Podcasts about Milton Friedman

Hoover Institution Fellow Jon Hartley and Hedge Fund Investor Kyle Bass discuss Kyle's career and upbringing, the 2000s housing crisis, the 2010s European sovereign debt crisis, the rise and fall of Japan's economy, China's rising aggression and decoupling from the US, and why the US remains the best place in the world to continue to invest as an innovation hub.  Recorded on June 13, 2025. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information about the podcast, visit: https://www.hoover.org/podcast/capitalism-and-freedom?utm_source=podbean&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=cf21_podcast

Episode Summary: Matt Bufton is joined by Bill Wirtz of the Consumer Choice Centre to explore why governments often crack down on fun—from drinking and smoking to gambling and vaping. They dive into the cultural and political roots of paternalistic policies, how public health rhetoric masks deeper control impulses, and why Canada offers a revealing case study in state-imposed virtue. Wirtz also highlights how prohibitionist instincts persist even when evidence contradicts their effectiveness. References “Children Are the Future: Authoritarianism, Culture War and Making Model Citizens” by Alan Elrod https://www.liberalcurrents.com/children-are-the-future-authoritarianism-culture-war-and-making-model-citizens/ That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen by Frédéric Bastiat https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/bastiat-selected-essays-on-political-economy#lf0181_head_009 The Fun Police – Podcast Series by Bill Wirtz https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/fun-police/id1714265675 World Health Organization – Framework Convention on Tobacco Control https://fctc.who.int/ Milton Friedman's “Free to Choose” (PBS Series) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dngqR9gcDDw&list=PLt27lKoC5LS4wbD28Jkv95UUm9H7wbVO4 Thanks to Our Patrons Including Kris Rondolo, Amy Willis, and Christopher McDonald. To support the podcast, visit: https://patreon.com/curioustask

It all began in 2019 at DeadSpin where Megan Greenwell was editor-in-chief. She had her dream job at the sports publication she'd always loved, leading a profitable digital media company with a devoted readership. Then the curse of private equity arrived. Within three months, everything collapsed. As Greenwell argues in her new book, Bad Company, she was pushed out, her entire staff followed, and the site was eventually sold to a Maltese gambling operation. What should have been a routine business acquisition became a personal awakening. Greenwell realized she'd witnessed something much larger than corporate mismanagement—she'd seen how private equity is producing avampire economy sucking the blood out of the American Dream. five takeaways1. Private Equity Violates Free Market Principles Greenwell argues that PE actually corrupts capitalism rather than representing it—citing Milton Friedman's own exceptions for public services like healthcare and education, which are now PE's biggest targets.2. The Debt Transfer Loophole Creates Perverse Incentives In leveraged buyouts, PE firms load companies with 70-80% debt but transfer responsibility to the acquired company, allowing firms to profit even when businesses fail—as happened with Toys"R"Us.3. Workers Rarely Know PE Owns Their Employer Until It's Too Late Most employees discover private equity ownership only when everything falls apart, because the company name on their paycheck remains the same while control shifts to financial engineers.4. The Vampire Effect Goes Beyond Individual Companies PE isn't just killing businesses—it's hollowing out entire communities, from rural hospitals in Wyoming to local newspapers, destroying the infrastructure that sustains small American towns.5. Solutions Exist at State and Local Levels While federal regulation remains unlikely, progress is happening through state laws (like Massachusetts healthcare regulations), pension fund pressure campaigns, and nonprofit alternatives that prioritize sustainability over shareholder value.Megan Greenwell is an American journalist, editor, and writer with extensive experience across print and digital media. She was the first female editor-in-chief of Deadspin and editor of Wired.com Background & Education: Greenwell grew up in Berkeley, California. Her mother is an Episcopal priest who currently serves as the Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Cincinnati. She attended Berkeley High School, where she was a reporter for the school newspaper and graduated from Columbia University (Barnard College) in 2006, where she was editor-in-chief of the Columbia Spectator Career Highlights:* Started as a staff writer at The Washington Post, covering education, philanthropy, and the war in Iraq, including a three-month stint at the paper's Baghdad bureau * Was part of The Washington Post team that won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting WikipediaMegangreenwell* Worked as managing editor of GOOD Magazine, inaugural features editor at New York magazine's The Cut, and senior editor of ESPN The Magazine * Served as executive features editor for Esquire.com before becoming the fifth and first female editor-in-chief of Deadspin in 2018 * Later worked as editor of Wired.com and interim editor-in-chief of WIRED Current Work: She's now a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn and deputy director of the Princeton Summer Journalism Program PrincetonMegangreenwell. Her book "Bad Company: Private Equity and the Death of the American Dream" was published by HarperCollins on June 10, 2025Personal: Greenwell is married to David Heller, an assistant professor of internal medicine and global health at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Anyone who has ever raised children or managed people knows that nothing works quite as well to correct misconduct as does consequences.  When it comes to our government, however, we seem to forget this universal truth and instead rely on the weak hope that the people we elect to rule over us will be good people.This is an error of existential proportions.A government absent consequences is a government unchecked, and that is the very definition of tyranny. All people are imperfect and subject to wavering from the path of good. Our reliance must not be on good people, but on good consequences.Join me as I illustrate this fundamental principle with a couple of real-world example, iced with some brilliance from economist Milton Friedman. We'll also discuss Trump's proposed flag-burning ban, increasingly loud cries to ban ALL third-world migration—both illegal and legal—and a couple of more light-hearted topics to close out the show.Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Send us a textTransaction costs are the friction in the gears of society, but the worst transaction costs are the ones that reflect government failure. You can see it in ever cliche about government, from the dreaded DMV lines to the passport control bottleneck. Drawing on Milton Friedman's "Barking Cats" essay from 1973, I explore why bureaucracy remains fundamentally immune to reform efforts, regardless of which political party holds power.The frustrating reality is that bureaucracies operate with completely different incentives than private businesses. While companies balance money costs against convenience to attract customers, government agencies focus solely on their budgets while taxing citizens with enormous "trouble costs." North Carolina's DMV perfectly illustrates this dysfunction—appointments require six-month waits while the state proudly touts its budget savings. Most maddening is that these aren't even genuine services, but rather artificial permission requirements the government imposes before allowing us to live our lives.This represents a textbook government failure—what economists call a Pareto inferior outcome. Most citizens would gladly pay slightly more in fees or taxes to avoid wasting hours (or months) of their lives in bureaucratic purgatory. That additional revenue could easily fund more staff and faster service. Yet the system has no mechanism to capture these preferences or respond to them.The problem isn't partisan, and it can't be fixed by shuffling leadership or staff. As Chris Rock might say about bureaucracy—"that tiger ain't go crazy, that tiger went tiger." Bureaucracy simply acts according to its nature. Reformers who believe they can fundamentally change how these institutions function are like people who want cats that bark—they fundamentally misunderstand the beast they're dealing with.Listen in for insights on why bureaucratic inefficiency persists despite our best efforts, complete with revealing (but not really funny) quotes from political thinkers ranging from Schumpeter to Trotsky. Have your own bureaucratic horror story to share? Let me know in the comments or on social media.Links:Friedman article 1973Keech and Munger article 2015Chris Rock, "Tiger!"Parkinson's LawMichael Munger: The "Trouble Tax"If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

Gene Tunny and Darren Brady Nelson delve into the gold reserves at Fort Knox, exploring whether the gold is as pure as expected and what the implications might be for the U.S. dollar if it's not. They cover the history of gold confiscation, central bank policies, and the enduring allure of gold in uncertain economic times. This episode was inspired by a question Gene received at a talk he gave to the AusIMM Sydney branch in April 2025. Darren is currently the Chief Economist at Fisher Liberty Gold. This episode contains general information only, and nothing in this episode should be considered as investment or financial advice.  Please email Gene your thoughts on this episode via contact@economicsexplored.com.TimestampsDarren Brady Nelson's Role at Fisher Liberty Gold (0:00)Investing in Gold Through Fisher Liberty Gold (3:00)The Gold in Fort Knox: Historical Context and Implications (5:11)The Quality and Purity of Gold in Fort Knox (7:58)The Role of Gold in Economic Uncertainty and Impact of Tariffs (28:57)Central Banks' Role in Gold Markets (34:08)The Future of Gold and Monetary Policy (38:37)The Independence of Central Banks (40:53)The Role of Government in Economic Growth (48:46)Final Thoughts and Future Topics (53:41)TakeawaysFort Knox's Gold Purity Questioned: Much of the U.S. gold reserve came from coin melts, meaning it may fall short of the “Good Delivery” standard of 99.5% purity.Audit Calls from High Places: Figures like Trump, Elon Musk, and Rand Paul have recently advocated for a Fort Knox audit.Central Banks Stockpile Gold: Global central banks are shifting reserves from U.S. dollars to gold, with 1,000 metric tons of gold purchases expected in 2025.Gold as Growth, Not Just Protection: Darren's modelling shows gold may outperform the S&P 500 over the long term.Audit the Fed?: The episode concludes with a discussion on Ron Paul's push to audit the Federal Reserve and whether central banks should remain as independent as they are.Links relevant to the conversationFisher Liberty Gold:https://www.fisherlibertygold.com/Mises Institute article “The Gold at Fort Knox Was Stolen from Americans”:https://mises.org/mises-wire/gold-fort-knox-was-stolen-americansMises Institute article “How Much Gold Does the US Government Own, and Where Is It?”:https://mises.org/power-market/how-much-gold-does-us-government-own-and-where-itReuters report on central bank gold purchases:https://www.reuters.com/world/india/central-banks-track-4th-year-massive-gold-purchases-metals-focus-says-2025-06-05/Bernanke's apology for Great Depression on behalf of the Fed to Milton Friedman:https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/Perth Mint:https://www.perthmint.com/In Gold We Trust report:https://ingoldwetrust.report/?lang=en   Peter Bernstein's book “The Power of Gold”:https://www.amazon.com.au/Power-Gold-New-Foreword-Obsession/dp/111827010XLumo Coffee promotion10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee.Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLOREDPromo code: 10EXPLORED 

Jon Hartley and Randal Quarles discuss Randy's career as a lawyer and in policy (including his time as Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Regulation) and topics such as the global financial crisis, Glass-Steagall, banking regulation, lender of last resort, Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act, capital requirements, the potential relaxation of Treasuries in the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR), deposit insurance after the Silicon Valley Bank regional banking crisis, and stablecoin regulation. Recorded on May 29, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Randal Quarles is the Chairman and co-founder of The Cynosure Group.  Before founding Cynosure, Mr. Quarles was a long-time partner of the Carlyle Group, where he began the firm's program of investments in the financial services industry during the 2008 financial crisis. From October 2017 through October 2021, Mr. Quarles was Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, serving as the system's first Vice Chairman for Supervision, charged specifically with ensuring stability of the financial sector.  He also served as the Chairman of the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) from December 2018 until December 2021; a global body established after the Great Financial Crisis to coordinate international efforts to enhance financial stability. In both positions, he played a key role in crafting the US and international response to the economic and financial dislocations of COVID-19, successfully preventing widespread global disruption of the financial system.  As FSB Chairman, he was a regular delegate to the finance ministers' meetings of the G-7 and G20 Groups of nations and to the Summit meetings of the G20.  As Fed Vice Chair, he was a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, the body that sets monetary policy for the United States. Earlier in his career, Mr. Quarles was Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, where he led the Department's activities in financial sector and capital markets policy, including coordination of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. Before serving as Under Secretary, Mr. Quarles was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, where he had a key role in responding to several international crises.  Mr. Quarles was also the U.S. Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, a member of the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, and a board representative for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. In earlier public service, he was an integral member of the Treasury team in the George H. W. Bush Administration that developed the governmental response to the savings and loan crisis. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Research Fellow at the UT-Austin Civitas Institute, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon is also the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes, and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star, among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list, and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper.  ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics.

Milton Friedman är en av världens mest inflytelserika ekonomer, men varifrån kom idéerna och vem var han? Åsa Secher berättar, i en repris från 2022.

On this episode of We Question and Learn, host Tom Pysz welcomes Robert Chatfield, President and CEO of the Free to Choose Network—a global media nonprofit best known for producing Milton Friedman's landmark ten-part television series Free to Choose. Chatfield discusses the organization's ongoing mission to promote economic education and individual liberty through powerful storytelling and media.Later in the program, Tom speaks with Jennifer Farrar, the newly appointed President and CEO of the Tom Ridge Environmental Center Foundation. She shares her vision for the foundation's future and its critical role in supporting environmental education and stewardship at the gateway to Presque Isle State Park.

