Podcasts about capitolism

Trump has plunged the markets into chaos over the last couple of weeks with his tariffing, and un-tariffing, and possible re-tariffing. The Biden-to-Trump voters we've talked to were a mixed bag on this. Scott Lincicome, author of The Dispatch's economics newsletter Capitolism and Vice President of general economics at the Cato Institute, joins Sarah to listen to how the trade war is trickling down to voters and where it all might go from here. show notes By Scott Lincicome: Capitolism Newsletter This show is #sponsored by OneSkin. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code THEFOCUSGROUP at https://www.oneskin.co #oneskinpod

Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute and a general tariff expert, took some time out of his very busy schedule to talk to Jonah Goldberg about Trump's trade-deficit delusions,why reciprocal tariffs will harm the United States, and the likelihood of increased inflation as trade tensions rise. Show Notes: —Scott's Capitolism newsletter for The Dispatch —Scott's column on trade deficits The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, regular livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

2 SHORT VIEWS OF TECHNOLOGY & CAPITOLISM TOLD BY ME

2 SHORT VIEWS OF TECHNOLOGY & CAPITOLISM TOLD BY ME

Photos of a smiling Jack Welch, the first celebrity CEO, conjure thoughts of a capitalist superstar, corporate genius, and for some, maybe even the term American hero. And indeed, many Americans have worshipped at his altar, praising the way Welch maximized profits at GE and transformed global business. But as NYT reporter David Gelles lays out in his recent NYT cover story: "How Jack Welch's Reign at G.E. Gave Us Elon Musk's Twitter Feed" and his forthcoming book, THE MAN WHO BROKE CAPITALISM: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America - and How to Undo His Legacy, (Simon & Schuster; hardcover; 5/31/22), there is a darker truth to this narrative. Laying out an "eye-popping history," Gelles shows how Welch's rise at GE both spurred and benefitted from a new American free-market mindset hell bent on deregulation, outsourcing and union-busting. Welch's focus on shareholder profits turned GE from an innovative engineering giant that took care of its employees into a heartless corporate behemoth that slashed and burned workers on its way to becoming what was essentially a giant, unregulated bank. The company's stock price soared, but GE had become a shell of its former self, and eventually even the profits took an inevitable hit: In 2008, the GE house of cards came tumbling down, the stock price cratered, and the company last year said it would break itself apart. We are still feeling the deleterious effects of the Welch era, extended by his powerful imitators and a pervasive mindset that puts shareholders before all else. But Gelles also believes we can pull ourselves out of this spiral, arguing that many CEOs are beginning to understand the lessons of the last 50 years.In this "eye-popping history" (PW), Gelles outlines how Welch's rise at GE both spurred and benefitted from a new American business and political "free market" mindset, hell bent on deregulation, outsourcing and union-busting. Welch's focus on shareholder profits turned GE from an innovative engineering giant that took care of its employees into a heartless corporate behemoth that slashed and burned workers on its way to becoming what was essentially a giant, unregulated bank. The company's stock price soared, but GE had become a shell of its former self, and eventually even the profits took an inevitable hit: In 2008, the GE house of cards came tumbling down, the stock price cratered, and the company last year said it would break itself apart. We are still feeling the deleterious effects of the Welch era, extended by his powerful imitators and a pervasive mindset that puts shareholders before all else. But Gelles also believes we can pull ourselves out of this spiral, arguing that many CEOs are beginning to understand the lessons of the last 50 years.

Photos of a smiling Jack Welch, the first celebrity CEO, conjure thoughts of a capitalist superstar, corporate genius, and for some, maybe even the term American hero. And indeed, many Americans have worshipped at his altar, praising the way Welch maximized profits at GE and transformed global business. But as NYT reporter David Gelles lays out in his recent NYT cover story: "How Jack Welch's Reign at G.E. Gave Us Elon Musk's Twitter Feed" and his forthcoming book, THE MAN WHO BROKE CAPITALISM: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America - and How to Undo His Legacy, (Simon & Schuster; hardcover; 5/31/22), there is a darker truth to this narrative.Laying out an "eye-popping history," Gelles shows how Welch's rise at GE both spurred and benefitted from a new American free-market mindset hell bent on deregulation, outsourcing and union-busting. Welch's focus on shareholder profits turned GE from an innovative engineering giant that took care of its employees into a heartless corporate behemoth that slashed and burned workers on its way to becoming what was essentially a giant, unregulated bank. The company's stock price soared, but GE had become a shell of its former self, and eventually even the profits took an inevitable hit: In 2008, the GE house of cards came tumbling down, the stock price cratered, and the company last year said it would break itself apart.We are still feeling the deleterious effects of the Welch era, extended by his powerful imitators and a pervasive mindset that puts shareholders before all else. But Gelles also believes we can pull ourselves out of this spiral, arguing that many CEOs are beginning to understand the lessons of the last 50 years.In this "eye-popping history" (PW), Gelles outlines how Welch's rise at GE both spurred and benefitted from a new American business and political "free market" mindset, hell bent on deregulation, outsourcing and union-busting. Welch's focus on shareholder profits turned GE from an innovative engineering giant that took care of its employees into a heartless corporate behemoth that slashed and burned workers on its way to becoming what was essentially a giant, unregulated bank. The company's stock price soared, but GE had become a shell of its former self, and eventually even the profits took an inevitable hit: In 2008, the GE house of cards came tumbling down, the stock price cratered, and the company last year said it would break itself apart. We are still feeling the deleterious effects of the Welch era, extended by his powerful imitators and a pervasive mindset that puts shareholders before all else. But Gelles also believes we can pull ourselves out of this spiral, arguing that many CEOs are beginning to understand the lessons of the last 50 years.

