Podcasts about government podcast

A new U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Its goals include administrative reductions, cost savings, regulatory cutbacks, and reducing federal spending by nearly $2 trillion. President-elect Donald Trump has called DOGE the "Manhattan Project of our time," and has indicated that DOGE will reduce regulatory burdens to firms and individuals. But is the act of cutting rules and regulations the same as cutting spending? Does it unleash the economy in a way that benefits everyone or just a select few who don't want the rules in the first place?Right now, it's impossible to know what DOGE will be able to accomplish, but there is another remarkably similar example we can learn from. Argentinian President Javier Milei took office a year ago with a promise to “take a chainsaw to the state.” As part of that promise, he appointed economist Federico Sturzenegger – a former classmate of Luigi's at MIT – as the Minister of Deregulation and State Transformation of the Argentine Republic. Within a year, Sturzenegger has overseen the review of approximately 42,000 laws, and as confirmed by Milei, is in "direct contact" with Musk.Bethany and Luigi talk to Sturzenegger to understand, most importantly, what Argentina's experience might foretell about DOGE's upcoming role and impact on the United States government and economy.

When it comes to defending democracy, are politicians or the public more committed to its principles—or are both equally willing to bend the rules for political gain?In his forthcoming book, Elitism vs. Populism, University of Texas at Dallas Political Scientist Curtis Bram challenges the idea that elites are the ultimate defenders of democracy. Through innovative experiments comparing everyday citizens with elected officials, Bram uncovers an uncomfortable truth: both groups are surprisingly similar when it comes to supporting anti-democratic policies—if it benefits their side. But what does this mean for the future of democracy? And can we trust anyone to uphold it?

For years, the world worried about overpopulation and our capacity to sustain ever-increasing numbers of people. Now, the worry is underpopulation—and recent numbers are stunning. Fertility rate is the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime. According to the United Nations, this number is currently 1.64 in the U.S.: If it stays this way, in three generations there will only be half as many young Americans as there are today, holding immigration constant. In China, this number is even lower: one child per woman. Just eight countries are expected to account for more than half the rise in global population between now and 2050.Economic theory is based on the idea of expansion, and humanity has been expanding since 1500. If that is about to change, then the very foundation of our economic theory will need rethinking.Acclaimed author, historian, and filmmaker Sir Niall Ferguson (Stanford/Harvard) joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss why we're heading toward a global population decline and what it all means for civilization. They discuss how factors like climate change, immigration, reproductive rights, artificial intelligence, and the trade-offs women face between career and motherhood are influencing decisions to have children. What are the implications of falling birth rates not just for the market economy but also for geopolitics and intergenerational conflict? Can we reverse trends in fertility before it is too late?

Hello Not Another Politics Podcast Listeners. We took some time off in preparation for the Thanksgiving Holiday but given the incredible political events of the month we wanted to re-share an episode that we think is even more relevant today than when we recorded it. Why is populism on the rise across the globe? One story says this movement is driven by anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, that they just want to throw the bums out. Another says it's driven by identity politics, an anti-immigrant pro-nativist ideology. Both stories don't leave room for much hope. But what if there was another story that not only gives us some hope but supplies a clear solution.

Trump's back in the White House—how did it happen? This week, we break down what the political science literature has to tell us about why voters swung his way, what Kamala Harris's loss tells us about populism and political discontent, and what's next for American democracy. Plus, co-host Will Howell makes a big announcement!

As the United States elections draw near, everyone is wondering who will take control of Washington next. In this week's Capitalisn't episode, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Brody Mullins reveals how the real winner will be neither Democrats nor Republicans. Rather, it will be the lobbyists.Mullins is the co-author (along with his brother Luke, also an investigative reporter) of The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government. Brody joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss how corporations ranging from Genentech to Google participate in the invisible but massively influential lobbying industry to bend government policy toward their favor. Together, the three trace the roots and evolution of political lobbying from the 1970s to now and explore how it penetrates and leverages other spheres of society to abet its operations. How are academia and the media complicit in this ecosystem of influence operations? How has lobbying adapted to the changing attitudes of Americans towards Big Business? How might it change under either a Harris or Trump administration and beyond?Episode Notes: Luigi mentions the transformational work of one figure in American politics who fought back against lobbyists' substantial influence: consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Revisit our prior conversation and episode with Mr. Nader.