Get original articles, extended podcasts, and direct access to Blendr News on our Substack Channel: blendrnews.substack.com-This episode is brought to you by The Tallowed Truth. Use promo code "Blendr" for 15% off:www.thetallowedtruth.com/blendr-In this episode of "The Blendr Report," Jonathan and Liam discuss:0:00 Intro0:44 Canada Considers Expanding Euthanasia to Children4:10 Manipulating Language to Hide Evil6:37 The Deterioration of the Nuclear Family9:34 The Mindset of Canadian Politicians12:24 The Cost of Big Government17:18 Milton Friedman on Public Spending and Debt19:35 Canada's Socialist Identity23:35 It's a Big Club and You Ain't In It25:35 The Machine Needs To Be Dismantled26:51 Canada's Hunger Crisis: 10 Million “Food Insecure”29:15 How Inefficient is Government Spending?32:47 The Importance of Alternative Media 35:52 Government is Bigger Than We Think42:08 FBI Director Warns About Canadian Fentanyl45:30 The War on Drugs: Pros and Cons50:57 Foreign Interference vs. State Controlled Media55:01 The Weaponization of Media and Information57:54 Liberals Benefitting from Disinformation59:06 Friedrich Nietzsche on “Trusting the Experts”1:08:13 What is Trust?-Follow BLENDR News:Twitter - @BlendrNewsInstagram - @blendr.report TikTok - @blendrnews-Follow Jonathan:Instagram - @itsjonathanharveyTikTok - @itsjonathanharvey-Follow Liam:Instagram - @liam.out.loudTwitter - @liam_out_loudYouTube - @liam-out-loud

Andrew For America presents a crazy acid trip ride of ADHD pontificating about numerous topics! In this episode, Andrew discusses capitalism, socialism/communism, the "big club," the European banking cartels, academics, science, religion, spirituality, philosophy, the Gnostics, simulation theory, good vs. evil, personal responsibility, an alleged claim by Klaus Schwab's daughter Nicole, and more! Andrew plays clips from Milton Friedman (with his "I, Pencil speech), former executive director of the Club of Rome Calin Georgescu, Daniel Dennett, Del Bigtree, Bill Hicks, and others...as well as a clip about a scientific experiment conducted to see how people who are given unequal advantages in life act towards the less fortunate, and the findings are quite telling!The song selections are the songs, "Sinners Club" and "Living Dead" by the band Screamin' Sins.Visit allegedlyrecords.com and check out all of the amazing punk rock artists!Visit soundcloud.com/andrewforamerica1984 to check out Andrew's music!Like and Follow The Politics & Punk Rock Podcast PLAYLIST on Spotify!!!Check it out here: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1Y4rumioeqvHfaUgRnRxsy...politicsandpunkrockpodcast.comhttps://linktr.ee/andrewforamerica

Caleb O. Brown hosted the Cato Daily Podcast for nearly 18 years, producing well over 4000 episodes. He has gone on to head Kentucky's Bluegrass Institute. This is one among the best episodes produced in his tenure, selected by the host and listeners. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jon Hartley and Kenneth Rogoff discuss Ken's career as an academic economist, his time in international economic policy, rising sovereign debt burdens, monetary policy, the legacy of quantitative easing, exchange rate theories, tariffs, and the US dollar's status as the world reserve currency. Recorded on May 12, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Kenneth Rogoff is Thomas D. Cabot Professor at Harvard University. From 2001-2003, Rogoff served as Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund. His 2009 book with Carmen Reinhart, This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, has been very widely cited by academics, policymakers, and journalists. One regularity that Reinhart and Rogoff illustrate is the remarkable quantitative similarities across time and countries in the run-up and the aftermath of severe financial crises. In general, they show that for financial crises, the differences between emerging markets and advanced countries are far less pronounced than previously believed. Rogoff is also known for his seminal work on exchange rates and on central bank independence. His treatise, Foundations of International Macroeconomics (joint with Maurice Obstfeld), is the standard graduate text in the field worldwide. His monthly syndicated column on global economic issues is published in over 50 countries. He serves on the Economic Advisory Panel of the New York Federal Reserve. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rogoff is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Group of Thirty. Rogoff is among the top ten on RePEc's ranking of economists by scholarly citations. He is also an international grandmaster of chess. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Research Fellow at the UT-Austin Civitas Institute, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon is also the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes, and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star, among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list, and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper.  ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Are we doomed for recession as many economists are lamenting? Or are we truly on the cusp of America’s “golden age”? Mati Greenspan is one of our go-to guys for a things relating to global economies, politics and tokenization. Today we welcome him back to share the true state of Israel, why Milton Friedman was right about economics and how Trump is emulating Friedman’s principles to make America great again. After almost eight years of doing this show, are we entering a golden age as well? We’ll find out today on episode #776 of The Bad Crypto Podcast. FULL SHOW NOTES: badco.in/776 SUBSCRIBE, RATE, & REVIEW: iTunes: http://badco.in/itunesSpotify: http://badco.in/spotifyStitcher: http://badco.in/stitcherGoogle Play: http://badco.in/playSoundcloud: http://badco.in/soundcloudYouTube: http://badco.in/youtube FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: @BadCryptoPod - @TheNiftyShow - @JoelComm - @TeeDubyaFacebook: /BadCrypto - /JoelComm - /teedubyawLinkedIn: /in/joelcomm - /in/teedubyaInstagram: @BadCryptoPodcast DISCLAIMER: Do your own due diligence and research. Neither Joel Comm, Zach Comm nor Travis Wright are FINANCIAL ADVISORS. We are sharing our journey with you as we learn more about this crazy little thing called cryptocurrency. We make NO RECOMMENDATIONS. Don't take anything we say as gospel. Do not come to our homes with pitchforks because you lost money by listening to us. We only share with you what we are learning and what we are investing it. We will never "pump or dump" any cryptocurrencies. Take what we say with a grain of salt. You must research this stuff on your own! Just know that we will always strive for RADICAL TRANSPARENCY with any show associations.Support the show: https://badcryptopodcast.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"The Shock Doctrine" arrives in America. Now Americans have some idea of how Chileans felt in the 1970s. ALSO: Chris is still mad at Ezra Klein. PLUS: Zoloft VS one's sex drive. A song of the week from Sophia Corinne.Sophia Corinne - "Nursing the Wound": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pWjFwW1kcQCold Brew Patreon: Patreon.com/ChrisCroftonChannel Nonfiction: ChannelNonfiction.com

Jon Hartley and Phillip Swagel discuss Phill's career as an academic economist, his time in economic policy, why the CBO is important in the budget policy process, current law versus current policy baselines, dynamic scoring versus static scoring, the accuracy of CBO scores, CBO modeling, as well as CBO model transparency. Recorded on March 18, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Phillip Swagel became the 10th Director of the Congressional Budget Office on June 3, 2019. Previously, he was a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the Milken Institute. He has also taught at Northwestern University, the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, and Georgetown University. His research has involved financial market reform, international trade policy, and China's role in the global economy. From 2006 to 2009, Dr. Swagel was Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department, where he was responsible for analysis of a wide range of economic issues, including policies relating to the financial crisis and the Troubled Asset Relief Program. He has also served as chief of staff and senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House and as an economist at the Federal Reserve Board and the International Monetary Fund. He earned his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and his A.B. in economics from Princeton University. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon also is the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

Transcript: https://361.pub/A22TranscriptThis 361Firm Meetup and Briefing discussed the economic impact of the Trump administration's trade policies. Stephen Burke highlighted the IMF's revised global growth projections, down to 2.8% for 2025 and 3% for 2026, citing trade policy uncertainty as a major factor. Scott Slayton noted a 10.5% decline in the US dollar since January 2020, attributing it to trade tensions and a weaker dollar policy. The discussion also covered the potential for a recession in 2025, the impact of tariffs on exports and imports, and the long-term implications for the US dollar's reserve currency status. The meeting discussed the economic challenges faced by Russia, including high inflation and fiscal problems due to defense spending. The Chilean economy's past success was attributed to factors other than Milton Friedman's advice. The U.S. dollar's recent volatility was compared to past periods, with concerns about its future as a reserve currency. Upcoming bond auctions and their potential impact were highlighted, along with the unpredictability of tariff policies. The discussion also touched on the potential long-term effects of tariffs on manufacturing and the need for strategic investments to maintain U.S. competitiveness.OutlineMeetup - Introductions and New Members, Saudi Event LogisticsBriefing Starts with Discussion on Trade Policy and Economic Impact (see summary above)Stephen Burke discusses the IMF's revised growth projections, highlighting the impact of trade policy uncertainty on global growth.Scott Slayton's Analysis on the US DollarScott Slayton presents his report on the US dollar, highlighting the significant decline in the dollar since the Trump administration took office, the impact of high tariffs on growth, competitiveness, and the US dollar's role as a reserve currency, potential for a weaker dollar to support exports and the impact on American exceptionalism, need for investors to diversify into foreign stocks, bonds, and real assets.Q&A and Further DiscussionRoger Arjoon questions the rationality of Trump's trade policies and the potential for a recession.Stephen Burke and Scott Slayton discuss the potential outcomes of the trade negotiations and the impact on the US dollar. Economic Situation in Russia and ChileSimon Vine discusses the economic crisis in Russia, highlighting the depletion of their reserve fund and the high inflation due to defense spending.He compares the current situation in Russia to the Chilean economy, noting that Chile's economic success was not due to Milton Friedman's advice but to other factors.Vine mentions that the dollar's value has fluctuated significantly in the past, citing 1994He expresses uncertainty about the future but hopes that the current drastic measures will be successful.Bond Vigilante Front and Dollar WeaknessLeslie Bendig asks about the potential for another bond auction issue and the impact of a weak US dollar on Asia in 2026.Stephen Burke explains that the bond auctions could be influenced by various factors, including Fed meetings and trade discussions. Burke discusses the mixed impact of a weaker dollar on Asia, considering both the benefits and the potential for higher inflation and slower growth.Impact of Tariffs on Consumer BehaviorMichael Hammer shares a personal anecdote about the rising cost of sneakers at Walmart, attributing the increase to tariffs.Stephen Burke acknowledges the potential for significant market distortions and volatility due to unusual policies.Long-Term Investment Needs and Competitive AdvantageSameer Sirdeshpande emphasizes the need for long-term investments in manufacturing, distribution, and innovation to remain competitive.Mark Sanor mentions that the upcoming San Francisco event will address these issues, highlighting the importance of strategic investments.Legal and Political UncertaintiesParth Vakil questions the impact of successful trade renegotiations on the dollar's reserve currency status.Stephen Burke believes that the US's scale and depth make it difficult for any alternative currency to replace the dollar.Volatility and Investment OpportunitiesMichael Hammer and Stephen Burke discuss the volatility in the market and its impact on investors.Hammer argues that the overall trend will continue to be downward, while Burke sees opportunities for investors to upgrade their portfolios. You can subscribe to various 361 events and content at https://361firm.com/subs. For reference: Web: www.361firm.com/homeOnboard as Investor: https://361.pub/shortdiagOnboard Deals 361: www.361firm.com/onbOnboard as Banker: www.361firm.com/bankersEvents: www.361firm.com/eventsContent: www.youtube.com/361firmWeekly Digests: www.361firm.com/digest