Photos of a smiling Jack Welch, the first celebrity CEO, conjure thoughts of a capitalist superstar, corporate genius, and for some, maybe even the term American hero. And indeed, many Americans have worshipped at his altar, praising the way Welch maximized profits at GE and transformed global business. But as NYT reporter David Gelles lays out in his recent NYT cover story: "How Jack Welch's Reign at G.E. Gave Us Elon Musk's Twitter Feed" and his forthcoming book, THE MAN WHO BROKE CAPITALISM: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America - and How to Undo His Legacy, (Simon & Schuster; hardcover; 5/31/22), there is a darker truth to this narrative. Laying out an "eye-popping history," Gelles shows how Welch's rise at GE both spurred and benefitted from a new American free-market mindset hell bent on deregulation, outsourcing and union-busting. Welch's focus on shareholder profits turned GE from an innovative engineering giant that took care of its employees into a heartless corporate behemoth that slashed and burned workers on its way to becoming what was essentially a giant, unregulated bank. The company's stock price soared, but GE had become a shell of its former self, and eventually even the profits took an inevitable hit: In 2008, the GE house of cards came tumbling down, the stock price cratered, and the company last year said it would break itself apart. We are still feeling the deleterious effects of the Welch era, extended by his powerful imitators and a pervasive mindset that puts shareholders before all else. But Gelles also believes we can pull ourselves out of this spiral, arguing that many CEOs are beginning to understand the lessons of the last 50 years.In this "eye-popping history" (PW), Gelles outlines how Welch's rise at GE both spurred and benefitted from a new American business and political "free market" mindset, hell bent on deregulation, outsourcing and union-busting. Welch's focus on shareholder profits turned GE from an innovative engineering giant that took care of its employees into a heartless corporate behemoth that slashed and burned workers on its way to becoming what was essentially a giant, unregulated bank. The company's stock price soared, but GE had become a shell of its former self, and eventually even the profits took an inevitable hit: In 2008, the GE house of cards came tumbling down, the stock price cratered, and the company last year said it would break itself apart. We are still feeling the deleterious effects of the Welch era, extended by his powerful imitators and a pervasive mindset that puts shareholders before all else. But Gelles also believes we can pull ourselves out of this spiral, arguing that many CEOs are beginning to understand the lessons of the last 50 years.

