Podcasts about International economics

In the United States, inflation is just as high as it is in the European Union—if not higher. Yet it seems to be hurting the American economy much less, according to a report published on Monday by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. So why are Europeans feeling the pain more intensely, and how much higher could prices still go?Production: By Europod, in co-production with the Sphera network.Follow us on:LinkedInInstagramTake your personal data back with Incogni! Use code EUROPOD at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/europod Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode unpacks how a major Ebola outbreak in Central Africa exposed critical gaps in global health surveillance and assesses U.S. preparedness for future biological threats.   Host: James M. Lindsay, Mary and David Boies Distinguished Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy, CFR   Guest: Thomas J. Bollyky, Bloomberg Chair in Global Health; Senior Fellow for International Economics, Law, and Development; and Director of the Global Health Program   We Discuss:   The current state of the Ebola outbreak in the DRC and Uganda, and why the case count was already high by the time authorities reported it. Why governments are often slow to report cases during outbreaks, and what delayed reporting may have cost in this instance. Why the WHO has discouraged trade and travel restrictions. How the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO is shaping a more limited response. Whether China is stepping in to fill the global health leadership gap left by U.S. institutional withdrawal. What the politicization of mRNA vaccine technology means for the U.S. ability to respond to future outbreaks that require rapid vaccine deployment. How artificial intelligence creates opportunities to accelerate global health responses, but also introduces new risks like engineered pathogens.   Mentioned on the Episode:   CDC Health Alert: Ebola Disease Outbreak in the DRC and Uganda, May 19, 2026   WHO Disease Outbreak News: Ebola caused by Bundibugyo Virus, DRC and Uganda, May 21, 2026   WHO Declaration of Public Health Emergency of International Concern, May 17, 2026   Bollyky et al., "Assessing COVID-19 pandemic policies and behaviours and their economic and educational trade-offs across US states from Jan 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022: an observational analysis," The Lancet   CDC Mobilizes International Response Following Ebola Disease Outbreak, May 18, 2026   For an episode transcript and show notes, visit The President's Inbox at: https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/presidents-inbox/americas-ebola-preparedness   Opinions expressed on The President's Inbox are solely those of the host or guests, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Conflict in the Middle East has implications that extend far beyond the region itself. For Europe, tensions involving Iran could affect energy markets, international trade, inflation, financial stability, and even the continent's environmental ambitions. Such a conflict could also reshape geopolitical alliances and force governments to reconsider long-standing economic and security dependencies. In this episode of What Matters Today, we explore the potential economic, political, and environmental consequences of a conflict with Iran for Europe. Our guest for this episode is Dominic Rohner, Professor of International Economics here at the Geneva Graduate Institute and a Faculty Associate at the Institute's Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding.

Professor Mark Blyth, Professor of International Economics at Brown University, joins Richard to discuss the influence of the super rich, and whether their displays of wealth are the most brazen that they've ever been.

O século XXI é o mais produtivo de sempre, mas alguns países são mais produtivos do que outros. Porquê? Como é que se mede a produtividade do nosso trabalho? E de que forma o que produzimos influencia o nosso salário?Neste episódio, o economista João Duarte explica porque é que ser produtivo não significa trabalhar mais horas e porque é que tudo começou com a Revolução Industrial – o PIB per capita mundial era quase plano até 1800 e disparou a partir daí.Ao longo da conversa, distinguem-se conceitos que são muitas vezes confundidos, tais como, «produtividade do trabalho», «PIB per capita» ou «produtividade total dos fatores», e analisa-se porque é que é difícil medir a produtividade de um médico, ou de um professor, entre outras profissões que não têm preço de mercado.A dupla explica ainda a «Regra dos 70» no crescimento económico e mostra como pequenas percentagens têm grande impacto: sabia que, se crescer 1% ao ano, o PIB per capita duplica em 70 anos? E se crescer 2% duplica em apenas 35 anos?Por fim, explora-se um dos grandes temas da economia atual: porque é que a produtividade disparou nos EUA e a Europa ficou para trás?LINKS E REFERÊNCIAS ÚTEISOCDE — GDP per hour worked (cross-checked com Wikipedia «List of countries by labour productivity», atualizado a partir dos dados OCDE 2023, USD PPP).OCDE — Average annual wages (cross-checked com Wikipedia «List of countries by average wage», dados 2024, USD PPP).OECD – «Measuring Productivity» (OECD Manual: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-level Productivity Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2001)BUIATTI, DUARTE, SÁENZ, «Europe Falling Behind: Structural Transformation & Labor Productivity» (Journal of International Economics, 2026)LEVINSON, «The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger» (Princeton University Press, (2006)DAVID, P., «The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox», (American Economic Review 80(2), 1990)BOLT & VAN ZANDEN (2025), «Maddison-style estimates of the evolution of the world economy: A new 2023 update» (Journal of Economic Surveys) BIOSJoão DuarteProfessor associado com agregação na Nova School of Business and Economics. A sua investigação foca-se na produtividade, em particular nas razões pelas quais a Europa tem crescido menos do que os Estados Unidos — tema do seu artigo publicado no Journal of International Economics. Manel RosaHumorista. Estreou-se no stand up comedy em 2019, quando tinha 15 anos. Em 2023, lançou «Mais isto do que aquilo», o seu primeiro espetáculo em nome próprio. No mesmo ano, criou «DISNARRATIVO», uma espécie de vlog no Youtube, que manteve até 2025. Juntou-se ao leque de apresentadores do Curto Circuito, um programa da SIC Radical, em 2024.

This episode unpacks how the Marshall Plan transformed postwar Western Europe and why security, allied cooperation, and forward thinking were the real keys to its enduring success.   To mark the 250th anniversary of the U.S. declaration of independence, CFR is dedicating a yearlong series of articles, videos, podcasts, events, and special projects that will reflect on two and a half centuries of U.S. foreign policy. Featuring bipartisan voices and expert contributors, the series explores the evolution of America's role in the world and the strategic challenges that lie ahead.   Host: James M. Lindsay, Mary and David Boies Distinguished Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy, CFR   Guest: Benn Steil, Senior Fellow and Director of International Economics, CFR   We Discuss: How the British Empire's rapid collapse in early 1947 forced the United States to assume responsibility for Western European security. What George Marshall's six weeks of negotiations in Moscow revealed about Soviet intentions in Germany and Western Europe. How Marshall deliberately crafted the plan's offer to include the Soviet Union while ensuring Soviet leader Joseph Stalin would reject it. How Congress, controlled by Republicans, was persuaded to support a massive foreign aid program from a Democratic administration. Whether the Marshall Plan's $13 billion actually explains Western Europe's economic recovery in the late 1940s. What role NATO played in making the Marshall Plan work, and why the French and British insisted on security guarantees before cooperating. Why security has to precede economic reconstruction—and what Afghanistan and Iraq  reveal about ignoring that lesson. What Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.'s 1947 prediction about sustained alliances tells us about the stakes of U.S. foreign policy today.   Mentioned on the Episode:   The 10 Best and Worst Decisions in U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations   Benn Steil, The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War   George Kennan's Long Telegram, February 22, 1946   “Sinews of Peace (‘Iron Curtain' Speech).” at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946.   Harry Truman, “The Truman Doctrine,” Address to Congress, March 12, 1947   George C. Marshall, Commencement Address at Harvard University June 5, 1947   For an episode transcript and show notes, visit The President's Inbox at: https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/presidents-inbox/america-at-250-the-marshall-plan   Opinions expressed on The President's Inbox are solely those of the host or guests, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

It's 1990. A young staff economist walks into a director's office at the World Bank and says the number he's about to publish is "crazy". The director tells him not to worry about it. The number was the dollar-a-day poverty line. Lant Pritchett, now of LSE, was that economist. More than three decades later, he's still worrying about it. In this week's episode he argues that the dollar-a-day line warped how the world thinks about poverty, by setting the bar so low that we can count billions of deprived people as not poor.In a new paper, co-authored with Martina Viarengo (Graduate Institute, Geneva), their fix isn't to scrap the low line. It's to add a high one as well. They propose a global upper-bound poverty line of $21.50 a day, ten times the extreme-poverty standard, derived from four separate measures of material wellbeing.Above it, you're no longer poor by any reasonable global standard. Below it, you're poor in a sense worth measuring. By that standard, 99% of Pakistan is poor, and almost no one in Denmark is. Should that affect how we think about anti-poverty policy? The research behind this episode:Pritchett, Lant, and Martina Viarengo. Forthcoming. "Raising the Bar: An Inclusive Global Poverty Line." Journal of Development Economics. Available now as a working paper.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Lant Pritchett. 2026. "What the $1-a-day global poverty line gets wrong." VoxDev Talks (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About the guestLant Pritchett is a development economist and Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics. He worked at the World Bank from 1988 to 2007 and taught at the Harvard Kennedy School for nearly two decades. His work spans economic growth, state capability, education systems, and labour mobility.The paper is co-authored with Martina Viarengo, Professor of International Economics at the Geneva Graduate Institute. Her research spans public policy, labour markets, comparative education, and international migration.Research cited in this episodeThe dollar-a-day poverty line. Created for the World Bank's 1990 World Development Report on poverty and based on the observation that national poverty lines in the poorest countries clustered at a low floor (Ravallion, Datt and van de Walle 1991). Updated for inflation, it now sits at P$2.15 a day in 2017 purchasing power parity. It was only ever meant to mark the lowest a global poverty line could plausibly be, not the line.The focus axiom. A standard property of poverty measures, originating with Amartya Sen (1976), under which changes in the income of anyone above the poverty line do not register in the measure. Pritchett's objection is that this assigns mathematically zero weight to the near-poor; a household just above the line counts the same as a Danish millionaire, namely zero. He calls it an economic bug that became a political feature, because it takes global redistribution off the table.Gresham's law applied to poverty. Pritchett's framing for how the simple headcount displaced richer, distribution-sensitive approaches; bad economics drove out better economics because it was easier to understand. He notes the World Bank of the 1970s was preoccupied with distribution, citing Hollis Chenery and Montek Ahluwalia's Redistribution with Growth (1974), so the idea that economists ignored distribution until poverty measurement arrived is a myth.The two criteria for an upper bound. The proposed line rests on two ideas drawn from the tension between the focus axiom and standard welfare economics. One, material wellbeing achievement; the line sits where a household reaches a standard of living a rich-country citizen would recognise as adequate. Two, near enough satiation; the line sits where the extra wellbeing from another dollar has fallen so low that treating further gains as zero does little violence to reality. At twenty-one and a half dollars the marginal utility of income is roughly three percent of its value at the dollar-a-day line; at the World Bank's current high line of P$6.85 it is still around thirty percent.Four measures of wellbeing. The number is triangulated across an iso-elastic utility function, food shares in consumption (Engel's Law), a household index of six basic conditions drawn from Demographic and Health Survey data, and a cross-national index of basics. The estimates cluster between twenty and forty dollars a day; twenty-one and a half was chosen because it is exactly ten times the dollar-a-day line, a focal point in the same way one dollar was.The six minimal conditions of prosperity. Electricity, improved sanitation, safe water, primary schooling completed by older children, no child dying under five, and no young child malnourished. The test Pritchett applies is whether it would be absurd to call a household prosperous while it lacks one of them.The rich of the poor and the poor of the rich. The tenth percentile in Denmark has higher consumption than the ninetieth percentile in Pakistan or Indonesia. This is why any global line that produces meaningful poverty in rich countries implies poverty rates near one hundred percent across most of the developing world; a point Dani Rodrik (2007) showed is widely misunderstood.The prosperity gap. A distribution-sensitive welfare measure adopted by the World Bank (Kraay et al. 2025) that weights the whole income distribution rather than counting everyone above a threshold as zero. Pritchett offers it, alongside poverty-gap and squared-poverty-gap measures at a higher line, as the practical route to acting on a global upper bound without reducing everything to a single headcount.More VoxDev Talks episodesRethinking evidence and refocusing on growth in development economics, Lant Pritchett on what the problem might be if we rely exclusively on rigorous evidence in development economics as a guide for policy.Rethinking how we measure extreme poverty, Charles Kenny asks: is it time for a new measure of extreme poverty?