O comentário do ouvinte é patrocinado pela Vinho 24 Horas. Já pensou em ter um negócio que funciona 24h, sem precisar de funcionários? Uma adega autônoma instalada no seu condomínio, com vinhos de qualidade, controle pelo celular e margem de 80%. Com apenas R$ 29.900, você inicia sua franquia e ainda ganha 100 garrafas de vinho. Acesse Vinho24.com.br e comece seu novo negócio! A Terra Desenvolvimento revoluciona a gestão agropecuária com métodos exclusivos e tecnologia inovadora, oferecendo acesso em tempo real aos dados da sua fazenda para estratégias eficientes. A equipe atua diretamente na execução, garantindo resultados. Para investidores, orienta na escolha das melhores atividades no agro. Com 25 anos de experiência, transforma propriedades em empreendimentos lucrativos e sustentáveis. Conheça mais em terradesenvolvimento.com.br. Inteligência a serviço do agro! Inspirado por um texto afiado de Natália Beauty, este episódio é um manifesto contra o vitimismo e em defesa da liberdade individual. Com pitadas de Ayn Rand e Milton Friedman, exploramos por que o mercado não é projeto social — é arena de valor, mérito e entrega. Para quem ainda acredita que sucesso é sorte ou hashtag, fica o recado: ninguém te deve nada. Aperte o play.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When U.S. President Donald Trump announced the imposition of his “Liberation Day” tariffs against most of America's global trading partners in April 2025, he seemed to harken back to a centuries-old form of economic nationalism known as mercantilism, which sought prosperity through restrictive trade practices. Opponents of mercantilism from the eighteenth century onward, such as Adam Smith and John-Baptiste Say, became known as classical liberals. In the fullness of time, classical liberalism gave rise to the political philosophy we now know as libertarianism.When most people think of libertarianism, they typically have in mind a small number of figures — including Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises — who were generally associated with the American political right in the mid-twentieth century. But in fact libertarianism was born in the nineteenth century (not the twentieth), and was first developed in Britain and France (not the United States). And as Matt Zwolinski emphasizes in his monumental intellectual history of libertarianism, The Individualists (co-authored with John Tomasi), libertarianism is better thought of as a cluster of related concepts than a unitary doctrine. It's true that most libertarians historically have been concerned with the defense of individual autonomy, property rights, free markets, and personal liberty against state coercion. But the first individual to self-identify as a “libertarian” was the nineteenth-century French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque, and libertarianism as it developed often took radical and left-leaning forms, particularly through its association with the abolitionist movement in America in the years before the Civil War. In this podcast conversation, Matt Zwolinski (a philosophy professor at the University of San Diego) discusses his investigations into the intellectual history of libertarianism as well as his analysis of the longstanding tensions between radical and reactionary elements within the philosophy. He describes post-Cold War “third wave libertarianism” taking both right-wing expression (in the form of paleolibertarianism) as well as more radical forms (including left-libertarianism and “bleeding-heart libertarianism.”) And he suggests reasons why many libertarians see more potential in combating poverty through Universal Basic Income grants rather than through more traditional government-administered antipoverty programs.

The recent nuclear non-proliferation talks between Iran and the United States have exposed the failings of past administrations. Seth reads from President Trump's Message on Holy Week 2025 speech. We're joined by John Dombroski, founder and president of Grand Canyon Planning Associates. Clips from economist Milton Friedman on the power of economics and from Piers Morgan's recent appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jon Hartley and Robert Barro discuss Robert's career in economics including his long list of famous students, and research on Ricardian equivalence, fiscal theory of the price level, government spending multipliers, business cycles and the legacy of New Keynesian modeling, economic growth, political economy, the interplay between religion and economics, and much more. Recorded on March 18, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Robert J. Barro is a Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a B.S. in physics from Caltech. Barro is co-editor of Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics and has been President of the Western Economic Association and Vice President of the American Economic Association. He was a viewpoint columnist for Business Week from 1998 to 2006 and a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 1998. He has written extensively on macroeconomics and economic growth. Recent research involves rare macroeconomic disasters, corporate tax reform, religion & economy, empirical determinants of economic growth, and economic effects of public debt and budget deficits. Recent books include The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging (with Rachel M. McCleary), Economic Growth (2nd edition, with Xavier Sala-i-Martin), Nothing Is Sacred: Economic Ideas for the New Millennium, Determinants of Economic Growth, and Getting It Right: Markets and Choices in a Free Society. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon also is the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

It's no secret Elon Musk is no fan of President Trump's plan for tariffs. It appears he is sending President Trump what could be veiled messages through old clips of Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman is one of the great "Free Marketeers" of our time. His assessment of freedom and liberty vs equality is nothing short of eye opening. We go through some of my favorite Milton Friedman clips and relate them to modern day politics today. Also, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is our guest. He has announced his candidacy to take on "RINO" establishment Texas Senator John Cornyn. Cornyn instantly lashed out with one of the most despicable comments I have ever heard uttered by a fellow Republican against another Republican. Go to http://freegoldguide.com/grant or call 800 458 7356 for your free Colonial Metals Group retirement protection kit – created specifically for our listeners where you can get up to $7500 in free Silver. www.PatriotMobile.com/Grantwww.Get21Now.comwww.EnergizedHealth.com/GrantTWC.Health/Grant Use "Grant" for 10% Off See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matt Ehret and Ghost deliver a sweeping, cerebral episode of Breaking History that traverses the terrain of ancient philosophy, spiritual warfare, and modern geopolitics, all through the lens of history's repeating patterns. Beginning with a candid discussion about grassroots sovereignty and the spiritual energy behind the Great American Restoration Tour, the hosts explore how authentic citizen movements are essential to reclaiming a corrupted nation, just as they were in ancient Greece and early America. From Confucius and Socrates to George Washington and Donald Trump, they highlight the timeless battle between oligarchic control and moral leadership, digging deep into suppressed classical wisdom that still shapes today's struggles. The conversation dives into the roots of empire, from Merovingian myths and Gnostic elitism to the modern priesthood of global governance and the soft tyranny of unthinking "unity." Matt then pivots to break major news from his recent travels in Thailand, revealing how the long-dormant Kra Canal project is being revived as a keystone of China's Belt and Road Initiative, and why Western sabotage can't stop its momentum. The duo connects the dots between global infrastructure, tariffs, and the unraveling legacy of Milton Friedman's "free market" dogma, exposing how America's decline was engineered through cheap goods, offshoring, and debt enslavement. This episode is a masterclass in historical pattern recognition, economic sovereignty, and the sacred responsibility of self-governance. It's not just a conversation...it's a call to reawaken the philosopher king within.

Give to help Chris continue to make Truce Milton Friedman is one of the most important economists of the last hundred years. His ideas were quoted by many evangelical writers in the 1970s and 80s, despite his not being a Christian and few of his ideas being in the Bible. Figures like Jerry Falwell loved the guy. Ronald Reagan adopted many of his ideas, though they disagreed on things like the increasing national debt. Friedman played a major role in the popularization of the school voucher concept. Essentially, some people want to allow parents to have a say in which school their children attend. If they want to take the children to a private school, they believe that the government should give them a certain amount of money that would have gone to the public school and give it to the private one. Those who disagree say that this would defund already underfunded schools. Friedman also believed that teachers should not necessarily be certified and that the free market would weed out the bad ones. Stanford professor Jennifer Burns (author of Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative) returns to help Chris explore this complicated subject. Sources: Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative by Jennifer Burns Reaganland by Rick Perlstein Free to Choose A helpful Britannica article on Friedman Listen, America! by Jerry Falwell. Paperback, August 1980 reprint version Bantam edition Divided We Stand by Marjorie Spruill Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman Discussion Questions: Had you heard of Friedman before this episode? What are school vouchers? How could school vouchers be seen by some as a tool of segregation? What would it mean if parents had to keep track of every teacher their children learned under? How are schools currently funded in the US? Why does that matter? How are some schools wealthy while others are poor? What should be the role of wealthy people when it comes to education? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Nobel Prize-winning economist says the Iron Triangle of Politics must be defeated to cut down the government for good.

Après trois jours de chute libre sur les marchés boursiers, les grands noms de la finance sonnent l'alarme. Bill Ackman, Elon Musk, Jamie Dimon…, tous dénoncent la guerre commerciale déclenchée par Trump. Mais le président, lui, s'en fiche et il fonce. Pendant des années, Wall Street a fermé les yeux. Tant que les baisses d'impôts, la déréglementation et les petits tweets rageurs de Donald Trump faisaient grimper le Dow Jones, tout allait bien. Mais voilà que l'idylle se fissure. Pire encore, elle explose en plein vol. C'est vrai que depuis son retour à la Maison-Blanche, Trump semble avoir confondu politique économique avec kamikaze tarifaire. Le 2 avril dernier, il a donc lancé son jour de libération en décrétant des droits de douane massifs contre tout ce qui bouge : la Chine, le Mexique, le Canada et même ses soi-disant, anciens alliés ou amis comme l'Europe. Le résultat ? Trois jours de carnage boursier, un Nasdaq à genoux et un Wall Street en panique. Le réveil est donc brutal, surtout pour ceux qui pensaient avoir voté pour un businessman éclairé. Bill Ackman, par exemple, qui est un gourou financier aux États-Unis et un ex-héros du mouvement Anti-woke, résume très bien le malaise. Je le cite "Ce n'est pas pour cela que nous avons voté ". Traduction : on voulait un président pro business et pas un saboteur des marchés financiers. Et dans les coulisses, c'est d'ailleurs aussi la panique… Mots-Clés : sondage, confidentiel, Yale, grands patrons, Pfizer, Dell, JP Morgan, alarme, bourse, zone, libre échange, Europe. Milton Friedman, vidéo vintage, appui, Stan Druckenmiller, figure mythique, marchés financiers, lâche, Jimmy Diamond, JP Morgan, Dan Ivey, stratège technologique, Armageddon, Silicon Valley, méthode Coué, chute des cours, purge, retraités américains, portefeuilles, milliardaire, pyromane, pompier, instincts protectionnistes, illusion, acides, crash, fake news, réfuter, connerie, bêtise, énergie, la loi d'Alberto Brandolini. Alberto Brandolini, informaticien italien, sagesse, formaliser, analyste, quotidien, vérité, preuves, argumentaire, mensonge, conviction, micro, caméra, orfèvre. --- La chronique économique d'Amid Faljaoui, tous les jours à 8h30 et à 17h30. Merci pour votre écoute Pour écouter Classic 21 à tout moment i: https://www.rtbf.be/radio/liveradio/classic21 ou sur l'app Radioplayer Belgique Retrouvez tous les épisodes de La chronique économique sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/802 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Découvrez nos autres podcasts : Le journal du Rock : https://audmns.com/VCRYfsPComic Street (BD) https://audmns.com/oIcpwibLa chronique économique : https://audmns.com/NXWNCrAHey Teacher : https://audmns.com/CIeSInQHistoires sombres du rock : https://audmns.com/ebcGgvkCollection 21 : https://audmns.com/AUdgDqHMystères et Rock'n Roll : https://audmns.com/pCrZihuLa mauvaise oreille de Freddy Tougaux : https://audmns.com/PlXQOEJRock&Sciences : https://audmns.com/lQLdKWRCook as You Are: https://audmns.com/MrmqALPNobody Knows : https://audmns.com/pnuJUlDPlein Ecran : https://audmns.com/gEmXiKzRadio Caroline : https://audmns.com/WccemSkAinsi que nos séries :Rock Icons : https://audmns.com/pcmKXZHRock'n Roll Heroes: https://audmns.com/bXtHJucFever (Erotique) : https://audmns.com/MEWEOLpEt découvrez nos animateurs dans cette série Close to You : https://audmns.com/QfFankxDistribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Wall Street Investors feared a “Black Monday” stock market crash which didn't actually happen. The White House debunked a fake report that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs. Trump creates the word “panican” to describe a party with “weak and stupid” people. Dana resurfaces the classic Milton Friedman clip about how a pencil is made to summarize free trade. When will the panic subside? RINO's in Texas are trying to ban THC instead of property tax relief. India police have arrested a 24-year-old American Youtuber who visited an off-limits island in the Indian ocean and left an offering of a Diet Coke can and a coconut in an attempt to make contact with an isolated tribe known for attacking intruders. CNN is hosting a town hall with four battleground members of Congress. Economist Grover Norquist joins us to give his honest input on the tariffs, why Congress MUST make tax cuts permanent and what should happen next. Dana reacts to the most ridiculous moments from the nationwide “Hands Off” anti-Trump and Musk protests.Stephen Yates from Heritage joins us to discuss China's market collapse, the tariffs against China, South Korea's impeachment and much more.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…PreBornhttps://Preborn.com/DanaDonate by dialing #250 and saying “BABY” or give securely at Preborn.com/Dana.Goldcohttps://DanaLikesGold.com My personal gold company - get your GoldCo 2025 Gold & Silver Kit. PLUS, you could qualify for up to 10% in BONUS silverByrnahttps://byrna.com/danaDon't leave yourself or your loved ones without options. Visit Byrna.com/Dana receive 10% off Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANAHumanNhttps://humann.comSupport your metabolism and healthy blood sugar levels with Superberine by HumanN. It's now available at your local Sam's Club, next to SuperBeets Heart Chews.  Tax Network USAhttps://TNUSA.com/DANADon't let the IRS's aggressive tactics control your life; empower yourself with Tax Network USA's support.  Reach a USA-based agent @ 1(800) 958-1000 - Don't fight the IRS alone.KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSee the NEW PS57 - KelTec Innovation & Performance at its bestFast Growing Treeshttps://fastgrowingtrees.com/DanaThis spring, get up to 50% off select plants at Fast Growing Trees, plus an extra 15% off your first purchase with code DANA  All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/DanaCode Dana10 for 10% off your entire orderRelief Factorhttps://relieffactor.comTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today!

