Podcast appearances and mentions of gerald friedman

From tariff-funded refunds to tough talk with allies, trade has once again become a central theme of Donald Trump's White House. One year into Trump's second mandate, economist Gerald Friedman walks RFI through the reality behind the rhetoric and looks to how the administration may ultimately be judged. One year after Donald Trump returned to the White House, his second administration has wasted little time putting trade at the forefront of policy. Tariffs, the US president insists, are delivering an economic renaissance. Inflation has supposedly all but vanished. The stock market is booming. Trillions of dollars are said to be pouring into the Treasury, with the promise of tariff-funded cheques soon landing in American letterboxes. Critics, Trump has declared, are "fools". Strip away the slogans, however, and the picture looks far less flattering. According to Gerald Friedman, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Trump's tariff-driven revival is built on shaky foundations – economically incoherent, politically vindictive and geopolitically destabilising. EU readies response to new US tariffs, France braces for fallout The numbers don't add up From an economist's perspective, Friedman says, Trump's claims barely survive contact with reality. “Almost nothing” in the president's upbeat assessment is true. Yes, the stock market is high, but only because a small group of technology giants dominates the indices. Remove them, and the wider market is essentially flat. The idea that tariffs are generating vast new revenues is equally illusory. Tariffs face an unavoidable contradiction: set them high enough to block imports and they raise little money; set them low enough to generate revenue and they fail to protect domestic industry. Either way, the notion that they are filling federal coffers with “trillions” is "fantasy". Friedman notes that “virtually no economists outside of those being paid through Donald Trump … support his tariff regime”, particularly given its random and unsystematic application. What is billed as strategic economic policy looks more like improvisation. Trump's first 100 days: Trade, diplomacy and walking the transatlantic tightrope Illusion of tariff-funded cheques The administration's proposal to issue tariff-funded “refunds” – between $1,000 and $2,000 per household in early 2026 – has clear populist appeal. Economically, Friedman argues, it makes little sense. The US already runs a federal deficit of roughly $1.7 trillion a year, around 6 per cent of GDP. Washington does not need tariffs to send out cheques; it can simply borrow more. The real question is whether it should, particularly after extending large tax cuts for the wealthy that continue to inflate the deficit. There is a deeper irony. Tariffs, Friedman points out, already constitute “the biggest tax increase as a share of GDP that this country has had since the early 1990s”, adding roughly $1,500 a year to household costs through higher prices. Refunding some of that money would merely hand back what had just been taken – while leaving the underlying economic damage untouched. Inflation, eggs and everyday living Trump has repeatedly pointed to falling egg prices as proof that inflation is under control. Friedman underlines that egg prices surged because of bird flu, not economic policy, and fell as the outbreak eased. They are down by about half, not by the 85 per cent the president boasts about – “one of the smaller lies”, as Friedman puts it. Elsewhere, tariffs are doing exactly what economists expect: pushing prices up. Imports such as coffee and bananas cannot realistically be replaced by domestic production. Taxing them feeds directly into the cost of living. Households are paying more, not less. The impact does not stop at consumer prices. Retaliation and uncertainty are quietly undermining export industries. China has cut back on US soybean imports, hurting farmers. Canada is actively reducing its reliance on the US market, deepening ties with Europe and China. Even sectors untouched by tariffs are suffering. Higher education – one of America's largest export earners – is losing foreign students as visas tighten and the country's tourism has also slumped. The combined effect, Friedman warns, is “higher prices and a reduction in employment and wages… ultimately, devastating to the US economy”. Europe's 'Truman Show' moment: is it time to walk off Trump's set? Gunboat diplomacy, with grudges attached For Friedman, Trump's economic policy cannot be separated from his personality. Tariffs have become instruments of pressure and punishment, often driven by personal vendettas rather than strategic calculation. Hostility towards Canada's former prime minister Justin Trudeau, for example, owed as much to personal dislike as to trade policy. This is where economics merges with geopolitics. The US, Friedman argues, is drifting away from the postwar, rules-based order it once championed towards something far older and harsher – “pre-1940”, rather than merely pre-1945. Trade policy is wielded like a weapon, diplomacy reduced to threat and coercion. “Nobody wants to be the one who sticks his head up,” to speak out, Friedman says. Corporate leaders and officials see what happens to dissenters and keep their heads down for fear of investigations, legal costs and political retaliation.  Occupy Wall Street protestors clash with police outside New York Stock Exchange A symptom of deeper failures None of this, Friedman stresses, emerged from nowhere. Echoing arguments made by Greek economist and former left-wing finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, he sees Trump as both cause and symptom. Decades of rising inequality, deindustrialisation and attacks on unions hollowed out large parts of the working class, particularly in the US and Europe. The 2008 financial crisis was explosive. Banks were rescued, executives kept their bonuses, and almost nobody went to jail. The lesson, Friedman says, was clear: the powerful play by different rules. Regions once loyal to centre-left parties – coal country in West Virginia, manufacturing towns across the Midwest – became some of Trump's strongest supporters. Trump did not invent these grievances, but he has channelled them into a politics driven less by repair than by ego and confrontation. Trump says Venezuela's Maduro captured in 'large scale' US strike Judging Trump in 2026 So how should Trump's second presidency be judged as it heads into 2026? Friedman offers a stark metric. Ignore the rhetoric and watch the behaviour of those with real power. Do Republican lawmakers rediscover a spine? Do corporate leaders decide that long-term stability matters more than short-term fear? If they do not, the outlook is bleak. “It's not only the America First agenda,” Friedman says, “it's Trump's personal, ego-driven agenda.” Protests may continue to swell, but without resistance from political and economic elites, the consequences will stretch far beyond the US. In 2026, the results will be difficult to spin away. Tariffs promise strength and sovereignty. What they are delivering, Friedman argues, is higher prices, weaker alliances and a dangerous slide towards a world the US once helped consign to history.