As Switzerland prepares to vote on the so-called “No to a Switzerland with 10 million!” initiative on 14 June, questions surrounding immigration, population growth, and Switzerland's relationship with Europe have once again come to the forefront of public debate. Supporters argue that rapid population growth is placing increasing pressure on housing, transport, and public infrastructure, while opponents warn that restricting immigration could weaken the economy and deepen labour shortages in key sectors. In this episode, we explore the economic and political implications of the debate - from the role immigration plays in Switzerland's prosperity to the potential consequences for the country's relationship with the European Union and the future of the bilateral agreements. Our guest is Cédric Tille, Professor of International Economics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, Head of the Bilateral Assistance and Capacity Building for Central Banks (BCC) Programme, and is a Faculty Associate at the Institute's Centre for Finance and Development.

On this episode of the Trade Guys, Bill and Scott welcome Chad Bown (Reginald Jones Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics) and Soumaya Keynes (Economics Columnist, Financial Times) to discuss the issues raised in their new book, How to Win a Trade War.

“The rules-based system just hasn't worked. China's system is so opaque that you can't see the subsidies. And when you've got China not interested in new rules and the US not interested in a referee, you've got two of the world's biggest actors who aren't on board.” — Soumaya Keynes It would have been nice to get John Maynard Keynes on the show to get his critique of Trump's trade war. But in the long run, we're all dead — even old Maynard. So instead, we found his great-great-niece, Soumaya Keynes — Financial Times columnist and co-author of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy. Having already appeared on Jon Stewart this week, Soumaya has a bit of Keynesian star quality about her. But she's also a first-rate economist. Her thesis is that the old rules-based trading system that her great-great-uncle helped design after World War II is gone. And it ain't coming back. China's subsidies are so opaque that rules can't be written to constrain them, let alone enforced. The US is no longer willing to submit to a referee. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. So — now what? Keynes says we must think like a trade warrior. Donald Trump should leverage the tools available — but use them strategically. Trump's error in his second term was not being tough on China while being too tough on everyone else, especially allies like Canada and Mexico. Soumaya Keynes' most contemporary idea might be her most Keynesian one. John Maynard Keynes proposed penalties for countries running large trade surpluses as well as those running deficits — recognising that global imbalances are a two-sided problem. That idea didn't make it into the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. Eighty years later, in equally anxious economic times, his optimistic great-great-niece is reviving it. Five Takeaways •       Can Trade Wars Be Won? Yes, Sometimes: The conventional wisdom: no one wins a trade war. Keynes and Bown agree — in theory. In practice, countries in a weaker position cave. History has examples: France in the late nineteenth century told its trading partners they were renegotiating treaties, and the smaller partners complied. Trump's tariffs in his first term produced concessions. The problem is not that trade wars can't be won. It's that the smaller power's only defence — coordinating with other smaller powers — is extremely hard to sustain. There's always an incentive to cut a deal first. •       China Is the Doper on the Sports Field: Keynes's sharpest analogy: the global trading system is like a sports game that needs rules to ensure a level playing field. China's subsidies — cheap credit, corporate handouts, opaque support for state-linked companies — are the equivalent of performance-enhancing drugs. The problem is that unlike doping in sport, China's subsidies are invisible. You can write a rule saying China won't give these handouts. But you can't verify compliance. And without enforcement, rules are meaningless. The WTO has not solved this. Nothing has solved this. •       Trump Was Right About China, Wrong About Everything Else: Keynes is careful here. She credits Robert Lighthizer in Trump's first term with identifying China as the real problem and building a focused strategy. In the second term, Trump put tariffs on everyone simultaneously — which dissipated leverage, alienated the coalition of allies needed to pressure Beijing, and mixed up the problem of China's subsidies with grievances against Canada, Mexico, and the EU. If you were genuinely tough on China, you wouldn't have put tariffs on everyone. You would have been more targeted. •       The Rules-Based System Is Gone and Isn't Coming Back: Why can't we return to the system Keynes's great-great-uncle helped build? Two reasons. China's subsidies are too opaque to write enforceable rules against. And the US has lost confidence in any international referee — a long and complex story, but the result is that America won't submit to neutral adjudication. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. Yearning for the old approach is not an option. A new strategy is needed — and that's what the book is about. •       AI and the Next Trade War: Services: AI is central to the US-China conflict already — chip restrictions, military advantage, economic supremacy. But Keynes's less-noticed observation: AI could fundamentally reshape international services trade. The UK, for example, is a massive services exporter — finance, legal, consulting, accounting. If AI eliminates demand for those services, the UK faces a new current account crisis, new trade tensions, a new wave of economic conflict. Nobody knows how this plays out. Which is why, she suggests, the tools in the book will remain relevant for longer than the current tariff cycle. About the Guests Soumaya Keynes is an economics columnist at the Financial Times and host of The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes. Before joining the FT she spent eight years at The Economist. She co-founded the Trade Talks podcast with Chad Bown during Trump's first term. Chad P. Bown is the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former Chief Economist at the US State Department under President Biden. Together they are the authors of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). References: •       How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy by Soumaya Keynes and Chad P. Bown (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). •       Soumaya Keynes on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, May 19, 2026 — referenced in the interview. •       Episode 2892: Jason Pack on the Iran war — the companion episode on America's strategic distractions from the China problem. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouT...

India's growth numbers shape how we understand everything from jobs to investment to global standing. But what if those numbers don't tell the full story?  New research suggests India may have both underestimated and overestimated growth at different moments over the past two decades. That insight opens the door to a broader conversation about India's macroeconomic choices, from exchange rate policy to electricity pricing to the quiet persistence of trade barriers. To discuss these issues and many more, Abhishek Anand joins Milan on the podcast this week. Abhishek is the Founder and Managing Director of Insignia Policy Research and a Visiting Fellow at the Madras Institute of Development Studies. He's previously worked as an Economist at the World Bank and was a member of the Indian Economic Service, working in key positions throughout the Indian Ministry of Finance. Together, with Arvind Subramanian and Josh Felman, Abhishek is the author of a new working paper published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics titled “India's 20 Years of GDP Misestimation: New Evidence.”  Abhishek and Milan discuss the controversy over India's GDP estimates, important reforms within India's statistics ministry, and the debate over the Reserve Bank of India's policies to defend the rupee. Plus, the two discuss Abhishek's work on power sector reform and the embrace of non-tariff barriers that stymie the spirit of India's new bilateral trade agreements. Episode notes: Abhishek Anand, Josh Felman, and Arvind Subramanian, “India's 20 years of GDP misestimation: New evidence,” Peterson Institute of International Economics Working Paper 26-3, March 2026. Abhishek Anand, Arvind Subramanian, and Josh Felman, “How GDP data misread the economy, complicated policy,” Indian Express, March 14, 2026. Abhishek Anand and Naveen Thomas, “Free Trade on Paper, Protection in Practice: How India's Policy Interventions Hollow Out Trade Liberalisation,” O.P. Jindal Global University, January 2026. Abhishek Anand, Arvind Subramanian, and Josh Felman, “Going forward, RBI's rupee policy must not repeat errors of recent history,” Indian Express, December 29, 2025. Abhishek Anand, Praveen Ravi, Navneeraj Sharma, and Arvind Subramanian, “To help India's economy, unleash the power sector,” Indian Express, August 27, 2025.

Beijing said on Monday that it was ready to work with the United States to expand cooperation, manage differences and inject more stability and certainty into a turbulent and changing world as it confirmed that US President Donald Trump will pay a three-day state visit to China starting from Wednesday.According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun, President Xi Jinping will hold in-depth exchanges with Trump on issues concerning China-US relations as well as major issues related to world peace and development.The visit will mark Trump's first trip to China during his second term in office and the first visit to China by a US president in nine years.Noting that head-of-state diplomacy has played an irreplaceable strategic guiding role in China-US relations, Guo told a regular press briefing that China is willing to work with the US in the spirit of equality, respect and mutual benefit to expand cooperation, manage differences and provide more stability and certainty for a transforming and volatile world.Since Trump secured re-election in November 2024, the two heads of state have spoken five times over the phone and held one face-to-face meeting, maintaining regular communication as Beijing and Washington seek to keep bilateral relations on a stable track.Speaking on a television program on Sunday, Trump said that he was looking forward to visiting China again and believed the upcoming trip would be "amazing", adding that his relationship with President Xi was "very good".Su Xiaohui, deputy director of the Department for American Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, said head-of-state diplomacy has consistently served as the "anchor" of China-US relations.Direct communication between the two leaders, she said, can help both sides better understand each other's intentions, avoid miscalculation, grasp the overall direction of bilateral ties and explore ways to build a relationship that is strategic, constructive and stable.Diao Daming, a professor at Renmin University of China, said that given the complexity of China-US relations, the significance of Trump's visit lies not in resolving all issues at once, but in whether the two sides can use top-level communication to address each other's concerns and send more positive signals to the world.Washington should view China objectively, develop a rational perception of China and work with Beijing in the same direction, rather than approach bilateral ties from a position of strength, he added.Diao said that both sides should expand areas of cooperation, reduce the list of problems, and ensure that economic and trade ties continue to serve as a ballast and driver of bilateral relations rather than a source of friction and conflict.Regarding the technological landscape, experts have pointed out a current "truce" that offers a window for structured dialogue.Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said during an event last week that "the technology front looks relatively calm compared to past administrations".Chorzempa suggested that high-level engagement could help cement this atmosphere, noting that many restrictive measures have been "walked back or paused" over the last year as both nations seek to avoid further escalation.Sourabh Gupta, a senior fellow at the Institute for China-America Studies, told China Daily that extending the trade and technology truces established at earlier high-level meetings remains a top priority.He suggested that setting a clear framework for conversation is vital for creating a stable environment throughout the current administrative terms. He added that artificial intelligence has emerged as a significant area where both nations recognize a mutual interest in risk management.Scott Kennedy, senior advisor and trustee chair in Chinese business and economics at the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said during a news briefing earlier that the current trajectory reflects a period of relative confidence. He said that as the two sides prepare for senior-level dialogues, "China has the right to be confident that they are doing very well bilaterally". He added that as long as the trajectory remains stable, the outcome favors bilateral health.While both sides are seeking to expand cooperation, managing differences and sensitive issues — particularly the Taiwan question — is also expected to be high on the agenda.During a phone conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in late April, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the Taiwan question concerns China's core interests and remains the biggest risk in China-US relations. He urged Washington to honor its commitments, make the right choice and create new space for bilateral cooperation while making due efforts for world peace.Bonny Lin, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that stability in the overall relationship is predicated on mutual understanding. Referring to official positions, Lin pointed out that fulfilling international obligations on this question is viewed as "a necessary prerequisite for the stable, sound and sustainable development of China-US relations". Experts suggest that maintaining clear communication on these foundational concerns remains essential for avoiding miscalculations.

