Podcasts about Adam Smith Institute

With the Chancellor's spending review looming, ministers are jostling for funds. But with public services under pressure and growth still sluggish, is the government backing the right bets? Plus: what's really behind Reform UK's rise in the polls? As support swells in areas hit hardest by poverty, our guests unpack the party's shifting economic message — and what it reveals about voter discontent in Labour heartlands. CapX's Marc Sidwell is joined by Maxwell Marlow of the Adam Smith Institute and Alys Denby from City AM for a brisk tour through the week's economic flashpoints — and what they mean for Britain's political future.Stay informed with CapX's unmissable daily briefings from the heart of Westminster. Go to capx.co to subscribe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What does chasing a wheel of cheese down a dangerously steep hill say about Britain — and the state? In this Despatch, James Price of the Adam Smith Institute finds wisdom in one of our most eccentric traditions: Gloucestershire's infamous cheese rolling. What begins as a bruising ritual becomes a spirited case for liberty, localism, and limited government. A celebration of chaos, cheese, and the virtues of keeping Westminster well out of it.Stay informed with CapX's unmissable daily briefings from the heart of Westminster. Go to capx.co to subscribe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Liberalism in Question, we're joined by Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute, to discuss the economic philosophy of liberalism. From Adam Smith's "invisible hand" to modern free-market principles, we explore how liberal economic thought has shaped prosperity, innovation, and policy. How do Smith's ideas on free markets, competition, and limited government remain relevant today? What lessons can we learn from classical liberal thinkers to tackle contemporary economic challenges? Join us for a fascinating conversation on the foundations of economic liberalism and its ongoing impact.

Professor Tim Evans of Middlesex University says that if the markets turn against the government then it is real trouble. If Reeves increases taxes in the Autumn, as many expect, then we will be in a doom loop. He admires an idea from Dr. Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute for using a blockchain approach to speed up the lamentable speed of the UK housing market. Why can the Americans move so easily? And he discusses the record fine imposed on the University of Sussex over the case involving Professor Kathleen Stock, a big victory for defenders of free speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"Is Britain's Anti-White State Illegitimate?" How Elon Musk sent the grooming gangs scandal global. On today's #NCFDeprogrammed, hosts Harrison Pitt & Connor Tomlinson discuss the grooming gang scandal with journalist Sam Bidwell of the Adam Smith Institute.

10 Key Principles to Stay Free: Eamonn Butler, co-founder and director of the Adam Smith Institute, discusses his book Classical Liberalism – A Primer. He explains what it truly means to be free and what's at stake if we lose our freedoms. 

10 Key Principles to Stay Free: Eamonn Butler, co-founder and director of the Adam Smith Institute, discusses his book Classical Liberalism – A Primer. He explains what it truly means to be free and what's at stake if we lose our freedoms. 

The UK is lagging behind its peers in the Eurozone. Its per capita GDP trails that of France and Germany, and yet its housing and energy is scarcer and more expensive. A recent essay by Sam Bowman, co-authored with Ben Southwood and Samuel Hughes, argues that Britain has struggled over the past 15 years because it has “banned the investment in housing, transport and energy that it most vitally needs.” Sam Bowman is a founding editor of Works in Progress, has served as director of competition policy at the International Center for Law & Economics and as executive director of the Adam Smith Institute. Today on the show, we ask him if Britain's failure to launch is really a failure to build. Soumaya Keynes writes a column each week for the Financial Times. You can find it hereSubscribe to Soumaya's show on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you listen.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the IEA Podcast, we dive into the Adam Smith Institute's new "millionaire tracker" report, which suggests Britain is losing millionaires at an alarming rate. Maxwell Marlow, director of Research and Education at ASI, discusses the potential economic impact and reasons behind this trend, including productivity stagnation, high tax burdens, and an anti-prosperity culture. The conversation explores the broader implications for job creation, investment, and tax revenue. The podcast then turns to the government's newly announced Employment Rights legislation. The panel, including Dr. Kristian Niemietz and host Tom Clougherty, examines the potential consequences of these reforms on productivity, hiring practices, and overall economic dynamism. They express concern that these measures, while politically popular, may inadvertently hinder job creation and economic growth. Lastly, the discussion commemorates the 50th anniversary of F.A.Hayek being awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. The panel reflects on Hayek's enduring influence on classical liberal thought, his key works such as "The Use of Knowledge in Society," and the importance of his ideas in shaping economic and political discourse. They emphasise the continued relevance of Hayek's insights in today's policy debates. We bring you a public affairs podcast with a difference. We want to get beyond the headlines and instead focus on the big ideas and foundational principles that matter to classical liberals. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Professor Werbach speaks with Adam Thierer, senior fellow for Technology and Innovation at R Street Institute. Adam and Kevin highligh developments in AI regulation on the state, federal, and international scale, and discuss both the benefits and dangers of regulatory engagement in the area. They consider the notion of AI as a “field-of-fields,” and the value of a sectoral approach to regulation, looking back to the development of regulatory approaches for the internet. Adam discusses what types of AI regulations can best balance accountability with innovation, protecting smaller AI developers and startups.  Adam Thierer specializes in entrepreneurialism, Internet, and free-speech issues, with a focus on emerging technologies. He is a senior fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at R Street Institute, a leading public policy think tank, and previously spent 12 years as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Adam has also worked for the Progress and Freedom Foundation, the Adam Smith Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Adam has published 10 books on a wide range of topics, including online child safety, internet governance, intellectual property, telecommunications policy, media regulation and federalism. Flexible, Pro-Innovation Governance Strategies for Artificial Intelligence Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom Want to learn more? ​​Engage live with Professor Werbach and other Wharton faculty experts in Wharton's new Strategies for Accountable AI online executive education program. It's perfect for managers, entrepreneurs, and advisors looking to harness AI's power while addressing its risks.

We are joined by Sam Bidwell, the Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute as we discuss the challenges of selling economic liberty and free markets to younger people.Get in touch:Twitter: @CroydonConst Email: contact@croydonconstitutionalists.ukFacebook: facebook/CroydonConstitutionalistshttp://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/

In this episode of the IEA Podcast, host Tom Clougherty and co-host Matthew Lesh are joined by Dr. Michael Turner, a pollster, strategist, and fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, to dissect the recent UK General Election results. The conversation delves into Labour's victory, exploring the nuances behind their substantial majority and the implications for their policy agenda. The panel examines the challenges facing Keir Starmer's leadership and the potential obstacles in implementing promised reforms. The discussion also turns to the Conservative Party's defeat, analysing the factors contributing to their loss and the party's future direction. The rise of Reform UK and its impact on the political landscape is explored, along with the changing dynamics of voter behaviour and party loyalty. This episode offers a comprehensive look at the election's outcomes, the shifting political geography in the UK, and the potential consequences for policy-making in the coming years. Our goal is to bring you a public affairs podcast with a difference. We want to get beyond the headlines and the shallow political commentary you'll get elsewhere and focus instead on the big ideas and foundational principles that classical liberals should care about. Get full access to Insider at insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Original Air Date: 10/23/2023 The people who want to pull the country in directions that are only supported by a small minority of the population have to develop very intricate plans to have any hope of succeeding. This is the story of the latest plan to establish unchecked rule to implement unpopular policies supported only by the far right. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: ‘The endgame of election denial is that we shouldn't have elections': Authoritarianism expert - The ReidOut - Air Date 10-6-23 Donald Trump has ramped up his violent rhetoric in recent weeks. Meanwhile, a Fox host has urged the U.S. towards civil war and claimed that voting does not work. Ch. 2: Violent Authoritarianism: How Did This Become the GOP? - Keeping Democracy Alive with Burt Cohen - Air Date 11-23-21 Pat Buchanan was ahead of his time. He used the KKK's David Duke to breed a new nativist religious nationalism, based on fear of liberalization. On this show, political science professor Joseph Lowndes sheds light on how the Republican Party got here Ch. 3: Analyzing The Dark Roots Of Modern Conservatism - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 10-15-23 Emma hosts John S. Huntington, professor of history at Houston Community College, to discuss his recent book Far-Right Vanguard: The Radical Roots of Modern Conservatism. Ch. 4: How Often Do YOU Think About the Roman Empire? - Wisecrack - Air Date 10-16-23 The real reason TikTok is crazy for ancient Rome If you're even a little bit online, you know that the men love ancient Rome. This isn't new: The civilization has loomed large in the Western imagination ever since its catastrophic collapse. Ch. 5: The Conservative Plan to Take Over the Country Part 1 - Leeja Miller - Air Date 9-26-23 Project 2025 is the terrifying plan set out by conservatives to take over the government. But it's radical, and it doesn't align with what most Americans want. Which is why we have to make sure this plan never happens. Ch. 6: The GOP's "Red Caesar" New Political Order Plan Marches Forward - The Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 10-3-23 A Trump supporter just displayed exactly how stochastic terrorism works. Ch. 7: The Conservative Plan to Take Over the Country Part 2 - Leeja Miller - Air Date 9-26-23 Ch. 8: Think Tanks: How Fake Experts Shape the News - Tom Nicholas - Air Date 5-13-23 A video about how billionaire-funded right-wing “think tanks” such as the Heritage Foundation, Adam Smith Institute, Manhattan Institute, and Institute of Economic Affairs manipulate the news to spread their propaganda

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has proposed implementing VAT on private school fees if elected. The Institute of Economic Affairs hosted a debate weighing the pros and cons, with Max Marlow of the Adam Smith Institute arguing for the VAT exemption as education provides public benefits, while IEA's Daniel Freeman advocated applying VAT universally for a simpler tax base. The two free market think tankers delved into defining public goods, market distortions from tax exemptions, and impacts on private school enrollment if fees increase. Examining the philosophical role of the state vis-a-vis education and optimal tax policy principles, the lively exchange highlighted the nuances around this controversial issue.