Please donate to the show!Today we take on a listener's question: how do we pay for a single-payer, Medicare for All-style health care system at the state level?  We go over what happened in Vermont when they tried to pass one, as well as how it will be paid for here in Massachusetts according to the bill that has been in the legislature for decades.  And we throw in a bit about how the media repeats talking points from the other side that are not based in fact.Stephanie Nakajima from MassCare and economist Gerald Friedman join Jordan Berg Powers, Jonathan Cohn, and Anna Callahan as we chat about Massachusetts politics. This is the audio version of the Incorruptible Mass podcast, season 5 episode 13. You can watch the video version on our YouTube channel. You're listening to Incorruptible Mass. Our goal is to help people transform state politics: we investigate why it's so broken, imagine what we could have here in MA if we fixed it, and report on how you can get involved. To stay informed:* Subscribe to our YouTube channel* Subscribe to the podcast (https://incorruptible-mass.buzzsprout.com)* Sign up to get updates at https://www.incorruptiblemass.org/podcast* Donate to the show at https://secure.actblue.com/donate/impodcast

About The Case for Medicare for AllLargely privately funded with relatively little public regulation, the United States healthcare system is both expensive and inefficient, providing poor care to large parts of the population.For decades, Americans have wrestled with how to fix their broken healthcare system. In this razor-sharp contribution to the healthcare debate, leading economist and former adviser to Bernie Sanders Gerald Friedman recommends that we build on what works: a Medicare system that already efficiently provides healthcare for millions of Americans.  Rejecting the discredited idea that healthcare should be treated like any other commodity, Friedman shows that healthcare is distinctive and can be best provided only through universal program of social insurance. Deftly exposing the absurdities of the opponents of reform, Friedman shows in detail how the solution to our health care crisis is staring us in the face: enroll everyone in Medicare to improve the health of all Americans.This bold and brilliantly argued book is essential reading for anyone who wants to see Congress and the White House act to provide America with a 21st century healthcare system. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit healthmatters.substack.com

Dr. Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts and Author of "The Case Of Medicare For All," delineates how the US health care arrangement, in comparison to others such as in Japan, the UK or France, is one of the most expensive systems that is not as comprehensive, efficient nor effective as many of the others.