When does economic policy become industrial policy, and has the Biden administration crossed that line? In this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I'm talking with industrial policy skeptic Scott Lincicome about the CHIPS and Science Act, how competition with China complicates the argument for free markets, and more.Scott is the director of general economics and the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author of numerous reports on industrial policy and international free trade, including "The (Updated) Case for Free Trade" with Alfredo Carrillo Obregon and “Questioning Industrial Policy” with Huan Zhu. He's also the author of Capitolism, a Dispatch newsletter.In This Episode:* Is Bidenomics really about boosting productivity? (1:19)* We're all industrial policy enthusiasts now (3:37)* The climate change exception (9:34)* Thinking about China (17:29)* Can the US play the semiconductor game and win? (21:35)Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.Is Bidenomics really about boosting productivity?James Pethokoukis: The Biden administration has been doing quite a bit: this infrastructure bill, we've had a chips and R&D bill, now we have the Inflation Reduction Act. The president has said that one thing he's trying to do is boost the productive capacity of the economy. Do you view that as the main thrust of these bills?Scott Lincicome: No. I think it's actually much more about picking and choosing specific sectors. You can maybe argue for infrastructure: to the extent that roads and bridges are going to actually lead to the expansion of the national productive capacity, okay. But particularly with semiconductors and the IRA, this is just classic industrial policy. “The market has failed. We don't like the sectoral composition of the United States economy. In particular, we are not making enough semiconductors. We are not making enough solar panels and wind turbines and electric vehicles, and government needs to get involved. We need to not only encourage the consumption of these goods, but we need to actually forcibly, or through a lot of subsidies and sweeteners, incentivize onshoring of these critical industries.” I know that there are some attenuated ideas that this will then boost the overall productive capacity after several years. This is the whole idea that the Inflation Reduction Act will actually reduce inflation by spending all this money. But let's be clear: the immediate effects, the ones that don't require stretching the economic imagination beyond all recognizable length, are about a sectoral composition. It's about changing the shape of the US economy.We're all industrial policy enthusiasts nowA more market-oriented approach would focus on things like creating a favorable tax code that's neutral to sectoral composition and funding basic research. But with industrial policy, you care about sectoral composition. You care about what the economy looks like, rather than just GDP growth. Is America now doing full-throated industrial policy?No, but we definitely have pushed the envelope. That actually gets to one of the big myths that is pushed by industrial policy advocates here in the United States: this idea that we lived through this grand or terrible — depending on your viewpoint — era of free market fundamentalism in which Milton Friedman got a hold of the economy and ran it like a textbook. That's absolute nonsense. We have experimented with industrial policy for ages, going back to the ‘60s, the ‘70s, then into the ‘80s. We really liked it in the ‘80s and ‘90s. We backed off a little bit in the ‘90s and 2000s but still had tons of industrial policy initiatives to encourage certain types of manufacturing, certain types of jobs, to protect certain sectors. And some of this was new; some of it was longstanding stuff like the Jones Act. So the idea that we weren't engaging in industrial policy is pretty silly. But we certainly have pushed the accelerator down a little bit in the last few months, starting with the infrastructure bill which has local content provisions: “Buy American” this, “Use these American workers,” “Produce these types of charging stations,” that kind of stuff. Specific things, not just infrastructure as we normally consider it. But then really ramping up with the CHIPS Act, which certainly has some basic research stuff in it. But throws $80 billion — potentially more, depending on how these tax credits shake out — to domestic semiconductor manufacturers to actually put more fabs in the United StatesIt's a subsidy to build these plants in the United States.Correct, and with several strings attached even further. But the idea, generally, is (so the argument goes) the United States has experienced a dramatic collapse in semiconductor productive capacity over the last 30 years — thanks, again, to the Milton Friedmanites, us at Cato, we libertarians always run Washington so it's all our fault. And we need to tilt the scales. We need to do industrial policy like the Koreans and the Taiwanese and the Chinese are doing, and we need to get more fabs, semiconductor manufacturing facilities, here in the United States. That's the idea. And then the IRA basically turned the knob to 11. The IRA went and did very much the same thing with tens of billions of extra dollars — hundreds of billions, really — looking into renewable energy: all sorts of programs, advanced manufacturing, tax credits, grants, you name it. Again, this is not new. Most of the stuff that the IRA did was expand Obama-era programs that went on during the 2009 stimulus bill, essentially revitalizing some of these programs, for example at the Department of Energy, that had been in place for more than a decade.Industrial policy can refer to a lot of things: protecting industries from foreign trade, cutting checks to businesses or sectors deemed "important," or offering strategic tax breaks and the like. Is what we're doing now closer to classic industrial policy?This is classic industrial policy. And in a sense, I'm relieved. Because for the last two years, before the CHIPS bill and the IRA and a little bit on infrastructure, we had this very painful debate that we wonks have to have about definitions. If you listen to some industrial policy advocates out there, like Mariana Mazzucato, the Italian economist who's all the rage in Europe with industrial policy, to them — and there are some folks here in the United States who do this too — industrial policy is anything and everything. WTO reform was industrial policy, basic research gets thrown in, military spending … You get these ridiculous statements like, “Everything that goes into an iPhone was the result of government industrial policy.” That's a lot of nonsense. There's plenty of free-market, market-oriented, libertarian, whatever you want to call it, stuff that just does not meet the traditional definition of industrial policy, meaning targeted and directed government action — tariffs, subsidies, whatever — to achieve a specific microeconomic advantage over what the market could produce within national borders. And always pursuant to some strategic plan. This is not the NIH just giving out some grants. No, you have a big plan, a strategic plan, and you're going to go out and determine winners and losers. That is very much what we're doing in the CHIPS Act and the IRA. It's nice in the sense that we're getting back to a discussion of traditional industrial policy.The climate change exceptionCertainly some would argue, even if they're generally skeptical of industrial policy, they would say, “Well, sometimes we have to do it. Maybe for defense-related reasons we need to do it. Maybe there's some other emergency. People think climate change is that kind of thing: We can't wait for the market to figure it out. It's a pressing emergency, as much as a geopolitical conflict would be. It's that kind of thing. Therefore, we must act.Even zany libertarians like me acknowledge a national defense exception to all of this stuff. There's actually a lot of literature I've written about, about how national defense is quite different from socially related industrial policy. And for those reasons, and for very legitimate national security reasons, you tend to push defense-related stuff over the side. Even I am not going to say we should be outsourcing our nuclear weapons technologies to China. That kind of stuff is obvious. Just as importantly, or almost as importantly, there are pretty huge differences between defense procurement and commercial industrial policy. One is, there's no other buyer for defense-related stuff. The market is the government's market. That makes the government uniquely positioned and attuned as the consumer to care about how it's spending its money, to actually have sophisticated, detailed information about the sector. The government knows a lot more about tanks than basically anybody else, because the government is in the tank consumption business. Finally, the public tends to give the government a lot more of benefit of the doubt about failures, about dollar figures and the rest. It's kind of the government's unique, constitutional responsibility. National defense works. Climate change, though, I think is a problem. Because climate change is very much a consumption issue as much as it is a production issue. And it's very little of a domestic production issue. Of course we care about coal-fired electricity plants and the rest. But at the end of the day, all we really care is that we want to increase domestic consumption of renewable energy. With respect to all of these products, there's no need that solar panels be made in America. Quite frankly, there's a very strong argument that by raising the prices of our renewable energy goods — by slapping tariffs on them, by localization mandates like Buy American policies — we're actually raising the prices of these goods and then discouraging consumption of renewable energy. So there's a really tough tension between classic economic nationalist industrial policy and environmental goals. You don't have to take it from me. A big initiative of the Obama administration was to liberalize trade in environmental goods. The Obama administration quite rightly observed that production of these things is not nearly as important as consumption of these things. And what helps maximize consumption? Free trade. That deal never got finished. It's been shelved because, of course, everybody hates trade these days. But I think that it's a lot tougher argument on the climate change side