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, when did Democrats last voice concerns over tariffs imposed on our products and services that increase consumer goods prices for us? They appear silent on tariffs from China and Canada today but decades ago they weren't silent.  From the founding of the U.S. until 1913, tariffs funded about 95% of the government. While some blame tariffs for the Great Depression, Milton Friedman argued it resulted from a recession exacerbated by the Federal Reserve's tight monetary policy, not tariffs. Trump is pursuing an unprecedented strategy in U.S. history by combining massive tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in government size and personnel, and tariffs, all with the goal of re-industrializing America. Do tax cuts cause inflation or cause deficits? No. Inflation stems from government actions, not the private sector. Tax cuts create economic growth, wealth, and prosperity - across the board. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Capital for Good we speak with Michael Posner, the Jerome Kohlberg Professor of Ethics and Finance at NYU's Stern School of Business, director of the school's Center for Business and Human Rights, a long-time leader in the field, luminary thinker, advocate, former State Department Official, and the author of the new book, Conscience Incorporated. We begin with Posner's early interests in international human rights issues, sparked in law school when he was tasked with investigating atrocities in Uganda under Idi Amin. He lays out the principals of early, post-World War II and UN inspired human rights law focused on universality, and the responsibility of governments to promote, protect and enforce human rights. Notably absent from this early framework is the role of business. Posner explains that his interest in the intersection of human rights took shape when he began to observe that large multinational corporations had a critical role to play, particularly when they operated in weak states that lacked the ability to protect human rights. We discuss why companies should care, fundamentally, about human rights on ethical dimensions (“outsourcing might be a smart business strategy, but you can't outsource responsibility if you're the main economic beneficiary,”) and because there are material costs that can arise from irresponsible practices, often reputational crises and/or regulation. We explore the deficiencies of various business frameworks: how and why Milton Friedman's shareholder primacy worldview fails to account for environmental and social externalities and a broader set of stakeholders; how and why ESG conflate environmental and social considerations and emphasize risk rather than meaningful performance on issues like climate change or worker protections. Posner suggests that this moment of backlash against all things ESG, DEI and “woke capitalism” offers us an opportunity to do better. We touch on sometimes complex tensions between climate change and human rights concerns, acknowledging that climate change can only be solved if we transition to a lower carbon economy, with the scale up of renewable energy and the development of technologies like electric vehicles, which in turn rely on things like batteries. We know that today batteries are reliant on inputs like critical minerals, long mined in ways and places rife with human rights challenges, and today often controlled by Chinese companies. China is also the world's largest and lowest cost producer of solar panels, and much of that production occurs in Xinjiang, with forced labor of the Uyghur ethnic minority. Posner discusses a number of ways to better integrate climate and human rights considerations. Before opening the floor to audience questions, we discuss the evolution of technology and human rights issues. When Posner was at the State Department from 2010 to 2012, he had a front tow seat to the Arab Spring and the “Facebook Revolution,” witnessing how activists used social media to fight authoritarianism. Although he says he still believes in the power of technology to open up political discourse, he has become much more concerned about issues of data privacy, surveillance, harmful violent and incendiary content, information and disinformation, and ways in which companies try to shield themselves with first amendment (to which they are not legally subject) to avoid more vigorous content moderation or human rights engagement. We conclude with the role of corporate leaders when it comes to human rights. While Posner notes he is typically conservative about how much executives should speak out on specific issues, he believes strongly that “business leaders need to be attentive and active if there are fundamental threats to our democracy.” This episode of Capital for Good was recorded as part of Social Impact Week 2025, a week of social impact-related events for the Columbia Business School community, organized by the Social Enterprise Club, Green Business Club, Community Impact Club, and LEO Impact Fund. Thanks for Listening! Subscribe to Capital for Good on Apple, Amazon, Google, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Drop us a line at socialenterprise@gsb.columbia.edu.  Mentioned in this Episode Conscience Incorporated: Pursue Profits While Protecting Human Rights The Fair Labor Association

Andrew For America talks about how education and economics can be (and often are) corrupted by the system of control or the type of "state" or “government” that a large group of people live under. A small group of people are always in control of everyone else, be it capitalism, democracy, socialism, whatever…and that small group of people end up dictating how everyone else in the society is “supposed to” live. Andrew plays clips from and reads pieces by Milton Friedman, Dr. Ha-Joon Chang, Matt Kibbe, Dr. Richard Wolff, Jordan Maxwell, Alec Zeck, and George Carlin to help illustrate his points.The song selections are the songs, "Firecracker," "I'll Be Fine, It's The World That's Not Right," and "Push the Button, Start The End" by the band Noise Republic (aka RPBLiK)Visit allegedlyrecords.com and check out all of the amazing punk rock artists!Visit soundcloud.com/andrewforamerica1984 to check out Andrew's music!Like and Follow The Politics & Punk Rock Podcast PLAYLIST on Spotify!!!Check it out here: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1Y4rumioeqvHfaUgRnRxsy...politicsandpunkrockpodcast.comhttps://linktr.ee/andrewforamericaWatch and learn about these awesome offers for your survival needs from former Afghanistan war veteran, police officer, and citizen journalist, Mr. Teddy Daniels:Operation Blackout Survival Guide: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://internalblackout.com/?a=683&c=434&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠Famine Fighter Survival Food Supply: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://foodforthesoul.co/?a=683&c=407&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠FinalFamine Survival Food Growing Book: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://finalfoodprepper.com/?a=683&c=433&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠Devils Dollar Currency Survival Book: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dbhtrkg.com/?a=683&c=468&s1=⁠

Wellness + Wisdom: Liberated Life Series | Episode 727 Wellness + Wisdom Podcast Host, Josh Trent, shares how we can recognize deception in our everyday lives, why we believe the illusory truth effect and manipulation tactics such as fear-mongering and social proof pressure, and how we can create an internal defense system through self-awareness practices to avoid falling prey to harmful narratives. Join The Liberated Life Tribe We ALL have problems. Stop hiding. Start living life liberated. Learn how to set yourself free from self-sabotage, limiting beliefs, thoughts + behaviors so you will have lifelong confidence + clarity of purpose through a thriving community + practical tools, guiding you to play a new reality game. Discover lifelong confidence, clarity, and a true sense of purpose with practical tools and a supportive community. Learn to rewrite your reality + master a new “reality game.” Unlock your highest potential in your physical, mental, emotional, spiritual + financial SELF beyond your wildest dream through accessing the power of surrender to trust life + create new results. Join the Tribe MANNA Vitality The only supplement you will ever need Save 20% with "JOSH20" Manna harnesses the power of nature through their Mineral Matrix blend, a unique composition of natural ingredients such as Shilajit, Ormus, and marine minerals. • Energy + Longevity • Brain Performance • Sex Drive • Immunity Defense • Beauty + Glow This blend is designed to support overall mental and physical performance, including cognitive function and energy levels, for an overall boost in vitality. By using natural ingredients, Manna provides a safe and effective way to enhance your body's natural abilities and unlock your full potential. Manna is a combination of the highest quality minerals, amino, fulvic, and humic acids, and nutrients gathered from some of the highest and lowest points on the planet —the mountains and the sea—to provide a comprehensive and enhanced mineral matrix. Save 20% with "JOSH20" Listen To Episode 727 As Josh Trent Uncovers: [00:00] Understanding Deception + Self-Deception Key concept: The biggest lies we believe often feel like the biggest truths Saint Bernard's quote: 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' Milton Friedman's wisdom: judge policies by results, not intentions The most dangerous deceptions are wrapped in good intentions People lose the ability to discern truth from deception when relying on external validation Illusory truth effect: cognitive bias where repeated false statements become believed [07:55] Cognitive Biases + Manipulation Tactics Our brains prefer familiar information, creating cognitive shortcuts Familiarity does not equal truth Question to ask yourself: 'Do I believe this because it's true or because I've heard it repeatedly?' Beliefs can be inserted when someone is vulnerable (financial hardship, emotional vulnerability) Manipulation tactics: fear-mongering, guilt, and virtue signaling Discussion of objective vs. subjective truth and their differences [15:45] Common Manipulation Types + Defense Strategies Three common manipulation types: fear-mongering, social proof pressure, false dichotomies Fear mongering: creating urgency through fear (COVID example given) Social proof pressure: fear of social rejection or judgment False dichotomies: presenting only two options when more exist Breathwork as a tool to exit manipulation cycles The key question to ask: 'Who benefits from me believing this?' The contradiction test: look for contradictions in someone's 'absolute truth' If you can't argue the opposite side, you've been conditioned, not educated [23:45] Rebuilding Intuition + Exiting Manipulation Every time you ignore your gut feeling, you make it weaker The cost of ignoring intuition: toxic relationships, bad jobs, meaningless pursuits Four ways to sharpen intuition: conscious breathwork, meditation, microdosing, conscious reflection The counterintuitive solution: 'The only way to win the game is to stop playing it' The observer mindset: watch the world like a movie rather than reacting to it Eight takeaways summarized at the end, including remembering that feelings are not facts Final encouragement to find peace and fulfillment by exiting manipulative systems Leave Wellness + Wisdom a Review on Apple Podcasts Links From Today's Show  698 Cory Clark | Pro-Blame Bias: How to Find The Courage to Speak Your Truth + Escape Victim Mentality Wild Wild Country (2018) 345 Zach Bush MD: Humanity, Consciousness & COVID19 breathwork.io EONS: DAILED (Amanita Muscaria) - Get 20% off with code JOSH20 Josh's Trusted Products | Up To 40% Off Shop All Products Biohacking⁠ MANNA Vitality - Save 20% with code JOSH20 HigherDOSE - 15% off with the code JOSH15 PLUNGE - $150 off with discount code WELLNESSFORCE Pulsetto - Save 20% with code "JOSH" SaunaSpace - 10% off with discount code JOSH10 Ultrahuman Ring Air - 10% off with code JOSH Wellness Test Kits Choose Joi - Save 50% on all Lab Tests with JOSH Blokes - Save 50% on all Lab Tests with JOSH FertilityWize Test by Clockwize - Save 10% with code JOSH Tiny Health Gut Tests - $20 off with discount code JOSH20 VIVOO Health Tests - Save 30% off with code JOSH SiPhox Health Blood Test - Save 15% off with code JOSH Nutrition + Gut Health Organifi - 20% off with discount code WELLNESSFORCE SEED Synbiotic - 25% off with the code 25JOSHTRENT Paleovalley - 15% off with the link only EQUIP Foods - 20% off with the code WELLNESS20 DRY FARM WINES - Get an extra bottle of Pure Natural Wine with your order for just 1¢ Just Thrive - 20% off with the code JOSH Legacy Cacao - Save 10% with JOSH when you order by the pound! Kreatures of Habit - Save 20% with WISDOM20 Force of Nature Meats - Save 10% with JOSH Supplements MANNA GOLD - $20 off with the code JOSHGOLD Adapt Naturals - 15% off with discount code WELLNESSFORCE MitoZen - 10% off with the code WELLNESS FORCE Activation Products - 20% off with the code JOSH20 BiOptimizers - 10% off with discount code JOSH10 Fatty15 Essential Fatty Acids Supplement - Get 15% off with code JOSH15 Sleep BiOptimizers Sleep Breakthrough - 10% off with JOSH10 Zyppah Anti-Snoring Mouthpiece - 20% off with the code JOSH MitoZen Super SandMan Ultra™ (Melatonin Liposomal)+ | 10% off with WELLNESSFORCE Luminette Light Therapy Glasses - 15% off with JOSH Cured Nutrition CBN Night Oil - 20% off with JOSH Natural Energy MTE - Save 20% with JOSH TruKava - Save 20% with code JOSH20 Drink Update - Save 25% with discount code JOSH25 Lifeboost Coffee - Save 10% with JOSH10 EONS Mushroom Coffee - 20% off with the discount code JOSH20 EnergyBITS - 20% off with the code WELLNESSFORCE BUBS Naturals - Save 20% with JOSH20 Fitness + Physical Health Detox Dudes Online Courses - Up to $500 off with discount code JOSH Kineon - 10% off with discount code JOSH10 Create Wellness Creatine Gummies - 20% off with discount code JOSH20 BioPro+ by BioProtein Technology - Save $30 OFF WITH CODE JOSH Drink LMNT - Zero Sugar Hydration: Get your free LMNT Sample Pack, with any purchase ⁠Myoxcience - 20% off with the code JOSH20 Healthy Home SunHome Saunas - Save $200 with JOSH200 JASPR Air Purifier - Save 10% with code WELLNESS QI-Shield EMF Device by NOA AON - 20% off with the code JOSH Zyppah Anti-Snoring Mouthpiece - 20% off with the code JOSH Holy Hydrogen - $100 off with discount code JOSH SimplyO3 - 10% off with discount code JOSH10 LEELA Quantum Upgrade + Frequency Bundles - Get 15 days free with code JOSH15 TrulyFree Toxic- Free Cleaning Products - Get 40% off + Freebies with code WELLNESSFORCE Mental Health + Stress Release Mendi.io - 20% off with the code JOSH20 Cured Nutrition CBD - 20% off with the discount code JOSH NOOTOPIA - 10% off with the discount code JOSH10 CalmiGo - $30 off the device with discount code JOSH30 QUALIA - 15% off with WELLNESSFORCE LiftMode - 10% off with JOSH10 Personal Care⁠ The Wellness Company's Emergency Health Kits + More - Save 10% with code JOSH Canopy Filtered Showerhead + Essential Oils - Save 15% with JOSH15 Farrow Life - Save 20% with JOSH Timeline Nutrition - 10% off with JOSH ⁠⁠Intelligence of Nature - 15% off Skin Support with the code JOSH15⁠⁠ Young Goose - Save 10% with code JOSH10 Mindfulness + Meditation BREATHE - 33% off with the code PODCAST33 Neuvana - 15% off with the code WELLNESSFORCE Essential Oil Wizardry - 10% off with the code WELLNESSFORCE Four Visions - Save 15% with code JOSH15 Lotuswei - 10% off with JOSH Clothing NativeToWear - Save 20% with code JOSH20 Rhizal Grounded Barefoot Shoes - Save 10% with code WELLNESS Earth Runners Shoes - 10% off with the code JOSHT10 MYNDOVR - 20% off with JOSH   Free Resources M21 Wellness Guide - Free 3-Week Breathwork Program with Josh Trent Join Wellness + Wisdom Community  

