference in 2013 — but how much privacy protection will the law’s reforms truly provide?Meanwhile, courts and policymakers struggle to keep up with a rapidly evolving array of high-tech threats to privacy, each posing difficult policy questions. Should encryption technologies be engineered to include back doors for government, as some law enforcement officials have proposed? How should companies respond to ever-growing demands for user data on a borderless Internet — and what consequences will the answer hold for America’s technology sector and global freedom? What tools can individuals rely on to protect themselves from intrusive states and malicious hackers? Does cybersecurity r

It has been a dizzying year in the world of surveillance: In June, nearly two years after Edward Snowden shocked the world with unprecedented leaks revealing the scope of National Security Agency spying, Congress moved to limit the bulk collection of domestic communications data via the USA FREEDOM Act — first introduced at a Cato conference in 2013 — but how much privacy protection will the law’s reforms truly provide?Meanwhile, courts and policymakers struggle to keep up with a rapidly evolving array of high-tech threats to privacy, each posing difficult policy questions. Should encryption technologies be engineered to include back doors for government, as some law enforcement officials have proposed? How should companies respond to ever-growing demands for user data on a borderless Internet — and what consequences will the answer hold for America’s technology sector and global freedom? What tools can individuals rely on to protect themselves from intrusive states and malicious hackers? Does cybersecurity r

It has been a dizzying year in the world of surveillance: In June, nearly two years after Edward Snowden shocked the world with unprecedented leaks revealing the scope of National Security Agency spying, Congress moved to limit the bulk collection of domestic communications data via the USA FREEDOM Act — first introduced at a Cato conference in 2013 — but how much privacy protection will the law’s reforms truly provide?Meanwhile, courts and policymakers struggle to keep up with a rapidly evolving array of high-tech threats to privacy, each posing difficult policy questions. Should encryption technologies be engineered to include back doors for government, as some law enforcement officials have proposed? How should companies respond to ever-growing demands for user data on a borderless Internet — and what consequences will the answer hold for America’s technology sector and global freedom? What tools can individuals rely on to protect themselves from intrusive states and malicious hackers? Does cybersecurity r

Liberal democracies such as the United States face an acute dilemma in the conduct of foreign relations. American national interests sometimes require cooperation with repressive, corrupt, or otherwise odious regimes. But close working relationships with autocratic regimes should not be undertaken lightly. Such partnerships risk compromising, or even making a mockery of, America’s values of democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In their new book, Perilous Partners: The Benefits and Pitfalls of America’s Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes, Cato Institute senior fellow Ted Galen Carpenter and Cato adjunct scholar Malou Innocent contend that U.S. officials have amassed a less-than-stellar record of grappling with ethical dilemmas. When are alliances with “friendly dictators” necessary for America’s security? When are such alliances a gratuitous betrayal of fundamental American values? And when is the situation a close call? Please join the authors and two distinguished commentators for

Zoning has shaped American cities since 1916, when New York City adopted the first comprehensive ordinance. It has remained a popular and widely used institution, particularly for homeowners wishing to protect the value of their homes. As values have soared in recent years, however, this protection has accelerated to the degree that new housing development has become unreasonably difficult and costly. The widespread Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome is driven by voters’ excessive concern about their home values and creates barriers to growth that reach beyond individual communities. Those barriers contribute to suburban sprawl, entrench income and racial segregation, retard regional immigration to the most productive cities, add to national wealth inequality, and slow the growth of the American economy. Zoning Rules, an update of Fischel’s 1985 classic book The Economics of Zoning, examines this history while offering solutions to the unintended consequences of zoning. See acast.com/privacy for pr

A heightened sense of anxiety on Europe's eastern border has renewed geopolitical concerns on the Continent. This panel will focus on the security rationale for TTIP, discuss the interplay between economic security and national defense, and describe the relative importance of geopolitical considerations to the launch and success of the TTIP. Panelists will discuss the implications of the TTIP for energy security, privacy protection, cybersecurity, NATO, and other policies at the intersection of economics and security.Moderated by: Bill Watson, Cato InstituteFran Burwell, Atlantic CouncilPhil Levy, The Chicago Council on Global AffairsPeter Rashish, Transnational Strategy Group See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Common to most trade negotiations are estimates of the likely economic benefits of a completed deal. Often, these estimates vary, as they are based on different assumptions in the models. Sometimes it is difficult to understand how estimates for an agreement with yet-to-be-determined provisions can have any credibility. Panelists will discuss the basics of the economic modeling that is common to estimating the benefits of trade agreements, describe how those estimates affect the negotiations, and explain divergences in the estimates of some of the most commonly referenced models.Moderated by: Hanna Norberg, TradeEconomista.comLaura Baughman, Trade PartnershipGabriel Felbermayr, Ifo InstituteGabriel Siles-Brugge, University of Manchester See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Touted as the portion of the negotiations that could produce the largest economic gains, the regulatory coherence negotiations are complicated by several factors, including the level of technical detail involved, the reliance of negotiators on domestic regulators (who may have a professional interest in scuttling a deal) for expertise, and the wide disparity in approaches contemplated by U.S. and EU negotiators. Panelists will break down the negotiations and provide greater clarity with respect to the possibilities and probabilities.Moderated by: Simon Lester, Cato InstituteAlberto Alemanno, HEC Paris & NYU LawPer Altenberg, Swedish Board of TradeGreg Shaffer, University of California, Irvine School of Law See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Whether a TTIP deal is achieved depends on the tenor and substance of the U.S.-EU negotiations. But those negotiations are shaped, to a great extent, by the parameters established through domestic political processes. This session will feature an interview between a host and three discussants who will focus on some of the domestic political landmines within the United States and the European Union, as well as strategies to mitigate risks and bridge political divides.Moderated by: Dan Pearson, Cato InstituteJim Kolbe, German Marshall FundEdward Alden, Council on Foreign RelationsDamien Levie, Delegation of the European Union to the United States See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Moderated by: Dan Ikenson, Cato Institute Susan Danger, American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union (AmCham EU)Nancy McLernon, Organization for International Investment See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The TTIP and other mega-regional trade negotiations have been garnering attention for both their potential to liberalize trade and their potentially adverse impacts on the existing multilateral trading system. This panel will discuss the implications of the TTIP for the World Trade Organization and its member states. It will include discussion of the prospects for multilateralization of TTIP's provisions; accession by other WTO members, the potential impact on the WTO dispute settlement body, prospects for developing countries, and the implications for U.S. and EU relations with the big economies left out of these deals — such as China and Brazil — if the TTIP succeeds in writing a new gold-standard of trade rules.Moderated by: Joakim Reiter, UN Conference on Trade and DevelopmentVinod Aggarwal, University of California, BerkeleyJoost Pauwelyn, Georgetown University Law CenterHarsha Singh, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out info