When it comes to online discourse, do Americans really value free speech—or are they more comfortable with censorship than expected?A surprising new paper from University of Rochester Political Scientist Jamie Druckman, “Illusory Interparty Disagreement: Partisans Agree On What Hate Speech To Censor But Do Not Know It” reveals a surprising alignment between Democrats and Republicans on what kinds of speech should be silenced. But is this unity a good thing, or does it hint at a creeping authoritarianism?

You asked and we answered: Over the last year, we have solicited listeners' questions via voicemail, email, and social media. In this episode, our producer, Matt, turns the tables on Bethany and Luigi and puts them in the hot seat to answer your burning questions in an Ask Me Anything “AMA” format.How do Bethany and Luigi actually define capitalism? Does universal basic income disincentivize work? Does the adoption of artificial intelligence mean we need to rethink economics? What would Bethany and Luigi do if they were president for a day? And perhaps the scariest one of all: does Luigi believe in taking time off?

In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, claims of widespread voter fraud have fueled political controversies and public distrust. But how credible are these claims?In this episode, we sit down with political scientist Justin Grimmer to discuss his new paper “An Evaluation of Fraud Claims from the 2020 Trump Election Contests” which systematically debunks over 1,000 fraud allegations from the 2020 election. Grimmer and his co-author comb through the data, analyzing everything from accusations of underage voting to machine vote-switching. Are these claims grounded in reality, or are they just a tool for sowing doubt? Tune in as we dive into the data, the myths, and the facts about the integrity of American elections.

International technology policy expert, Stanford University academic, and former European parliamentarian Marietje Schaake writes in her new book that a “Tech Coup” is happening in democratic societies and fast approaching the point of no return. Both Big Tech and smaller companies are participating in it, through the provision of spyware, microchips, facial recognition, and other technologies that erode privacy, speech, and other human rights. These technologies shift power to the tech companies at the expense of the public and democratic institutions, Schaake writes.Schaake joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss proposals for reversing this shift of power and maintaining the balance between innovation and regulation in the digital age. If a "tech coup" is really underway, how did we get here? And if so, how can we safeguard democracy and individual rights in an era of algorithmic governance and surveillance capitalism?Marietje Schaake's new book, “The Tech Coup: Saving Democracy From Silicon Valley,” is available here. Read an excerpt from the book on ProMarket here.

Ever thought about how your college degree might sway your political leanings? Voters with and without college degrees drifting apart, especially on issues like economics, social values, and foreign policy, but what's driving this shift, and how are party positions influencing voters across different education levels?A new paper from University of Pennsylvania's William Marble, “What Explains Educational Realignment? An Issue Voting Framework for Analyzing Electoral Coalitions” gives some surprising answers to these questions and challenges the assumptions we often hear in the media.

Is race a more consequential determinant of social mobility than class? How and under what circumstances do Americans move up the economic ladder?For years, Harvard economist Raj Chetty has leveraged big data to answer these questions. In his recent paper, Chetty and his team show that Black millennials born to low-income parents have more quickly risen up the economic ladder than previous Black generations, whereas their white counterparts have fared worse than previous low-income white generations. That said, Chetty finds little movement in or out of the top income brackets and that the income gap between Black and white Americans remains large.Chetty joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss these new insights as well as why mobility matters, what costs come in the pursuit of bolstering mobility, and how other factors such as parenting, gender, and social capital factor into the equation. What policies should America pursue, especially against the backdrop of the 2024 presidential election, where many conservatives argue that white working-class Americans are falling behind and liberals argue that Black and brown Americans continue to face systemic inequalities?Show notes:Revisit our Capitalisn't conversation with Oren Cass, who is mentioned by LuigiRevisit our Capitalisn't conversation on Chile, which is mentioned by BethanyCheck out related coverage on ProMarket, including a write-up by Raj Chetty and co-authors on "Lost Einsteins," mentioned in the episode

In a recent paper by Washington University political scientist Michael Olson, he documents a very strange phenomenon. It seems that when legislators join committees, they're voting record becomes less aligned with their constituents' political preferences. The question is…why?Could it be that being on a committee means they're just better informed about what good policy really would be, or could it be that they're nefariously colluding with their colleagues? We explore all these possibilities and more on this episode.