Prediction markets have grown into a multibillion-dollar industry. This episode asks whether they are powerful forecasting tools or gambling platforms in disguise—and what their rise means for how risk and information are priced.    Hosts:    Rebecca Patterson, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)   Sebastian Mallaby, Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)   Guest:    Christy Goldsmith Romero, Former Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)   We discuss: How prediction markets are turning the world into a “casino” where you can bet on almost anything, from elections and geopolitics to sports and niche events. The evolution of prediction markets from academic tools to mainstream platforms shaping finance, politics, and culture. Why these markets sometimes outperform polls, where they fall short, and how they blur the line between forecasting and entertainment-driven gambling. As Rebecca Patterson asks: “Are these markets actually useful, or are they just gambling dressed up as forecasting?” The legal gray areas that are allowing prediction markets to expand so quickly and the growing risk of manipulation and insider bets. An anecdote from France, where someone allegedly tampered with a weather sensor to manipulate the outcome of a prediction market bet. How governments and regulators are struggling to keep up. Whether these markets truly reflect the “wisdom of crowds” or just loud, well-funded players.   Mentioned on the Episode:    Anthony M. Diercks, Jared Dean Katz, and Jonathan H. Wright, “Kalshi and the Rise of Macro Markets,” Federal Reserve Board   “The Future of Financial Services Regulation: A Conversation with CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero,” Brookings Institution    Adam Hoffer and Jacob Macumber-Rosin, “Expanded Sports Betting Legalization Would Generate Billions in Tax Revenue,” Tax Foundation   Andy Serwer, “Charles Schwab CEO Explains Why Investing Works—and Gambling Doesn't,” Barron's   Want to keep up with The Spillover? Sign up to receive an email alert when new episodes are released.   The Spillover is a production of the Council on Foreign Relations. The opinions expressed on the show are solely those of the hosts and guests, not of the Council, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Dr. Jens Südekum, Professor für International Economics an der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf und Persönlicher Beauftragter des Bundesministers der Finanzen für die gesamtwirtschaftliche Entwicklung, im Gespräch mit Dr. Holger Schmieding. – Mit Abschluss der beiden Landtagswahlen im März hat sich ein Zeitfenster geöffnet, im Bund über die dringend erforderlichen Reformen zu beraten. Warum ist jetzt ein guter Zeitpunkt? Und wie sind die Beratungen angelaufen? – Prof. Südekum gehörte zu den vier Ökonomen, die direkt nach der Bundestagswahl ein Konzept für die Reform der Schuldenbremse vorgeschlagen hatten. Wie zufrieden können wir mit dem Ergebnis bislang sein? – Aktuell befasst sich eine Kommission mit einer dauerhaften Reform der Schuldenbremse. Wie könnte diese aussehen? – Noch wichtiger als ein Nachfrageschub wären wachstumsfördernde Reformen, die auch private Investitionen beflügeln. Welche Bilanz lässt sich hier nach einem Jahr Regierung Merz/Klingbeil ziehen? Ist Deutschland auf dem richtigen Wege? – Heftig diskutiert wird über Anreize zu mehr Arbeit. Welche Schritte sind hier erforderlich und warum? – Auch eine Einkommenssteuerreform wird von vielen Seiten gefordert. Wie sind die verschiedenen Vorschläge zur Gegenfinanzierung – insbesondere über die Mehrwertsteuer und die Erbschaftssteuer – einzuschätzen? Stichworte hier: Belastung des Mittelstands und auch Verlagerung von Arbeitsplätzen ins Ausland. – In Bezug auf die gesetzliche Rentenversicherung steht neben der pauschalen Anhebung des Renteneintrittsalters auch eine Verlängerung der Lebensarbeitszeit als Vorschlag im Raum. Wie unterscheiden sich diese Vorschläge? Und was bedeuten diese für Akademiker und für Nichtakademiker? – Die Pflegeversicherung ist ohne Reform nicht mehr lange zu finanzieren. Welche Ansätze werden hier diskutiert? Und wie lässt sich insgesamt ein weiterer Anstieg der Beitragslast vermeiden? – Schließlich noch ein Blick auf die Konjunktur: Bisher wird für Deutschland in diesem Jahr mit einem Wachstum von etwa 0,4 % gerechnet. Wie groß ist das Potenzial, die Wirtschaft durch Reformen zusätzlich anzukurbeln? Was ist in diesem Jahr noch möglich?

Fuller Consulting Principal Bryan Fuller is a reinsurance and insurance regulatory consultant with more than 30 years of specialized experience for U.S. insurance regulators and international financial institutions. He holds a BS in International Economics from Georgetown University and professional designations as a Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter (CPCU), Associate in Reinsurance (ARe), Accredited Insurance Examiner (AIE), and Market Conduct Management (MCM). He is active in the CPCU Society (former Kansas City Chapter President) and currently serves on the Reinsurance and Excess Surplus Lines Interest Group Committee, the International Association of Insurance Receivers, the Society of Financial Examiners, and the Insurance Regulatory Examiners Society. In this episode of In the Know, Chris Hampshire and Bryan discuss his career in reinsurance and consulting across both the domestic and international spectrum.   Key Takeaways Bryan was first interested in international economics. Working in a small company fast-tracked his insurance career. Bryan's decision to transition to consulting work. The benefit of a CPCU designation in generating new business. Value points of the CPCU designation. The current state of reinsurance. A five-year look to the future of the reinsurance sector. Bryan's collaborative advice to his early-career self.   In the Know podcast theme music written and performed by James Jones, CPCU, and Kole Shuda of the band If-Then.   To learn more about the CPCU Society, its membership, and educational offerings, tools, and programs, please visit CPCUSociety.org.   Follow the CPCU Society on social media: X (Twitter): @CPCUSociety Facebook: @CPCUSociety LinkedIn: @The Institutes CPCU Society Instagram: @the_cpcu_society   Quotes "There are risks with any work, and you always have to manage the risks." "Networking is a key part of getting new business, and the CPCU designation certainly helps with that." "You never know how old coworkers will come back into your career." "Whatever the technology threshold is, we keep getting closer and closer to that line."

In 2003, Premier Wen Jiabao warned that China's growth model was unbalanced between supply and demand, over-reliant on investment and exports. More than 20 years later, the imbalance is smaller — but China is vastly larger. What its economy produces and exports now moves global markets. The argument about China's external surplus is no longer just a spat between Beijing and Washington.Yiping Huang, Dean of the National School of Development at Peking University, has written a chapter in the fourth Paris Report, published jointly by CEPR and Bruegel, examining China's structural imbalances from the inside. His argument: the same policies that powered 45 years of growth also suppressed household income and consumption. Factor market distortions, especially artificially low interest rates, kept the cost of capital down and subsidised state-owned enterprises; decentralised GDP-target competition pushed local governments toward investment and industrial expansion rather than services and household support.The result was a powerful supply side with a persistently weak domestic demand side. When you produce more than you can sell at home and you are a small economy, you export the rest. When you are the world's second largest economy, the world notices. China's consumption share of GDP rose from around 50% in 2010 to 57% in 2024, still well below the mid-seventies average of comparable economies, and two fresh crises complicate the path. The property market has been contracting since mid-2021 and it is now a drag on local government finances, household wealth, and bank balance sheets. Local government subsidies have created overcapacity in new industries such as electric vehicles and batteries. Huang's conclusion is that rebalancing is necessary and achievable, but it requires the government stepping back from direct resource allocation, the private sector and market taking on larger roles in innovation, and a significant strengthening of social protection to give households both the income and the confidence to spend.The report discussed in this series of episodes:Rey, Hélène, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (eds). 2026. The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. Free to download at cepr.org.The chapter discussed in this episode:Huang, Yiping. 2026. "Rebalancing of the Chinese economy: Challenges and policy options." In Rey, Weder di Mauro, and Zettelmeyer (eds), The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Yiping Huang. 2026. “Rebalancing the Chinese Economy”. VoxTalks Economics (podcast).Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About Paris Report 4The fourth Paris Report, The New Global Imbalances, is a joint publication of CEPR and Bruegel. It was edited by Hélène Rey (London Business School and CEPR), Beatrice Weder di Mauro (Geneva Graduate Institute and CEPR, and President of CEPR), and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (Bruegel and CEPR). The report examines how, in a high-debt and fragmented world, excess savings, rising surpluses, and rising deficits pose a risk to stability and undermine the global trading system. It is free to download at cepr.org.About the guestYiping Huang is Dean of the National School of Development at Peking University. [verify URL before publishing] He is one of China's leading macroeconomists, with research spanning China's economic transition, financial reform, and the political economy of development. He has advised Chinese policymakers and international institutions including the IMF and the Asian Development Bank on issues of growth, financial reform, and structural change.Research cited in this episodeAsymmetric liberalization is Yiping Huang's term for the approach China took when reforming its economy from the 1980s onward. Rather than the shock therapy adopted by former Soviet economies — privatising state-owned enterprises overnight and hoping markets would fill the gap — China used a dual-track approach. It opened the economy to private firms and foreign investors while maintaining state-owned enterprises in parallel, accepting some inefficiency in exchange for stability in output, employment, and growth. To subsidise the SOEs without direct fiscal transfers, the government kept factor markets, particularly financial markets, partially distorted: deposit and lending rates were held below market-clearing levels, reducing funding costs and effectively transferring income from savers and households to producers. The result was a very strong supply side and a structurally weak domestic demand side, which Huang identifies as the root cause of China's persistent external surpluses.Involution (Chinese: 内卷, nèijuǎn) is a term in wide use in China to describe a particular form of competitive overextension: effort that intensifies without producing proportional gains in quality, efficiency, or welfare. In the economic policy context Huang uses it, involution refers to the overcapacity problem in China's newer industries, including electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels. Local governments, motivated by GDP targets and decentralised competition, have subsidised capacity expansion in these sectors without requiring corresponding advances in technology or product quality. The result is high-volume, low-margin competition that can suppress prices globally while leaving firms unable to earn sustainable returns domestically. Huang distinguishes this from the property market crisis, which has a different structure and cause.New quality productive forces is the term used in China's 15th Five-Year Plan (2026 to 2030) to describe the supply-side transformation the government is aiming for: a shift away from labour-intensive, low-value-added manufacturing toward high-technology, innovation-driven sectors. It reflects the recognition that the industries China dominated in its first decades of reform — low-cost assembly, commodity manufacturing — are no longer competitive given rising domestic wages and costs, and that the next stage of growth has to be driven by productivity and technology rather than factor accumulation.The 15th Five-Year Plan (2026 to 2030) is China's current medium-term planning document. Huang identifies two key anchors: the development of new quality productive forces on the supply side, and a shift toward domestic demand — particularly private consumption — on the demand side. The plan signals a different role for government, more focused on providing social infrastructure, basic research, and protection for households, and less focused on direct resource allocation and industrial project selection. Huang describes the two anchors as a circuit: if supply-side innovation and demand-side consumption can be connected efficiently, the Chinese economy can sustain growth for much longer without relying on external demand.The Japan comparison is used by Huang to set expectations for China's consumption rebalancing. Japan's private consumption share of GDP was at its lowest in 1970 and did not reach the average of comparable advanced economies — around the mid-seventies — until around 2010: a process of roughly forty years. China's consumption share is currently around fifty-seven percent, still well below that average. Huang acknowledges the parallel but expresses hope that China can close the gap faster than Japan did; the point of the comparison is that raising household consumption is a structural, decades-long process, not a policy lever that can be pulled in a single plan cycle. It requires sustained growth in household income and improvement in the social safety net to reduce precautionary saving.China's current account surplus peaked at 9.8% of GDP in 2007, immediately before the global financial crisis. Huang notes that significant adjustment has already taken place: the average surplus between 2018 and the mid-2020s was below two percent of GDP, and the investment share of GDP fell from a peak of forty-seven percent in 2011 to forty-one percent in 2024. The surplus rose to 3.7% of GDP in 2024 partly as a result of weak domestic demand following the property market correction. Huang's argument is that the external imbalance and the internal consumption shortfall are the same problem viewed from different angles; fixing one requires fixing the other.More VoxTalks Economics episodesThis is the third episode in our series on Paris Report 4. In the first episode, Maurice Obstfeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics examines the history of global imbalances and what previous episodes can teach today's policymakers. In the second episode, Gilles Moëc, Chief Economist at AXA, explains why the US government is so keen to promote stablecoins and the risks they may pose to the financial system.For an interview with two of the report's editors, Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Jeromin Zettelmeyer, on the problem of global imbalances, listen to The Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast. Available at bruegel.org.