This episode explores the resurgence of industrial policy in the US and Australia. We critically analyze whether government interventions can truly shape industries or if they are doomed to repeat past mistakes, such as those experienced during the 1970s and with the Concorde project. The episode includes clips featuring Saxon Davidson from the Institute of Public Affairs and Eamonn Butler from the Adam Smith Institute. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please email us at contact@economicsexplored.com  or send a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. What's covered in EP243Introduction to Industrial policy and its potential consequences. (0:00)Budget, inflation, and economic policies in Australia. (8:34)Climate change policy and government incentives for renewable energy. (13:59)Australian economy, productivity, and government intervention. (19:44)UK's economic struggles in the 1970s, including strikes. (29:41)The failure of the Concorde supersonic jet project. (35:59)Failures of activist industrial policy - e.g. in Australia's car industry. (49:16)TakeawaysRevival of Industrial Policy: Governments in the US and Australia are reintroducing industrial policies to shape their economies, sparking debate among economists.Historical Lessons: The economic turmoil of the 1970s and failures such as the Concorde serve as cautionary tales against heavy government intervention in industry.Climate Policy Challenges: The push for renewable energy in Australia raises concerns about the rapid transition and its impact on the economy and energy grid reliability.Productivity Focus: Effective economic policies should enhance productivity through structural reforms rather than picking winners.Government's Role: While there is a place for government to address market failures, extensive intervention often leads to inefficiencies and unintended consequences.Links relevant to the conversationAustralian Taxpayers' Alliance Budget Chat:https://www.youtube.com/live/MYX35Lk_ZYA?si=0kJzBt47Yh_5sUnSGene's CIS issues analysis paper on the Australian budget, co-authored with Robert Carling:https://www.cis.org.au/publication/budget-fails-important-policy-tests/Episode with Eamonn Butler on Thatcher:https://economics-explained.simplecast.com/episodes/adam-smith-and-margaret-thatcher-with-dr-eamonn-butler-1oXNvQg_Episode on Concorde:https://economicsexplored.com/2022/03/20/concordes-economic-lessons-a-closer-look-ep131/Previous episodes on Australia's energy transition:https://economicsexplored.com/2023/08/24/australias-net-zero-transition-successes-challenges-w-andrew-murdoch-arche-energy-ep202/https://economicsexplored.com/2022/12/19/aussie-energy-crisis-net-zero-transition-w-josh-stabler-energy-edge-ep170/Australia's Hydrogen Production and Critical Minerals Tax Incentives:https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/new-legislation/in-detail/businesses/hydrogen-production-and-critical-minerals-tax-incentivesLumo Coffee promotion10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee until 30 June 2024.Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLOREDPromo code: 10EXPLORED Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show's sponsor, Gene's consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com.