that we need industrial policy, because it just doesn't have the same dynamic as something like national defense.Let me frame it somewhat differently. What if the policy was, “Here's how we're going to deal with climate change: We need to pull carbon from the air”? Carbon removal technology is something that doesn't really exist right now, other than in some very experimental forms. “We're going to fund it, just like Apollo, just like the Manhattan project.” Would you favor something like that, assuming you thought there was the actual need to pull carbon from the sky?This is a great example of where you have the industrial policy approach and the more market-oriented approach. The industrial policy approach is that we need that carbon capture technology to be made by Americans in America. And not just deployed by Americans; we need it made in America. Whereas the more free-market approach would be a prize: We don't care how it's made. We don't care who makes it, with a few security-related exceptions. If tomorrow the Korean government or Samsung or whatever comes up with the most amazing carbon capture technology in the world — it's like Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future, you just slap it on a power plant and suddenly we're zero emitters — you win the prize. We don't care that it was made by a Korean company. We don't care that they are going to be Korean jobs and not American jobs. No, the industrial policy side says, “We care a lot about who makes this stuff and that it's made in America, using American materials.” The pandemic, for all of its terribleness, provided us a pretty good example of the industrial policy approach to pandemic stuff and the market approach. And that's in the vaccines. The more free-market approach, essentially a prize but a procurement contract, was we went to Pfizer and BioNTech, and if you look at the contract for those vaccines, it said we have nothing to do with your supply chain. “We don't care how you do it. We don't care what you do. Just get an FDA-approved vaccine and we are all in, we're going to pay.” That's it. There are clauses in that contract that literally say we will have no control over how you make this whatever. A ton of global collaboration, of course. BioNTech is a German company, blah, blah, blah. Totally different approach: There's another company in Maryland called Emergent BioSolutions. Emergent BioSolutions is a heavily government-connected contract manufacturer that has been essentially put here for pandemic preparedness. Lots of government involvement over the years. Emergent was the kind of all-American government contractor model. It is very much similar to a lot of the stuff we hear today about what we need, not just for pandemics, but for other stuff as well: We need to put this factory in America; we need to put it right outside of Washington. Well, Emergent hasn't made a handful of finished doses, and in fact has had a ton of problems with sanitation issues. They've had to destroy a bunch of doses. It's a nice contrast between a more market-oriented approach and a very domestic-oriented approach, one being much more industrial policy than the other. We can argue on the margins about how we funded mRNA research back in the day… But look, comparatively, there are two very different approaches to economic policymaking.Thinking about ChinaIt was kind of easy to defend free markets during the Cold War, but have things become more complicated with China given the interdependence of our economies? How easy is it for you to maintain your pro-market views on industrial policy questions with China?China certainly makes it a little bit harder, and the nature of technology makes it a little bit harder. But we have existing laws and processes for a lot of that. You used a word there that sets off my libertarian Spidey senses. You said “important.” The issue there is, who decides what's important? The idea is not that we allow mass proliferation of dual-use technologies, we rely on China for weapons systems or critical inputs to weapon systems. But it's also that we have to have a lot of skepticism about what is and isn't important. I have very little problem allowing the Office of Foreign Assets Control and all the guys that commerce and whatever to apply the export control regime. We have US laws that require the Department of Defense to look at defense procurement and look at weak links in the chain. In fact, the Defense Production Act, before it was used to make baby formula, used to be used correctly. DOD used to look at its defense supply chain and say, “We don't have a stable producer of widgets that are important for our weapon systems. We need to subsidize that. We're going to give them $20 million.” You know what? No problem. The problem is that now the word “important” has become so distorted from its original meaning that steel rebar is being restricted on national security grounds. Not to mention all of the other areas. Certainly there is a need to consider China, to consider the natures of technologies and all that. But we've gone way, way beyond what is in any way a rational policy. And you have to be very concerned about politics. One of the little-known secrets about the global chip shortage is how American export control policy contributed to the global chip shortage. The Trump administration started restricting pretty basic semiconductor technologies to China and Huawei and the rest. That reduced the global supply of bulk semiconductors. I'm not talking about the fancy three nanometer or whatever stuff. I'm talking about the junky stuff that we put 100 of them in a car for not a great reason, but we do. Not only did that reduce global capacity, but it also caused all these Chinese companies to start hoarding chips because they were scared to death of being cut off from these chip supplies.Believe it or not, China remains very dependent on the United States for a lot of semiconductor stuff. That, of course, made things worse. The Biden administration quietly rolled some of that back in response to shortages. But that's the type of stuff we need to be really worried about. We also need to be concerned about, if we restrict these exports, is that just going to harm American tech champions like Qualcomm or whatever while bolstering French competitors, European competitors, Korean competitors, that are still going to sell to China anyway? There needs to be a very rational, skeptical approach to all this stuff. You can't just scream “China!” and then suddenly protect, subsidize, and do the rest. Of course, there are going to be exceptions. The goal is to get back to a saner approach to those exceptions.Can the US play the semiconductor game and win?How do you see this experiment with semiconductor subsidies playing out? When we look back at it in 10 years, will we say, “We learned that we can do that; we learned the United States can play that game and win,” or are we going to say, “It didn't really quite work out the way we'd hoped”?It's always hard, because any time there's a new industrial policy announcement, you're going to get companies that are beneficiaries making all these investment announcements. The goal and the hard part is then tracking and determining whether those announcements were made because of the subsidy or whether they were already going to do it and they're just trying to get government cash or curry favor with the administration and the rest. The other problem is determining what would've happened in the absence of the program. One of the things I was yelling about before the CHIPS Act was implemented was that semiconductor companies and big consumers, like Apple and Ford and GM, had realized years ago that they needed to rebalance a little bit. That, because of the pandemic, geopolitical stuff, and just other reasons, they were a little top heavy in Taiwan or in Asia. They started planning to invest back in the United States. Apple was saying, “We're willing to pay more to have Samsung right next to our big facility in Austin,” for example. All these investments were already planned before the CHIPS Act ever became a thing. Of course, the government is going to take credit for all of this. “We did all of this. Feast upon our works.” That's a challenge. I'm pretty confident, quite frankly, that they're going to run into a lot of problems. One problem is, like I said, they've attached strings to this stuff. There are prevailing wage requirements and other rules and regulations about favoring disadvantaged communities and all the usual stuff. These things always tend to gum up the works a little bit. The other big issue is that we run into preexisting policies that didn't fix: immigration bottlenecks, other labor supply problems. There was a big story in the AP last week that Intel in Ohio can't find construction workers. That's because we didn't liberalize immigration along with all this industrial policy money we just threw at the economy. We have, of course, plenty of tariffs on stuff that you need to build factories. We have tax policy with respect to expensing that discourages long-term investments in capital-intensive manufacturing. I can go down the list. We didn't fix any of that. At the end of the day, will we move the needle a little bit? Maybe. Government is very powerful; we're throwing a lot of money at this. But will there be a great global rebalancing? Color me quite skeptical. The other thing we have to consider are the risks. If we are successful and there is suddenly a glut in global semiconductors — reading the news right now, the semiconductor industry is actually kind of in some trouble globally right now. Gluts are popping up, people stockpiled, like I mentioned. And now they realize that actually Americans' consumption or the world's consumption of chips isn't insatiable. There are concerns there. If we have a chips-related glut, because the United States and Europe and Korea and others all threw subsidies at this, what are we going to do with all those extra chips? If you look back at the ‘80s and ‘90s, we had trade wars. We slapped tariffs on Japanese semiconductors and then Korean semiconductors, which caused all sorts of ripple effects throughout the US economy. It pushed the computer industry offshore, for example. Being a libertarian ideologue, but also a student of history and industrial policy, I remain pretty confident that we're going to look back on this and go: “Eh, that was not the greatest idea.” 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