This is one of my favorite books over recent years. Sebastian Mallaby is the Paul A. Cocker Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council of Foreign Relations and author of 6 bestselling books. THE INFINITY MACHINE tells the story of AI's progress over the past 15 years largely, but not exclusively, from Demis Hassabis as the protagonist and leader of DeepMind', with its 2010 mission statement to achieve superintelligence by 2030. It's a rich, informative, page turner.What We Discussed:—What is an Infinity Machine?—Influence of Claude Shannon's Information Theory and Douglas Hofstadter's Pulitzer Prize winning book Gödel, Escher, Bach—Origin of DeepMind in 2010. Prescient. Charter, business plan, included use of agents. How Demis Hassabis was made for the mission!—Contrasts with Sam Altman and the other AI leaders, the Oligopoly (cover of The Economist this week). For example, Nature papers vs white papers on company websites. —In March 2016, the same day when DeepMind's AlphaGo beat Lee Sedol, Hassabis says it's time to do protein folding (later known as AlphaFold).—Symbolic AI (historic, deductive, rule-based) vs Deep Learning (Toronto tribe) and Reinforcement Learning (Alberta tribe).—The Big Miss: DeepMind's lack of early recognition of the importance of transformer models (leading to ChatGPT), creating a big opening for OpenAI. And why was this missed? The Comeback Story. Is this happening again with coding (not in the book)?—The AI Arms Race and Hyperscaling—How the complex relationship between Google and DeepMind evolved —The Double Cross —With the dangers anticipated (parallels to Oppenheimer, Manhattan Project, and the atomic bomb), how to promote AI safety?—Is the major build up of data centers justified?Thank you Bob Fleischman, Jeanie, Ruben Max, FelonBroke America, Seitzinator ❌

Three times since the 1970s, global imbalances have grown large. In the 1980s, the US trade deficit ballooned under Volcker's tight money and Reagan's tax cuts and military spending. In the 2000s, a global savings glut and then a US housing credit boom pushed the deficit to 6% of GDP. Today, the imbalances are back. The US current account deficit stood at 3.9% of GDP in 2025. The policy medicine this time: tariffs.Maurice Obstfeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and CEPR has written a chapter in the fourth Paris Report, published jointly by CEPR and Bruegel, examining that history, how policymakers responded, and what it can tell us about the effectiveness of policy remedies in 2026. He tell Tim Phillips that blaming foreigners misdiagnoses the problem if the US saves too little and invests heavily. The gap has to be financed from abroad. Good policy for the new global imbalances would requires three actors to move together: fiscal consolidation in the US, stronger consumption in China, and more investment in Europe. All three would benefit, none are close to doing it. The longer the can is kicked, Obstfeld warns, the greater the risk that the resolution arrives the way it always has: not through policy, but through crisis.The report discussed in this series of episodes:Rey, Hélène, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (eds). 2026. The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. Free to download at cepr.org.The chapter discussed in this episode:Obstfeld, Maurice. 2026. "Global imbalances redux." In Rey, Weder di Mauro, and Zettelmeyer (eds), The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Maurice Obstfeld. 2026. “Global imballances redux”, VoxTalks Economics (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About Paris Report 4The fourth Paris Report, The New Global Imbalances, is a joint publication of CEPR and Bruegel. It was edited by Hélène Rey (London Business School and CEPR), Beatrice Weder di Mauro (Geneva Graduate Institute and CEPR, and President of CEPR), and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (Bruegel and CEPR). The report examines how, in a high-debt and fragmented world, excess savings, rising surpluses, and rising deficits pose a risk to stability and undermine the global trading system. It is free to download at cepr.org.About the guestMaurice Obstfeld is Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a Research Fellow of CEPR. He served as Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund from 2015 to 2018. His research spans international finance, exchange rate economics, and macroeconomic policy. He is a former member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama.Research cited in this episodeThe Plaza Accord (1985) was a joint agreement between the US, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan to intervene in foreign exchange markets to depreciate the US dollar. It was negotiated because a surging dollar, driven by Volcker's tight monetary policy and the Reagan fiscal expansion, had pushed the US current account deficit to then-unprecedented levels and created severe competitive pressure on US manufacturing. The accord moved the dollar, but did not resolve the underlying imbalances; those were corrected by German reunification and the Japanese asset bubble, which were not planned by anyone.The Louvre Accord (1987) was a follow-up agreement among the same countries to stabilise the dollar once it had depreciated far enough. Obstfeld uses both episodes to illustrate that exchange rate agreements address the symptom, not the cause, and tend to sidestep the hard political decisions about fiscal policy.The global savings glut hypothesis, associated with Ben Bernanke, holds that rising savings outside the US in the early 2000s, particularly from Asian economies building dollar reserves after the Asian financial crisis and from oil exporters, depressed global interest rates and drove capital into US assets. Obstfeld argues that from around 2002 onward the better explanation is US demand pulling capital in: loose Fed policy, the housing boom, subprime lending, and equity extraction from rising home values all drove US spending higher, and the current account deteriorated as the dollar fell rather than rose.The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is US tax legislation that prevents the expiration of tax cuts that had been written into law, effectively delivering a tax reduction. Obstfeld points out that by lowering national saving it pushes the current account in the opposite direction to what the administration wants, partly undoing whatever modest deficit-reducing effect the tariffs might have through their revenue.The Draghi report and the Letta report are European policy documents calling for deeper integration, more investment, improved competitiveness, and a completion of the EU's capital markets and banking unions. Obstfeld cites them as pointing in the right direction for reducing Europe's current account surplus, alongside the defence spending increases that European countries are now pursuing.More VoxTalks Economics episodesThis episode is the first of two published simultaneously to mark the launch of Paris Report 4. In the second episode, Gilles Moëc, Chief Economist at AXA, explains why the US government is so keen to promote stablecoins and the risks they may pose to the financial system in the US and Europe.For an interview with two of the report's editors, Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Jeromin Zettelmeyer, on the problem of global imbalances, listen to The Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast. Available at bruegel.org.

A radical macroeconomic experiment is under way at exactly the moment the US external position is showing signs of real stress.Gilles Moëc, Chief Economist at AXA, has written a chapter in the fourth Paris Report, published jointly by CEPR and Bruegel, on stablecoins: what they are, why the US government is so keen to promote them, and what risks they carry. His argument is that stablecoins are a fast-growing digital asset backed almost entirely by short-dated US government debt. When investors buy a dollar stablecoin, they are effectively buying into a US T-bill at zero interest; the platform keeps the yield. The US government likes this because it draws global savings into dollar assets at minimal cost, extending the dollar's reach and helping fund the deficit. But the regulatory framework has a three-year grace period and leaves supervision partly to the states, which compete to attract platforms. And there's the historical parallel: find out how the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 give us an insight into the attraction, and risks, of using stablecoins in this way.The report discussed in this series of episodes:Rey, Hélène, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (eds). 2026. The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. Free to download at cepr.org.The chapter discussed in this episode:Moëc, Gilles. 2026. "Stablecoins and global imbalances: Attempting to preserve the US exorbitant privilege." In Rey, Weder di Mauro, and Zettelmeyer (eds), The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. Chapter 9, p. 210.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Gilles Moëc. 2026. "Stablecoins and Global Imbalances." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About Paris Report 4The fourth Paris Report, The New Global Imbalances, is a joint publication of CEPR and Bruegel. It was edited by Hélène Rey (London Business School and CEPR), Beatrice Weder di Mauro (Geneva Graduate Institute and CEPR, and President of CEPR), and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (Bruegel and CEPR). The report examines how, in a high-debt and fragmented world, excess savings, rising surpluses, and rising deficits pose a risk to stability and undermine the global trading system. It is free to download at cepr.org.About the guestGilles Moëc is Chief Economist at AXA and Head of AXA Research. He previously held senior roles at in the French civil service, Banque de France, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. His research covers macroeconomics, monetary policy, and the European economy.Research cited in this episodeStablecoins are privately issued digital tokens whose value is pegged to an existing fiat currency, typically the dollar, and backed by safe and liquid assets, typically short-dated US Treasury bills. Unlike most cryptocurrencies, they are designed to maintain a stable exchange rate with the pegged currency. Platforms issue the tokens and invest the cash received in T-bills, keeping the interest for themselves; holders receive no yield. Stablecoin platforms may have absorbed roughly twenty to twenty-five percent of net US T-bill issuance.The GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins) is the US federal legislation organising the stablecoin market. It requires platforms to hold back-to-back liquid assets as reserves and establishes common minimum standards across states. Regulatory competition across states means platforms can seek the most permissive jurisdiction. European regulation, MiCA, is more detailed and already in force but has not yet generated European platforms.Exorbitant privilege describes the advantage the US gains from issuing the world's dominant reserve currency. For decades, foreigners were content to hold low-yielding dollar assets while Americans invested in higher-returning foreign assets; the result was a positive US income balance despite a large trade deficit. In 2024, for the first time in modern records, the income balance turned negative: the US was paying more on its foreign liabilities than it was earning on its foreign assets. The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of private national banks that issued dollar banknotes backed by US government bonds. The structure is the closest historical parallel to today's stablecoin framework: private platforms issuing dollar-denominated tokens backed by government debt. The system required over-collateralisation (one hundred and ten dollars of bonds for every one hundred dollars of notes) and included a Treasury backstop. Milton Friedman, in his Monetary History of the United States, identified the key flaw: money supply became tied to the quantity of public debt rather than the needs of the economy. The system was replaced by the Federal Reserve in 1913.De-dollarisation refers to the trend in some countries toward conducting trade and holding reserves in currencies other than the dollar. Moëc notes examples such as Iranian demands for non-dollar payments for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Stablecoins work against this trend by making dollar access easier and cheaper for people in developing countries with weak or distrusted domestic financial systems; rather than buying dollars directly, they can buy a dollar-pegged token through a digital platform. More VoxTalks Economics episodesThis episode is the second of two published simultaneously to mark the launch of Paris Report 4. In the first episode, Maurice Obstfeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics examines the history of global imbalances and what today's policymakers can learn from previous episodes. For an interview with two of the report's editors, Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Jeromin Zettelmeyer, on the problem of global imbalances, listen to The Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast. Available at bruegel.org.