While AI doomers proselytize their catastrophic message, many politicians are recognizing that the loss of America's competitive edge poses a much more real threat than the supposed “existential risk” of AI. Today on Faster, Please!—The Podcast, I talk with Adam Thierer about the current state of the AI policy landscape and the accompanying fierce regulatory debate.Thierer is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, where he promotes greater freedom for innovation and entrepreneurship. Prior to R Street, he worked as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and at the Adam Smith Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute.In This Episode* A changing approach (1:09)* The global AI race (7:26)* The political economy of AI (10:24)* Regulatory risk (16:10)* AI policy under Trump (22:29)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationA changing approach (1:09)Pethokoukis: Let's start out with just trying to figure out the state of play when it comes to AI regulation. Now I remember we had people calling for the AI Pause, and then we had a Biden executive order. They're passing some sort of act in Europe on AI, and now recently a senate working group in AI put out a list of guidelines or recommendations on AI. Given where we started, which was “shut it down,” to where we're at now, has that path been what you might've expected, given where we were when we were at full panic?Thierer: No, I think we've moved into a better place, I think. Let's look back just one year ago this week: In the Senate Judiciary Committee, there was a hearing where Sam Altman of OpenAI testified along with Gary Marcus, who's a well-known AI worrywart, and the lawmakers were falling all over themselves to praise Sam and Gary for basically calling for a variety of really extreme forms of AI regulation and controls, including not just national but international regulatory bodies, new general purpose licensing systems for AI, a variety of different types of liability schemes, transparency mandates, disclosure as so-called “AI nutritional labels,” I could go on down the list of all the types of regulations that were being proposed that day. And of course this followed, as you said, Jim, a call for an AI Pause, without any details about exactly how that would work, but it got a lot of signatories, including people like Elon Musk, which is very strange considering he was at the same time deploying one of the biggest AI systems in history. But enough about Elon.The bottom line is that those were dark days, and I think the tenor of the debate and the proposals on the table today, one year after that hearing, have improved significantly. That's the good news. The bad news is that there's still a lot of problematic regulatory proposals percolating throughout the United States. As of this morning, as we're taping the show, we are looking at 738 different AI bills pending in the United States according to multistate.ai, an AI tracking service. One hundred and—I think—eleven of those are federal bills. The vast majority of it is state. But that count does not include all of the municipal regulatory proposals that are pending for AI systems, including some that have already passed in cities like New York City that already has a very important AI regulation governing algorithmic hiring practices. So the bottom line, Jim, is it's the best of times, it's the worst of times. Things have both gotten better and worse.Well—just because the most recent thing that happened—I know with this the senate working group, and they were having all kinds of technologists and economists come in and testify. So that report, is it really calling for anything specific to happen? What's in there other than just kicking it back to all the committees? If you just read that report, what does it want to happen?A crucial thing about this report, and let's be clear what this is, because it was an important report because senator Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was in charge of this, along with a bipartisan group of other major senators, and this started the idea of, so-called “AI insight forums” last year, and it seemed to be pulling some authority away from committees and taking it to the highest levels of the Senate to say, “Hey, we're going to dictate AI policy and we're really scared.” And so that did not look good. I think in the process, just politically speaking—That, in itself, is a good example. That really represents the level of concern that was going around, that we need to do something different and special to address this existential risk.And this was the leader of the Senate doing it and taking away power, in theory, from his committee members—which did not go over well with said committee members, I should add. And so a whole bunch of hearings took place, but they were not really formal hearings, they were just these AI insight forum working groups where a lot of people sat around and said the same things they always say on a daily basis, and positive and negatives of AI. And the bottom line is, just last week, a report came out from this AI senate bipartisan AI working group that was important because, again, it did not adopt the recommendations that were on the table a year ago when the process got started last June. It did not have overarching general-purpose licensing of artificial intelligence, no new call for a brand new Federal Computer Commission for America, no sweeping calls for liability schemes like some senators want, or other sorts of mandates.Instead, it recommended a variety of more generic policy reforms and then kicked a lot of the authority back to those committee members to say, “You fill out the details, for better for worse.” And it also included a lot of spending. One thing that seemingly everybody agrees on in this debate is that, well, the government should spend a lot more money and so another $30 billion was on the table of sort of high-tech pork for AI-related stuff, but it really did signal a pretty important shift in approach, enough that it agitated the groups on the more pro-regulatory side of this debate who said, “Oh, this isn't enough! We were expecting Schumer to go for broke and swing for the fences with really aggressive regulation, and he's really let us down!” To which I can only say, “Well, thank God he did,” because we're in a better place right now because we're taking a more wait-and-see approach on at least some of these issues.A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopoliticsThe global AI race (7:26)I'm going to ask you in a minute what stuff in those recommendations worries you, but before I do, what happened? How did we get from where we were a year ago to where we've landed today?A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopolitics. We face major adversaries, but specifically China, who has said in documents that the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] has published that they want to be the global leader in algorithmic and computational technologies by 2030, and they're spending a lot of money putting a lot of state resources into it. Now, I don't necessarily believe that means they're going to automatically win, of course, but they're taking it seriously. But it's not just China. We have seen in the past year massive state investments and important innovations take place across the globe.I'm always reminding people that people talk a big game about America's foundational models are large scale systems, including things like Meta's Llama, which was the biggest open source system in the world a year ago, and then two months after Meta launched Llama, their open source platform, the government of the UAE came out with Falcon 180B, an open source AI model that was two-and-a-half times larger than Facebook's model. That meant America's AI supremacy and open source foundational models lasted for two months. And that's not China, that's the government of the UAE, which has piled massive resources into being a global leader in computation. Meanwhile, China's launched their biggest super—I'm sorry, Russia's launched their biggest supercomputer system ever; you've got Europe applying a lot of resources into it, and so on and so forth. A lot of folks in the Senate have come to realize that problem is real: that if we shoot ourselves in the foot as a nation, they could race ahead and gain competitive advantage in geopolitical strategic advantages over the United States if it hobbles our technology base. I think that's the first fundamental thing that's changed.I think the other thing that changed, Jim, is just a little bit of existential-risk exhaustion. The rhetoric in this debate, as you've written about eloquently in your columns, has just been crazy. I mean, I've never really seen anything like it in all the years we've been covering technology and economic policy. You and I have both written, this is really an unprecedented level of hysteria. And I think, at some point, the Chicken-Littleism just got to be too much, and I think some saner minds prevailed and said, “Okay, well wait a minute. We don't really need to pause the entire history of computation to address these hypothetical worst-case scenarios. Maybe there's a better plan than that.” And so we're starting to pull back from the abyss, if you will, a little bit, and the adults are reentering the conversation—a little bit, at least. So I think those are the two things that really changed more, although there were other things, but those were two big ones.The political economy of AI (10:24)To what extent do you think we saw the retreat from the more apocalyptic thinking—how much that was due from what businesses were saying, venture capitalists, maybe other tech . . . ? What do you think were the key voices Congress started listening to a little bit more?That's a great question. The political economy of AI policy and tech policy is something that is terrifically interesting to me. There are so many players and voices involved in AI policy because AI is the most important general-purpose technology of our time, and as a widespread broad base—Do you have any doubt about that? (Let me cut you off.) Do you have any doubt about that?I don't. I think it's unambiguous, and we live in a world of “combinatorial innovation,” as Hal Varian calls it, where technologies build on top of the other, one after another, but the thing is they all lead to greater computational capacity, and therefore, algorithmic and machine learning systems come out of those—if we allow it. And the state of data science in this country has gotten to the point where it's so sophisticated because of our rich base of diverse types of digital technologies and computational technologies that finally we're going to break out of the endless cycle of AI booms and busts, and springs and winters, and we're going to have a summer. I think we're having it right now. And so that is going to come to affect every single segment and sector of our economy, including the government itself. I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the busNow let me let you go return to the political economy, what I was asking you about, what were the voices, sorry, but I wanted to get that in there.Well, I think there are so many voices, I can't name them all today, obviously, but obviously we're going to start with one that's a quiet voice behind the scenes, but a huge one, which is, I think, the National Security community. I think clearly going back to our point about China and geopolitical security, I think a lot of people behind the scenes who care about these issues, including people in the Pentagon, I think they had conversations with certain members of Congress and said, “You know what? China exists. And if we're shooting ourselves in the foot, we begin this race for geopolitical strategic supremacy in an important new general-purpose technology arena, we're really hurting our underlying security as a nation. I think that that thinking is there. So that's an important voice.Secondly, I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the bus, unfortunately, and that includes OpenAI trying to screw over other companies and technologies, which is dangerous, but the bottom line is: More and more of them are coming to realize, as they saw the actual details of regulation and thinking through the compliance costs, that “Hell no, we won't go, we're not going to do that. We need a better approach.” And it was always easier in the old days to respond to the existential risk route, like, “Oh yeah, sure, regulation is fine, we'll go along with it!” But then when you see the devilish details, you think twice and you realize, “This will completely undermine our competitive advantage in the space as a company or our investment or whatever else.” All you need to do is look at Exhibit A, which is Europe, and say, if you always run with worst-case scenario thinking and Chicken-Littleism is the basis of your technology policy, guess what? People respond to incentives and they flee.Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. It's interesting, the national security aspect, my little amateurish thought experiment would be, what would be our reaction, and what would be the reaction in Washington if, in November, 2022, instead of it being a company, an American company with a big investment from another American company having rolled out ChatGPT, what if it would've been Tencent, or Alibaba, or some other Chinese company that had rolled this out, something that's obviously a leap forward, and they had been ahead, even if they said, “Oh, we're two or three years ahead of America,” it would've been bigger than Sputnik, I think.People are probably tired of hearing about AI—hopefully not, I hope they'll also listen to this podcast—but that would all we would be talking about. We wouldn't be talking about job loss, and we wouldn't be talking about ‘The Terminator,' we'd be talking about the pure geopolitical terms that the US has suffered a massive, massive defeat here and who's to blame? What are we going to do? And anybody at that moment who would've said, “We need to launch cruise missile strikes on our own data centers” for fear. . . I mean! And I think you're right, the national security component, extremely important here.In fact, I stole your little line about “Sputnik moment,” Jim, when I testified in front of the House Oversight Committee last month and I said, “Look, it would've been a true ‘Sputnik moment,' and instead it's those other countries that are left having the Sputnik moment, right? They're wondering, ‘How is it that, once again, the United States has gotten out ahead on digital and computational-based technologies?'” But thank God we did! And as I pointed out in the committee room that day, there's a lot of people who have problems with technology companies in Congress today. Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. That's just a unifying theme. Everybody in the committee room that day nodded their head, “Yes, yes, absolutely. We still hate them, but we're thankful that they're here.” And that then extends to AI: Can the next generation of companies that they want to bring to Congress and bash and pull money from for their elections, can they once again exist in the United States?Regulatory risk (16:10)So whether it's that working group report, or what else you see in Congress, what are a couple, three areas where you're concerned, where there still seems to be some sort of regulatory momentum?Let's divide it into a couple of chunks here. First of all, at the federal level, Congress is so damn dysfunctional that I'm not too worried that even if they have bad ideas, they're going to pursue them because they're just such a mess, they can't get any basic things done on things like baseline privacy legislation, or driverless car legislation, or even, hell, the budget and the border! They can't get basics done!I think it's a big positive that one, while they're engaging in dysfunction, the technology is evolving. And I hope, if it's as important as I think you and I think, more money will be invested, we'll see more use cases, it'll be obvious—the downsides of screwing up the regulation I think will be more obvious, and I think that's a tailwind for this technology.We're in violent agreement on that, Jim, and of course this goes by the name of “the pacing problem,” the idea that technology is outpacing law in many ways, and one man's pacing problem is another man's pacing benefit, in my opinion. There's a chance for technology to prove itself a little bit. That being said, we don't live in a legislative or regulatory vacuum. We already have in the United States 439 government agencies and sub-agencies, 2.2 million employees just at the federal level. So many agencies are active right now trying to get their paws on artificial intelligence, and some of them already have it. You look at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], I could go all through the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that are already trying to regulate or overregulating AI right now.Then you have the Biden administration, who's gone out and done a lot of cheerleading in favor of more aggressive unilateral regulation, regardless of what Congress says and basically says, “To hell with all that stuff about Chevron Doctrine and major questions, we're just going to go do it! We're at least going to jawbone a lot and try to threaten regulation, and we're going to do it in the name of ‘algorithmic fairness,'” which is what their 100-plus-page executive order and their AI Bill of Rights says they're all about, as opposed to talking about AI opportunity and benefits—it's all misery. And it's like, “Look at how AI is just a massive tool of discrimination and bias, and we have to do something about it preemptively through a precautionary principle approach.” So if Congress isn't going to act, unfortunately the Biden administration already is and nobody's stopping them.But that's not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, going back to the point that there are 730-plus bills pending in the US right now, the vast majority of them are state and local. And just last Friday, governor Jared Polis of Colorado signed into law the first major AI regulatory measure in Colorado, and there's a bigger and badder bill pending right now in California, there's 80 different bills pending in New York alone, and any half of them would be a disaster.I could go on down the list of troubling state patchwork problems that are going to develop for AI and ML [Machine Learning] systems, but the bottom line is this: This would be a complete and utter reversal of the winning formula that Congress and the Clinton administration gave us in the 1990s, which was a national—a global framework for global electronic commerce. It was very intentionally saying, “We're going to break with the Analog Era disaster, we're going to have a national framework that's pro-freedom to innovate, and we're going to make sure that these meddlesome barriers do not develop to online speech and commerce.” And yet, here with AI, we are witnessing a reversal of that. States are in the lead, and again, like I said, localities too, and Congress is sitting there and is the dysfunctional soup that it is saying, “Oh, maybe we should do something to spend a little bit more money to promote AI.” Well, we can spend all the money we want, but we can end up like Europe who spends tons of money on techno-industrial policies and gets nothing for it because they can't get their innovation culture right, because they're regulating the living hell out of digital technology.So you want Congress to take this away from the states?I do. I do, but it's really, really hard. I think what we need to do is follow the model that we had in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998. We've also had moratoriums, not only through the Internet Tax Freedom Act, but through the Commercial Space Amendments having to do with space commercial travel and other bills. Congress has handled the question of preemption before and put moratoria in place to say, “Let's have a learning period before we go do stupid things on a new technology sector that is fast moving and hard to understand.” I think that would be a reasonable response, but again, I have to go back to what we just talked about, Jim, which is that there's no chance of us probably getting it. There's no appetite in it. Not any of the 111 bills pending in Congress right now says a damn thing about state and local regulation of technology!Is the thrust of those federal bills, is it the kinds of stuff that you're generally worried about?Mostly, but not entirely. Some of it is narrower. A lot of these bills are like, “Let's take a look at AI and. . . fill in the blank: elections, AI and jobs, AI and whatever.” And some of them, on the merits, not terrible, others, I have concerns, but it's certainly better that we take a targeted sectoral approach to AI policy and regulation than having the broad-based, general-purpose stuff. Now, there are broad-based, general-purpose measures, and here's what they do, Jim: They basically say, “Look, instead of having a whole cloth new regulatory approach, let's build on the existing types of approaches being utilized in the Department of Commerce, namely through our NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology], and NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] sub-agencies there. NIST is the National Standards Body, and basically they develop best practices through something called the AI Risk Management Framework for artificial intelligence development—and they're good! It's multi-stakeholder, it's bottom up, it's driven by the same principles that motivated the Clinton administration to do multi-stakeholder processes for the internet. Good model. It is non-regulatory, however. It is a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder, voluntary approach to developing consensus-based standards for best practices regarding various types of algorithmic services. These bills in Congress—and there's at least five of them that I count, that I've written about recently—say, “Let's take that existing infrastructure and give it some enforcement teeth. Let's basically say, ‘This policy infrastructure will be converted into a quasi-regulatory system,'” and there begins the dangerous path towards backdoor regulation of artificial intelligence in this country, and I think that's the most likely model we'll get. Like I said, five models, legislative models in the Senate alone that would do that to varying degrees.AI policy under Trump (22:29)Do you have any feel for what a Trump administration would want to do on this?I do, because a month before the Trump administration left office, they issued a report through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and it basically laid out for agencies a set of principles for how it should evaluate artificial intelligence systems, both that are used by the government or that they regulate in the private sector, and it was an excellent set of principles. It was a restatement of the importance of policy, forbearance and humility. It was a restatement of a belief in cost-benefit analysis and identifying not only existing regulatory capacity to address these problems, but also non-regulatory mechanisms or best practices or standards that could address some of these things. It was a really good memo. I praised it in a piece that I wrote just before the Trump administration left. Now, of course, the Trump administration may change.Yes, and also, the technology has changed. I mean, that was 2020 and a lot has happened, and I don't know where. . . . I'm not sure where all the Republicans are. I think some people get it. . .I think the problem, Jim, is that, for the Republican Party, and Trumpian conservatives, in particular, they face a time of choosing. And what I mean by this is that they have spent the last four to six years—and Trump egged this on—engaging in nonstop quote-unquote “big tech bashing” and making technology companies in the media out to be, as Trumps calls them, “the enemy of the American people.” And so many hearings now are just parading tech executives and others up there to be beaten with a stick in front of the public, and this is the new thing. And then there's just a flood of bills that would regulate traditional digital technologies, repeal things like Section 230, which is liability protection for the tech sector, and so on, child safety regulations.Meanwhile, that same Republican Party and Mr. Trump go around hating on Joe Biden in China. If it's one thing they can't stand more than big tech, it's Joe and China! And so, in a sense, they've got to choose, because their own policy proposals on technology could essentially kneecap America's technology base in a way that would open up the door to whether it's what they fear in the “woke DEI policies” of Biden or the CCP's preferred policy agenda for controlling computation in the world today. Choose two, you don't get all three. And I think this is going to be an interesting thing to watch if Mr. Trump comes back into office, do they pick up where that OMB memo left off, or do they go right back to beating that “We've got to kill big tech by any means necessary in a seek-and-destroy mission, to hell with the consequences.” And I don't know yet.Faster, Please! 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 fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