It is clear that the first tank of gas on the road to TTIP has run out. So where do we go from here? This panel will discuss the state of the negotiations, describe what lies ahead, and ask whether the United States and the EU have bitten off more than they can chew. If the negotiations were less ambitious in scope, would a final agreement be more achievable? Are there alternative architectures worth considering? Should we abandon the "single undertaking" approach and instead aim for a series of annual or biannual agreements? Should we consider including other countries that are closely integrated with the United States and the EU — such as Canada, Mexico, and Turkey — in the negotiations? If an agreement as currently proposed is achievable, what will it take to make it happen? And after such an agreement is reached, how daunting will the ratification processes be? What will it take to get to the final stage implementation?Moderated by: Inu Barbee, Georgetown UniversityMichelle Egan, American Univ

What is at stake in these negotiations? Why are some issues more difficult to resolve than others, and how can compromise be reached? This panel will identify the low-hanging fruit, the sacred cows, and everything in between to provide a better understanding of the issues under negotiation, from the easiest to most difficult and consequential. Given the comprehensive nature of the agreement, there is room for debate on a number of topics, such as regulatory coherence, investor-state dispute settlement, privacy and data flows, financial services, government procurement, agriculture, services, labor and the environment, and, of course, tariffs. So what exactly is on the table, and what positions, if any, have both sides taken?Moderated by: Dan Ikenson, Cato InstituteSusan Aaronson, George Washington UniversityAxel Berger, German Development InstituteMarjorie Chorlins, U.S. Chamber of CommerceCeleste Drake, AFL-CIOIana Dreyer, BorderlexFredrik Erixon, ECIPE See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out informati

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations were launched to great fanfare in mid-2013 with the pronouncement that a comprehensive deal would be reached by the end of 2014 on a "single tank of gas." But after more than two years and 10 rounds of negotiations, an agreement is nowhere in sight and substantive differences remain between the parties. Despite a retreat from the original level of ambition, skepticism is mounting on both sides of the Atlantic that a deal will be reached anytime soon. What are the prospects for fulfilling the promise of a comprehensive trade and investment deal between the United States and the European Union? What exactly is under negotiation, and what is the strategy for advancing those negotiations? Would it make sense to exclude sacred-cow issues that will only bog down the negotiations? Is it wise to continue pursuing a single comprehensive deal for all issues on the table, or is it better to aim for a sequence of smaller agreements? Should a deal incl

Despite today’s polarized political atmosphere, it is possible to construct an ambitious and highly promising agenda of pro-growth policy reform that would command support across the ideological spectrum. Such an agenda would focus on policies whose primary effect is to inflate the incomes and wealth of the rich, the powerful, and the well-established by shielding them from market competition.Excessive monopoly privileges granted under copyright and patent law, restrictions on high-skilled immigration, protection of incumbent service providers under occupational licensing, and artificial scarcity created by land-use regulation are four such examples.Rolling back these types of regulations is the low hanging fruit of pro-growth reform. Unfortunately that fruit is guarded by “dragons”—the powerful interest groups that benefit from the status quo and can be expected to defend it tenaciously.Join us to discuss why this fight needs to be waged and won in order to reverse the deterioration i

On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965 into law. Widely viewed as a component of the Civil Rights Movement, the 1965 Act liberalized immigration and replaced the last eugenics-inspired portions of the Immigration Act of 1924. For the first time in generations, immigrants from Western Europe were not given legal preference over those from Asia and the rest of the developing world. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965 into law. Widely viewed as a component of the Civil Rights Movement, the 1965 Act liberalized immigration and replaced the last eugenics-inspired portions of the Immigration Act of 1924. For the first time in generations, immigrants from Western Europe were not given legal preference over those from Asia and the rest of the developing world. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965 into law. Widely viewed as a component of the Civil Rights Movement, the 1965 Act liberalized immigration and replaced the last eugenics-inspired portions of the Immigration Act of 1924. For the first time in generations, immigrants from Western Europe were not given legal preference over those from Asia and the rest of the developing world. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965 into law. Widely viewed as a component of the Civil Rights Movement, the 1965 Act liberalized immigration and replaced the last eugenics-inspired portions of the Immigration Act of 1924. For the first time in generations, immigrants from Western Europe were not given legal preference over those from Asia and the rest of the developing world. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965 into law. Widely viewed as a component of the Civil Rights Movement, the 1965 Act liberalized immigration and replaced the last eugenics-inspired portions of the Immigration Act of 1924. For the first time in generations, immigrants from Western Europe were not given legal preference over those from Asia and the rest of the developing world. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.