Harvard professor of international political economy Dani Rodrik has long been skeptical of what he calls "hyperglobalization," or an advanced level of interconnectedness between countries and their economies. He first introduced his theory of the "globalization trilemma" in the late 1990s, which states that no country can simultaneously support democracy, national sovereignty, and global economic integration.At the time when he proposed his trilemma, Rodrik was considered an outcast. However, economists and policymakers have come to accept his theory as governments seek to address populism, trade imbalances, and uneven growth through renewed interest in industrial policy, or government efforts to improve the performance of key business sectors. Rodrik joins co-hosts Bethany and Luigi to discuss changing attitudes towards globalization: its distributional effects, how it affects politics, and how it is still searching for a narrative consistent between academic circles and the media. Together, the three of them discuss what role corporate America should play in our world restructured by economic and political populism and if economics is getting too far away from the rest of the social sciences when it comes to shaping industrial policy and creating the jobs of tomorrow.Show Notes:Read Rodrik's co-authored December 2023 paper on the "New Economics of Industrial Policy"Read an ebook by ProMarket on cutting-edge contemporary debates around industrial policy

Since Biden's debate performance, America's political elite have been engaged in a debate. How much does a President really matter for effective government? If his administration seems to work fine, how much of an affect can a President have? At the same time, we important Supreme Court decisions that seem to be giving more power to Presidents which makes finding answers to these questions even more pressing.Well, there is one famous political scientist who explored these questions long ago in one of the most well-known texts in the field “President Power and the Modern Presidents” by Richard Neustadt. It's a book that sat bedside for several Presidents in the White House. It was meant to inform them about how they ought to exercise power and where they might actually be able to find power in a system that was stacked against them. It's worth taking stock of his argument and trying to make sense of both its elements and the extent to which it speaks to this president political moment.

In one of this year's bestselling books, "The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing An Epidemic of Mental Illness," New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that today's childhoods spent under the influence of smartphones and overprotective parenting has led to the reported explosion in cases of teenage anxiety and depression. He calls this process a "three-act play": the diminishment of trust in our communities, the loss of a play-based childhood, and the arrival of a hyper-connected world.Haidt also believes the problem is solvable. On this episode of Capitalisn't, he joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss parenting, learning, adolescence, and in an age where Congress won't act on regulation, his four proposed solutions to break social media's "collective action trap" on children.But are his solutions feasible? How do we weigh their costs, benefits, limitations, risks, and the roadblocks to their implementation? What are the consequences of an anxious generation for our economy — and what can we really do about it?

Have you ever made a 311 call? This is a service provided by many cities that allows citizens to call in things like potholes, graffiti, fallen trees, ect. There is an assumption that many people have that requests made by white and more affluent neighborhoods probably get responded to faster. But is that accurate? In a recent paper, “Unequal Responsiveness in City Service Delivery: Evidence from 24 Million 311 Calls” Stanford Postdoctoral Fellow Derek Holliday uses a large an unique dataset to find some surprising answers. But what are the implications of these findings, and are they positive or concerning results?

If democracy is a social contract, why don't we allow everybody who is willing to sign it? Why don't we have open borders for immigration?In their book "Streets of Gold: America's Untold Story of Immigrant Success," Princeton University's Leah Boustan and Stanford University's Ran Abramitzky provide insights from big data to explore how immigration shaped the United States by looking at the economic legacies of immigrants and their children. On this week's encore episode, hosts Luigi Zingales and Bethany McLean talk with Boustan to unpack how immigrants and their progeny have impacted jobs, wages, and housing prices for native-born Americans. Conversely, how do immigrants' countries of origin overcome obstacles to socioeconomic change when many of their most-motivated citizens leave? Can data move the U.S. immigration debate beyond the current border crisis?