In Today's episode of Moment of Truth, Nick sits down with Connor Tomlinson, Host of “Tomlinson Talks” on LotusEaters.com and GBNews Contributor, to discuss what's wrong with England, Liz Truss, Brexit, Conservative Party Politics, and the disastrous impacts of mass migration.#ConnorTomlinson #TomlinsonTalks #LotusEaters #UK #England #Politics #Tory #ConservativeParty #LizTruss #MassMigration #Immigration #Economics #DemographicsConnor Tomlinson is a writer and host of Tomlinson Talks at LotusEaters.com. He is a political commentator for GB News, Sky News Australia, and Talk TV, and has appeared on podcasts such at TRIGGERNnometry and Timcast IRL. He writes regularly for The Critic and European Conservative. He was a co-founder and Head of Research at the British Conservation Alliance (2019-2022); and authored the research paper, “It's Easy being Green”, for the Adam Smith Institute, which shaped the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (2022). He is an alumni of the first UK cohort of contributors for Young Voices, and holds a Masters in English from the University of Kent.Learn more about Connor Tomlinson's work:https://www.lotuseaters.com/author/connor-tomlinsonhttps://twitter.com/Con_TomlinsonBecome a 'Truther' or 'Statesman' to get access to exclusive perks. Watch ALL EPISODES a day before everyone else, and enjoy members-only bonus content: youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4Tcg/join––––––Follow American Moment across Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgCheck out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Campus in Washington DC, produced by American Moment Studios, and edited by Jake Mercier and Jared Cummings.Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAj Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Connor Tomlinson is a writer and podcast host at LotusEaters.com. He was a co-founder and Head of Research at the British Conservation Alliance (2019-2022). He published the research paper, “It's Easy being Green”, with The Adam Smith Institute, which shaped the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (2022). He is a political commentator for GB News and TalkTV, a contributor to The Critic magazine, and wrote regular columns for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, C3 Solutions Magazine, and The American Spectator. He holds a Masters in English from the University of Kent. Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com SPONSORS: Buy gold and earn interest on it! https://monetary-metals.com/triggernometry/ Express VPN. Go to https://www.expressvpn.com/trigger/ and get an extra 3 months free on a one-year package! https://getsuperbeets.com Use Promo Code: TRIG to get a free 30-day supply + 15% off your first order Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | info@xentricapc.com | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: marketing@triggerpod.co.uk Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oliver Linch started his legal career with leading law firm Shearman & Sterling, after which he became Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel of Bittrex Global, the global cryptocurrency exchange. He has over a decade of experience as a financial regulatory lawyer, having advised major investment banks, exchanges, and leading financial institutions on regulatory matters across the UK, EMEA, and North America. As part of one of the world's top-ranking law firms, Oliver specialised in various areas of financial regulatory advisory work, such as financial market infrastructure, payment services, and special economic zone and legislative drafting.Dedicated to regulatory best practice in financial services, Oliver is an active member of the Financial Markets Law Committee's Finance & Technology Scoping Forum and the AIMA Anti-Money Laundering Working Group. Oliver is also a Senior Consultant to the Adam Smith Institute, and heads up the ASI's Fintech, AI, & Emerging Technologies Policy Unit.Oliver is frequently quoted in the media on matters of legal and regulatory policy across the digital assets and fintech space, and is often highly sought to be interviewed for TV or podcasts from around the world.He received a double first in Jurisprudence and a Master's in Law, both from the University of Oxford."Outside work, Oliver enjoys cricket, travelling, and cheese — often all at the same time. He tweets at @OliverLinch.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/crypto-hipster-podcast/support

We are delighted to welcome Connor Tomlinson to help us look back at some of the talking points of the last seven days and we go a bit deeper on some of the posts that Connor has shared on his social media. Connor is a presenter and writer for the brilliant LotusEaters and has an army of fans for his articulate and succinct analysis of what's going on in the world, so we can't wait to hear his thoughts on the topics this episode, including... - Parliament Vs Islamism - Metropolitan Police investigation of Dan Wootton finds no evidence, decides no further action. - Woke Army: British soldiers transitioning to be a pretend woman can live in female-only barracks 'as soon as the transition process begins' - Men and women's brains do work differently, scientists discover for first time. - Disgusting nonce who helped run a child abuse website that shared sexual abuse material of babies and toddlers on the dark web has been jailed. - Widow sues AstraZeneca after husband's Covid-19 vaccine death. - A British Trident nuclear missile misfired and crashed into the ocean near the submarine that launched it during a test last month. - 'Bankrupt' Birmingham reveals 21% council tax rise. Connor Tomlinson is a writer and podcast host at LotusEaters. He was a co-founder and Head of Research at the British Conservation Alliance (2019-2022). He published the research paper, “It's Easy being Green”, with The Adam Smith Institute, which shaped the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (2022). He is a political commentator for GB News and TalkTV, and wrote regular columns for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, C3 Solutions Magazine, and The American Spectator. He is an alumni of the first UK cohort of contributors for Young Voices, and holds a Masters in English from the University of Kent. Connect with Connor and LotusEaters... X                        https://x.com/Con_Tomlinson?s=20 Lotuseaters       https://www.lotuseaters.com/ Interview recorded 23.2.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            https://heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts....  SHOP                  https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ Links from this episode... Sir Lindsay Hoyle https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1760652326002401783?s=20 https://x.com/Con_Tomlinson/status/1760679099985784880?s=20 Dan Wootton  https://order-order.com/2024/02/21/exclusive-metropolitan-police-investigation-of-dan-wootton-finds-no-evidence-met-decides-no-further-action/ British soldiers https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13106989/Transgender-soldiers-female-barracks-UK-guidance.html brainshttps://archive.is/37vv1 child abuse https://x.com/lotuseatersnews/status/1759876275726868789?s=20 AstraZeneca https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-68285232 Female students https://archive.is/e3Xyl British nuclear missile https://archive.is/EnVXg Bankrupt Birmingham https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-68342493

The UK is in the middle of a chronic housing shortage. The government wants 300 thousand new homes built every year,  but where should they go? Local authorities are under pressure and campaigners want to protect green spaces. How can we get the balance between the need for new homes and sustainability?Join me as I discuss these issues and more with Helen Marshall, director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Oxfordshire and Maxwell Marlow from the Adam Smith Institute  whose new report suggests allowing homeowners to build up to eight storeys high will alleviate the housing shortage and benefit the economy.We explore the option of building on brownfield sites, land that has previously been developed. We talk about the role of solar. We look at the new report by the Adam Smith Institute: Cooped Up, quantifying the costs of housing restrictions. Should planning regulations be eased to encourage more building, or tightened up to protect the environment? Can we have more houses and still save our green spaces for future generations? This podcast is supported by Stretto Architects an award-winning, design-led architect studio based in Bristol. Stretto has a dedicated team specialising in environmentally sensitive urban regeneration and a commitment to supporting projects rooted in social good.Contributors:CPRE - Britain's Countryside Charity Adam Smith Institute#recession #housingcrisis#UrbanPlanning#Sustainability#GreenSpaces#BrownfieldSites#SolarPower#AdamSmithInstitute#HousingShortage#CampaignToProtectRuralEngland#StrettoArchitects#EnvironmentallySensitiveDesign#UrbanRegeneration#UKHousing#Homeownership#AffordableHousing#HousingPolicy#GreenBuilding#SustainableDevelopment#EnvironmentalConservation#LandUse#HousingMarket#PolicyDebate#EconomicGrowth#ClimateAction#SustainableCities#CommunityEngagement#UrbanRenewal#GreenLiving#SmartCities#LandDevelopment#PublicPolicy#SocialGood#PlanningRegulations#NewHomes#BuildingDevelopment#EconomicImpact#CommunityDevelopment#FutureGenerationsSupport the showhttps://www.angelawalkerreports.com/