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. Scott Lincicome, director of general economics at the Cato Institute, joins Declan to help us better understand the legislation. What's actually in the law? How questionable is the budget math? Show Notes:-Uphill: Breaking Down the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022-Read Declan in The Morning Dispatch-Read Scott in Capitolism

Politicians keep arguing over the definition of a recession as Americans deal with soaring inflation, high gas prices, and the aftereffects of the pandemic. But Scott Lincicome from The Cato Institute has a new piece outlining how all this fighting is stopping Washington from working on the issues that negatively affect people's lives, bad economy or not.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Air travel this summer seems broken. On some days, major airlines have been canceling 10 percent of their flights. In normal times, it's something like one in a hundred that are canceled. How did this happen? Is there an explanation beyond just the obvious – which is the turbocharged rebound from the past two years of pandemic-induced turmoil in the airline industry? Today's guest thinks there's something else going on that the post-covid travel summer has simply revealed. It's a structural problem that predated the pandemic, and he also sees similar forces at work in other industries, including the baby formula crisis. It's the structural roots of crises of scarcity that we get at today, with Scott Lincicome. Scott is at the CATO Institute, a Washington think tank, where's he's the director of General Economics & Trade Policy Studies. He's also a visiting lecturer at Duke University Law School, and spent two decades as a trade law negotiator, advising some of the largest multinationals. He also writes a Substack called “Capitolism”. And he's with The Dispatch news & analysis site.

We've been hearing about the end of globalization for the better part of the last decade, and yet rumors of its demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated. The latest calls for American energy independence and re-shoring manufacturing are part of this broader trend, which seeks to insulate the domestic economy from turmoil in faraway regions. COVID-19 also brought the idea of “industrial policy” back to the forefront. While it's hard to pin down an exact definition, Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute relates some key features behind the misguided notion that the government must steer critical industries for reasons of national importance.Whether we're talking about steel, oil, or semi-conductors, the proponents of a robust industrial policy argue that we've become too reliant on our potential foes for strategic resources, and must set national production goals through legislation rather than impartial market forces. This can range from Soviet-style central planning (which led to the ultimate collapse of the USSR), to the use of trade barriers, tax incentives and subsidies - i.e., “picking winners and losers.”Even with the latter approach, Lincicome points out many flaws in modern American industrial policy. In a recent Cato white paper, Questioning Industrial Policy, he highlights the inefficiencies brought about by injecting politics into the market's discovery process, and notes how most recent attempts to “improve” the outcomes of global competition have tended to hinder even our vital domestic industries.Scott joined me to break down the report, and make the case for embracing globalization and free trade in the 21st century rather than hunkering down in our domestic silo.Check out Scott's excellent newsletter “Capitolism” at the Dispatch.

Scott Lincicome, Director of General Economics & Trade at the CATO Institute and Author of the Capitolism newsletter for The Dispatch, checks in to break down the different dynamics that have led to a baby formula shortage across the country.

Ben and Cassie go on a C journey! From Covid to Christianity to Conservatism to Capitolism to Community and Culture (or the frequent lack thereof). Coincidence? Certainly. But we do love alliteration.

Anatolli reports on the latest going on in Ukraine and how the Orthodox church is reacting and moving forward during the conflict. Ashley shares the Pope's explanation of the Book of Ruth , importance of the elderly and touches on the celebrations of both St. Zita and St. Catherine of Sienna. Chadd touches on the wisdom that Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger shared about finances and life.