University of Massachusetts economist Gerald Friedman talks about his recent debate at the Soho Forum with Sally Pipes, a leading figure in the conservative anti-single payer movement. He breaks down the major lines of attack used by the right against Medicare for All, including wait times, horror stories, and free market ideology. Show Notes This week we welcome Professor Gerald (Jerry) Friedman, economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and author of many Medicare for All economic analyses. Last week, Jerry debated Sally Pipes, well-known conservative opponent of single-payer healthcare, on whether the COVID-19 pandemic makes the need for Medicare for All more urgent. Jerry joins the podcast today to talk about free market arguments against Medicare for All. And how they're wrong! Market-based attacks on Medicare for All are based on, Jerry says, a fantasy theory in which free market competition in healthcare would promote efficient delivery of services, but only the services that people want. In addition to being wrong, these theories make no allowance for: people who can't afford healthcare;the lack of information or inability for people to make "consumer choices" in healthcare; or even the benefits we all receive when other people are kept healthy with good access to care (for example... during a pandemic!). Jerry says that playing with free market theories of healthcare can be fun, but they have as much bearing on the real world as playing chess has to modern warfare. Although Pipes is making economic arguments against Medicare for All, do real economists believe that a free market can work in healthcare? No, Jerry says, she is really on the fringes. There are debates among economists around Medicare for All, such as around eliminating all cost sharing, but not about substituting a free market principle. Stephanie notes that most conservatives who attack Medicare for All, do so by characterizing countries with single-payer healthcare systems, as Pipes did in their debate, as "being in a constant state of crisis." This is an umbrella for wait-times, rationing, etc. Jerry says this comes out of the assumption that if we make healthcare free at the point of service, there would be a huge surge in demand for healthcare. Even if that did happen, we could accommodate large increases in demand by moving to Medicare for All because of all the administrative hours and burden it would remove for providers, who could then treat more patients. If you look at the data, the United States has more wait times than other countries even for those have access to healthcare (i.e. for those who have insurance): only 43% of Americans can see a doctor that day or the next day - in the OECD (the coalition of wealthy countries), the average is 57%. You can find areas where the American healthcare system works well, but that's only for the people who get into the system. When you look at basic things like life expectancy, the United States is way below most countries - as much as 6 years below how long we should live for what we spend. We are comparable in life expectancy to Chile, which although a wonderful country, does not spend near the resources on healthcare that the U.S. does. While we can have a debate on the facts, data, and merits of Medicare for All, that is not how the political debate will play out when M4A is attacked by free market conservatives, or the healthcare industry. Jerry took one for the team and read Sally Pipes's book opposing Medicare for All. The attacks will certainly use cherry-picked data, but more importantly powerful "horror" stories claiming to show Medicare for All doesn't work in other countries. The stories, like Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen," may have a grain of truth, but are often 95% fabrications, or reflect mistakes made by individual providers - not by the health insurance system failing anyone. Reflecting a common theme on the podcast,

Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts says yes, while the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes says no.

Joe Virgillito discusses how the continuing COVID-19 crisis may impact the movement pushing to make Medicare available to all Americans. His guest on the topic is Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and author of the new book, ‘The Case For Medicare For All.’ Later in the episode, J. McVay and Jacqueline Soller discuss the 2011 movie, ‘Contagion,’ directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet, Demetri Martin, Elliott Gould , Bryan Cranston, and Jennifer Ehle -- available from Warner Home Video. And we’ll take an exclusive early listen to a performance by New York band Scoville Unit, from their upcoming BTR Live Studio session. Music composed by and show edited by Hansdale Hsu. Joe Virgillito is associate producer. 00:00 - Intro 01:18 - START /// COVID-19 and the Case for Medicare For All Joe Virgillito & Prof. Gerald Friedman 02:05 - How much better off would the US be right now if we had universal healthcare? 07:15 - What should the messaging on Medicare for All be? 10:38 - How might Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan create millions of jobs? 14:24 - Response to people who call single-payer “pie in the sky” 19:51 - Is the current system in such shambles it may break down? 26:50 - Is the current discussion around M4A in a good place? /// END 31:34 - 1st Person: Darcy // Surviving Abuse (Trigger Warning) 37:26 - Movie Review: J. McVay on 2011’s ‘Contagion’ 39:29 - Movie Chat w/ Jacqueline Soller & J. McVay (Spoiler Alert) 66:33 - "Different Name Same Place" (BTR Live Studio, 2020) - Scoville Unit 69:17 - Outro / Credits 70:06 - Finish.

"Solutions to Violence" presents Dr. Gerald Freidman recorded at Louisville's First Unitarian Church Oct 24th, 2019. Dr. Friedman is a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Dr. Freidman’s presentation is sponsored by Kentuckians for Single Payer Health Care insurance and First Unitarian Church. Gerald Friedman explains how and why we should transition to a Single Payer health care insurance system.

Episode 9, “The Economics of Health Care - Part 2,” explains how a single-payer Medicare for All system would make health care affordable and available to everyone. My guest is Gerald Friedman, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Professor Friedman obtained his PhD in 1986 from Harvard University, and has published numerous books, papers, and articles. He has been researching the economics of health care for 15 years. Professor Friedman rejoins us in Part 2 In Part 1, we discussed why our current health care system is not affordable. In Part 2, Professor Friedman explains how Medicare for All would make health care affordable, provide more comprehensive coverage, and allow anyone to get the medical care they need without having to worry about cost. Do not miss this episode as it explains how Medicare for All would relieve the financial stress of our current health care system and help individuals, businesses and the country.