On today's show, Ta'Juana Williams-Bribiescas discusses "Border Issues in the U.S., specifically in the border town I live in; consisting of the borders connected by Sunland Park, NM; El Paso, TX; and Juarez, MX). The discrimination at the border is appalling and very degrading to the individuals that truly want to reside in the U.S to better the lives of their families." Later, Anna McGovern discusses Rishi Sunak, under pressure from Conservative MPs, being urged to enact "radical" immigration limits before Christmas. The group demands a foolproof bill to bypass the supreme court's block on the Rwanda plan. Amidst internal disagreements, the government scrambles to solidify its strategy. In Britain's housing crisis, young people break ranks, favoring green belt development for affordable homes. Despite overall resistance, under-34s see it as a ladder to ownership. Tories resist, but pressure mounts. The Adam Smith Institute proposes a profit-sharing plan, yet public opinion remains divided. Also, Peter Maughan talks about the UK jacking up immigration fees, folks. Skilled workers, students, visitors—they're all getting hit. Health surcharge? Through the roof, a whopping 66% hike. Employers, brace yourselves; your sponsorship budgets are about to bleed. Act fast or pay the price. Classic government cash grab. GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Ta'Juana Williams-Bribiescas is a mom, resilient, devoted, spiritually aligned advocate. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Anna is a TV commentator, writer, expert in conservative politics and culture, recently moved to Australia from the UK. GUEST 3 OVERVIEW: Peter Maughan is a seasoned solicitor in clinical negligence and personal injury, a Lib Dem councillor in Gateshead since 1984, and an advocate for community-centric policing and legal reforms.

Air Date 10/23/2023 The people who want to pull the country in directions that are only supported by a small minority of the population have to develop very intricate plans to have any hope of succeeding. This is the story of the latest plan to establish unchecked rule to implement unpopular policies supported only by the far right. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Clips and Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: ‘The endgame of election denial is that we shouldn't have elections': Authoritarianism expert - The ReidOut - Air Date 10-6-23 Donald Trump has ramped up his violent rhetoric in recent weeks. Meanwhile, a Fox host has urged the U.S. towards civil war and claimed that voting does not work. Ch. 2: Violent Authoritarianism: How Did This Become the GOP? - Keeping Democracy Alive with Burt Cohen - Air Date 11-23-21 Pat Buchanan was ahead of his time. He used the KKK's David Duke to breed a new nativist religious nationalism, based on fear of liberalization. On this show, political science professor Joseph Lowndes sheds light on how the Republican Party got here Ch. 3: Analyzing The Dark Roots Of Modern Conservatism - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 10-15-23 Emma hosts John S. Huntington, professor of history at Houston Community College, to discuss his recent book Far-Right Vanguard: The Radical Roots of Modern Conservatism. Ch. 4: How Often Do YOU Think About the Roman Empire? - Wisecrack - Air Date 10-16-23 The real reason TikTok is crazy for ancient Rome If you're even a little bit online, you know that the men love ancient Rome. This isn't new: The civilization has loomed large in the Western imagination ever since its catastrophic collapse. Ch. 5: The Conservative Plan to Take Over the Country Part 1 - Leeja Miller - Air Date 9-26-23 Project 2025 is the terrifying plan set out by conservatives to take over the government. But it's radical, and it doesn't align with what most Americans want. Which is why we have to make sure this plan never happens. Ch. 6: The GOP's "Red Caesar" New Political Order Plan Marches Forward - The Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 10-3-23 A Trump supporter just displayed exactly how stochastic terrorism works. Ch. 7: The Conservative Plan to Take Over the Country Part 2 - Leeja Miller - Air Date 9-26-23 MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 8: Think Tanks: How Fake Experts Shape the News - Tom Nicholas - Air Date 5-13-23 A video about how billionaire-funded right-wing “think tanks” such as the Heritage Foundation, Adam Smith Institute, Manhattan Institute, and Institute of Economic Affairs manipulate the news to spread their propaganda. FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 9: Final comments discussing the Red Caesar movement and our strange allies opposing it MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) SHOW IMAGE: Description: A white marble bust of Julius Caesar in armor and robes wears a red MAGA hat. Credit: Composite design by A. Hoffman. Source images of bust and hat are copyright-free from Pixabay.   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

Why Is Britain's Infrastructure So Expensive? There is mounting speculation this week that the government intends to abandon the Birmingham to Manchester leg of HS2 over skyrocketing costs. The link, meant to reach from London to Manchester via Birmingham, could now cost well over £100 billion. This is the latest in a long string of eye-wateringly expensive infrastructure projects. In this week's IEA Podcast, IEA Director of Public Policy and Communications Matthew Lesh sits down with Head of Policy at Britain Remade Sam Dumitriu. Sam Dumitriu is the Head of Policy at Britain Remade, a campaign group. Before joining, he worked at a range of Westminster think tanks, including the Adam Smith Institute and the Entrepreneurs Network, covering topics including immigration, technology, and education. He also has a Substack called ‘Notes on Growth'.

Calum and Kirsty are joined by Sam Richards - a former energy and environment adviser to Boris Johnson and founder of pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade… to react instantly to Rishi Sunak's announcements on net-zero. After 24 hours of chaos, Kirsty reflects on the comms strategy, and Sam analyses what this means for you, for business and for industry. James Price who served as a Government Senior Special Adviser across five departments, including as the Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and who is now at the Adam Smith Institute discusses one year since Liz Truss's Mini Budget. And the Political Editor of The Sunday Times - Caroline Wheeler - joins us to discuss her new book which is the culmination of 20 years of reporting on the contaminated blood scandal. Support the podcast by becoming a member at: https://plus.acast.com/s/whitehallsources. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As with so much modern political theatre, the debate on artificial intelligence has become polarised to a point that is often profoundly unhelpful, with a false dichotomy between 'doomers' and utopians who see AI as a solution to the world's many problems, both technical and social.Between those positions is a world of nuance and wildly varying predictions on what this expanding new technology could mean. All the while commentators and politicians talk about 'AI policy' as if it were a single thing, rather than a whole suite of overlapping issues: they range from the banal – discriminatory algorithms and deepfake of politicians, say – to the unnerving prospect of AI reaching a human-like level of intelligence. As one of our guests in this week's episode puts it, at this stage talking about 'AI policy' is about as useful as talking about 'electricity policy'.To hammer out some of those questions we brought together Connor Axiotes, the Lead on Risk Policy at the Adam Smith Institute, and our own Head of Tech from the Centre for Policy Studies, Matthew Feeney. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this first lecture at the Adam Smith Institute in London, Yaron Brook advocates rational selfishness as the moral base for capitalism and the importance of philosophy in the defense of freedom. The economic argument is won: "Let's make this debate about morality and if we do... I think the future is ours."Presented on February 10, 2009. Hosted by the Ayn Rand Forum at the Adam Smith Institute in London, UK. For more information on the Ayn Rand Forum, see https://www.youtube.com/user/AynRandForum.Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCabMx-URCjr2toe9wOE3Y-Q/joinLike what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: https://bit.ly/3ztPxTxBecome a sponsor to get exclusive access and help create more videos like this: https://yaronbrookshow.com/support-members/support-the-show/Or make a one-time donation: https://bit.ly/2RZOyJJContinue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (https://bit.ly/3iMGl6z) and Facebook (https://bit.ly/3vvWDDC )Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: https://bit.ly/35qoEC3This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/3276901/advertisement

The advent of AI programmes such as ChatGPT has many concerned. But how scared should we be of these innovations?   To discuss this, IEA Director of Public Policy and Communications Matthew Lesh spoke to James Lawson, Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. James previously worked as a Senior Special Adviser in the Cabinet Office and prior to his role in government, he was a Director at Microsoft, as a CTO for Strategic Accounts.

The 9th of March 2023 marked 247 years since the release of Adam Smith's seminal book, The Wealth of Nations. With liberalism on the decline, this week's podcast asks the question, what can policymakers learn from Adam Smith? IEA Communications Officer Harrison Griffiths sat down with Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute, to discuss this. Eamonn's primer on Adam Smith can be found here: https://iea.org.uk/multimedia/video/eamonn-butler-adam-smith-a-primer

PUBLISHED ON JULY 12TH   The last fortnight has caused a political storm in the UK. Boris Johnson's resignation as PM has triggered a leadership race and renewed debates about UK economic strategy and how the government should ease the high cost of living. In this episode, Christopher Snowdon, IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics, is joined by Eamonn Butler, Co-founder and Director of the Adam Smith Institute, to appraise Boris Johnson's tenure as PM and the future of the UK's economic direction.

Is our immigration system working? Following Home Secretary Suella Braverman's recent Commons speech in which she likened the scale of illegal immigration to an 'invasion', many are now questioning whether the UK's immigration system is fit for purpose. To discuss this, IEA Head of Public Policy Matthew Lesh sat down with Daniel Pryor, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute.