Give to help Chris make Truce Milton Friedman may be the most famous American economist. His research and theories have profoundly shaped the modern American economy. But few of us can clearly articulate what he taught and what it means for our times. Friedman's career was defined by the aftermath of the Great Depression. He worked in the government administering the New Deal, but never really agreed with it. He joined the faculty at the University of Chicago and built a department around him that taught a version of free-market economics known as monetarism. Essentially, monetarism is the idea that inflation is a product of how much money is in circulation. Friedman did not like the Federal Reserve or the gold standard, instead, advocating for a standard 4% increase in the money supply every year that would not be shifted. By setting a rule, he hoped to do away with an entire governmental department. Friedman and his co-authors ventured into areas that other economists thought, perhaps, unwise. They used economics to explain things like marriage and school choice. He was also a proponent of school vouchers. Stanford professor Jennifer Burns joins Chris today to explore the many facets of Milton Friedman. This is the first of two parts. Sources: Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative by Jennifer Burns The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Part to Power by Robert Caro https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire “Keynesian Economics Theory: Definition and How It's Used” Investopedia article https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/one-hundred-years-of-price-change-the-consumer-price-index-and-the-american-inflation-experience.htm Reaganland by Rick Perlstein Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman Milton Friedman: A Concise Guide to the Ideas and Influence of the Free-Market Economist by Eamonn Butler Friedman on the Donahue show in 1979 Discussion Questions: Had you heard of Friedman before this episode? If so, what did you know about him? What does "laissez-faire" mean in economic terms? Does it line up with the Bible in any direct way? Why do you think so many conservative Christians lean toward laissez-faire? How bad was the Great Depression? If you had worked for the government during the Depression, what would you have advocated? Why are some people against the New Deal? What did the New Deal mean to starving people during the Depression? How does a fear of communism play into anti-New Deal sentiment? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jon Hartley and Eugene Fama discuss Gene's career at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business since the 1960s and helping to start Dimensional Fund Advisers (DFA) in the 1980s, fat tails, the rise of modern portfolio theory, efficient markets versus behavioral finance, factor-based investing, the role of intermediaries, and whether asset prices are elastic versus inelastic with respect to demand. Recorded on March 14, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene F. Fama, 2013 Nobel laureate in economic sciences, is widely recognized as the "father of modern finance." His research is well-known in both the academic and investment communities. He is strongly identified with research on markets, particularly the efficient markets hypothesis. He focuses much of his research on the relation between risk and expected return and its implications for portfolio management. His work has transformed the way finance is viewed and conducted. Fama is a prolific author, having written two books and published more than 100 articles in academic journals. He is among the most cited researchers in economics. In addition to the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, Fama was the first elected fellow of the American Finance Association in 2001. He is also a fellow of the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was the first recipient of three major prizes in finance: the Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics (2005), the Morgan Stanley American Finance Association Award for Excellence in Finance (2007), and the Onassis Prize in Finance (2009). Other awards include the 1982 Chaire Francqui (Belgian National Science Prize), the 2006 Nicholas Molodovsky Award from the CFA Institute recognizing his work in portfolio theory and asset pricing, and the 2007 Fred Arditti Innovation Award given by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Center for Innovation. He was awarded doctor of law degrees by the University of Rochester and DePaul University, a doctor honoris causa by the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, and a doctor of science honoris causa by Tufts University. Fama earned a bachelor's degree from Tufts University in 1960, followed by an MBA and PhD from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (now the Booth School) in 1964. He joined the GSB faculty in 1963. Fama is a father of four and a grandfather of ten. He is an avid golfer, an opera buff, and a former windsurfer and tennis player. He is a member of Malden Catholic High School's athletic hall of fame. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon also is the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

Bob responds to recent tweets that believe trade deficits are a sign of economic strength. He also includes an op-ed from Robert Barro and a clip from Milton Friedman, to show that even big gun economists can often speak in misleading ways when it comes to trade deficits.Bob's Article on Free Traders Defending Deficits: Mises.org/HAP492aThe FRED Chart Referenced in this Episode: Mises.org/HAP492bBob's 2007 Mises Daily article on Capital Surplus: Mises.org/HAP492cBob's 2007 Mises Daily article Predicting the Recession: Mises.org/HAP492dThe Human Action Podcast Episode on International Trade: Mises.org/HAP492eThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFreeJoin us May 15–17, 2025, at the Mises Institute for our Revisionist History of War Conference: Mises.org/RHW

Bob responds to recent tweets that believe trade deficits are a sign of economic strength. He also includes an op-ed from Robert Barro and a clip from Milton Friedman, to show that even big gun economists can often speak in misleading ways when it comes to trade deficits.Bob's Article on Free Traders Defending Deficits: Mises.org/HAP492aThe FRED Chart Referenced in this Episode: Mises.org/HAP492bBob's 2007 Mises Daily article on Capital Surplus: Mises.org/HAP492cBob's 2007 Mises Daily article Predicting the Recession: Mises.org/HAP492dThe Human Action Podcast Episode on International Trade: Mises.org/HAP492eThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFreeJoin us May 15–17, 2025, at the Mises Institute for our Revisionist History of War Conference: Mises.org/RHW