“First you need to give before you earn the right to receive.” - Dr. Ivan Misner, BNI International In this age of digital distraction, we can still create meaningful connections. As social beings, we crave connection and especially as an entrepreneur, your business depends on connecting with people. You're destined to help people solve problems that they couldn't otherwise solve themselves. The ability to connect, serve and operate a flourishing business depends on the willingness to give. The more you give the more you get. Listen to the episode to hear how the likes of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk have proven the power of this principle. In this episode: The importance of knowing how relationships work. How to build a proactive support network. How to build effective, long-term business networking. How caring, compassion and concern will help you assure your clients that you're able to help them solve their problems. What is the purpose of your business? Who's lives do you intend to improve? You can find The Power Of Connection: How To Activate Profitable Relationships By Serving Your Networks and some of Nicky's other books at the links below. The Power Of Connecting: How To Activate Profitable Relationships By Serving Your Network The Thought Leaders Journey - A Fable Of Life   Finish Line Thinking: How To Think And Win Like A Champion Also in this episode: Apple's Think Different ad - https://youtu.be/84RftlKGaWs You can work in person with Nicky and a group of like-minded people in one of the quarterly, three-day, eCircle thought leader immersion events in Toronto.  Visit eCircleAcademy.com and book a success call with Nicky to take your practice to the next level.

It's like "2 Girls One Cup" but people call it pretty and you'll like it.That's the best summary of this film I could manage. Featuring:  Alex WilliamsComedian and co-creator/star of The Slanted Hallway (podcast)https://open.spotify.com/show/1wOzABcC9kkxgaiOFbpjWc?si=549c57c3b30d4270(Follow their Insta @theslantedhallway or look them up on Facebook for some stellar title-card art by Will Pottorff!) Other Resources:"Epstein: Filthy Rich" - Netflix "What Is Marxism" - Ryan Chapman (Youtube)https://youtu.be/BFEeHPYp7sg "Post War Reconstruction and the Italian Miracle" - Italian Innovators (Youtube)https://youtu.be/x-5NFTYAwnI "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) Is Not One-Note" - Style Is Substance (Youtube)https://youtu.be/TQ8o4YyZMjA If you are at all interested in digging into this film, I HIGHLY recommend purchasing the "Criterion Collection" version from their website. Virtually any questions you might have after the film will be answered. Musical Suggestion:Rot TV Special Thanks!-Fesliyan Studios - Your library makes my shitty skits possible (Skit Sound effects and music)-Ryan Maguire - Intro Music- Joe Moubhij - Love of my life-Brieana Woodward - Art And especially Pier Paolo Pasolini"Hope is a horrible thing invented by political parties to keep their members in line."I wish we could have seen what you were going to make next, so your dying statement wasn't a resignation of hope.But god damn if the whole thing isn't brilliantly poetic. This podcast is recorded, edited and produced by Kyle Seeley

In This Episode: Erin and Weer'd talk about some recent 2A court cases and then discuss a new device that attempts to defeat the bumpstock ban; David brings us an in-depth review on classes of ammo, and ammo interchangeability; and finally, Weer'd brings us a fisk of a false-flag gun group out of Oregon. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic: Man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an AR-15 used in Kenosha shootings agrees to plea deal Dominick Black's AMAZING Plea Deal Explained! Ahmaud Arbery's Killers Each Sentenced to Life in Prison Capitalism Always Wins: Don't Look Now, But Here Comes the COLD FINGER ‘Bumpfire' Device The Bump Board at the range Cajun Machine Gun Bump fire instruction for Radical AR-15 off the shoulder standard stock and trigger Operation Blazing Sword Educational Report for 2021 Gun Lovers and Other Strangers: Prepper's Armory: Cartridge Versatility Prepper's Armory: Cartridge Versatility - Part 2 .22 Short .22 Long .22 Long Rifle .22 Long Rifle .32 Smith & Wesson .32 Smith & Wesson Long .32 H&R Magnum .327 Federal Magnum .38 Smith & Wesson Special .357 Smith & Wesson Magnum .38 Short Colt .38 Long Colt .357 Remington Maximum .38 Smith & Wesson .44 Smith & Wesson Special  .44 Remington Magnum .44 Russian Elmer Keith .45 Colt .45 Schofield .454 Casull .460 Smith & Wesson Magnum .45-70 Government Ruger Single Six Heritage Rough Rider .45 ACP E.M.F Pietta 1873 Cimmaron Smith & Wesson Model 25 Moon Clips .45 GAP T/C Contender Cape Gun Savage Model 24 Savage Model 42 Springfield Armory M6 Scout Forgotten Weapons: Phillips & Rodgers M47 Medusa: Multicaliber Revolver for a Nonexistent Apocalypse Weer'd Audio Fisk:   Gun-owning group in Oregon advocates for firearm safety Gun Owners for Responsible Gun Ownership What some firearm owners think could solve gun violence in America Clackasmas Mall Shooting Report (PDF) Oregon Firearms Federation The Gun Lock That A Child Can Open With A Paperclip How to remove trigger lock easy. No drilling required. Oregon Marijuana Laws Senator Ginny Burdick's 2005 Attempt At A Semi-Auto Ban  