Yaron Brook sits down with Andrew Medworth, Chairman of the UK-based Ayn Rand Forum to discuss morality, capitalism and economic crises.Broadcasted on May 4, 2009 from the Adam Smith Institute, London, UK.Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCabMx-URCjr2toe9wOE3Y-Q/joinLike what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: https://bit.ly/3ztPxTxBecome a sponsor to get exclusive access and help create more videos like this: https://yaronbrookshow.com/support-members/support-the-show/Or make a one-time donation: https://bit.ly/2RZOyJJContinue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (https://bit.ly/3iMGl6z) and Facebook (https://bit.ly/3vvWDDC )Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: https://bit.ly/35qoEC3

Ben Southwood has worked for KPMG, was head of research at the Adam Smith Institute and the head of Housing, Transport and Urban Space at the UK think tank ‘Policy Exchange'. He has also assisted CreateStreets as head of research. Currently he is editor at Stripe, for the online journal Works in Progress. An excellent source for high quality, optimistic articles on scientific progress, innovation and other topics. In this episode he talks about the StreetVotes concept, how it can gently transition low density areas into beautiful, denser neighbourhoods, offering more housing units in overheated markets, giving more power to local communities and enabling them to reap the benefits of this densification. The concept is a true win-win solution that is now being tested out in the UK on a small scale. Visit Works in Progress here: https://www.worksinprogress.co/ Find the StreetVotes concept and whitepaper here: https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/strong-suburbs/ --- For more information on The Aesthetic City, find our website on https://theaestheticcity.com/ Love what we do? Become a patron! With your help we can grow this platform even further, make more content and hopefully achieve real, lasting impact for more beautiful cities worldwide. Visit our Patreon page here: https://www.patreon.com/the_aesthetic_city Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/_Aesthetic_City Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the.aesthetic.city/

Can people predict the future? According to Superforecaster, Jonathon Kitson, some can get pretty close!  In this episode of the Swift Half with Snowdon, Christopher Snowdon, IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics sits down with Jonathon Kitson, Superforecaster and Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, to discuss military spending, his experience of clinical vulnerability during the pandemic and much more! This episode was originally featured as a video on the IEA's YouTube Channel. Watch here.   FOLLOW US: TWITTER - https://twitter.com/iealondon​​  INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/ieauk/​​  FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/ieauk​​  WEBSITE - https://iea.org.uk/ 

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Daniel Pryor is joined by John Macdonald, Director of Strategy at the ASI. They discuss the good, the bad and the ugly in the Queen's Speech.  Guests:   Daniel Pryor (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) John Macdonald (Director of Strategy, Adam Smith Institute)

It's been a bumper few weeks for political news. We've had endless 'Beergate' stories rattling the Labour leadership, soaring prices in the shops, dreadful economic forecasts from the Bank of England, Elon Musk's mooted takeover of Twitter and thehugely controversial leaked Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs Wade.To discuss those pressing issues, our editors John Ashmore and Alys Denby welcomed two of the stars of the Westminster wonk-world: Kristian Niemietz of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and the Adam Smith Institute's Morgan Schondelmeier. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Daniel Pryor is joined by Maxwell Marlow, Development and Research Officer at the ASI. They discuss Maxwell's latest paper ‘A Fare Shake: Reforming taxis for the 21st century'.  Guests:   Daniel Pryor (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) Maxwell Marlow (Development and Research Officer, Adam Smith Institute)

This episode discusses the housing crisis that cities around the world are facing, and explores the public policy solutions needed to address it. Urban areas are shouldering much of the burden associated with global population growth, including with respect to affordable housing supply. Given this growth is expected to continue, affordable housing policy is likely to be one of the most salient public policy pressures facing governments around the world for some time.  Our hosts, Melissa Lockett and Alec Greven, are joined in this episode by four experts who share their perspectives on how we ended up in this crisis and what we can do about it. Daniel Pryor and Julieta Perucca outline ideological frameworks for the affordability crisis and why our current system has been unable to supply low-cost housing. Daniel is the head of policy research at The Adam Smith Institute, an independent, economic policy think-tank based in the UK. Julieta is the Former Chief of Staff to the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing and the current Deputy Director for THE SHIFT, an organization stewarding the global movement to secure the human right to adequate housing. Jonathan Cortell and Oliver Harman delve into practical approaches for supplying housing in both high-income and low-income areas. Jonathan is a Managing Director at L&M Development Partners, a real estate development firm in the U.S., overseeing mixed-use developments. Oliver is a Cities Economist for the International Growth Centre and a scholar of sustainable housing policy in low-income developing countries. This episode is hosted by Melissa Lockett and Alec Greven; produced by Livey Beha and Read Leask; and researched by Claddagh Nic Lochlainn, Livey Beha, and Nikunj Arwal. To keep up with the latest on our episodes, follow us on Twitter @oxfordpolicypod and on Instagram @oxfordpolicypod_. 

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Daniel Pryor and John Macdonald are joined by Emily Fielder, Head of Communications at the Adam Smith Institute. They discuss the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sunak's Mais Lecture and the Policing Bill Guests:   Daniel Pryor (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) John Macdonald (Director of Strategy, Adam Smith Institute) Emily Fielder (Head of Communications, Adam Smith Institute)

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Daniel Pryor and John Macdonald are joined by Madsen Pirie, President of the Adam Smith Institute. They discuss Windfall Taxes, NHS Reform and Cold War 2.0 Guests:   Daniel Pryor (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) John Macdonald (Director of Strategy, Adam Smith Institute) Madsen Pirie (President of the Adam Smith Institute)

I talked to Sam Bowman, the Director of competition policy at the Law and Econ Center. He was previously Executive Director of the Adam Smith Institute and has been a constant advocate for saner housing policy. I talked to him about housing policy and adjacent topics: How housing affects everything! How do we incentivize NIMBYs into allowing more building? The most underrated economist Lessons from writing Works in Progress --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pradyumna-sp/message

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Matthew Lesh and Daniel Pryor are joined by Morgan Schondelmeier, Director of Operations at the Adam Smith Institute and John Macdonald, Director of Strategy at the Adam Smith Institute. They discuss the highs and lows of 2021. Guests:   Morgan Schondelmeier (Director of Operations, Adam Smith Institute) John Macdonald (Director of Strategy, Adam Smith Institute) Daniel Pryor (Head of Programmes, Adam Smith Institute) Matthew Lesh (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) 

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Matthew Lesh and Daniel Pryor are joined by Morgan Schondelmeier, Director of Operations at the Adam Smith Institute. They discuss Omicron, Crime Week and the Afghanistan Whistleblower. Guests:   Morgan Schondelmeier (Director of Operations, Adam Smith Institute) Daniel Pryor (Head of Programmes, Adam Smith Institute) Matthew Lesh (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) 

Entrepreneurship is the great force for social good — in fact, the greatest force for good in the history of civilization. It's the system of continuously improving the lives of others so we can improve our own lives. Through entrepreneurship, we can achieve greater and greater levels of community, collaboration and societal advance. Eamonn Butler, Co-Founder and Director of the Adam Smith Institute, has written what he calls a Primer for understanding and appreciating the wonderful institution of entrepreneurship (Mises.org/E4B_130_Book1). He highlights some of the key points on the Economics For Business podcast. Innovation and improvement. To continuously improve people's lives, we need new things. We need people to invent things that haven't been thought of before. And we need innovators, people who improve those things and find new purposes for them or new ways of producing and distributing them. And we need entrepreneurship, the marshalling of resources to produce these better things faster and more efficiently and get them into more people's hands. Entrepreneurs are those unique people who organize the marshalling of resources, and who risk their own capital and their investors' capital in this pursuit of a better future for all. Cascading Development. When entrepreneurs undertake this act of discovery, and especially when they succeed, they trigger cascading development. One innovation and entrepreneurial initiative leads to another. They are all aimed at making people's lives better — easier, healthier, more convenient, more affordable, more efficient. And, eventually, knowledge spreads, and people's lives are transformed, so that Indian peasant farmers can check produce prices on their smartphone and get the best offer from the market. Development cascades from individual to individual, firm to firm, market to market and country to country. It's never-ending improvement. Long-termism and ethical behavior. The outcome is long term uplift and benefit for all. Entrepreneurs are long term thinkers. They are focused on the lifetime of their company and their products, and perhaps to passing them on to the next generation (Politicians are the opposite — they can only think in election cycles). Entrepreneurs don't want to just make a short term profit and then leave the market. They want long term revenues and long term profits. That means creating reliable, returning customers who love the entrepreneur's product. That requires delighting those customers, serving them impeccably, never letting them down or breaking a promise. There are few other, if any, institutions that are constituted in this way. This Long-termism is ethical. Entrepreneurship is ethically driven. Internationalism A small firm can trade on a global stage, and if they can, they will. It's easier than ever before in the digital era. New and better ideas quickly spread around the world. But it has always been the case, since the earliest of times. Politicians establish borders to divide people, and then violate them in invasions and wars. Entrepreneurs see no borders between people. Political borders can't divide markets. Social good. Entrepreneurship achieves more for social good than any other institution. Entrepreneurial innovation in goods and services enhances life and opens up new possibilities. Customers flock to entrepreneurs because of the tremendous service they deliver. The constant improvement delivered by entrepreneurs constitutes civilizational progress. The competitive pressure to improve quality and utilize resources more efficiently generates more and more value for the world. It's an error to see business as extractive — extracting and using up resources. Business is generative, putting life-changing inventions at the disposal of the global population. What's seen is the dirt and smoke left over from mining or manufacturing. What's not seen, and is often unappreciated, is the huge amount of good that comes into the world via entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the application of property rights at every scale. It's another error to think of entrepreneurship as small business or young and immature business. Ray Kroc of McDonald's was a great example of an entrepreneur who worked out how to operate a hamburger restaurant at global scale with continuous improvement. Entrepreneurship requires property rights; people need to have control over their property in order to transform it into marketable innovations and services. But that does not limit the scale of entrepreneurship. Property rights are a principle that supports global scaling. The entrepreneurial method. Probably the best way to define entrepreneurship is as a process or a method. It's akin to — and as important to civilization as — the scientific method, but different. They both involve trial-and-success, coming up with ideas and testing them. The scientist tests against reality, looking for a law, a repeatable outcome that will never vary. The entrepreneur tests against consumer approval, looking for acceptance that might be repeatable until conditions change, such as new competition arriving. Entrepreneurs can't predict the future as scientists can, and they can't exert control in the form of unchanging laboratory conditions. Yet they still are challenged to build a business that lasts. Can we nurture this institution? Yes. In school, via literacy and entrepreneurially-oriented education, teaching young people about profit, and uncertainty and the requirement for supportive environmental elements such as property rights and flexible labor laws, and the value of trying multiple different initiatives before discovering a winning proposition. We might not be able to teach successful entrepreneurship, but we can create the conditions for learning. A selection of books by Eamonn Butler Entrepreneurship: A Primer: Mises.org/E4B_130_Book1 Austrian Economics: A Primer: Mises.org/E4B_130_Book2 Classical Liberalism — A Primer: Mises.org/E4B_130_Book3 Ludwig von Mises — A Primer: Mises.org/E4B_130_Book4 Friedrich Hayek: The Ideas and Influence of the Libertarian Economist: Mises.org/E4B_130_Book5 The Condensed Wealth of Nations: Mises.org/E4B_130_Book6