Episode 8 explains why our current health care system is unaffordable. My guest is Gerald Friedman, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Professor Friedman obtained his PhD in 1986 from Harvard University and has published numerous books, papers, and articles. He has been researching the economics of health care for 15 years. My interview of Professor Friedman covers two episodes, 8 and 9. This episode explains why we cannot afford our current health care system. Part 2, available on April 1st, explains how a single-payer Medicare for All system would make health care affordable and available to everyone. Do not miss this episode. It powerfully explains why our current health care is bankrupting individuals and the county.  

Listen NowAccording to a recent Kaiser/Washington Post survey 59 percent of Americans support Medicare for All (M4A).  Per a March New England Journal of Medicine poll 61 percent of physicians said single payer would make it easier for them to deliver cost-effective, quality health care.   Currently, before the House is legislation titled the "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act" with over 120 sponsors.  (The legislation has been introduced every session since 2003.)   The House has recently also formed a Medicare for All caucus with 70 Democratic members and if the Democrats win back the House this November they have promised M4A hearings.  The Senate has a parallel bill, the "Medicare for All Act of 2017," currently with 16 cosponsors, several of whom are potential 2020 presidential candidates.  Though there is, again, substantial criticism of M4A, e.g., CMS Administrator, Seema Verma, recently denounced it as "government run socialized health care" (an odd complaint since that is exactly what the current Medicare and Medicaid programs are).  Because of the disruption, dismantling or sabotage of the ACA under the Trump administration and moreover because health care continues to be ever increasingly unaffordable (and bankrupt, the Medicare Part A Trust Fund is now projected to be insolvent in 2026), as is frequently phrased, M4A is, again, on the table. During this 37 minute conversation Professor Friedman provides a general definition of Medicare for All healthcare, how it would be financed and how savings be derived and what amount.  He explains what is current public opinion, what are credible criticisms of M4A and what promising single payer efforts are underway in the states.   Dr. Gerald Friedman is Professor and Undergraduate Program Director of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  Prior to, he worked as research staff for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.  Professor Friedman is the author of multiple books and articles on labor relations and healthcare economics.  He has been a correspondent to television and media outlets, a consultant to labor unions and has drafted funding plans for campaigns for single payer health insurance in several states including New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oregon and Washington and a federal plan for the US.  He serves on the Board of Advisers to the Business Initiative for Health Policy.  Professor Friedman earned his undergraduate degree from Columbia College and his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

What makes a young man decide to walk from Jacksonville to Miami Florida this distance is approximately 350 miles . In Sean LeFloch's case he has been motivated by a passion for the Bernie Sanders campaign for president and he wants to see the rest of Florida #feelTheBern. Join me Thursday, March 3, to listen to my interview with Sean AND to speak directly with Sean live as he finishes his 6th day on the march in Mims, just north of Titusville, Florida. Also, we will hear the end of my interview with Dr. Gerald Friedman discussing the Bernie Sanders plan for universal healthcare and the analysis of the tax Sanders proposes to pay for it. We heard the first part of the interview last Thursday and will be airing the last part of the interview this week.

Paul Krugman criticized Bernie Sanders again last week, arguing that the numbers in his economic proposal don't work. In particular, he went after economist Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts, arguing that his projected growth figures are far too high to be plausible. Friedman and others fired back, arguing that they were using Krugman's own models to reach their conclusions! Bob and Tom discuss and enjoy this exchange, and then give the Austrian view of the whole thing. Show notes for Ep. 24

This week, we will expose the myths around the Bernie Sanders Tax Plan. Many supporters of the Clinton campaign have asserted that American voters would not support a presidential candidate who proposed to raise their taxes. The Tax Foundation has published a less-that-accurate analysis of this tax plan suggesting that it would cost jobs, GDP, and wages. Robert Pollin, author of Thoughts on Tax Rates and Revenue Potential for Financial Transaction Tax in U.S. Financial Markets, an analysis of potential revenue and costs of adding a small tax on Wall Street stock and bond transactions, will join us this week to discuss this analysis.  We will also welcome Deborah Burger, President of the National Nurses United Union, who will discuss the prioritites of her organizations's membership and how they relate to the Sanders Campaign's issues. We will also feature an interview with Dr. Gerald Friedman, professor of economics at University of Massachusetts, discussing his analysis of Bernie's tax plan to pay for his healthcare proposal.