On today's episode, Sarah and Steve sit down with Scott Lincicome, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of The Dispatch newsletter Capitolism, to discuss the details of our global supply-chain issues. Plus, Lincicome answers questions about inflation, wages, and problems with our labor force participation.    Show Notes: -Make sure you get Capitolism in your inbox -Lincicome's latest Capitolism tackles our supply-chain woes -Lincicome's Capitolism looking at our labor shortage See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's show, our hosts discuss issues up-and-down the supply-chain, and the political fallout it brings. Plus, the ripple effects of the House passing the infrastructure package, what we think we know about the 2022 midterms, and the latest news around the Steele dossier. Show Notes: -Lincicome's latest Capitolism tackles our supply-chain woes -Uphill breaks down the bipartisan infrastructure bill -The Sweep digests the election results from last week -Politico: “The Surprising Strategy Behind Youngkin's Stunner”   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Scott Lincicome, The Dispatch's resident expert on all things free and economic, returns to The Remnant for a distinctly wonky discussion of tariffs, taxes, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Jonah and Scott tackle our most pressing regulatory questions. Is corporate personhood a legitimate concept? Has Biden undone any of Trump's protectionist measures? And will supply chain shortages deprive us all of Tickle Me Elmos this Christmas? There's also a bit about boar-cobra hybrids enslaving humanity, but you'll have to listen to fully understand.   Show Notes: -Scott's Capitolism newsletter -“Unfair and absurd” -Scott on the exciting world of corporate tax rates -Econ 101 with Peter Suderman -“Human beings, my friend.” -China's energy crisis -Christmas who? -Britain braces for the end times -Scott on America's ports problem -Scott's love affair with the Jones Act -The parley in Pittsburgh -We need to talk about tariffs -Wild boars reclaim the Roman Empire -Otters annex Alaska See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Kat and Moose Podcast visit the Podcast Movement in Nashville this week, and reminisce their experiences skydiving in support of RAINN. Kat's Mom and Aunt build a manger scene and we celebrate Happy Whole Way and different terms for prayer. We are rocked by our friend who has been diagnosed with cancer, and we discuss awkward attempts at being empathic. Moose introduces us to Peaceful Barb and Kat revisits her & her sister's backstage experience with Roxette at the Fox. Moose is triggered by Stitcher's game and questions the wants to buy some land. Kat is angry about tapbacks, and we enjoyed Shaun T and we lament change and all its baggage and advocate for the 4-day work week. Green Print straws are gross and might have been made from our Yoni Steams.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/katandmoose)

William Ramsey hangs out with DOCTOR FUTURE! Author J. Michael Bennett discusses his book Two Masters and Two Gospels, vol. 1: The Teaching of Jesus vs. the "Leaven of the Pharisees" in Talk Radio and Cable News. https://www.amazon.com/Two-Masters-Gospels-Teaching-Pharisees/dp/1952249007/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=j+michael+bennett&qid=1624924745&sr=8-1

In a St. Patrick’s Day edition of The Dispatch Podcast, Sarah, Steve, Scott, and Declan start off today’s discussion with the ongoing migrant crisis at the border. Plus, the gang explains how while most of the conservative world was talking about Dr. Seuss and Pepe le Pew, Democrats jammed through the biggest advancement of the welfare state since LBJ’s administration. Scott points out, “When you really dig into the details you see Democrats laying the groundwork for a very substantial increase in the welfare state, and in ways that Democrats have long wanted.” And, what’s the fallout after a Biden administration official actually spoke strongly against the North Korean regime?   Show Notes: -The latest GOP attack on Biden has a huge hole in it - Greg Sargent/Washington Post -Four people matching terror watchlist arrested at border - Axios -'Migrant president' Biden stirs Mexican angst over boom time for gangs - Reuters -Leaked NRSC polling data on immigration -Scott’s latest Capitolism newsletter -Conservatives Drift Leftward in the Plan to Rescue America - Ryan Streeter -Biden officials comments on North Korea -Biden Risks Repeating Mistakes of the Past if He Ignores the Evidence on Iran - The Dispatch -Declan’s TMD item on filibuster reform -Scott’s “Gridlock is good!” newsletter -The Dispatch March Madness Tournament See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the first time on The Dispatch Podcast, author of the Capitolism newsletter and neoliberal shill extraordinaire Scott Lincicome joins Sarah and Declan. On topics ranging from free-market fundamentalism to the crazy world of semiconductors, Scott brings his expertise to break it all down. As he says on today’s episode, “You know, Glengarry Glen Ross? It’s Always. Be. Shilling. … I will literally make any issue about trade and markets. It doesn’t matter what, whether it’s the chicken sandwich wars … or cheap T-shirts.” To cap it off, Scott speaks to being the reigning champion of the “Neoliberalism Shill'' tournament.   Show Notes: -“Capitolism” newsletter -Scott’s Cato bio -Scott’s Twitter profile -Scott’s latest Cato paper “Manufactured Crisis” -Declan’s piece on semiconductors in TMD -Scott’s article on semiconductors -Vote your conscience in this year’s Neoliberal Shill Tournament See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks to international supply chains, Scott Lincicome’s Five Timer gold jacket is in the mail today as he joins Jonah to discuss a whole panoply of economic trends. Scott and Jonah talk about some of his observations from his posts as a fellow Dispatch-er with his Capitolism newsletter, as well as through his role at Cato where he has just put out a ton of research refuting the too-clever-by-half idea that the government can seize the manufacturing industry for national security reasons. The guys also discuss how COVID has essentially reversed the consumer side of the American economy. (“The pandemic has temporarily converted us into a country that buys goods instead of services”), and they even manage to get in some Hayek (peace be upon him).   Show Notes: -“Five Timers Club” -Scott’s newsletter, Capitolism -Democrats trying to push through $15 minimum wage -Tom Sowell on the minimum wage -More from Less by Andrew McAfee -Scott’s latest for Cato -Scott’s take on the ‘deindustrialization’ myth -A rundown on the National Technology Industrial Base -U.S. ventilator overproduction -Sherrod Brown’s “Buy American” push to the Biden administration -Jonah: Thank globalism for COVID response, not nationalism -Jonah, microcosms, and macrocosms -Invisible Wealth by Nick Schulz and Arnold Kling See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

J.C. and Mike check in with each other on parenting through the attack on the US Capitol on January 6th. (Note: This episode was recorded on January 13th.)