In the last 60 years, few economists have contributed more to exposing the failures of capitalism than Joseph Stiglitz. Formerly the chief economist of the World Bank and chair of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work showing that the possibility of having different information can lead to inefficient market outcomes.On this episode of Capitalisn't, Stiglitz joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss his latest book, "The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society" (W.W. Norton, 2024). The book, as Bethany describes it, is a "full frontal attack on neoliberalism" that provides a prospective roadmap towards a more progressive form of capitalism. Together, the three discuss the role of mis- and disinformation in producing market inefficiencies, the importance of regulation, institutional accountability, and collective action in correcting market failures, and the role of neoliberalism in today's global populist uprising. In the process, they underscore the close link between economic and political freedom.

There is a fact of our political discourse so agreed upon that nobody thinks to question it: affective polarization…democrats and republicans disliking each other...has been getting worse, much worse. But what if that belief is actually based on polls measuring the wrong thing?That's the argument made by Northwestern Political Scientist James Druckman in his paper “What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?”

The meteoric rise of private credit over the last decade has raised concerns among banks about unfair competition and among regulators about risks to financial stability. Historically, regulated banks have provided most of the credit that finances businesses in the United States. However, since the 2008 financial crisis, banks have restricted their credit lines in response to new regulations. In their place has arisen private credit, which comprises direct (and mostly unregulated) lending, primarily from institutional investors. Estimates peg the current size of outstanding private credit loans in the U.S. at $1.7 trillion.Private credit loans aren't traceable, and there are incentives to lend to riskier borrowers in the absence of regulation. This could lead to catastrophic spillover effects in the event of a financial shock. This week, Bethany and Luigi sit down with Jim Grant, a longtime market and banking industry analyst, writer, and publisher of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, a twice-monthly journal of financial markets published since 1983. Together, they try to answer if private credit is in the public interest.

"The only true aging is the erosion of one's ideals," says Ralph Nader, the former third-party presidential candidate who just turned 90 after more than 60 years of consumer advocacy and fighting for small business in America. From influencing the transformative passage of car safety legislation to advancing numerous environmental protection and public accountability causes, Nader has fought against the proliferation and insinuation of corporate power in our government.In between all of that, Nader has also found the time to develop a prolific writing career. In this week's episode, Nader joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss his new book, "Rebellious CEO: 12 Leaders Who Got It Right." The three talk about the possibilities of ethically profitable business, Nader's lifelong pursuit of justice, his views on the state of capitalism today, the political disillusionment of the public, and how we can reclaim democratic control of capitalism.

When it comes to our federal bureaucracy, there are two schools of thought. One says that an insulated group of career bureaucrats have created a deep state that corrupts the performance of government. The other says that our bureaucracy is dysfunctional because there is too much turnover or positions left vacant. Both rest on an underlying feature of our democracy: many of the positions in the federal bureaucracy are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. But, could having less politically selected appointments give us a more functional government?In this episode, we're doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with David Lewis from Vanderbilt University who wrote a primer on this question: should we have more politically appointed bureaucrats or less?

Given the recent mass layoffs, acceleration of media consolidation, continued decline of local journalism, and rapid uptake of generative AI, the news industry—fundamental to institutional accountability in capitalist democracies—appears to be in deep crisis. Joining Bethany and Luigi to make the case that journalism can not only survive but thrive is Ben Smith, longtime journalist, former New York Times media columnist, co-founder of global digital news publication Semafor, and the author of "Traffic: Genius, Rivalry, and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral."How much of today's state of journalism can be attributed to mistakes and how much to inevitability? Where does the marriage between social media and news go next? How can journalism remain financially viable? Offering a nuanced perspective on the opportunities and pitfalls facing the news industry today, the three of them discuss the future of journalism in the age of clicks and a path back to a media landscape that informs, educates, and holds power to account.

There is a long running debate in political science: do we get better judges by letting the public vote in elections or by giving our leaders the power to appoint them? One side says that judges should be insulated from the influence of politics involved in elections, focusing entirely on the rule of law. The other side says that our judges should be accountable to the public for the decisions they make in office. Who is right?In this episode, we're doing things a bit different. The Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, headed by our very own William Howell, has developed a series of primers that each focus on the available scholarship about the pros and cons of a particular governmental reform. Each primer is written by a scholar  who has also done research in that area. On this episode, we speak with Sanford Gordon from the Politics Department at NYU who wrote a primer on this question: is it better to elect or appoint judges?