Today my guests are Arvind Subramanian and Devesh Kapur. Arvind is a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India. Devesh is the Starr Foundation Professor of South Asian Studies and Director of the Asia Programs at the Johns Hopkins. They are co-authors of the recent book, A Sixth of Humanity: Independent India's Development Odyssey. We talked about India's redistributive democracy, why Indian states have taken such different development paths, India's socialism and consequent scarcity, manufacturing challenges, and much more. Recorded February 13th, 2026. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links. Connect with Ideas of India Follow us on X Follow Shruti on X Follow Arvind on X Click here for the latest Ideas of India episodes sent straight to your inbox. Timestamps (00:00:00) - Intro (00:01:18) - A Sixth of Humanity (00:06:51) - The Effect of Education on State Development (00:13:39) - Redistributive Democracy in India (00:21:54) - One Democracy, Multiple Outcomes at the State Level (00:36:52) - Tamil Nadu (00:38:01) - The Collapse of Punjab (00:42:12) - Shades of Socialism in India (01:08:00) - Upside-Down State (01:26:36) - Manufacturing (01:46:23) - Outro

Sebastian Mallaby is back as a repeat guest on Open Book, with a brilliant new book. He spent 30 hours inside the mind of the man building superintelligence, and what he found should wake all of us up. We're talking about Demis Hassabis, the chess prodigy-turned-AI god who founded DeepMind before Sam Altman even had the idea for OpenAI. This is one of the most important books I've read in years, and after this conversation, I promise you, you will never think about AI, China, or the future of your kids the same way again. Sebastian Mallaby is the author of several books, including the bestselling More Money Than God. A former Financial Times contributing editor and two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, Mallaby is the Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. This book must be read at this time: The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence. Get it here: https://amzn.to/48dShY4 Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. Pre-order my next book, All the Wrong Moves: How Three Catastrophic Decisions Led to the Rise of Trump, out on the 17th of September in the UK and the 22nd of September in the US: ⁠https://linktr.ee/anthonyscaramucci⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Yascha Mounk and Sebastian Mallaby discuss why tech leaders both fear and accelerate dangerous AI development, and whether open-source models pose unacceptable risks. Sebastian Mallaby is the author of several books including The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence. A former Financial Times contributing editor and two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, Mallaby is the Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.  In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sebastian Mallaby discuss why AI developers simultaneously fear and advance potentially dangerous technology, whether open-source AI models pose unacceptable security risks, and how China and the United States differ in their approaches to AI safety. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following ⁠⁠⁠this link on your phone⁠⁠⁠. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! ⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Apple⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Google⁠⁠⁠ X: ⁠⁠⁠@Yascha_Mounk⁠⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠⁠@JoinPersuasion⁠⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠Yascha Mounk⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Persuasion⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠Persuasion Community⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On 2 April 2025, the United States imposed tariffs on almost every country on earth. The next day, China responded with export controls on the entire world. In the space of one week, world trade had been weaponised as it has never been in peacetime.Richard Baldwin of IMD Business School, the founder of VoxEU and a former president of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, wrote World War Trade to make sense of the events of the last 12 months. The dramatic April salvos have settled into a trade Cold War; US tariffs and Chinese export controls are lodged in place, with neither side expecting the other to back down. And yet world trade grew in 2025; exports from every country rose except from the US, which recorded its largest trade deficit. The rest of the world is self-organising a new order. When one country joins a rules-based regional agreement, the cost of staying out rises for the next. EU-Mercosur and EU-Australia deals, stalled for years, crossed the line. An expanding CPTPP and early alignment talks between the EU and CPTPP blocs are pulling more partners in. The old system was a cathedral built and maintained largely by the US; the architect burned it down. Something else is being built in its place.The book discussed in this episode:Baldwin, Richard. 2026. World War Trade: Conflict, Containment, and the Emergent World Trading Order. Rapid Response Economics 6. CEPR Press. Free to download from CEPR Press.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Richard Baldwin. 2026. "World War Trade." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About the guestRichard Baldwin is Professor of International Economics at IMD Business School in Lausanne. He founded VoxEU, the Centre for Economic Policy Research's policy portal, and served as president of CEPR. His research spans trade policy, globalisation, and the political economy of trade; he is one of the architects of modern thinking on global value chains and the "second unbundling" of production. World War Trade is the sixth book in the CEPR Press Rapid Response Economics series.Research cited in this episodeTACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) began as a joke in finance markets as a description of the pattern in which the US president announces aggressive trade measures and then partially or fully reverses them when markets react or negotiations begin. Baldwin argues that financial markets eventually priced in a TACO floor; once they believed Trump would back down before a full market meltdown, they stopped reacting to his escalations as if they were terminal. The dynamic makes tariff threats simultaneously more frequent and less credible.Domino regionalism describes the self-reinforcing logic by which regional trade agreements attract new members. When one economy gains preferential access to a large market, the cost of staying outside that agreement rises for its trading partners; that pressure brings in the next country, which raises the cost for the next, and so on. Baldwin identified this mechanism in the regional trade wave of the 1990s and argues it is now operating again, accelerated by the uncertainty created by US and Chinese trade weapons. The EU-Mercosur deal unblocking was the trigger; EU-Australia followed within weeks.G-0 world is a concept developed by political scientist Ian Bremmer to describe a world in which no single country or group of countries provides consistent global leadership. Baldwin draws on this framework to explain why regional conflicts and trade disputes have become harder to contain since the US began stepping back from its hegemonic role; the trade cold war is one expression of that leadership vacuum, but so is the reduced capacity to broker deals in the Middle East or manage the Black Sea grain corridor.CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a rules-based regional trade agreement covering eleven countries across Asia and the Pacific, including Japan, Canada, Australia, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. It operates without US or Chinese membership and maintains deep disciplines on intellectual property, investment, and trade in services. Baldwin identifies it, alongside the EU, as one of the two main "pools of predictability" around which the new post-war trading order is forming. The two blocs have opened alignment discussions that, if concluded, would bring a very large share of world trade under compatible rules.RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is a large but shallower regional agreement covering much of Asia, including China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the ten ASEAN nations. It involves Chinese leadership and does not carry the depth of disciplines found in CPTPP. Baldwin notes that it is rules-based and that as long as China plays by those rules it could enlarge; but it has not attracted the same wave of new joiners as CPTPP and the EU framework.The EU Anti-Coercion Instrument is a European Union mechanism, adopted in 2023, allowing the EU to retaliate against third countries that use trade or economic measures to coerce member states into changing their policies. Baldwin cites it as an example of the "building bunkers" response adopted by many economies; rather than retaliating directly against US tariffs, countries are changing their domestic laws to give themselves tools to counter future coercion without breaching WTO rules.More VoxTalks Economics episodesThis is the second time Richard Baldwin has discussed the 2025 trade upheaval on VoxTalks Economics. He appeared alongside Gene Grossman of Princeton in What's Next for Trump's Tariffs, broadcast in January 2026, which covered the seismic moves of 2025 as they were unfolding. 

Are fears of fuel shortages in Australia overblown—or are we underestimating the risks? Gene Tunny is joined by Dr John Humphreys and farmer Peter Rothwell to explore how rising diesel prices, fertiliser shortages, and supply chain stress could ripple through the economy. From supermarket prices to farm viability, this episode breaks down how a global energy shock could hit households and businesses—and whether markets can cope. Gene would love to hear your thoughts on this episode. You can email him via contact@economicsexplored.com.  About the Guests Dr John Humphreys is Chief Economist at the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance and an experienced economist with a background spanning academia, government, consulting and think tanks, including roles at the Australian Treasury, the Centre for International Economics and the Centre for Independent Studies. He holds a PhD in economics from the University of Queensland, where he has lectured in advanced microeconomics, and has also taught in Cambodia, where he founded an education charity and research institute. John is the founder of the Australian Libertarian Society and the Liberal Democrats (Libertarian Party), and has published widely on tax, welfare, public finance and international trade. He was awarded a knighthood in the Cambodian Royal Order of Moniseraphon for his contributions to education. Peter Rothwell is a farmer and former Liberal Democrats candidate based in regional New South Wales. He has contested the federal seat of Parkes, covering much of western NSW including Dubbo and surrounding areas. Peter describes himself as having grown up on the land and as an “old school Liberal,” entering politics out of concern about national economic challenges including high government debt, inflation and rising interest rates. Takeaways Markets help—but aren't perfect: Prices usually allocate scarce fuel efficiently, but panic buying and logistics can still create short-term shortages. Diesel is critical infrastructure: It powers transport, farming, mining, and supply chains—making it far more economically important than petrol. Energy shocks are stagflationary: Higher fuel prices raise costs and reduce economic activity at the same time. Agriculture is highly exposed: Fertiliser shortages and higher diesel costs could reduce yields and farm profitability. Policy trade-offs are tough: Governments face difficult choices on fuel taxes, spending, and how to respond to a supply-side shock. Timestamps 0:00 – Intro: fuel shock fears and “Mad Max” scenarios 2:40 – Oil prices surge and diesel costs spike 9:00 – Are we underestimating the risks? 12:50 – Fertiliser shortages and farming realities 25:00 – Food supply vs distribution challenges 29:00 – Why diesel is the critical constraint 41:50 – Fuel excise debate and policy responses 52:50 – Final reflections and listener call-out   Links relevant to the conversation ATA livestream “Real situation in rural Australia”: https://www.youtube.com/live/MczcHEBXXIY?si=cLVJ3EWjserUeXNU Charts that Gene talks about: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1siZwkNV7QLF1PXdeg6mZJt_uomZuRpZN/view?usp=sharing Lumo Coffee promotion 10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee. Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLORED Promo code: 10EXPLORED 

Geopolitical change, product disruption, and technological transformation have all made this the most complicated moment in history to navigate capital markets. CAIA Association spent the last 12 months finding out why. After convening 120 global executives across eight financial centers we're proud to introduce: The World Rewired, a blueprint for the decade ahead. In this episode, we unpack the three structural shifts at its core with four practitioners who were in the room  with us, including Sebastian Mallaby, Stuart Wrigley, Yingwen Chin, and Muneera Aldossary.Guests:Sebastian Mallaby, Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow in International Economics, Council on Foreign RelationsStuart Wrigley, Partner, Head of Asia Pacific and Head of Capital Formation and Strategy International, Sixth StreetYingwen Chin, Partner - Private Markets IDD, Albourne PartnersMuneera Aldossary, CEO & Board Member, Franklin Templeton, Saudi ArabiaEpisode Sources(00:00) Artificial intelligence as a transformational force, with adaptability and curiosity as enduring traits of successful investors.(01:36) Traditional capital allocation models are becoming outdated amid rapid innovation in products, technology, and investment approaches.(06:40) Global roundtables with industry leaders reveal interconnected themes pointing to a systemic rewiring of capital markets.(18:28) Introduction of three major shifts: macro (geopolitics), industry (market convergence), and organizational (talent and AI).(18:28) Geopolitics moves from background noise to a central driver of capital flows and investment decision-making.(25:45) Geopolitical considerations become embedded in underwriting, with firms building internal expertise and advisory capabilities.(30:22) Long-duration investments such as venture capital and infrastructure require deeper integration of political and regulatory analysis.(35:05) Emergence of new centers of capital, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, driven by sovereign wealth funds.(40:42) Growing debate around US exceptionalism and the potential for a more multipolar global financial system.(46:58) The convergence of public and private markets reshapes investment access, structures, and asset class boundaries.(49:43) Rapid product innovation raises concerns around investor education, alignment, and long-term suitability.(55:34) Industry consolidation and the rise of multi-strategy platforms alter competition and access to top-tier opportunities.(01:02:12) Organizational shifts driven by technology redistribute tasks and reshape roles within investment firms.(01:06:09) Adaptability, intellectual curiosity, and cross-disciplinary thinking emerge as critical traits for investment professionals.(01:09:53) Concerns around AI reducing critical thinking and eliminating traditional entry-level training pathways.(01:13:40) AI impacts all levels of the workforce, increasing the importance of judgment, relationships, and credibility.(01:18:34) Shift from technical skill-based training toward systems thinking, communication, and leadership capabilities