We’re reporting LIVE from Capitol Hill as protesters threaten our beautiful democracy. We try to figure out how these protests affect the people that matter... journalists. Inside the same building, we found out the entire Squad voted for Pelosi, Lin Manuel Miranda is doing a 2006-style NOH8 campaign, Google has a minority union, and Julian Assange can’t be extradited to our prisons because Epstein definitely killed himself.

Capitalism has been accused of many ills over the years, but is it guilty as charged? In this episode, Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs President and CEO Matt Brouillette talks about lessons learned from the Jamestown settlement's economic experience. He shares how capitalism has proven to be the best antidote to poverty and explains why capitalism works--and capit'O'lism doesn't.

Debate hour 2 quick discussion on how blacks created cotton, American music & not only should Quaker Oats should rebrand Aunt Jemima Pancakes personally I don't care about the pancake an syrup it's been like that for over 100 years should Quaker remove the white male image off it's oatmeal brand. Plus #MWS finds an alternate promo cover of #Madonna's hit #Holiday which and we discuss the burining crosses of Like a Prayer that may have some thinking that she should pull the video and edit some of its content. Madonna is looking very ethnic in this promo. If this was out today some may call her out as being racial misappropriation. Some probably calling for the movie 10 with Bo Derek or Cleopatra starring Elizabeth Taylor to name a few.

In this episode TAP and the gang discuss a Pedophile Neo-Nazi, A case of Big Brother in Apple stores, the reanimation of a Pig's brain and what it could mean for the world, and whether the CEO of Disney should hand over that bonus!

This episode is actually an eye opener for Rain and I... History is important, especially black history! Thanks to NaVosha Copeland, (a Professional Archivist) for being our special guest and letting our audience in your life for a second! We discuss the level of power in knowledge! In history most definitely... Much to hear so tune in!!!

Shalom everyone, last night show like all the others was packed with elevating and edifying information for the healing and repairing of the Black African spirit and 9mind that has been colonized and imprisoned by centuries of misinformation and clandestine subversive propaganda on the part of those classifed as Greek European aka white colonizers in order to use we of melanine rich talents and inheritance in anyway they see fit. This very insidious tactic of Mackevaliean indigenous abuses has basically caused us to express a type of what I call, functional insanity. Functional insanity is a form of insanity that allows one to (appear) normal when actually they are not. I am a firm believer that out of the mouth of two or three all things can be confirmed and affirmed. And the only way we heal from a horrible history is first by knowing the unedited truth of it. So this evening I will be playing clips from the man I affectionately call my Daddy, Dr Amos Wilson. Y'all already know how I love this man and dearly wish i had, had the honor of meeting him while he so amazingly graced this realm with his magnificent prescence. And other relevant clips from my most controversal FB news feed post. I have an awesome cadreof FB friends because my news feed is never mundane or boring. Again you dont want to miss a second of what we expose on the 9Mind Sacred Sisterhood Cosmic Frequency Blogtalk Internet Radio Show. Merlot anyone? :-) https://www.facebook.com/9MINDsacredBlacksisterhood https://www.facebook.com/el.maat.73

So sacrifice is a virtue and selfishness is a vice, right?  Not so fast!  Wes Bertrand joins me to discuss the philosophy of self-interest.  Of course much of the time is spent talking about Ayn Rand’s great book on the topic, The Virtue of Selfishness.    What is wrong with sacrifice?  Isn't selfishness evil?  Wes and I go deep on this one, exploring the effects of the dominant belief in today’s culture, the philosophy of sacrifice, and how that contrasts with Ayn Rand's philosophy.   Find more from Wes here:   http://completeliberty.com   http://happinesscounseling.com/happiness-resources   http://choiceconversations.libsyn.com/no-strings-attached-movie-review-with-wes-bertrand   http://choiceconversations.libsyn.com/judgment-and-responsibility-with-darrell-becker-and-wes-bertrand   http://choiceconversations.libsyn.com/the-virgin-diet-and-n-1-experiments-with-wes-bertrand   http://choiceconversations.libsyn.com/is-society-progressing   http://choiceconversations.libsyn.com/complete-liberty-with-wes-bertrand             Choice Conversations is now on Facebook.  Stop in, say hi, discuss the shows, and more!  If you like Choice Conversations then "like" me on facebook, and then share the page with your friends:  https://www.facebook.com/ChoiceConversationsPodcast       Help the Podcast!  I would greatly appreciate it if you went to itunes, wrote a quick review, and rated the show.  This is a great way to increase downloads and to help the show grow.  The more downloads, the more easily I can book high profile guests:  https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/choice-conversations/id315666764?mt=2       Bumper music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8yuWddw0E