Perhaps the biggest evidence that capitalism in America doesn't work, at least not for everyone, is growing income inequality and the persistence of poverty. But what is the current state of poverty and inequality in the United States? Why do debates still persist about whether poverty has been eradicated? What do the numbers and official statistics tell us, and should we believe them? What do personal stories and experiences with poverty tell us that data cannot? If poverty has indeed been eradicated, what led to that achievement – and if it still persists, what more can be done to abolish it?Last year on this podcast, we did a series about this topic, and we found these episodes to be surprising and more informative than most of the debates about poverty you'll hear on the news. So, we wanted to condense that series down into a single episode that captures all of the highlights. The first speaker is former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), who argues in his recent book, "The Myth of American Inequality," that poverty is vastly overstated because official government data does not include transfer payments. The second is Princeton sociologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Matthew Desmond, who argues in his recent book, "Poverty, by America," that poverty is a terrible scourge, that we have made no progress, and that it is a moral outrage.The result is a nuanced, surprising, and informative debate on a multifaceted but important issue – leaving our hosts, as well as, by extension, our listeners – to formulate their own takeaways on what we can all do about them.Episode notes:Listen to the complete conversation with Sen. Phil GrammListen to the complete conversation with Dr. Matthew Desmond

In his recent book, "The Problem of Twelve: When a Few Financial Institutions Control Everything," Harvard law professor John Coates sheds light on the secrecy, lack of public accountability, concentrated power, and the disproportionate influence of a select few institutions in our financial system.Coates joins Bethany and Luigi to dissect the potential dangers of this era of financial consolidation and explore possible solutions, including accountability and transparency, to ensure a more equitable economic system. Specifically examining the "Big Four" index funds (Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and BlackRock) — that collectively hold more than twenty percent of the votes in S&P 500 companies — and the transformative rise of private equity funds, they discuss the challenges posed by concentrated financial power and its impact on markets, economies, and society at large. Show Notes:Read an excerpt of Coates' book (Columbia Global Reports) on ProMarketRevisit our earlier conversation with Hélène Landemore, referenced by Luigi in this episode"The book is available via Columbia Global Reports."    

As kids, we all heard someone tell us that it's wrong to lie...but as we grew older, we realized that people lie all the time. Politicians, presidents, and even executives at corporations tell lies—big and small. As citizens, there are obvious exceptions where lying is wrong, for instance; perjury, lying on your employment application, or lying to get a bank loan. But do we have a right to lie? And if so, what are the boundaries?On this episode, we speak with UCLA Professor of Philosophy and Law Seana Shiffrin and George Washington University Professor of Law Catherine Ross. They discuss both the philosophical arguments against lying and the legal arguments against notorious lies made by President Trump and former Congressman George Santos. 

How do you stop a government from continuing to commit human rights abuses? You could take them to an international court of justice, or file a complaint at the UN. But none of those bodies have any enforcement power. Short of going to war, the only option on the table in most international situations is to name and shame. But is that strategy effective?In her new book, “The Geopolitics of Shaming: When Human Rights Pressure Works and When It Backfires,” University of Chicago political scientist Rochelle Terman argues that there is a real dilemma to international human rights pressure: Shaming is most common in situations where it is least likely to be effective; and, most troublingly, it can often make human rights abuses worse. Link to the advertised Chicago Booth Review Podcast:  https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/podcast?source=cbr-sn-bbr-camp:podcast24-20240222

When it comes to passing actual legislation, putting it forward and getting it all the way through the process, it can be difficult to measure exactly which legislators are effective. Not to mention which types of legislators tend to be more effective, moderates or extremists? And does majority-party membership increase effectives?In an innovative new paper, “Effective Lawmaking Across Congressional Eras”, University of Pittsburgh professor of political science Max Goplerud proposes a new measure of legislative effectiveness that may help us to answer some of these complex questions.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that “Wall Street's best-known bear is going into hibernation" after the legendary short seller Jim Chanos announced he would close his main hedge funds late last year, in part due to diminishing interest in stock picking. Short selling, which bets on drops in asset prices, wins when companies and governments fail and has gained a predatory reputation over the years. Just last week, the China Securities Regulatory Commission vowed "zero tolerance" against what they called "malicious short sellers," according to Reuters.One of our listeners wrote to Bethany with this question: “What does it say about capitalism if Jim Chanos can't find enough investors willing to profit from its frauds, fads, and failures, not to mention the competitive forces that are necessary for a functioning market? Is short selling dead?” To discuss this, Luigi and Bethany sat down with Chanos himself, who has been cast as the “Darth Vader of Wall Street,” the “Catastrophe Capitalist,” and the “LeBron James of short selling.” Together, they discuss the relationship between short sellers and our information environment, the fallout from the "meme stock" craze, the effects of the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies, and how short selling can contribute to market efficiency and resilience. Do short sellers play a positive role by uncovering corporate fraud, mismanagement, and systemic risks? What safeguards are necessary to prevent short-selling abuse and ensure fair and transparent markets?