Visit us at Network2020.org. With the 2025 National Security Strategy placing renewed emphasis on the Western Hemisphere, Washington appears poised to engage more actively in Latin America than at any time in the past three decades, prioritizing challenges such as migration, transnational crime, and growing geopolitical competition with China. At the same time, several nations, including Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Haiti, and Peru, are preparing for presidential elections in 2026, with analysts anticipating continued political polarization.What are the political and economic implications of this strategic shift for Latin American countries during a new electoral cycle? How are governments across the region responding to Washington's evolving policy approach? Could a renewed U.S. focus on the hemisphere generate new flows of investment and economic engagement? And what are the implications of Washington getting distracted by other foreign policy priorities?Join us for an insightful virtual discussion that will examine how the Trump administration may seek to reassert U.S. influence in the region, and how heightened political and economic volatility, as well as an upcoming Latin American electoral cycle may impact this strategy. This conversation features Mr. Jason Marczak, Vice President and Senior Director at the Atlantic Council's Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and Dr. Monica de Bolle, Macroeconomist and Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.Music by Aleksey Chistilin from Pixabay

As officials from China and the United States wrapped up one-and-a-half days of economic and trade talks in Paris on Monday, some US experts described the outcome as a modest but meaningful step toward greater stability in bilateral economic relations.中美双方3月16日在巴黎结束为期一天半的经贸磋商。美国专家形容此次对话成果虽小，但富有意义，是稳定双边经贸关系向前迈出的一步。According to Xinhua News Agency, the two sides addressed issues of mutual concern, including tariff arrangements, ways to promote bilateral trade and investment, and the need to preserve the existing consultation consensus. The talks took place under the guidance of the important consensus reached earlier by the two heads of state.据新华社报道，双方以中美两国元首重要共识为引领，围绕关税安排、促进双边贸易投资、维护已有磋商共识等彼此关心的经贸议题，进行了坦诚、深入、建设性的交流磋商。Leader of the Chinese delegation, Vice-Premier He Lifeng, told his US counterpart that guided by the strategic common understandings between the two leaders and building on five rounds of consultations last year, China and the US have achieved a series of outcomes in the economic and trade field. "These outcomes have injected greater certainty and stability into bilateral economic and trade relations as well as into the global economy," He said.率团参加此次对话的国务院副总理何立峰表示，在两国元首重要共识战略引领下，经过去年五轮经贸磋商，中美在经贸领域达成一系列磋商成果，为两国经贸关系和世界经济注入了更多确定性和稳定性。The vice-premier pointed out that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are unlawful. However, the US imposed an additional 10 percent import surcharge on all trading partners under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and launched trade measures, including Section 301 investigations. China has consistently opposed unilateral US tariffs, He said, urging Washington to completely remove such tariffs and other restrictive measures.何立峰指出，美最高法院已裁决美依据《国际紧急经济权力法》加征的关税违法，随后美方依据《1974年贸易法》第122条对所有贸易伙伴加征10%进口附加费，还陆续出台了包括301调查在内的涉华消极举措。何立峰表示，中方反对美方加征单边关税的立场是一贯的，敦促美方彻底取消单边关税等限制措施。Vice-Minister of Commerce Li Chenggang, who is also China's international trade representative, said that China's stance on Section 301 investigations remains consistent, and it opposes such unilateral probes.中国商务部国际贸易谈判代表兼副部长李成钢表示，中方对美方单边的301调查的立场是一贯的，中方反对这种单边的调查。US experts, meanwhile, welcomed the positive tone of the Paris meeting and said that this round of talks had contributed toward stability of bilateral economic relations.与此同时，美国专家对此次巴黎对话的积极基调表示欢迎，并称本轮对话有助于稳定双边经贸关系。Sourabh Gupta, a senior fellow at the Institute for China-America Studies, a think tank based in Washington, DC, viewed the just-concluded Paris talks as a clear stabilizing step. The talks "seemed to hint for the first time that the two sides may be moving beyond their mutually assured destruction framework to framing their tech, trade and investment relationship on a more positive-minded basis" that is more "durable", he said.华盛顿智库中美研究中心的高级研究员苏拉布•古普塔认为，刚刚结束的巴黎对话是稳住阵脚的一步。他说，对话"似乎首次暗示，双方可能正在超越"相互确保摧毁"的框架，开始在更积极的基础上构建两国技术、贸易和投资关系"，这种关系将更加"持久"。Gary Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank based in Washington, DC, said the Supreme Court ruling has not weakened leverage. "There is not much weakening of leverage since Section 301 tariffs at arbitrary levels are around the corner," he said.华盛顿智库彼得森国际经济研究所非常驻高级研究员加里•郝夫鲍尔表示，美国联邦最高法院的裁决并没有削弱关税杠杆。他说："由于即将出台301条款下的任意关税，杠杆并没有削弱多少。"Hufbauer said he anticipated modest tariff progress if a summit between the two heads of state took place. "If and when the summit occurs, I expect mutual reduction on a few tariffs or other barriers. But nothing big," he said.郝夫鲍尔说，他预计如果两国元首举行会晤，将会取得小幅度的关税进展。"如果两国元首实现会晤，我预计双方会互相取消部分关税或其他壁垒，但可能不会有什么大动作。"The Paris talks reportedly included the topic of US farm exports to China. The US Soybean Export Council told China Daily that it is "watching for developments that come from the pending summit talks and hoping for good outcomes".据报道，巴黎对话的议题包括美国对华农产品出口。美国大豆出口协会告诉《中国日报》说，该协会"正在关注即将举行的两国元首会晤取得的进展，期待能有好结果"。bilateral economic relations /ˌbaɪˈlætərəl ˌiːkəˈnɒmɪk rɪˈleɪʃənz/双边经济关系inject /ɪnˈdʒekt/注入leverage /ˈliːvərɪdʒ/杠杆；影响力；筹码summit /ˈsʌmɪt/峰会；首脑会议pending /ˈpendɪŋ/即将发生的；待定的

Global markets are moving quickly. Policy settings are shifting, and the economic outlook is becoming more complex. Introducing “CommBank View: Economics and Markets”, a new podcast from the CommBank Global Economic and Markets Research team, hosted by Mandy Dury. Each week, CommBank economists will provide in-depth analysis of the macroeconomic forces shaping Australian and global markets. Explore in-depth coverage across Australian Economics and Commodities, International Economics, Sustainable Economics, Market Strategy and Rates, and more. This podcast is not investment research and is for informational purposes only.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode, Watson School Dean and economist John Friedman talks with economist Sebnem Kalemli Ozcan about how U.S. economic policy in the last year has changed the American economy, how those changes have rippled throughout the global economic and financial system, and what it means for America's place in a rapidly evolving international order.Sebnem Kalemli Ozcan is a professor of economics at Brown and the director of the Global Linkages Lab, a collaborative research hub dedicated to deepening our understanding of globalization. Starting in July, she'll also be serving as the director of the Watson School's Rhodes Center for International Economics and Finance.John Friedman is Vascellaro Family Dean of the Watson School, and Briger Family Distinguished Professor of Economics and International and Public AffairsTranscript coming soon to our website.Watch this episode of Trending Globally on YouTube.

Interview recorded - 19th of February, 2026On this episode of the WTFinance podcast I had the pleasure of welcoming on Barry Eichengreen. Barry is a renowned economist and Professor of Economics and Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1987. He is also the author of many books, including the upcoming book “Money Beyond Borders: Global Currencies from Croesus to Crypto”During our conversation we spoke about his thoughts on the economy, the K-shaped economy, geopolitical shift, move away from the US dollar, what it means for the future and more. I hope you enjoy!0:00 - Introduction1:08 - Overview of the economy2:18 - K-shaped economy3:41 - Geopolitical shift6:13 - Europe becoming a world power?9:23 - US currency12:53 - China be trusted?14:58 - Precious metals movements17:09 - Next reserve currencies?19:58 - US Dollar devaluing21:47 - Bifurcating currency world23:56 - Influence for writing the book?25:58 - Any surprises?28:00 - One message to takeaway?Barry Eichengreen is George C. Pardee & Helen N. Pardee Chair and Distinguished Professor of Economics and Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1987. He is a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, Massachusetts) and Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (London, England). In 1997-98 he was Senior Policy Advisor at the International Monetary Fund. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (class of 1997). Professor Eichengreen is the convener of the Bellagio Group of academics and economic officials and chair of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Peterson Institute of International Economics. He has held Guggenheim and Fulbright Fellowships and has been a fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Palo Alto) and the Institute for Advanced Study (Berlin). He is a regular monthly columnist for Project Syndicate. His books include The Populist Temptation: Economic Grievance and Political Reaction in the Modern Era (2018), How Global Currencies Work: Past, Present, and Future, with Livia Chitu and Arnaud Mehl, (2017), The Korean Economy: From a Miraculous Past to a Sustainable Future (Harvard East Asian Monographs) with Wonhyuk Lim, Yung Chul Park and Dwight H. Perkins, (2015), Renminbi Internationalization: Achievements, Prospects, and Challenges, co-edited with Masahiro Kawai, (2015), Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, The Great Recession, and the Uses-and Misuses-of History, (2015). He was awarded the Economic History Association's Jonathan R.T. Hughes Prize for Excellence in Teaching in 2002 and the University of California at Berkeley Social Science Division's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2004. He is also the recipient of a doctor honoris causa from the American University in Paris.Barry Eichengreen - Website - https://eml.berkeley.edu/~eichengr/X - https://x.com/B_EichengreenBook - https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691280530/money-beyond-borders?_glWTFinance - Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wtfinancee/Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/67rpmjG92PNBW0doLyPvfniTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wtfinance/id1554934665?uo=4Twitter - https://twitter.com/AnthonyFatseas

In this episode, John C. Williams, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, discusses monetary policy and the economic outlook for the year ahead.   Background Reading: This article highlights the trade policies four CFR experts will be monitoring this year.   Host: Abby Joseph Cohen, Professor of Business, Columbia Business School    Guests: John C. Williams, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York   Want more comprehensive analysis of global news and events sent straight to your inbox? Subscribe to CFR's Daily News Brief newsletter. To keep tabs on all CFR events, visit cfr.org/event. To watch this event, please visit it on our YouTube channel: International Economics With John C. Williams