Angelica and Thomas interview Dr. Michael Kauffman, board member and medical advisor at Karyopharm.   Subscribe in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening right now.   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objectivestandard Twitter: https://twitter.com/ObjStdInstitute LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/objectivestandardinstitute/   Here are some links related to the information discussed on the show: Kauffman's 2018 talk about Ayn Rand's influence on his career for the Adam Smith Institute here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGCeNN2s0kE

Hello and welcome to the Alcohol Alert, brought to you by The Institute of Alcohol Studies. In the May 2021 edition:The Office for National Statistics released a report that shows there was a 20% increase in alcohol-specific deaths from 2019 to 2020 🎵 Podcast feature 🎵A research study has shown that alcohol adverts are appealing to adolescents and that this is likely to increase their susceptibility to drinkA study by University College London shows that young people who use social media more, also consume alcohol more The Government has announced that it will be holding a consultation on mandatory alcohol labellingThe House of Lords debated the Commission on Alcohol Harm’s 2020 reportThe World Health Organisation has published a new report assessing changes to alcohol consumption between 2010 and 2019The Institute of Alcohol Studies looks at the financial and social impact of the Treasuries decision to once again freeze alcohol duties this yearAnd The Republic of Ireland is set to introduce minimum unit pricing on alcohol. We hope you enjoy our roundup of stories below: please feel free to share. Thank you.20% more deaths directly caused by alcohol in 2020In 2020, England and Wales saw the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths since the Office for National Statistics (ONS) began comparing data in 2001. The ONS report, released earlier this month, shows 7,423 deaths were wholly attributable to alcohol last year. This is a 20% increase from 2019 and the highest annual total ever recorded by the ONS. The following graph clearly shows this increase since 2001.Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, Chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, told us that “These are the first statistics to really stop me in my tracks in 20 or 30 years; it’s startling and shocking. These data are a warning that the Government would ignore at their peril.” Although the report caveats that it will be some time before we understand the reasons behind these numbers, it does link to Public Health England data that show drinking patterns have changed since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic. Colin Angus, research fellow at the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, recently published a blog on the IAS website in which he mentions these changing patterns. He states that there has been a shift “away from beer and towards wine and particularly spirits” and that it is likely alcohol sales in supermarkets increased significantly. Although it will be a while before we see the health impacts of these changing patterns, concerns have been raised by health groups about the long-term health impacts of increased heavy drinking during lockdown.An important finding in the ONS report is that men living in the most deprived areas were 4.2 times more likely to die from alcohol-specific issues compared to those living in the least deprived areas. The same trend is seen for women, who are 3 times more likely to die in the most deprived areas. The following graph shows this dichotomy (IMD means Indices of Multiple Deprivation):Dr Sadie Boniface, Head of Research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies, said “We need to better understand the cause of these deaths by looking at the electronic health records of those who have died. We also need to involve people with lived experience, to understand the what the experience has been of getting appointments and accessing treatment services during the Covid-19 pandemic.”  Alcohol adverts are appealing to adolescents and likely increase susceptibility to drinkA study led by IAS’ Head of Research, Dr Sadie Boniface, and collaborating author’s, has found that adolescents aged 11-17 generally find alcohol adverts appealing and subsequently are more likely to drink.The study is very timely, as it follows a recent piece of research that found that 80% of 11-19 year olds recalled seeing at least one alcohol advert in the past month. Other studies have demonstrated a clear link between under-age people seeing alcohol adverts and increasing their drinking. A report of 277,000 adolescents has shown more restrictive marketing policies were associated with a lower chance of lifetime drinking among adolescents. The research by Boniface et al builds upon this previous research and assesses the relationship between reactions to alcohol adverts and susceptibility to alcohol among adolescents. The study used three alcohol adverts that were not in breach of any marketing codes: a Fosters, Smirnoff and Haig Club advert. It was found that 53% of the 2,582 participants had a positive reaction to the Fosters advert, 52% to Smirnoff, and 34% to Haig Club. Susceptibility to drinking alcohol among those who had never drunk before, but had had a positive reaction to the adverts, increased by 50%. And among the 909 who had consumed alcohol before and had a positive reaction, there was a 40% increase in susceptibility of becoming a higher risk drinker.  Other interesting findings were:Fosters was more popular with men and Smirnoff with women Those of White British ethnicity preferred the Fosters advert whereas other ethnic groups preferred Haig Club’sThe authors of the study highlight their concern about the UK’s complaints-led self-regulation of alcohol marketing, as marketing should not particularly appeal to adolescents. They suggest considering tighter restrictions or bans on certain types of media and marketing, such as product placement and alibi marketing. If not bans, then tighter controls on messaging in alcohol adverts could help limit exposure and appeal; an approach comparable to the loi Évin regulations in France. Does using social media lead to young people drinking more? Young people who use social media more, also consume alcohol more frequently.A study by University College London (UCL) between 2011 and 2016 looked at the social media presence of 6,700 young people aged 10-19 and compared the findings with how often they drank alcohol. Alcohol consumption among young people has decreased globally in recent years. There is still poor understanding as to why it has decreased. Factors such as better legal enforcement, lower affordability, and the rise of new technologies, almost certainly play a part (see 2016 IAS report). With this rise in new technologies and the widespread use of social media platforms, the public sphere and social space amongst young people has somewhat changed. Fewer young people are engaging in activities that are intrinsically linked to alcohol consumption, such as going to nightclubs. Few studies have looked at how social media, and the changing use of social media over time, is related to drinking patterns and changing drinking patterns. UCL’s study is the first in the UK to show a strong correlation between heavier social media use and more frequent alcohol consumption, and that this relationship exists across time. The study found that 18% of 10-15 year olds drank ‘at least monthly’ and that this group used social media more, had more friends and were generally older. Similarly, among young people aged 16-19, those who used social media for less than an hour were less likely to be drinking each month. This age group was also more likely to binge drink three or more times a month if spending more time on social media. Binge drinking was categorised as drinking five or more drinks in one sitting.The researchers concluded that the study was consistent with other studies that show greater use of technology is linked to heavier drinking. Having said that, they do not rule out that the relationship could work the other way: that heavier drinking leads to more frequent use of social media. Professor Yvonne Kelly, who co-authored the study, said “The reasons why time spent online could link to drinking behaviours are not clear but could include having negative experiences in online spaces, as well as exposure to advertising.” They also highlighted that social media may be part of a cultural norm of drinking, for instance posting photos of people drinking. Further, those who use social media may be more sociable already and therefore more likely to be in situations where alcohol is consumed more. Government to hold consultation on alcohol calorie labellingAfter details of an upcoming Government consultation on alcohol labelling were leaked to the media, Dan Carden MP held an adjournment debate on the topic. The proposed consultation was condemned by many representatives of the alcohol industry and in some media outlets. Emma McClarkin, Chief Executive of the British Beer & Pub Association described the proposal as “ludicrous” at a time when pubs are trying to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. Following suit, Adam Kilcoyne, deputy director of the neoliberal lobbying group the Adam Smith Institute, said “Ministers thinking up this madness should stop and drop the policy.”The Government responded to these comments by saying that “no decisions have yet been taken”. As Dan Carden pointed out in his debate, recent polling on the subject has found that the public are in favour of such labelling, with 74% of people wanting ingredients on labels and 62% wanting nutritional information, such as calories. Jo Churchill – The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care – responded to Mr Carden by saying that the Government believes that “people have the right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and the health risks that may be associated with it, to enable them to make informed choices about their drinking and what they consume.” To show its support for considering alcohol labelling policy, the Alcohol Health Alliance UK sent a letter to Health Secretary Matt Hancock echoing Mr Carden’s sentiment: that the public is generally unaware of the calorie content in alcohol, that the public support the inclusion of such information, and that more information should also be included – such as the UK Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines. The letter has 93 signatories, including 13 Members of Parliament and 10 members of the House of Lords.  So what next? The consultation will be launched “very shortly” with Jo Churchill stating that it is important that steps are taken in a measured way to create benefit for the most people. Commission on Alcohol Harm report: Lords DebateFollowing the Commission’s September 2020 report ‘It’s Everywhere’ Alcohol’s Public Face and Private Harm, a debate was held in the House of Lords on 22 April 2021 to discuss the findings.The report highlighted the harm that alcohol causes in the UK, including that:80 people die each day in the UK because of alcohol-related causes Almost 40% of violent crime is committed under the influence of alcohol200,000 children live with alcohol-dependent parentsBaroness Finlay of Llandaff, the Commission’s chair, introduced the debate by highlighting the report’s findings and recommendations, including: calling for an alcohol strategy with evidence-based policies, minimum unit pricing (MUP) in England, a review on licensing, and more informative labelling.Many of the present Lords supported the report’s points. Baroness Randerson referenced the success that Scotland has had with MUP and that this should be considered in England too. Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked whether emerging technologies could be used to help people better understand product calories – and how alcohol labelling should be included with this. Lord Bishop of Carlisle highlighted the link between domestic violence and alcohol and that the Government must rethink its strategy. Baroness Fox of Buckley was less supportive of the report. She stated that she is concerned with the direction of the report, as she believes it exaggerates health harms and links alcohol and drinking with “reprehensible behaviours such as domestic abuse, family neglect, crime and child suicide”. Fox went on to say that MUP is illiberal and treats everyone as a potential problem drinker.In response to the discussion, Lord Bethell of Romford, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care:Commended the Commission on its excellent reportShared his personal experience: that his mother died from alcoholism when he was very youngStated that:The Government is committed to publishing a UK-wide addiction strategy to consider alcohol, drug and gambling problems People have the right to accurate information on drinks, and that a consultation will be launched this summer to consider alcohol labellingThere is no plan to implement MUP but the Government will monitor evidence from Scotland and WalesWorld Health Organization: new report assesses changes in alcohol consumption 2010-2019 The World Health Organization (WHO) European office has published a report on how countries have implemented their SAFER policy recommendations, showing that Eastern Europe and Central Asia have done better in reducing alcohol consumption compared to Western Europe. The study finds that:34 out of 51 countries saw a decrease in alcohol consumption. 17 saw an increaseOverall there has been a reduction in consumption from 11.2 litres per capita in 2010 to 9.8 litres in 2016Eastern European and central Asian countries saw the most significant reductions due to introducing stricter control policiesEU member states only saw an average reduction of 1.5%, which is not statistically significant enough to be considered a real reduction Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, who has been leading the research, praised the actions of Member States that have followed WHO’s recommendations and implemented alcohol policies. She highlighted Eastern Europe and central Asia’s decreases in alcohol consumption, saying that “These countries currently lead by example in implementing alcohol policies, but they need to maintain and increase their efforts, and other countries of the Region need to follow their lead.”The graph below shows the change in implementation of the five SAFER areas between 2016 and 2019 in the European Region, with the numbers representing the percentage of countries deemed to have implemented the areas sufficiently. It highlights the lack of progress made in Europe and that only drink-driving measures were successfully implemented. However this was already being done before the report and saw no improvement.  The report represents a milestone in assessing alcohol control policies across the region. Moving forward it will provide a barometer with which to assess how these policies are being implemented and the effectiveness of them. IAS Analysis: What does the March budget mean for alcohol duties?Alcohol duties were once again frozen this year, the eighth year out of the last nine that the Government has done so. In this briefing, IAS assesses the impact that the freeze will continue to have on healthcare and the UK’s finances, and what the Government needs to consider. What this means for healthcare?Hospitalisation, deaths, and crime will increaseFreezing of duties between 2012 and 2019 led to:2,223 additional deaths in England and Scotland£341million in additional cost to the NHSAlmost 66,000 additional hospital admissionsWhat this means financially?Government figures (figure 1 below) show that freezing duties will cost the UK £1.7billion from 2020-2026 This amount of money could cover all diagnostic imaging equipment for 2 years or fund 40,000 nurses for a year£14billion lost since 2010: If the Government had stuck to the ‘alcohol duties escalator’ (that kept duties 2% above inflation each year) there would be an additional £14billion in additional revenue since 2010 What should the Government do? In response to the Government’s call for evidence in a review of what it admits is a “highly inconsistent” tax system, IAS recommendsthat:Stronger drinks should be taxed more than weaker ones, instead of taxing by drink typeOn-trade alcohol sellers (bars and restaurants) should have a lower level of duty to off-trade sellers (supermarkets) Duties should be automatically updated based on new evidence, instead of annually during budgetsFigure 1Ireland to introduce minimum unit pricingThe Republic of Ireland is pushing ahead with plans to implement minimum unit pricing (MUP) on alcohol by January 2022, despite Northern Ireland not committing. Ireland had been delaying implementation in order for Northern Ireland to implement it at the same time. This was to avoid cross-border trips to purchase cheaper alcohol. The Republic’s Frank Feighan, Minister of State at the Department of Health, stated that Northern Ireland is now “not bringing it in before the northern elections in May 2022”. Although he conceded that there could be issues with cross-border trips, he believes that the positives “far outweigh the negatives”, highlighting the effectiveness of the policy in Scotland in reducing deaths – despite bordering England which does not have MUP. With Scotland, Wales and now Ireland bringing in MUP, pressure is mounting for England to do the same. Figure shows the reduction in alcohol purchases following minimum unit pricing starting in Scotland (vertical line).  The UK Alcohol Alert is designed and produced by The Institute of Alcohol Studies. Please click the image below to visit our website and find out more about us and what we do, or the ‘Contact us’ button. Thank you.WHO’s SAFER initiativeStrengthen restrictions on alcohol availabilityAdvance and enforce drink driving counter measuresFacilitate access to screening, brief interventions and treatmentEnforce bans or comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising, sponsorship, and promotionRaise prices on alcohol through excise taxes and pricing policies This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit instalcstud.substack.com