When we talk about the interpretation and ultimately implementation of policy we're not talking about Congress so much as the Administrative State. But what happens when those who work in those agencies decide through their positions to not only sabotage a policy they're meant to carry out, but perhaps the whole agency?In a recent paper titled “Administrative Sabotage” Rutgers law professor, David Noll, looks at the history of how agencies sabotage themselves and discuses what this means for a democracy and for the power of the Presidency.  

When we talk about policy choices around redistribution there is an assumption so obvious that most people never question it. That politicians are more responsive to the desires of the rich, and that policy preferences of the poor don't hold as much sway. But what if that assumption was wrong?In a recent paper by Boston University Economist Raymond Fisman titled “Whose Preference Matter For Redistribution: Cross-Country Evidence” uses cross-sectional data from 93 countries to see how much a government redistributes lines up with how much redistribution citizens of different socioeconomic statuses actually want. The findings are surprising.

It's been nearly 16 years since the federal government bailed out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion in response to the financial crisis that precipitated the Great Recession. The idea that the public must guarantee critical financial institutions that are “too big to fail” was controversial then, but does it still remain an issue? Stanford finance professor Anat Admati, whom the New York Times profiled in an article titled "When She Talks, Banks Shudder," argues it's become worse.Admati joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss the updated edition of her and Martin Hellwig's book, The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do About It. Dissecting new financial developments, including the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the crypto industry, and shadow banking, Admati lays bare how the current financial system is rigged for the benefit of the few. She also prescribes how we can build and regulate a fairer and more accountable financial system and, thus, a more stable and equitable capitalist economy.Show Notes:Read the 2024 preface of The Bankers' New Clothes on ProMarket.Revisit our 2019 conversation with Anat and Chicago Booth Professor Guy Rolnik, exploring the reasons why market and policy may fail in finance and technology and what we must do to address such failures.Read Anat's contributions to our e-books on George Stigler and Milton Friedman.

Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn't be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we're release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don't make money off this show, it's a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.

This episode takes looks back at episodes from 2023 about topics focusing on how a modern digital infrastructure empowers the public sector.We chat with 5 Tyler thought leaders and learn about how open data usage, utilizing the Cloud, and connecting residents to digital solutions have helped governments solve problems, create efficiencies, and connect communities.We also look ahead to Connect 2024, which will be in Indianapolis, Indiana from May 19th to May 22nd - early registration is now open at: https://www.tylertech.com/connectLearn more about the resources discussed in this episode:o Webpage: Modernize Your Government Softwareo E-Book: A Digital Government Guide to Effective Data Strategieso White Paper: Leveraging Data as a Transformative Asseto Video: Paperless Processes Connect Datao Video: SANDAG's Journey to Connect Communities With Datao Video: Connect 2024 Indy Hype VideoAnd you can listen to the full conversations for the interview clips you heard today at this link: https://www.tylertech.com/resources/podcastLet us know what you think about the Tyler Tech Podcast in this survey! 