This is Episode 2 of our sub-series "Environmental Issues along the Belt and Road."The series considers the complexities of Chinese actors' impacts on the environment, extractive activities, and role in driving sustainability solutions from the sands of the Mekong River to lithium mines in Argentina. Since 2012, China has invested roughly US$4 billion in 12 nickel projects across Southeast Asia, with a major focus on Indonesia, which supplies 16% of global nickel production. In South America, Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina— known as the Lithium Triangle—together hold over 54% of the world's lithium reserves beneath their salt flats as of 2024, and China is the only country to have signed agreements with all three. In this episode, we explore what makes minerals “critical” to the energy transition, how China's long-term industrial strategy and geopolitical struggles has (re)shaped global critical mineral supply chains, and, through cases of Indonesian nickel and lithium in Argentina, how stakeholders in producer countries navigate trade-offs between economic development, sovereignty, & environmental and social impacts.We interview 4 experts: Dr. Jing Li is a professor at Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business and holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Investment Strategy. She also serves as the Co-Director of the Jack Austin Center for Asia Pacific Business Studies. Her research explores international investment strategies, joint ventures, emerging market firms, innovation in emerging economies, & the behavior and performance of state-owned enterprises. Related reading here, here & here.Dr. Anastasia Ufimtseva is the Senior Program Manager for International Trade and Investment at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. She holds a Ph.D. in Global Governance from the Balsillie School of International Affairs at Wilfrid Laurier University, with a specialization in international political economy. Her research explores global energy governance, trade & investment, the political economy of natural resources, & international development, with a focus on Asia. Related reading here & here. Muhammad Habib Abiyan Dzakwan (Zahwan) is a researcher at the Department of International Relations, CSIS Indonesia. He holds an MA in International Economics and General International Relations from SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. His research areas cover sustainable development, critical minerals, & emerging technologies. Related reading here, here & here. Thanks for listening! Follow us on BlueSky @beltandroadpod.blsk.social

Dr. Adam Posen, President of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, discusses the global economic outlook and the US monetary policy impact after today's January CPI report. He believes that inflation that could potentially exceed 4% by 2026. Dr. Posen speaks with Bloomberg's Carol Massar and Tim Stenovec.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to the Alt Goes Mainstream podcast.The Goldman Sachs Alternatives Summit “convened leaders across finance, geopolitics, technology, and culture” to discuss themes driving global markets.2025's Alternatives Summit was about “navigating a world in flux,” as the firm's recap of its event noted. The event aimed to help investors cut through the noise and put together the pieces of the puzzle in a dynamic and increasingly complex world. Alt Goes Mainstream joined the event to have unscripted conversations with Goldman Sachs Alternatives leaders to cut through the noise by unpacking key themes and trends at the intersection of private markets and private wealth.In this special series, we went behind the scenes at the Goldman Sachs Alternatives Conference and interviewed six Goldman Sachs Alternatives leaders about their current thinking on private markets and how the firm has built and evolved its private markets capabilities.This conversation was with Kristin Olson, Partner, Global Head of Alternatives for Wealth within Asset & Wealth Management and a member of the Management Committee. In her role, she oversees the global alternatives platform and alternatives product strategy across wealth client businesses. Kristin joined Goldman Sachs in 1998 as an Analyst in the Financial Institutions Group in the Investment Banking Division. She was named Managing Director in 2008 and Partner in 2014. Kristin is a member of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a leading research institution focusing on cancer, neuroscience, plant biology, genomics, and bioinformatics, and is a member of the Georgetown University Board of Regents. Kristin earned a BS in International Economics, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University in 1998.Kristin and I had a fascinating conversation about private markets, private wealth, how to approach strategic and tactical asset allocation, the evolving needs of an investor, and why education and financial media are becoming increasingly important tools for investors. We discussed:Lessons learned from working with Goldman Private Wealth clients that the firm has applied to how they approach serving client needs across the wealth channel with private markets solutions.Why Millennials are interested in investing in private markets.How investors can access innovation by investing in private markets.How can alternative asset managers approach educating the client and investor of the future?How private markets fits into a strategic asset allocation framework.The next evolution in private markets education for the wealth channel investor.The main source of information about private markets for investors.The future of implementation, model portfolios, and hybrid products in private markets.Thanks Kristin for sharing your wisdom, expertise, and passion at the intersection of private markets and private wealth. Show Notes00:41 Welcome to the Alt Goes Mainstream Podcast01:35 Kristin Olson's Background and Career Evolution01:59 The Evolution of Alternative Investments02:46 Lessons from Goldman Wealth Clients03:36 Diversification and Education in Alternatives04:23 Serving Broader Wealth Channels05:37 Balancing Customization and Scale07:20 Survey Insights on Millennial Investors08:44 Building the Goldman Sachs Brand for the Future09:43 The Importance of Education in Alternatives10:53 Early Adoption of Private Markets in Wealth Channels12:28 Consolidation and Partnerships in Private Markets16:42 Advice for New Investors in Private MarketsEditing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant.

When I got this episode on the calendar a month ago, my vision was, “Let's get three of the smartest, most thoughtful liberals I can find on the topic of economic statecraft, and we'll do a full assessment of the first year of Trump's second term.” The idea was to take each of the domains — tariffs and the trade war, export controls, industrial policy — and do two things: get an accurate picture of what's actually happened, and hear how Biden admin insiders and Democratic thinkers see them. Where are there continuities between administrations? Where have their expectations been overturned? And what lessons are they incorporating into their own worldviews?Then, in a totally novel example of economic statecraft, we grabbed Maduro and seized Venezuelan oil; we had to discuss that too.As a result, we're doing a lot in this episode, and we leave some important questions out: the legal challenges to the current tariff regime, for example. But I think readers will come away from this episode with a clear view of the old and new tools of US policy in the realm of economic statecraft.Our guestsDaleep Singh is an economist who served in two separate periods in the Biden Administration as Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics.Peter Harrell served as Senior Director for International Economics at the White House, jointly appointed to the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.My colleague, Arnab Datta is Director of Policy Implementation at IFP. He's also the Managing Director of Policy Implementation at Employ America.We cover a lot of ground in this episode. Here's our table of contents:We discuss* What is economic statecraft?* Venezuela* China and tariffs* Trade deals* Industrial policy* Lessons learnedThe full transcript for this conversation is at www.statecraft.pub This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

CFR's World Economic Update highlights the quarter's most important and emerging trends. This episode covers changes in the global marketplace, with a special emphasis on current economic events and their implications for U.S. policy. Host: Sebastian Mallaby, Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics, CFR   Guests: Jan Hatzius, Chief Economist and Head of Global Investment Research, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.   Karen Karniol-Tambour, Co-Chief Investment Officer, Bridgewater Associates, LP   Natasha Sarin, Professor of Law, Yale Law School   Want more comprehensive analysis of global news and events sent straight to your inbox? Subscribe to CFR's Daily News Brief newsletter.   To keep tabs on all CFR events, visit cfr.org/event. To watch this event, please visit it on our YouTube channel: 2026 World Economic Update

EXTENDED VERSION! Brooke spoke to Mark Blyth, professor of International Economics and Public Affairs at Brown University, to talk about what the headlines are missing in the Department of Justice's investigation into Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, and why we need to know the trending politics of central banks around the globe.  On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Si apre la seconda giornata del World Economic Forum di Davos, che riunisce circa 3.000 partecipanti da 130 Paesi, tra cui 65 capi di Stato e di governo e 850 leader dell'economia globale. Donald Trump è intervenuto per la prima volta dopo sei anni, con un discorso segnato da toni duri verso l'Europa. Sulla Groenlandia ha escluso l'uso della forza, chiedendo però l'avvio immediato di negoziati e avvertendo che "si ricorderà" di chi si opporrà. Ha poi affrontato i rapporti transatlantici, rilanciando provocazioni verso la Francia, annunciando un incontro con il presidente ucraino Zelensky e difendendo l'uso dei dazi come strumenti punitivi. Sulla NATO ha ribadito l'adesione degli Stati Uniti, esprimendo però dubbi sulla reciprocità dell'impegno europeo. Trump è arrivato con una delegazione particolarmente ampia, che include il segretario di Stato Marco Rubio, il segretario al Tesoro Scott Bessent, il responsabile del Commercio Howard Lutnick e l'inviato speciale Steve Witkoff: secondo il presidente del WEF Børge Brende, la più consistente degli ultimi anni.Il Forum si svolge in un clima profondamente diverso rispetto al passato: i temi "woke", come diversità e inclusione, sono stati di fatto marginalizzati, riflettendo una crescente polarizzazione globale e la competizione tra grandi potenze, riassunta dal tema ufficiale A Spirit of Dialogue. È inoltre il primo Davos senza Klaus Schwab alla guida: dopo le sue dimissioni, la governance è passata a una leadership ad interim con Larry Fink e André Hoffmann, mentre Brende ricopre il ruolo di presidente e amministratore delegato.Nessun aggiornamento sulla presenza della premier Giorgia Meloni, che sta valutando l'invito di Trump a entrare nel Board of Peace per Gaza; tra le ipotesi, una partecipazione al summit senza firmare immediatamente la carta istitutiva. Approfondiamo il tutto con: Gianluca Di Donfrancesco, Il Sole 24 Ore e con Marco Magnani, Professore di International Economics, LUISS Guido Carli.Passa il blitz al PE contro il Mercosur, l'accordo va alla Corte UEIl Parlamento europeo ha deciso di chiedere alla Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione europea un parere giuridico sull'accordo di partenariato tra UE e Mercosur, firmato dopo oltre 25 anni di negoziati. La mozione è stata approvata con una maggioranza risicatissima e sostenuta da sinistra, verdi e liberali. Il ricorso alla Corte non blocca l'applicazione provvisoria dell'accordo, già decisa dal Consiglio, che scatterà però solo dopo la ratifica da parte di almeno uno dei quattro Paesi coinvolti: Brasile, Argentina, Paraguay e Uruguay.La richiesta di parere giuridico viene letta da molti come un tentativo politico di indebolire l'intesa, che punta a rafforzare l'influenza economica europea in Sud America in un contesto di crescenti tensioni globali. Mentre il mondo industriale guarda con favore alle nuove opportunità commerciali, il settore agricolo europeo esprime forti preoccupazioni. Una seconda mozione, presentata dai partiti di destra con lo stesso obiettivo, è stata invece bocciata. La decisione del Parlamento rinvia di fatto il voto di ratifica, inizialmente previsto tra febbraio e aprile. Esponenti della sinistra e dei verdi hanno rivendicato il risultato come una vittoria politica e una riaffermazione del ruolo dello Stato di diritto a livello europeo. Ne discutiamo con Adriana Cerretelli, editorialista Il Sole 24 Ore - Bruxelles.