In his famous 1962 address to Rice University, President Kennedy declared,We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard . . .The current administration has chosen, among other things, to go to Mars. Some, Elon Musk included, are looking for a backup planet to Earth. For others, like Robert Zubrin, Mars is an opportunity for scientific discovery, pure challenge, and a revitalized human civilization.Today on Faster, Please — The Podcast, Zubrin and I discuss how to reorient NASA, what our earliest Mars missions can and should look like, and why we should go to Mars at all.Zubrin is the president of aerospace R&D company Pioneer Astronautics, as well as the founder and president of the Mars Society. He was also formerly a staff engineer at Lockheed Martin. He has authored over 200 published papers and is the author of seven books, including the most recent, The New World on Mars: What We Can Create on the Red Planet.For more, check out Zubrin's article in The New Atlantis, “The Mars Dream is Back — Here's How to Make It Actually Happen.”In This Episode* Colonization vs. exploration (1:38)* A purpose-driven mission (5:01)* Cultural diversity on Mars (12:07)* An alternative to the SpaceX strategy (16:02)* Artemis program reform (20:42)* The myth of an independent Mars (24:17)* Our current timeline (27:21)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Colonization vs. exploration (1:38)I do think that it is important that the first human mission to ours be a round-trip mission. I want to have those people back, not just because it's nice to have them back, but I want to hear from them. I want to get the full report.Pethokoukis: Just before we started chatting, I went and I checked an online prediction market — one I check for various things, the Metaculus online prediction market — and the consensus forecast from all the people in that community for when will the first humans land successfully on Mars was October 2042. Does that sound realistic, too soon, or should it be much further away?I think it is potentially realistic, but I think we could beat it. Right now we have a chance to get a Humans to Mars program launched. This current administration has announced that they intend to do so. They're making a claim they're going to land people on Mars in 2028. I do not think that is realistic, but I do believe that it is realistic for them to get the program well started and, if it is handled correctly — and we'll have to talk a lot more about that in this talk — that we could potentially land humans on Mars circa 2033.When I gave you that prediction and then you mentioned the 2020s goal, those are about landing on Mars. Should we assume when people say, “We're going to land on Mars,” they also mean people returning from Mars or are they talking about one-way trips?Musk has frequently talked about a colonization effort, and colonization is a one-way trip, but I don't think that's in the cards for 2028 or 2033. I think what is in the cards for this time period on our immediate horizon is exploration missions. I do think that we could potentially have a one-way mission with robots in 2028. That would take a lot of work and it's a bit optimistic, but I think it could be done with determination, and I think that should be done, actually.To be clear, when people are talking about the first human mission to Mars, the assumption is it's not a one way trip for that astronaut, or those two astronauts, that we intend on bringing them back. Maybe the answer is obvious, but I'm not sure it's obvious to me.From time to time, people have proposed scenarios where the first human mission to Mars is a one-way mission, you send maybe not two but five people. Then two years later you send five more people, and then you send 10 people, and then you send 20 people, and you build it up. In other words, it's not a one-way mission in the sense of you're going to be left there and your food will then run out and you will die. No, I don't think that is a credible or attractive mission plan, but the idea that you're going to go with a few people and then reinforce them and grow it into a base, and then a settlement. That is something that can be reasonably argued. But I still think even that is a bit premature. I do think that it is important that the first human mission to ours be a round-trip mission. I want to have those people back, not just because it's nice to have them back, but I want to hear from them. I want to get the full report.A purpose-driven mission (5:01)In the purpose-driven mode, the purpose comes first, you spend money to do things. In the vendor-driven mode, you do things in order to spend money. And we've seen both of these.So should we just default to [the idea] that this mission will be done with government funding on SpaceX rockets, and this will be a SpaceX trip? That's by far the most likely scenario? This is going to need to be a public-private partnership. SpaceX is rapidly developing the single most important element of the technology, but it's not all the technology. We need surface systems. We need the system for making rocket fuel on Mars because the SpaceX mission architecture is the one that I outlined in my book, The Case for Mars, where you make your return propellant on Mars: You take carbon dioxide and water, which are both available on Mars, and turn them into methane and oxygen, which is an excellent rocket fuel combination and which, in fact, is the rocket fuel combination that the Starship uses for that reason. So that's the plan, but you need the system that makes itWe're going to need surface power, which really should be a nuclear power source and which is difficult to develop outside of the government because we're talking about controlled material. Space nuclear reactors will need to use highly enriched uranium, so it should be a partnership between NASA and SpaceX, but we're going to have to reform NASA if this is going to work. I think, though, that this mission could be the vehicle by which we reform NASA. That is, that NASA Artemis moon program, for example, is an example of how not to do something.That's the current government plan to get us back to the moon.Right. But you see, NASA has two distinct modes of operation, and one I call the purpose-driven mode and the other is the vendor-driven mode. In the purpose-driven mode, the purpose comes first, you spend money to do things. In the vendor-driven mode, you do things in order to spend money. And we've seen both of these. To be fair, there's been times when NASA has operated with extreme efficiency to accomplish great things in very short amounts of time, of which, of course, the Apollo Program is the most well-known example where we got to the moon and eight years from program start. The difference between Apollo and Artemis was it wasn't human nature — and there were plenty of greedy people in the 1960s that, when the government's spending money, they want a piece of the action, they were all there.There's no shortage of people who, when you've got a lot of money to spend, are willing to show up and say, “Hi, you got a great idea, but you can't do it until you fund me.” And there were plenty of them then, but they were shown the door because it was clear that if we did all these side projects that people were trying to claim were necessary (“you can't do your program until you do my program”) we would not make it to the moon by 1969. So actually, the forcing function was the schedule. That's what forced the nonsense out of the room.Artemis, on the other hand, has been undertaken as a project whose leadership thought that they could secure a lot of support for the program if they gave a lot of people money. So Artemis has five different flight systems which are incompatible with each other. It's a ridiculous program. That's not the way to do things. We have to have a program leadership which is committed to humans-to-Mars not as a way to get pet technology programs funded, or pet constituencies funded, or pet vendors funded, or any of that stuff. It's got to be: the mission comes first. And if you have that kind of emphasis on this, this can be done and it can be the way to reform NASA.I liken NASA today to a peacetime military, but then it gets thrown into battle, and you get rid of your McClellans and you bring in your Grants. In other words, you have a certain period of chaos and disorganization because you've got deadwood running the place, but under the stress of actually beginning a decisive mission and not being tolerant of anything less than real performance, you actually get the army you need.So that sounds like that's a presidential decision, to give that agency a very specific goal, and perhaps a timeline, to create that kind of purpose-driven culture.Yes. Now that's one necessity. There's another necessity as well, which is that the conceptual base of this program, the political base, if you will, which is derived from its intellectual base, has got to be expanded. This cannot be seen as a Trump-Musk boondoggle because Trump and Musk have both defined themselves in extremely partisan terms, and if this is seen as their program and not America's program, it will be gone as soon as the political fortunes of war shift, which they always do. Musk has this concept that he's been promoting, which is the reason why we have to go to Mars is so that there'll be survivors on Mars after the Earth is destroyed, and I don't think this is particularly —You don't find that a compelling reason, given that there's not currently an obvious threat of us being destroyed, to run a program that could necessarily exist over multiple administrations and be quite expensive.That idea is derived from Isaac Asimov's Foundation novel: The scientists go to the planet Terminus so they can reestablish civilization after the Galactic Empire collapsed. It may please science-fiction fans, but I don't think it's attractive to the general public, and also, frankly, I don't think it's practical. I don't think a Mars colony could have a million people on Mars that will survive as an autarchy. There's no nation on earth that survives as an autarchy. The ones that try are extremely poor as a result for trying.The correct reason to go to Mars is, immediately, for the science, to find out the truth about the prevalence of diversity of life in the universe; for the challenge, to challenge our youth, learn your science and you can be an explorer and maker of new worlds; and for the future, but for the future, it's not for a few survivors to be hiding away after the earth is destroyed, it's to create a new branch, or perhaps several new branches, of human civilization which will add their creative inventiveness to human progress as a whole, as America did for Western civilization. By establishing America, you had a new branch of Western civilization which experimented in everything from democracy to light bulbs and airplanes and greatly enhanced human progress as a result.And the Martians, you are going to have a group of technologically adept people in a frontier environment that's going to challenge them. They're going to come up with lots of inventions that they need for their own progress, but which will benefit human as a whole. And that is why you should colonize Mars.Cultural diversity on Mars (12:07)I believe that there will . . . be many colonies on Mars established by different people with different ideas on what the ideal civilization should be, and the ones with the best ideas will attract the most immigrants and therefore outgrow the rest.It very much reminds me of the scenario laid out in The Expanse book and TV series where mankind has spread throughout the solar system. They're all branches of human civilization, but being out there has changed people, and Mars is different than Earth. Mars has a different society. The culture is different. I think that's a very interesting reason that I had not heard Elon Musk discuss.I have a book called The New World on Mars, which you might want to check out because I discuss this very thing. I believe that there will, once it's possible to colonize Mars, there'll be many colonies on Mars established by different people with different ideas on what the ideal civilization should be, and the ones with the best ideas will attract the most immigrants and therefore outgrow the rest. So, for example, the one thing I disagree with about The Expanse is they have this militaristic Spartan civilization on Mars.There's just one sort of universal culture.Yeah, and I don't think that that civilization would attract many immigrants. The reason why the American North outgrew the South is because the North was free. That's why all the immigrants went to the North. That's why the North won the Civil War, actually. It had a larger population of more industry because all the immigrants went there and became far more creative. This is a very good thing, that the form of civilization that ultimately prevails on Mars will be one, I think, that will offer human freedom and be the most attractive in as many other respects as possible. That's why it will prevail, because it will attract immigrants.But I want to get back to this program. If it is possible not to land humans on Mars in 2028, but to land — if you can land Starship on Mars, you can land not a robot, but a robotic expedition.Starship, Musk claims it could land 100 tons on Mars. Let's say it could land 30. That's 30 times as much as we can currently land. The JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)-led Mars science community, they're still thinking about Mars exploration in the terms it's been done since the '60s, which is single spacecraft on single rockets. Imagine you can now land an entire expedition. You land 30 rovers on Mars along with 30 helicopters that are well instrumented and a well instrumented science lab in it. So now you are bringing not only heavy lift, but heavy lander capability to the Mars science program, and now you have a robotic expedition on Mars. For every instrument that made it onto perseverance, there were 10 that were proposed because they could only take six, and like 100 teams wanted to get their instruments on the rover. So imagine now we can actually land 30 rovers and 30 helicopters, not little ones like Ingenuity, but ones that can carry five or six instruments each themselves.So now you have 100 science teams, you've got life-detection experiments, you've got ground penetrating radar, you've got all sorts of things that we haven't done on Mars all being done. You're expanding Mars science by two orders of magnitude by bringing into existence the kind of transportation capability that is necessary to enable humans to Mars. So now you bring on board the science community and the science-interested public, which includes all parts of the political spectrum, but frankly it leans somewhat left, overall — university scientists, people like this.So now this isn't just about Elon Musk, the Bond villain. This is about what we as America and we as a culture which is committed to pushing the boundaries of science. This is what we are doing. It's not what SpaceX is doing, it's not what Musk is doing, it's not what Trump is doing, it's what America is doing, and celebrating the highest values of Western civilization, which is the search for truth.An alternative to the SpaceX strategy (16:02)Starship plus Starboat is the flight hardware combination that can do both the moon and Mars.That said — and we're talking about this being a public-private partnership —should we just default into thinking that the private part is SpaceX?Well, SpaceX is one part of it. There's no question, to me anyway —There's other companies that are building rockets, there's other rocket companies, maybe they aren't talking about Mars, but Blue Origin's building rockets.I think it should be fairly competed, but SpaceX is well ahead of anyone else in terms of a booster capability. That said, I think that the mission architecture that Musk has proposed, while workable, is not optimal, that there needs to be another vehicle here. He's got the Starship, I want to have a Starboat. I've written an article about this, which was just published in The New Atlantis.Basically, the problem with Musk's architecture is that the direct return from Mars using a Starship, which is a 100-ton vehicle, would require manufacturing 600 tons of methane oxygen on the surface of Mars, and if that's to be done in a reasonable amount of time, requires 600 kilowatts, which is about 13 football fields of solar panels, which means we're not doing it with solar panels, which means it has to be done with a nuke, and that then adds a lot to the development.If we had a Starboat, which is something 10 to 20 percent the size of Starship, but it would go from Mars orbit to the surface and we refuel it, and then it is what takes the crew down to the surface — although the crew could go one way to the surface in a Starship, that's okay, but whether they go down in a Starship or down in a Starboat, they come up in a Starboat, and now you're reducing the propellant requirement by an order of magnitude. It makes this whole thing work much better. And furthermore, Starship plus Starboat also enables the moon.We've forgotten about the moon in this conversation.Starship plus Starboat is the flight hardware combination that can do both the moon and Mars. If you take the Starship version of the Artemis thing, it takes 10 to 14 Starship launches to land a single crew on Mars refueling Starship on orbit, then refueling it in lunar orbit, and with tankers that have to be refueled in earth orbit, and doing all this, it's crazy. But if you positioned one Starship tanker in lunar orbit and then used that to refuel Starboats going up and down, you could do many missions to the lunar surface from a single Starship positioned in lunar orbit. Once again, Starship is suboptimal as an ascent vehicle to come back from the moon or Mars because it's so heavy. It's a hundred tons. The lunar excursion module we used in Apollo was two tons. So we make the Starboat — Starship plus Starboat gives you both the moon and Mars.Here's the thing: With rockets, you measure propulsion requirements in units we call delta V, velocity changes. That's what rockets actually do, they change your velocity, they accelerate you, they decelerate you. To go down from lunar orbit to the lunar surface is two kilometers a second. Delta V to come back up is two kilometers a second. Roundtrip is four. To go down from Mars orbit to the Martian surface is practically nothing because there's an atmosphere that'll slow you down without using your rocket. To come up is four. So the round trip on Mars and the round trip from orbit to the surface on the moon are the same, and therefore the same combination of the Starship plus the Starboat as a landing craft and, in particular, ascent vehicle (because ascent is where small is beautiful), this will give us both. So we don't have to wreck the moon program in order to do Mars. On the contrary, we can rationalize it.I mentioned one group of potential enemies this program has been the anti-Musk Democrats. The other group of enemies that this program has are the moon people who are very upset that their moon program is about to be wrecked because Musk says the moon is a diversion. Now, if it was a choice between the moon and Mars, then I would choose Mars. But we can do both. We can do both and without it being a diversion, because we can do both with the same ships.Artemis program reform (20:42)SLS was worth a lot in its time, but its time was the '90s, not now.There's been some talk about canceling — I'm not sure how serious it is — the Artemis program. If we want the next person on the moon to be an American rather than a Chinese, do we need to keep Artemis to make sure that happens?We need to reform Artemis and this is the way to do it: Starship plus Starboat will give you the moon.Aren't we under a time constraint, given that if we are competing and if we think for whatever national pride reasons we want the next person on the moon to be an American, do we just kind of have to continue with the Artemis program as sort of a wasteful boondoggle as it is?No, because there are things in the Artemis program that don't even make any sense whatsoever, like the lunar orbit gateway, which is simply not necessary. The SLS (Space Launch System) as a launch vehicle is not necessary now that we have Starship. SLS made a lot of sense when it was first proposed in the late 1980s under a different name. I happen to know that because, as a young engineer, I was on the design team that did the preliminary design for what we now call SLS at Martin Marietta in 1988. And it was really just a simplification of the Space Shuttle, and if it had been developed in flying by the mid-'90s, as was entirely reasonable, it could have had a great role in giving us massively improved space capabilities over the past quarter-century. But they let this thing go so slowly that by the time it has appeared, it's obsolescent, and it's as if someone had stalled the development of the P-51 fighter plane so it wasn't available during World War I, but it's just showing up now in a world of jet fighters — this is worthless. Well, it was worth a lot in its time. SLS was worth a lot in its time, but its time was the '90s, not now.Orion doesn't really make that much sense, and the National Team lander would make sense if it was modified to be Starboat. What happened was NASA gave the contract to SpaceX to use Starship as a lunar lander, and it can be, but it's suboptimal. In any case, the National Team, which was Lockheed, and Boeing, and Blue Origin, they complained, but basically their complaint was, “We want a contract too or we won't be your friends.” And so they had sufficient political heft to get themselves a contract. The least NASA could have done is insist that the lander they were getting a contract for run on methane-oxygen, the same propellant as Starship, so Starship could service it as a tanker. Instead, they let them do their own thing and they've got a hydrogen-oxygen rocket, which makes no sense! It's like someone going to the Air Force and proposing a fighter plane that runs on propane and saying, “Well, I can make a fighter run on propane, but my tankers use jet fuel.” Air Force, being sensible, insists that all their planes run on the same fuels. They don't just let someone come along and use whatever fuel they like. So the National Team contract should be changed to a Starboat contract, and the requirements should be interoperability with Starship.The myth of an independent Mars (24:17)We go to Mars not out of despair, we go to Mars out of hope, and by establishing new branches of human civilization, they'll be able to do all sorts of things.As we finish up, I just want to quickly jump back to something you mentioned earlier about autarchy. Do you think it's possible to have a thriving, successful, sustainable Mars colony that's on its own?No. I don't think it's possible to have a thriving, successful nation on earth that's on its own. This is why I think Trump's trade war is a big mistake. It will damage our economy. Now, obviously, we can survive a trade war better than a Mars —That's what Musk is also suggesting in its whole light of consciousness that we need to be able to establish sustainable, permanent colonies elsewhere that can be just fine without a relationship with Earth.I think that's incorrect, and as you know, since you are an expert in economics, it's nonsensical. I don't think a colony of one million people would have the division of labor to build anything like an iPhone or even an iPhone battery if you think of the complexity of what is involved.There's this famous essay, “I, Pencil,” which I'm sure you're acquainted with. An economist went through all the different things that went into —Yes, Milton Friedman used that example famously. I think I get your point.iPhones are more complex than pencils. I mean, you probably could build a pencil with a million-person city, but we need to build things more complicated than that. But that's not the point here, that's not why we're going on. And I object to this. It's the Masque of the Red Death theory of how you're going to survive a plague: We'll have our castle and we can go into it and we'll be fine. No, it's extremely unattractive and it's false. The people in that castle in the Masque of the Red Death, the Edgar Allen Poe story, did not survive the plague, and it's not why we should go to Mars. We go to Mars not out of despair, we go to Mars out of hope, and by establishing new branches of human civilization, they'll be able to do all sorts of things.America developed steamboats because we needed inland transportation because the only highways we had were rivers, and so forth, and so we've been an engine of invention. Mars is going to be an engine of invention. Mars is going to want to have not just nuclear reactors, but breeder reactors, and they're going to want to have fusion power because deuterium is five times as common on Mars as it is on earth, and they're going to be electrolyzing water all the time as part of their life-support system, which means releasing hydrogen, making deuterium separation very cheap, and one could go down this kind of thing. There's all sorts of things that a Martian civilization would develop, to say nothing of the fact that a spacefaring civilization will have the capability to divert asteroids so that they don't impact the earth. So that's why we're going to Mars. We increase the creative capacity of humanity to deal with all challenges raging from asteroid impacts to epidemics.Our current timeline (27:21). . . if you have your first humans on Mars in early 2030s, I think we can have a permanent Mars base by the end of that decade . . .So let me just finish up with this, and I think as far as a justification for going to Mars, that's about the most persuasive I know, and maybe I'm an easy audience, but I'm persuaded.Let's set aside just putting an astronaut or a few astronauts on the moon and bringing them home, and let's set aside the permanent, sustainable, solo, doesn't-need-Earth colony. Just as far as having a sort of a permanent outpost, what do you think is the reasonable timeframe, both technologically and given the politics?I do think, if we do what I am arguing for, which is to make it the mission of this administration to not only just land a Starship on Mars, but land a Starship on Mars bringing a massive robotic expedition to Mars, and then following that up with several more robotic landings to Mars that prepare a base, set up the power system, et cetera, then yes, I think landing the first humans on Mars in 2033 is entirely reasonable. What the Trump administration needs to do is get this program going to the point where people look at this and say, “This is working, this is going to be great, it's already great, let's follow through.”And then, if you have your first humans on Mars in early 2030s, I think we can have a permanent Mars base by the end of that decade, by 2040, a base with 20–30 people on it. A human expedition to Mars doesn't need to grow food. You can just bring your food for a two-year expedition, and you should. You establish a base of 10 or 20 to 30, 50 people, you want to set up greenhouses, you want to be growing food. Then you start developing the technologies to make things like glass, plastic, steel, aluminum on Mars so you can build greenhouses on Mars, and you start establishing an agricultural base, and now you can support 500 people on Mars, and then now the amount of things you can do on Mars greatly expands, and as you build up your industrial and agricultural base, and of course your technologies for actually implementing things on Mars become ever more advanced, now it becomes possible to start thinking about establishing colonies.So that's another thing. Musk's idea that we're going to colonize Mars by landing 1,000 Starships on Mars, each with a hundred people, and now you've got a hundred thousand people on Mars, kind of like D-Day, we landed 130,000 men on the Normandy Beach on D-Day, and then another 100,000 the next day, and so forth. You could do that because you had Liberty Ships that could cross the English Channel in six hours with 10,000 tons of cargo each. The Starship takes eight months to get to Mars, or six, and it takes a 100 tons. You can't supply Mars from Earth. You have to supply Mars from Mars, beyond very small numbers, and that means that the colonization of Mars is not going to be like the D-Day landing, it's going to be more like the colonization of America, which started with tiny colonies, which as they developed, created the crafts and the farms, and ultimately the industries that could support, ultimately, a nation of 300 million people.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Why the Fed's Job May Get a Lot More Difficult - NYT* America's Economic Exceptionalism Is on Thin Ice - Bberg Opinion* Trump Is Undermining What Made the American Economy Great - NYT Opinion* Don't Look to the Fed for the Answer to Stagflation - Bberg Opinion▶ Business* Inside Google's Two-Year Frenzy to Catch Up With OpenAI - Wired* Some Nvidia Customers Are OK With Older Chips - WSJ* SoftBank to Buy Ampere, a Silicon Valley Chip Start-Up, for $6.5 Billion - NYT* Nvidia CEO Says He Was Surprised That Publicly Held Quantum Firms Exist - Bberg* The promise of the fifth estate is being squeezed - FT* Boeing Beats Lockheed for Next-Gen US Fighter Jet Contract - Bberg▶ Policy/Politics* Six Ways to Understand DOGE and Predict Its Future Behavior - Cato* Government Science Data May Soon Be Hidden. They're Racing to Copy It. - NYT* Stopping Child Porn Online Is a Worthy Goal. But Beware the Proposed Cure - WSJ▶ AI/Digital* Mini-satellite paves the way for quantum messaging anywhere on Earth - Nature* The Impact of GenAI on Content Creation – Evidence from Music Videos - SSRN* AI weather forecast project eyes access through desktop computers - FT▶ Biotech/Health* Why a weight-loss drug could become a geopolitical bargaining chip - FT* We've entered a forever war with bird flu - The Verge* Doctors Told Him He Was Going to Die. Then A.I. Saved His Life. - NYT▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Inside a new quest to save the “doomsday glacier” - MIT* Glaciers are melting at record speed, says UN - Semafor▶ Robotics/AVs* Disney's Robotic Droids Are the Toast of Silicon Valley - WSJ* The fantasy of humanoid robots misses the point - FT▶ Space/Transportation* The ax has become an important part of the Space Force's arsenal - Ars* NASA Won't Let Starliner Die Just Yet, Even After Boeing's Space Fiasco - Gizmodo* How Warp Drives Don't Break Relativity - Universe Today▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* Japan Urgently Needs an AI Vibe Shift - Bberg Opinion* What left-wing critics don't get about abundance - Niskanen Center▶ Substacks/NewslettersWhat is Vibe Coding? - AI SupremacyFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Jordan Peterson sits down with bestselling author, commentator, and researcher, Dr. Corey DeAngelis. They shed light on where 50% of all state budgets are spent, the surprising stack of monopolies that strangleholds public education, the partisan lies surrounding school choice, and the truth every parent needs to know: school choice uplifts all students. Dr. Corey A. DeAngelis is a senior fellow at the American Culture Project and a visiting fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He has been labeled the “school choice evangelist” and called “the most effective school choice advocate since Milton Friedman.” He is a regular on Fox News and frequently appears in The Wall Street Journal. DeAngelis is also the executive director at Educational Freedom Institute, a senior fellow at Reason Foundation, an adjunct scholar at Cato Institute, a board member at Liberty Justice Center, and a senior advisor at Accuracy in Media. He holds a Ph.D. in education policy from the University of Arkansas. He is the national bestselling author of “The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools.” This episode was filmed on February 28th, 2025.  | Links | For Corey DeAngelis: On X https://x.com/DeAngelisCorey?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Read his most recent book “The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools”  https://amzn.to/4h3wAeK 