Lee Anderson, Conservative MP for Ashfield joins us to talk about migrant crossings. Mike discusses Rachel Riley's tweet. Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute discusses track and trace. The hot weather gets Professor Sir Cary Cooper, Professor of Organisational Psychology and Health at Manchester Business School, talking. And we are home schooled on the art of ice-cream with Charlie Thuillier, Co-founder of Oppo Brothers Ice Cream. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Daniel Pryor from the Adam Smith Institute joins us to try to explain why our politicians seem to hate junk food so much these days. Columnist for The New European Paul Connew weighs in on whether David Lammy is to blame for Comic Relief's £8m decline in donations. And why should you tell your children to smell lemons while they're revising? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

If the UK crashes out of the EU on 29 March with no agreement on continuing trade relations, how will it affect Britain's supplies of fresh food? Could the country's supermarket shelves be left empty?Dan Saladino speaks to farmers, traders and officials fretting at the unknown but potentially serious consequences of a "no deal" Brexit for food security in the UK, as well as one middle class family who are already stockpiling their own food supplies.Interviewees include Guy Singh-Watson of Riverford Farm, Professor Tim Lang of City University London, Ian Wright of the Food & Drink Federation, Andrew Opie of the British Retail Consortium, Emily Norton of Nuffield College Oxford, Tim Worstall of the Adam Smith Institute, and New Covent Garden mushroom trader Michael Hyams.(Picture: A mother and her son look at the empty bakery shelves in a supermarket in Tewkesbury, England following flooding in 2007; Credit: Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 235. This is a short video produced by the Federalist Society (Feb. 6, 2018), featuring me and IP law professor Kristen Osenga (I had met Osenga previously, as a co-panelist at an IP panel at NYU School of Law in 2011). I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice—more on this below. To produce this video, Osenga and I each spoke separately, before a green screen, in studios in our own cities, for about 30 minutes. The editing that boiled this down to about 5 minutes total was superbly done. see also James Stern: Is Intellectual Property Actually Property? [Federalist Society No. 86 LECTURE] Transcript below. From the Federalist Society's shownotes on their Facebook post: Why does the government protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks? Should it? Kristen Osenga and Stephan Kinsella explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Kristen Osenga, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, and Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Differing Views: Libertarianism.org: Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property A 21st Century Copyright Office: The Conservative Case for Reform Mises Institute: The Case Against IP Law and Liberty: Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property Harvard Law: Theories of Intellectual Property I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice, given that many libertarian-related groups either outright favor IP or refuse to condemn it or to allow abolitionist voices. Since the dawn of the Internet in the mid-90s, the effects of patent and especially copyright law have become magnified and more noticeable. Thus more libertarians began to direct their attention to this issue. Gradually, scholarship emerged and the consensus began to shift over the last couple decades from an inchoate Randian pro-IP attitude, and/or apathy, to a interest in and opposition to IP law. It is safe to say that most thinking libertarians, most Austrians, anarchists, and left-libertarians, are now predominately opposed to IP.  (See “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”, “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”.) Accordingly, many libertarian groups are now explicitly anti-IP or at least are willing to host speakers and writers with this view, such as: the Mises Institute, and various Mises Institutes around the world (Sweden, Brasil, UK, etc.); the  Property and Freedom Society; and others, like the IEA (see Stephen Davies' Intellectual Property Rights: Yay or Nay); the Adam Smith Forum-Russia, which had me present a sweeping case for IP abolition; and the Adam Smith Institute in London, which also has featured strong voices in opposition to IP (Adam Smith Institute: Do not feed the patent troll; Intellectual property: an unnecessary evil). FEE has featured my work and that of other IP abolitionists, like Sheldon Richman. Even the Mercatus Center has promoted strong IP reform, although not outright abolition (see, e.g., Tom Bell, What is Intellectual Privilege?). And, I've been invited to speak against IP in a number of fora, podcasts, and radio shows—PorcFest, Libertopia, Students for Liberty, FreeTalkLive, and so on. Even John Stossel's Fox show featured me and David Koepsell arguing the abolitionist side. So. This is good progress, and parallels the increasing interest in IP by libertarians and their increasing opposition to this type of law. But not all libertarian groups, sadly, recognize IP for the unjust state institution that it is. The Libertarian Party, for example, shamefully takes no stance on IP in its platform.