The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation against the Federal Reserve and its chairman. On this week's On the Media, hear how the Trump administration's pressure campaign plays into a larger trend chipping away at central banks. Plus, how a teacher in Russia stood up to Putin's propaganda.[01:00] Host Brooke Gladstone sits down with Mark Blyth, professor of International Economics and Public Affairs at Brown University, to talk about what the headlines are missing in the Department of Justice's investigation into Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, and why we need to know the trending politics of central banks around the globe. [16:50] Brooke Gladstone talks with Pasha Talankin, star and co-creator of the new documentary Mr. Nobody Against Putin. Pasha is a high school teacher who made an incredibly vivid and detailed account of Putin's efforts to indoctrinate schoolchildren in Russia. [36:51] Brooke continues her conversation about Mr. Nobody Against Putin with David Borenstein, the film's co-director.  Further reading / watching:Mr Nobody is screening on Jan 21 at the Independent Film Center in New York before expanding to select theaters in the U.S. and Canada. On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

I step into the studio with one question in mind: where do all of Donald Trump's many legal battles actually stand right now, especially in the courts over the past few days?Let's start with the arena that now overshadows almost everything else: the Supreme Court. Axios reports that the justices are gearing up for a series of blockbuster Trump cases this year, and some of the key moves have landed just in recent days and weeks. According to Axios, one of the biggest is Learning Resources v. Trump, the case that will decide whether Donald Trump can use a declared national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs without Congress. A recent Supreme Court docket entry shows that an emergency application tied to this dispute has been set for full argument in January, rather than decided quietly on the shadow docket, a sign the Court knows how massive the stakes are. A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than 100 billion dollars in tariffs and sharply limit his ability to drive economic policy through emergency powers alone, something economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics have been closely watching.But that tariff fight is only one front. Axios also highlights Trump v. Barbara, the case over his executive order targeting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have split and issued injunctions, and now the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether a policy Trump calls essential to immigration enforcement can override more than a century of Fourteenth Amendment precedent.On the power front, Axios notes yet another Supreme Court showdown: Trump's attempt to fire independent agency officials like Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The question is whether a president can unilaterally remove these figures for policy reasons, shredding a 90‑year tradition of insulation from raw politics. If Trump prevails here, the presidency's reach over watchdogs and economic regulators could expand dramatically.Zoom out from the Supreme Court, and you see the lower courts straining under wave after wave of Trump‑era litigation. Just Security and Lawfare both maintain litigation trackers showing dozens of ongoing suits targeting Trump's executive orders on everything from conditions of imprisonment to crackdowns on law firms and civil rights groups. These trackers reveal a pattern: plaintiffs argue that Trump's actions routinely stretch or shatter constitutional limits, invoking the First Amendment, due process, equal protection, and separation of powers in case after case.Politico, looking at the criminal and enforcement landscape more broadly, describes what it calls a renaissance in the use and resistance of grand juries around Trump‑related prosecutions. Veteran prosecutors told Politico they had rarely seen grand juries push back on indictments the way some have when confronted with aggressive Trump‑aligned cases, and at least one federal judge has openly criticized what she called “apparent prosecutorial machinations” tied to these efforts. Even where Trump himself is not the defendant, his policies and his Justice Department's tactics keep popping up in the courtroom record.Taken together, the last few days have not brought a single dramatic verdict with Donald Trump at the defense table, but they have tightened the vise around his presidency's legal legacy. Supreme Court calendars, emergency applications, and fresh filings in federal courts all point to 2026 as the year when judges, not voters, will finally decide how far Trump can go on tariffs, immigration, and presidential power itself.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US

Colgate Professor Chad Sparber returns to the program to discuss recent developments with the H-1B Visa program in the United States. Sparber is the W. Bradford Wiley Chair in International Economics; Professor of Economics and the Director of the Lampert Institute.

At the CEPR annual Symposium in Paris we sat down with Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a distinguished fellow of CEPR, and a global authority on geopolitics and trade to discuss the profound changes in the multilateral order in 2025, how countries will adjust to this new normal – and whether the changes we have seen will ever be unwound.

In today's world, anyone serious about anti-imperialism, global development, and monetary sovereignty needs to break through the well-funded US propaganda machine and develop a fact-based, nuanced understanding of China. To this end, Steve asked Yan Liang to come back to the podcast to look at China through the MMT lens, analyzing its economic management, global role, and response to Western villainization. They discuss China's development ethos and describe China as a state that actively uses its monetary and fiscal sovereignty to guide development towards internal goals (poverty alleviation, technological self-reliance, common prosperity) and external partnership (Win-win cooperation, Belt and Road Initiative). Illustrating the difference between state steering and the so-called “free market,” the conversation goes into China's mobilization of real resources through strategic state guidance, like Five-Year Plans and state-owned enterprises in key sectors. Yan talks about the use of capital controls and a managed exchange rate. She details lessons from 2015 and the application of MMT principles to insulate domestic policy from volatile external forces. Without romanticizing China, Yan also walks through its real challenges. But from an MMT-aware lens, these are seen as problems of policy design and resource use (issues a sovereign, planning-oriented state can address!) rather than proof of an impending collapse. Yan Liang is Peter C and Bonnie S Kremer Chair Professor of Economics at Willamette University. She is also a Research Associate at the Levy Economics Institute, a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Global Development Policy Center (Boston University), and a Research Scholar of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. Yan specializes in the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the Political Economy of China, Economic Development, and International Economics. Yan's current research focuses on China's development finance and industrial transformation, and China's role in the global financial architecture. https://www.linkedin.com/in/yan-liang-1355b91a2/ @YanLian31677392 on X

Today on the show, Katie Martin and Rob Armstrong talk with special guest Adam Posen about the prospects for inflation and even a financial crisis. Posen has worked for both the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Bank of England, and is the current president of the non-profit Peterson Institute for International Economics. They talk about the options facing the next Fed chair, the conditions for serious inflation, and AI's role in our economic future. Also they go short crypto and long the New England Patriots. For a free 30-day trial to the Unhedged newsletter go to: https://www.ft.com/unhedgedoffer.You can email Robert Armstrong and Katie Martin at unhedged@ft.com.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. and China are the two largest competitors in the race for semiconductors and in creating the most powerful AI chips. Europe could become a major stakeholder thanks to its demand for tech sovereignty and lithography near-monopoly, while others see the continent as too hampered by regulation, labor, and limited venture capital to get ahead. Now, in partnership with Bloomberg, we debate: Is Europe Too Late to Compete in the Chip Wars? Arguing "Too Late":    Zach Meyers, Director of Research at the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE)  Geoffrey Gertz, Former Director for International Economics at the White House; Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security     Arguing "Not Too Late:  Cristina Caffarra, Economist & Co-founder of EuroStack  Eric Baissus, CEO of Kalray  Caroline Hyde, Bloomberg Television Anchor and Host of “Bloomberg Technology”, is the guest moderator.    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kelsi talks with Erica Sorensen about her experience in youth ministry and the affects of our current digital age on parenting and kids. The two discuss the impact of therapy culture, online culture, and trauma for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Ultimately, Erica reminds listeners that Jesus is the answer for both them and their children and that we can trust him because his promises never fail. Erica Sorensen is in charge of Individual Partnerships in the Development Department at 1517. She holds a B.A. in both International Economics and Spanish from Valparaiso University and a M.A. in Teaching from the University of St. Thomas. Erica has a diverse work background in non-profit business operations, K-12 education, and fundraising. She is a passionate Gen Z advocate and speaker to church leadership and youth alike, teaching about the unique joys and challenges of sharing the gospel message with young people in a post-Christian world.Show Notes:⁠⁠Support 1517 Podcast Network⁠⁠⁠⁠1517 Podcasts⁠⁠1517 on Youtube⁠⁠⁠⁠1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠1517 Events Schedule⁠⁠⁠⁠1517 Academy - Free Theological Education⁠⁠What's New from 1517:⁠⁠Untamed Prayers: 365 Daily Devotions on Christ in the Book of Psalms by Chad Bird⁠⁠Coming Home for Christmas: 1517 Advent DevotionalMore from Kelsi:⁠⁠Kelsi Klembara⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow Kelsi on Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow Kelsi on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Kelsi's Newsletter⁠

The Trump administration authorized a $20 billion financial lifeline for Argentina as it faces an economic crisis. The deal has raised major questions and criticism about its merits. President Trump also said it’s contingent on Argentine President Milei’s party winning elections later this month. John Yang discussed more with Monica de Bolle of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

In Episode 441 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, about the profound transformations underway in the global economy driven by America's transition away from being the world's primary insurance provider for international security to its most enterprising racketeer. In a recently published Foreign Affairs essay titled “The New Economic Geography: Who Profits in a Post-American World?” Adam compares America's role in the post-World War II era to that of an insurance provider, underwriting global security by protecting international shipping lanes, providing deep and liquid capital markets, and enforcing international laws and standards that have formed the bedrock of the last 80 years of economic growth and prosperity. Kofinas and Posen spend the first hour of this episode digging into Adam's insurance framework and why he believes the United States was the largest beneficiary of the system it created. They discuss some of the recent policy changes out of Washington and why they are transforming America's sphere of influence into something that looks more like a protection racket than a market for affordable insurance. Adam Posen draws implications for the continued role of US Treasuries as a global safe asset and whether a reduction of foreign capital flows into dollars will ultimately prove stimulative for the resurrection of industrial ecosystems that the administration has identified as vital to American national security and the long-term prosperity of the United States. The two also consider the degree to which the increased premiums that Washington is now charging its allies can be justified by rising risks in the international security environment and by the unpopularity among the MAGA base for foreign U.S. involvement. The second hour of their conversation turns to questions of execution—specifically, what is required for the successful implementation of a U.S. industrial policy. This includes a discussion about apprenticeships, skilled immigration, government-supported R&D, federal funding for university science and technology programs, and more integration and collaboration with allied economies. Posen and Kofinas also discuss why the use of tariffs, subsidies, and export controls—including the CHIPS and Science Act—implemented during both Joe Biden's and Donald Trump's administrations have underdelivered. They also examine why the current administration's trade policies have been oddly more accommodative toward China than toward America's closest allies and why this will ultimately prove to be a losing strategy in the long-term. Lastly, Demetri asks Adam for his view on what the recent battles between the Fed and the White House mean for the future of Fed independence and if Washington is laying the groundwork for a long-term rise in inflation expectations as it seeks to monetize its debt and deficits through an increasingly compliant and captured central bank. Subscribe to our premium content—including our premium feed, episode transcripts, and Intelligence Reports—by visiting HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you'd like to join the conversation and become a member of the Hidden Forces Genius community—with benefits like Q&A calls with guests, exclusive research and analysis, in-person events, and dinners—you can also sign up on our subscriber page at HiddenForces.io/subscribe. If you enjoyed today's episode of Hidden Forces, please support the show by: Subscribing on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, Stitcher, SoundCloud, CastBox, or via our RSS Feed Writing us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Joining our mailing list at https://hiddenforces.io/newsletter/ Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou Subscribe and support the podcast at https://hiddenforces.io. Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas Episode Recorded on 09/16/2025

Alan Rozenshtein, Research Director at Lawfare, sits down with Sam Winter-Levy, a Fellow in the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Janet Egan, a Senior Fellow with the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security; and Peter Harrell, a Nonresident Fellow at Carnegie and a former Senior Director for International Economics at the White House National Security Council under President Joe Biden.They discuss the Trump administration's recent decision to allow U.S. companies Nvidia and AMD to export a range of advanced AI semiconductors to China in exchange for a 15% payment to the U.S. government. They talk about the history of the export control regime targeting China's access to AI chips, the strategic risks of allowing China to acquire powerful chips like the Nvidia H20, and the potential harm to the international coalition that has worked to restrict China's access to this technology. They also debate the statutory and constitutional legality of the deal, which appears to function as an export tax, a practice explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.Mentioned in this episode:The Financial Times article breaking the news about the Nvidia dealThe Trump Administration's AI Action PlanFind Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.