After two seasons and 163 episodes, Capitalisn't hosted its first-ever live event late last year. As part of the University of Chicago Podcast Festival, co-host Luigi Zingales fielded questions from three UChicago undergraduate students — Surya Gowda, Mete Bakircioglu, and Giuseppe Di Cera —and an in-person audience in an “Ask Me Anything.” From the evolution of competition policy to the impact of greener energy sources on prices, from the challenges of regulating the shadow economy to Luigi's struggles with his favorite soccer team, here is our “Ask Me Anything” episode.If you wish to submit your own question for our forthcoming mailbag episode, please do so here. https://www.speakpipe.com/Capitalisnt

Hello listeners! Our team took some end of the year time off, but we know your holiday travel wouldn't be complete without some in-depth political science research. So, we're release some episodes we think are going to be very relevant as we move into an election year. And thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year. We don't make money off this show, it's a labor of love to make important scientific research interesting and accessible…but your support is crucial to helping us to continue that mission. The data shows that the number one way podcasts grow is through word of mouth. If you could please just tell a friend, a family member, co-worker to listen to our show it would help us immensely. Thanks again and please enjoy the holidays.

The firing, and subsequent rehiring, of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman raises fundamental questions about whose interests are relevant to the development of artificial intelligence and how these interests should be weighed if they hinder innovation. How should we govern innovation, or should we just not govern it at all? Did capitalism "win" in the OpenAI saga?Bethany and Luigi sit down with Luigi's colleague Sendhil Mullainathan, a professor of Computation and Behavioral Science at Chicago Booth. Together, they discuss if AI is really "intelligent" and whether a profit motive is always bad. In the process, they shed light on what it means to regulate in the collective interest and if we can escape the demands of capitalism when capital is the very thing that's required for progress.

After discussing the trajectory of China's economy earlier this year, Luigi and Bethany turn their attention to the future of another global economic behemoth: India. Joining them is renowned Indian economist Raghuram Rajan, who has a brand-new book out this week, "Breaking the Mould: Reimagining India's Economic Future" (co-authored with Rohit Lamba).In "Breaking the Mould," Rajan and Lamba make the controversial and counterintuitive argument that India should follow an economic development path that is based not on manufacturing, as China has done, but rather on services. In this conversation, we discuss why India's strengths play to services-based development, how India can deal with the economic and educational inequality created by its past, how Western business should engage with India, and why democracy is critical to India's future economic success.We think his perspectives are important for Indian citizens and policymakers, but also for global citizens and policymakers given the critical role India will play in shaping the world of the future. 

After previously exploring the worlds of 'consultants for sale' and 'scientists for sale,' Luigi and Bethany turn their attention to another broken system of 'enablers' - the world of lawyers for sale. With award-winning investigative journalist David Enrich, they discuss David's latest book, "Servants of the Damned: Giant Law Firms, Donald Trump, and the Corruption of Justice." Enrich presents several case studies showing how 'Big Law' firms have used their wealth and influence to capture the justice system, serving the interests of their wealthy clients at the expense of ordinary Americans. With Bethany and Luigi, he discusses: How can we restore the integrity of our legal institutions? What are the broader implications for the rule of law in a society dominated by economic and political interests?Show Notes - also revisit:The Capitalisn't of Consulting: McKinsey and Beyond, with Walt BogdanichScience for Sale, with David Michaels

There is a political puzzle that has become prominent in the last few decades, especially with the recent turmoil over the Republican led Speaker of the House: how do a small group of extremists manage to get their way despite being a minority of members?In a recent paper, “Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design” University of Chicago Political Scientist Ruth Bloch Rubin takes that question head on. Her conclusions could tell us a lot about the bargaining strategies of extremists, when and why they work, and how those strategies may create sticky organization practices and structures.

In his new book "Number Go Up," Bloomberg News investigative reporter Zeke Faux takes readers on a wild ride through the world of cryptocurrency, from its origins in the dark corners of the internet, its meteoric rise to mainstream popularity, and finally its equally precipitous fall. A few days after the 'convicted' verdict in the trial of beleaguered crypto entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), Faux joins Bethany and Luigi to make a case for why we should judge cryptocurrency by what it has done and not what it can do. They discuss whether it is too soon to write crypto off, what larger commentary it offers about capitalism, and why Luigi, who teaches a popular MBA course on fintech, feels "crypto is money that can only be created by computer scientists who don't understand history."Show Notes: Revisit a 2017 Stigler Center mini-course by NYU Stern Professor David Yermack on the potential implications of blockchain technologies on the future of finance.

In his new book, Sohrab Ahmari argues that the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few corporations has created a new form of tyranny in America. "Coercion is far more widespread in supposedly noncoercive societies than we would like to think—provided we pay attention to private power and admit the possibility of private coercion," he writes.Ahmari, founder and editor of Compact magazine, joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss his book, "Tyranny Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty--and What to Do About It."  In this episode, they discuss the complex relationship between capitalism, personal freedoms, and political power. The conversation sheds light on what classical liberalism ignores, how today's Right is discovering what the Left may have forgotten, and ultimately, where today's political Left and Right may be able to work together.Show Notes: Also check out two previous episodes mentioned in this conversation:Is Common Good Capitalism The Answer? With Oren CassA Conservative Critique Of Capitalism, With Patrick Deneen

When political commentators talk about polarization, they often mean a partisan ideological divide: the left vs the right, republicans vs democrats, progressives vs conservatives. But what if there is a different dichotomy driving our political disagreements that is orthogonal to ideological differences? That's what University of Miami political scientist Joseph Uscinski argues in a recent paper, “American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, he shows that anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiments may be more of a driving force in our politics than partisan ideology. Paper link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12616

In her brand new book, "The Big Fail: What the Pandemic Revealed About Who America Protects and Who It Leaves Behind," Bethany and her co-author Joe Nocera argue that the COVID-19 pandemic was not simply a natural disaster but also a man-made one.Based on rigorous research and compelling storytelling, Bethany, who is renowned for her incisive reporting, reveals uncomfortable truths that have emerged from the pandemic about capitalism, inequality, and corporate power. In this one-on-one conversation with Luigi, she dissects the policies, decisions, and systemic structures that exacerbated the pandemic's fallout for the most vulnerable in society, shedding light on who benefited and who was left to fend for themselves.

How does science become public policy? It's not always as straightforward as it might seem. In his book "The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception," leading public health expert and former Clinton/Obama administration official David Michaels shows how corporate interests often "manufacture uncertainty" in order to protect their profits. Using wide-ranging case studies from Big Tobacco, Volkswagen, American football, and talcum-based baby powder, Michaels exposes the disinformation playbook deployed by corporate-funded science to sow "doubt, denial, delay, distraction, deflection, and defense." With him, Bethany and Luigi discuss how we can fight back against manipulated science and replace the triumph of doubt with the triumph of truth.Show Notes: Also, check out our previous episode on the "Capitalisn't of Consulting" and the case of McKinsey, mentioned by Luigi in this episode.

Since the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, University of Chicago Prof. Robert Pape has been closely observing the threats to our democracy. Now, the renowned terrorism expert says that violent ideas coming from a dedicated minority are moving from fringe to mainstream.In 2021, Pape's team along with NORC at the University of Chicago launched the Dangers to Democracy tracker, an ongoing series of surveys to track Americans' thoughts and attitudes about political violence. In one recent survey, about 12 million Americans said they believe violence is justified to restore Trump to power. Still, Pape believes the data may give us some answers about how to move forward, and how to strengthen the center.

In his new book, Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, renowned political philosopher Patrick Deneen argues that the liberal ideology that has shaped capitalism for centuries has also failed to deliver on its promises of freedom, equality, and prosperity. Is he able to offer a compelling alternative that serves the interests of the common good over those of wealthy elites?Deneen, whose previous book "Why Liberalism Failed" was acclaimed by the likes of former U.S. President Obama, joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss his proposed 'Regime Change' and its implications for capitalism and the market economy. Can his vision of a postliberal future offer a more just and sustainable economic system, one that addresses the pressing challenges of our time? Can we have progress without progressivism?

As companies become increasingly big through mergers and acquisitions -- especially in technology, health care, and several other industries -- how should rules and regulations change with the times?Freshly minted and hot off the press: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released an updated set of draft "Merger Guidelines," which could reshape the landscape of corporate mergers and acquisitions both in the U.S. and globally. Esteemed Stanford professor and Chief Economist at the DOJ's Antitrust Division, Susan Athey, joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss these changes. Why did the DOJ and FTC make them? How will they impact the way companies approach mergers and acquisitions? And what do they mean for consumers, competition, labor, and the broader economy?Show Notes:Visit our ongoing online symposium on the Merger Guidelines, with a wide range of perspectives and debates from leading experts on the topicHear more from Susan Athey at our 2023 Antitrust and Competition Conference