Jon Hartley and Raghuram Rajan discuss Raghu's research, his policy career including his time as the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and the Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India adopting inflation targeting during his tenure, Rajan predicting the 2008 financial crisis, and economic growth in India, the legacy of his book Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists among many other topics. Recorded on February 19, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Raghuram Rajan is the Katherine Dusak Miller Distinguished Service Professor of Finance at Chicago Booth. He was the 23rd Governor of the Reserve Bank of India between September 2013 and September 2016. Between 2003 and 2006, Dr. Rajan was the Chief Economist and Director of Research at the International Monetary Fund. Dr. Rajan's research interests are in banking, corporate finance, and economic development. The books he has written include Breaking the Mold: Reimagining India's Economic Future with Rohit Lamba,  The Third Pillar: How the State and Markets hold the Community Behind 2019 which was a finalist for the Financial Times Business Book of the Year prize and Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy, for which he was awarded the Financial Times prize for Business Book of the Year in 2010. Dr. Rajan is a member of the Group of Thirty. He was the President of the American Finance Association in 2011 and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In January 2003, the American Finance Association awarded Dr. Rajan the inaugural Fischer Black Prize for the best finance researcher under the age of 40. The other awards he has received include the Infosys Prize for the Economic Sciences in 2012, the Deutsche Bank Prize for Financial Economics in 2013, Euromoney Central Banker Governor of the Year 2014, and Banker Magazine (FT Group) Central Bank Governor of the Year 2016. Dr. Rajan is the Chairman of the Per Jacobsson Foundation, the senior economic advisor to BDT Capital, and a managing director at Andersen Tax. Jon Hartley is a policy fellow, the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast at the Hoover Institution and an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, where he specializes in finance, labor economics, and macroeconomics. He is also currently an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), and a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Jon is also a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and serves as chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as well as in various policy roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, US Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes, and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC, and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list, and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

In this episode of Good Morning Liberty, hosts Nate Thurston and Charles Chuck Thompson dive into a heated discussion sparked by Donald Trump's recent remarks against Congressman Thomas Massie. They analyze Trump's statement celebrating the caucus for opposing the Democrats' plans to raise taxes, while simultaneously criticizing Massie for his consistent 'no' votes on continuing resolutions. Despite Massie's past endorsement of Trump, the former president calls for him to be primaried. Nate and Charlie dissect the implications of Trump's fluctuating stance, touching on broader themes of government spending, accountability, and libertarian principles. They also highlight responses from various right-wing commentators and the broader political reactions, including those from figures like Rand Paul and Matt Walsh. The hosts emphasize the critical, ongoing debate about fiscal responsibility and the challenges of enacting meaningful budget cuts in a politically charged environment. (01:14) Trump's Message and Critique (04:22) Discussion on Government Spending (08:48) Massie's Stance and Political Dynamics (15:22) Public and Media Reactions (23:08) Trump's All-or-Nothing Stance (23:55) Fiscal Concerns and Government Spending (24:52) Interest on National Debt (27:04) Trump's Media Fear and Transparency Issues (28:15) Massie's Stand Against COVID Spending (31:11) Milton Friedman's Insight on Congress (37:11) Elon Musk and Entitlement Spending Links:   https://gml.bio.link/   YOUTUBE:   https://bit.ly/3UwsRiv   RUMBLE:   https://rumble.com/c/GML   Check out Martens Minute!   https://martensminute.podbean.com/   Follow Josh Martens on X:   https://twitter.com/joshmartens13   Join the private discord & chat during the show!   joingml.com   Bank on Yourself bankonyourself.com/gml   Get FACTOR Today! FACTORMEALS.com/factorpodcast     Good Morning Liberty is sponsored by BetterHelp! Rediscover your curiosity today by visiting Betterhelp.com/GML (Get 10% off your first month)     Protect your privacy and unlock the full potential of your streaming services with ExpressVPN. Get 3 more months absolutely FREE by using our link EXPRESSVPN.com/GML  

I was pleased to be joined by the illustrious Dr. Peter Linneman to get his thoughts on the economy, tariffs and the industrial real estate market!In the interview Dr. Peter Linneman shares his perspective on current events in the industrial real estate market, emphasizing the importance of cutting through the noise to focus on fundamental economic indicators such as job growth, GDP trends, and capital flows. He uses an analogy of trying to predict the Super Bowl winner 10 years from now to illustrate the futility of long-term market forecasts based on short-term events. Linneman discusses the state of various real estate sectors, noting that office spaces have bottomed out and are starting to recover, while industrial warehouses, particularly big-box facilities, have experienced overbuilding but are expected to absorb excess supply due to steady demand growth. He also addresses reshoring and manufacturing, stating it will remain limited due to higher labor costs in the U.S., and emphasizes America's economic strength due to robust capital markets and innovation. Linneman remains optimistic about the resilience and long-term strength of the U.S. economy despite ongoing challenges.About Dr. Linneman: For nearly 45 years, Dr. Peter Linneman's unique blend of scholarly rigor and practical business insight has won him accolades from around the world, including PREA's prestigious Graaskamp Award for Real Estate Research, Wharton's Zell-Lurie Real Estate Center's Lifetime Achievement Award, Realty Stock Magazine's Special Achievement Award, being named "One of the 25 Most Influential People in Real Estate" by Realtor Magazine and inclusion in The New York Observer's "100 Most Powerful People in New York Real Estate".After receiving both his Masters and Doctorate in Economics under the tutelage of Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, George Stigler, Ted Schultz and Jim Heckman, Peter had a distinguished academic career at both The University of Chicago and the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. For 35 years, he was a leading member of Wharton's faculty, serving as the Albert Sussman Professor of Real Estate, Finance and Public Policy as well as the Founding Chairman of the Real Estate Department and Director of the prestigious Zell-Lurie Real Estate Center. During this time, he was co-editor of The Wharton Real Estate Review. He has published over 100 scholarly articles, eight editions of the acclaimed book Real Estate Finance and Investments: Risks and Opportunities, and the widely read Linneman Letter quarterly report. He is also the co-creator of the popular, and highly regarded, Real Estate Finance and Investment Certification course, REFAI. Most recently, he co-authored (with Dr. Michael Roizen and Albert Ratner) the best-selling book "The Great Age Reboot: Cracking the Longevity Code for a Younger Tomorrow."Peter's long and ongoing business career is highlighted by his roles as Founding Principal of Linneman Associates, LLC, a leading real estate advisory firm, and its affiliates. For more than 40 years, he has advised leading corporations and served on over 20 public and private boards, including serving as Chairman of Rockefeller Center Properties, where he led the successful restructuring and sale of Rockefeller Center in the mid-1990s.Although retired from Wharton's faculty, Dr. Linneman continues his commitment to education through his SAM Elimu educational charity for orphans and children of extreme poverty in rural Kenya. He has been married for nearly 50 years and remains an exercise enthusiast. Connect with Dr. Linneman:Website: https://www.linnemanassociates.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterlinneman/SAM Elimu charity: https://www.samelimucharity.org/--

DOGE: WHAT WOULD MILTON FRIEDMAN DO? VERONIQUE DE RUGY, MERCATUS CENTER. 1863 THIRD AVENUE: PEAR TREE PLANTED 1647

4pm: Guest - State rep and Chair of WA State Republican Party Jim Walsh // Rep. Jim Walsh calls for federal review of Washington’s Motor Voter Law implementation // How Would Milton Friedman Do DOGE? // Origins of the Mandela Effect 

Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/3XeLSqd Understanding Inflation: Political vs. Economic Perspectives in Dividend Cafe In this episode of Dividend Cafe, host David Bahnsen discusses the complexities of inflation, distinguishing between its political and economic aspects. Broadcasting from a hotel in Orlando, he shares insights from his study of inflation's impact on economic growth and policy, citing influences like Milton Friedman and Japan's economic strategies. Bahnsen explains the difference between politically sensitive items like gas and housing prices, and broader economic inflation driven by money supply. He touches on the role of tariffs, interest rates, and the Federal Reserve in shaping inflation expectations, and emphasizes deregulation and tax reform as potential solutions. Despite the political challenges, Bahnsen stresses the importance of understanding these issues for informed portfolio management. 00:00 Introduction and Host's Travel Update 00:40 Understanding Inflation: A Deep Dive 02:33 Political vs. Economic Inflation 09:09 Impact of Tariffs on Inflation 11:25 Market Valuations and Inflation Expectations 13:37 Conclusion and Viewer Engagement Links mentioned in this episode: DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, there's a petition for Denmark to buy California; The desperate left turns to cursing; Democrats defending USAID is political suicide;  An article on who might be the next leader of the Democratic party; Senator John Kennedy sums up what Democrats are for and Republicans are against; Elon Musk is posting clips of the late economist Milton Friedman; Elon Musk talks with reporters in the oval office; Babylon Bee headlines! Far left Chris Cuomo does not respond negatively to Elon Musk speaking from the oval office.   For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of the "Good Morning Liberty" podcast, hosts Nate and Chuck share their excitement about Elon Musk liking and reposting one of their videos, which resulted in a significant boost in followers. They reflect on the impact and challenges of running a podcast dedicated to advancing liberty, recount a personal story about Nate's initial skepticism followed by Musk's endorsement, and discuss the importance of perseverance. The episode also delves into the broader significance of their podcast's message and the evolving support for libertarian ideas. Nate and Chuck take a moment to appreciate a Jim Carrey skit that humorously resonates with their journey. The latter part of the discussion explores the complexities of government spending, advertising by pharmaceutical companies, and the controversial balance of power between the branches of the U.S. government, emphasizing the role of the people and the states according to the founders' intent. (00:47) Elon Musk's Impact on the Podcast (01:50) Personal Stories and Achievements (07:53) Libertarian Movement and Achievements (18:46) Super Bowl Recap and Commentary (20:51) Family-Friendly Super Bowl Halftime Show (21:12) Kendrick Lamar's Performance and Rap Feuds (22:15) Diversity and Representation in Media (22:56) Critique of Girls Flag Football Commercial (26:07) Pharmaceutical Advertising Debate (30:44) Judicial vs. Executive Branch Powers (40:21) State vs. Federal Government Authority (47:06) Conclusion and Final Thoughts Links: https://gml.bio.link/ YOUTUBE: https://bit.ly/3UwsRiv RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/GML Check out Martens Minute! https://martensminute.podbean.com/ Follow Josh Martens on X: https://twitter.com/joshmartens13 Join the private discord & chat during the show! joingml.com Bank on Yourself bankonyourself.com/gml Get FACTOR Today! FACTORMEALS.com/gml50off Good Morning Liberty is sponsored by BetterHelp! Rediscover your curiosity today by visiting Betterhelp.com/GML (Get 10% off your first month)     Protect your privacy and unlock the full potential of your streaming services with ExpressVPN. Get 3 more months absolutely FREE by using our link EXPRESSVPN.com/GML

The conversation covers a range of political topics, including the current state of gender ideology, U.S. foreign policy regarding Gaza, government efficiency initiatives, and the actions of Attorney General Pam Bondi. It also discusses Joe Biden's new endeavors post-presidency, Nancy Mace's based statements, trade policies under the Trump administration, and a revisit of Milton Friedman's views on government structure.    00:00 Gender Ideology Under Fire 03:13 U.S. Foreign Policy and Gaza 06:08 Government Efficiency and Funding Issues 09:07 Attorney General Pam Bondi's Directives 11:51 Joe Biden's New Chapter 14:54 Nancy Mace's Bold Stance 18:06 Trade Policies and Tariffs 20:52 Milton Friedman's Vision for Government 27:01 Public Opinion on Trade and Globalization

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, President Trump says the U.S. should take over the Gaza strip and economically revitalize the area; Democrats cannot win their USAID argument; The late economist Milton Friedman was DOGE before there was DOGE; Reaction to USAID cuts by Democrats including Senator Chuck Shumer and Rep. Maxine Water; DNC Vice-Chair David Hogg will not solve the Democrats' problems; NFL removes "end racism" from Super Bowl end zones; The Governor of New Jersey back tracks on harboring an illegal immigrant; Wine consumption declining globally.   For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

An atheist, a radical for capitalism, a caricature of a greedy libertarian, a best-selling novelist, a difficult partner and passionate lover, and the self-proclaimed greatest philosopher since Aristotle: Ayn Rand was many things, and we talk about almost all of them in this epic episode. To do so, we called upon historian Jennifer Burns, whose intellectual biography, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right , is enormously helpful in trying to understand an idiosyncratic writer who, both then and now, fits ambiguously into the "fusionist" post-war conservative movement. Rand remains a controversial figure whose ideas permeate our culture and continue to inspire some of the most consequential (and least appealing) political figures in the United States. To understand Rand and her influence, we examine her family's experiences during and after the Russian Revolution, her journey to the U.S. and early success in Hollywood, the arduous path she trod to become a writer, Rand's involvement in anti-New Deal politics in the 1930s and 40s, her ideas, philosophy, and scandalous personal life, and much more.Sources:Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead  (1943)— Atlas Shrugged (1957)— We the Living (1936)Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (2009)— Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative (2023)Whittaker Chambers, "Big Sister Is Watching You," National Review, Dec 28, 1957Murray Rothbard, "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult," (1972)Mary Gaitskill, Two Girls, Fat and Thin (1991)Lisa Duggan, Mean Girl: Ayn Rand and the Culture of Greed, (2019)— "Ayn Rand and the Cruel Heart of Neoliberalism," Dissent, May 20, 2019.Adam Curtis, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, (2011)Listen again:"Milton Friedman and the Making of Our Times," Dec 3, 2023...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon to listen to all of our premium episodes!

Jennifer Burns is a historian of ideas, focusing on the evolution of economic, political, and social ideas in the United States in the 20th century. She wrote two biographies, one on Milton Friedman, and the other on Ayn Rand. Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep457-sc See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. CONTACT LEX: Feedback - give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey AMA - submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama Hiring - join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring Other - other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact EPISODE LINKS: Jennifer's X: https://x.com/profburns Jennifer's Website: https://www.jenniferburns.org Jennifer's Books: Milton Friedman biography: https://amzn.to/4hfy1HO Ayn Rand biography: https://amzn.to/4afr3A0 SPONSORS: To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts: Brain.fm: Music for focus. Go to https://brain.fm/lex GitHub: Developer platform and AI code editor. Go to https://gh.io/copilot LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix. Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex Shopify: Sell stuff online. Go to https://shopify.com/lex AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drinks. Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex OUTLINE: (00:00) - Introduction (10:05) - Milton Friedman (24:58) - The Great Depression (39:15) - Schools of economic thought (50:22) - Keynesian economics (58:10) - Laissez-faire (1:06:00) - Friedrich Hayek (1:11:18) - Money and monetarism (1:26:03) - Stagflation (1:30:56) - Moral case for capitalism (1:34:53) - Freedom (1:39:51) - Ethics of competition (1:43:37) - Win-win solutions (1:45:26) - Corruption (1:47:51) - Government intervention (1:54:10) - Conservatism (2:00:33) - Donald Trump (2:03:09) - Inflation (2:07:38) - DOGE (2:12:58) - Javier Milei (2:18:03) - Richard Nixon (2:25:17) - Ronald Reagan (2:28:24) - Cryptocurrency (2:43:40) - Ayn Rand (2:51:18) - The Fountainhead (3:02:58) - Sex and power dynamics (3:19:04) - Evolution of ideas in history (3:26:32) - Postmodernism (3:37:33) - Advice to students (3:45:50) - Lex reflects on Volodymyr Zelenskyy interview PODCAST LINKS: - Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast - Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr - Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 - RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ - Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 - Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips