Podcasts about National Economic Council

0:00 - Wealthy white liberals strike again! 13:35 - Democrats wishing to lose the ‘26 midterms should promote a 33 year-old socialist devoid of executive experience for mayor of America’s largest city and impeach a president who ended a tyrannical regime’s nuclear threat while achieving a ceasefire days later 33:23 - Who’s YOUR DADDY? 52:44 - Anita Padilla, former anchor at FOX 32, now News Director Florida’s Voice, looks ahead to Florida's gubernatorial primary - which may not get ugly but will definitely be complicated. Follow Anita at Florida’s Voice flvoicenews.com 01:11:05 - Dustin Grage, columnist at Townhall.com, shares a bizarre twist in the relationship between Minnesota's governor Walz and the alleged Minnesota assassin. Keep up with Dustin on X @GrageDustin 01:32:28 - Robert Mark, veteran pilot and Jetwhine.com publisher, unpacks the latest on this month’s Air India crash. Follow Rob on X @jetwhine 01:51:13 - Carol Roth, entrepreneur and author of You Will Own Nothing: Your War with a New Financial World Order and How to Fight Back, looks at why young folks are embracing socialism. Check out Carol’s free economic newsletter carolroth.com/NEWS 02:10:57 - Larry Kudlow, host of Kudlow weekdays 3pm CT on FOX Business & served as Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council under President Trump: Deficits will melt away if the economy is growing - Growth is Everything. Follow Larry on X @larry_kudlowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Face the Nation, immigration protests in Southern California turn violent as federal authorities ramp up their nationwide effort to round up those who could be in the country illegally. President Trump's mandate to escalate detentions and potentially deportations set the scene for violent protests in Los Angeles this weekend, and he now says he's calling in the National Guard. We speak exclusively with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.  Texas Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales also joins the broadcast, and we have new CBS News polling on what Americans think of Mr. Trump's immigration and deportation policies. Then, as President Trump lobbies the Senate to get his Big Beautiful Bill passed, what impact will the Elon Musk factor have on some components of the bill that even Republicans don't like? We talk with White House Economic Advisor Kevin Hassett and Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar. Finally, as efforts from the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation continue to unravel, what humanitarian aid can get to the hundreds of thousands suffering? We talk with the head of Save the Children U.S., Janti Soeripto.   To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today we're delighted to welcome back Mike Sommers, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API). Mike has led the API since 2018 and previously spent two decades in senior leadership roles in the U.S. House of Representatives and the White House, including as Chief of Staff to Speaker of the House John A. Boehner and as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush on the National Economic Council. The API represents 600 members across the full spectrum of the U.S. petroleum industry, with roots dating back to World War I, when Congress and the domestic oil and gas sector joined forces to support the war effort. We first hosted Mike on COBT in September 2021 (episode linked here), and with all the changes in energy and Washington since then, we had plenty to catch up on. We were thrilled to visit with Mike to hear his latest insights. As you will hear, there is almost no energy topic Mike can't help us think through. In our discussion, we explore evolving attitudes in Washington toward natural gas, from being viewed as a waste product to a “bridge fuel” during the Obama era, and now as a “forever fuel” due to its growing importance in meeting rising energy demand. We examine the increased engagement between tech companies and the energy industry, the urgent need for a more durable, streamlined, and predictable permitting system to support the expansion of energy infrastructure, referencing the Supreme Court's recent decision that narrows NEPA's scope and increases deference to agency decisions, potentially reducing project delays. We discuss the ongoing debate and uncertainty regarding the IRA, which incentives may survive in reconciliation, and the potential impact of legislative changes on clean energy investment. Mike shares his perspective on the recent House Bill, which removed renewable tax credits, and the expectation of reconciliation in the Senate. We cover the new National Energy Dominance Council and its role in coordinating energy policy across federal agencies, the evolving balance between federal and state authority in energy regulation, and advocacy for consumer choice in vehicle technology, specifically the recent repeal of the California EV mandate. We explore Alaska's resource potential, including the opportunity to build an LNG terminal to utilize natural gas currently being reinjected, and the broader significance for U.S. energy security and exports to Asia, the strategic importance of domestic oil and gas, the role of judicial review in permitting, and much more. It was a fantastic conversation and we greatly appreciate Mike for joining. Mike Bradley kicked off the discussion by noting that while remnants of “Trumpatility” have mostly faded, with S&P 500 volatility now low, broader markets remain sensitive to Trump's policies, as highlighted this week by the doubling of aluminum and steel import tariffs. He pointed out that oil prices have surprised traders to the upside so far this week, rising more than $2/bbl despite OPEC+ signaling a July production increase of >400kbpd. Mike also discussed EOG Resource's $5.6 billion deal to acquire Encino Acquisition Partners' Utica asset, noting that the deal adds another large core oil asset play for EOG and could also prove to serve as a backdoor natural gas play, especially if the Northeast finally opens up for energy infrastructure spending. Jeff Tillery added to Mike's comments, noting that despite the day-to-day volatility in oil markets, the long-term outlook still comes down to tight supply and the need for real demand growth. On the gas side, he pointed to strong demand pull but emphasized that the key question is where prices will ultimately settle given the ample supply. Thanks to you all. We hope you enjoy today's discussion as much as we did!

 Santi: Hi, this is a special episode of Statecraft. I've got a wonderful guest host with me today. Kyla Scanlon: Hey, I'm Kyla Scanlon! I'm the author of a book called In This Economy and an economic commentator. Santi: Kyla has joined me today for a couple reasons. One, I'm a big fan of her newsletter: it's about economics, among many other things. She had a great piece recently on what we can learn from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, which is a favorite book of mine.Kyla's also on today because we're interviewing Wally Adeyemo, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Biden administration. We figured we each had questions we wanted answered.Kyla: Yeah, I've had the opportunity to interview Wally a couple times during the Biden administration, and I wanted to see where he thinks things are at now. He played a key role in implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, financial sanctions on Russia, and a whole bunch of other things.Santi: For my part, I'm stuck on Wally's role in setting up the IRS's Direct File program, where you can file your taxes for free directly through the IRS instead of paying TurboTax a hundred bucks to do it. “Good governance types” tend to love Direct File, but the current admin is thinking of killing it. I wanted to understand how the program got rolled out, how Wally would respond to criticisms of the program, and what he learned from building something in government, which now may disappear.Kyla, you've talked to Wally before. How did that conversation go? Kyla: I actually was able to go to his office in D.C., and I talked to a couple of key people in the Biden administration: Jared Bernstein, the former chair of the CEA, and Daniel Hornung, who was at the National Economic Council.We're talking to Wally on the day that the House passed the one big beautiful bill. There's also so much happening financially, like the bond market is totally rebelling against the US government right now. I'm really curious how he thinks things are, as a key player in the last administration.Santi: Wally, you've spent most of your career in Democratic Party institutions. You worked on the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. You served in the Obama admin. You were the first chief of staff to the CFPB, the president of the Obama Foundation, and, most recently, Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Biden admin.30,000ft question: How do you see the Democratic Party today?My view is that we continue to be the party that cares deeply about working-class people, but we haven't done a good job of communicating that to people, especially when it comes to the things that matter most to them. From my standpoint, it's costs: things in America cost too much for a working-class family.I want to make sure I define working class: I think about people who make under $100,000 a year, many of whom don't own homes on the coast or don't own a significant amount of stocks (which means they haven't seen the asset appreciation that's led to a great deal of wealth creation over the last several decades). When you define it that way, 81% of Americans sit in that category of people. Despite the fact that they've seen their median incomes rise 5-10% over the last five years, they've seen the cost of the things they care about rise even faster.We haven't had a clear-cut agenda focused on the standard of living, which I think is the thing that matters most to Americans today.Santi: There are folks who would say the problem for Democrats wasn't that they couldn't communicate clearly, or that they didn't have a governing agenda, but that they couldn't execute their agenda the way they hoped to in the time available to them. Would you say there's truth to that claim?Most people talk about a communications issue, but I don't think it's a communications issue. There are two issues. One is an implementation issue, and the second is an issue of the actual substance and policy at the Treasury Department. I was the deputy secretary, but I was also the Chief Operating Officer, which meant that I was in charge of execution. The two most significant domestic things I had to execute were the American Rescue Plan, where $1.9 trillion flowed through the Treasury Department, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The challenge with execution in the government is that we don't spend a lot on our systems, on making execution as easy as possible.For example, the Advanced Child Tax Credit was intended to give people money to help with each of their children during the pandemic. What Congress called on us to do was to pay people on a monthly basis. In the IRS system, you pay your taxes mostly on an annual basis, which meant that most of our systems weren't set up to pay a monthly check to Americans. It took us a great deal of work to figure out a way to recreate a system just to do that.We've underinvested in the systems that the IRS works on. The last time we made a significant investment in the IRS's digital infrastructure was the 1960s; before we had an ATM machine, before we sent a man to the moon, before we had a personal computer. So that meant that everything was coded in a language called COBOL.So execution was quite hard in the American Rescue Plan. People were left out and felt that the government wasn't working for them. If you called the IRS, only 13% of your calls were being answered. We got that back up to 85% before we left. Ultimately, I think part of this is an execution challenge. In government we want to spend money coming up with new policies, but we don't want to pay for execution, which then means that when you get the policy passed, implementation isn't great.When Jen Pahlka was on your show, she talked about the need to focus on identifying the enablers to implementation. Direct File was one of the best examples of us taking implementation very seriously.But also, on some policy issues that mattered most to Americans, we weren't advancing the types of strategies that would've helped lower the cost of housing and lowering the cost of medicine. We did some things there, but there's clearly more that we could have done, and more we need to do going forward to demonstrate that we're fighting to bring down those costs. It's everything from permitting reform — not just at the federal level, but what can we do to incentivize it at the state and local level — to thinking about what we can do on drug costs. Why does it cost so much more to get a medicine in America than in Canada? That is something that we can solve. We've just chosen not to at the federal level.At the end of the year, we were going to take action to go after some of the middlemen in the pharmacy industry who were taking out rents and large amounts of money. It dropped out of the bill because of the negotiations between the Republican Congress and then President-elect Trump. But there are a lot of things that we can do both on implementation, which will mean that Americans feel the programs that we're passing in a more effective way, and policy solutions that we need to advance as a party that will help us as well.Kyla: Some people think Americans tend to vote against their own self-interest. How can your party message to people that these sorts of policies are really important for them?Ultimately, what I found is that most people just understand their self-interest differently, and for them, a big part of this was, “Who's fighting for me on the issues that I care most about?”From my standpoint, part of the problem we had with Direct File, which I think was an innovative solution, was that we got to implementing it so late in the administration that we didn't have the ability for it to show the impact. I'm hoping future administrations will think through how to start their implementation journey on things like Direct File sooner in the administration, when you have a great deal of political capital, so people can actually feel the impact over time.To your question, it's not just about the messaging, it's about the messenger. People tend to trust people who look like them, who come from the places they come from. When it came to the Child Tax Credit and also to Direct File, the biggest innovation wasn't the technology: the technology for Direct File has been used by the Australians, the British, and other countries for decades.The biggest innovation was us joining that technology with trusted people in communities who were going out to talk to people about those programs and building those relationships. That was something that the IRS hadn't done a great deal of. We invested a great deal in those community navigators who were helping us get people to trust the things the government was doing again, like the Child Tax Credit, like Direct File, so that they could use it.We often think that Washington is going to be able to give messages to the country that people are going to hear. But we're both in a more complicated media environment, where people are far more skeptical of things that come from people in Washington. So the best people to advocate for and celebrate the things that we're doing are people who are closer to the communities we're trying to reach. In product advertising today, more companies are looking to influencers to advertise things, rather than putting an ad on television, because people trust the people that they follow. The same is true for the things that we do in government.Santi: I've talked to colleagues of yours in the last administration who say things like, “In the White House, we did not have a good enough sense of the shot clock.” They point to various reasons, including COVID, as a reason the admin didn't do a good enough job of prioritization.Do you think that's true, that across the administration, there was a missing sense of the shot clock or a missing sense of prioritization? No, because I'm a Lakers fan. These are professionals. We're professionals. This is not our first rodeo. We know how much time is on the shot clock; we played this game. The challenge wasn't just COVID. For me at Treasury — and I think this is the coolest part of being Deputy Secretary of the Treasury — I had responsibilities domestic and international. As I'm trying to modernize the IRS, to invest all my time in making the system work better for customers and to collect more taxes from the people who owe money, Russia invades Ukraine. I had to turn a bunch of my attention to thinking about what we were going to do there. Then you have Hamas attacking Israel.There was more we should have done on the domestic end, but we have to remember that part of the presidency is: you get to do the things you want to do, but you also have to do the things you have to do. We had a lot of things we had to do that we weren't planning for which required all-of-the-administration responses.I think the most important lesson I've learned about that is that it comes down to both being focused on the things that matter, and being willing to communicate to the American people why your priorities have to change in light of things that happen in the world.But the people I'm sure you've talked to, most of them work on domestic policy alone, and they probably never have been in a National Security Council meeting, where you're thinking about the risks to the country. The president has to do both of those things. So I get how difficult it is to do that, just given where I sat at the Treasury Department.Santi: Looking back from an implementation perspective, are there things you would've done differently during your time at Treasury?The most important thing that I would've done differently was to immediately set up a permanent implementation and delivery unit in the Treasury Department. We always like to pretend like the Treasury Department is just a policy department where we make policy, we collect taxes. But in any crisis the country ever has, a great deal of responsibility — for execution or implementation of whatever the response is — falls to the Treasury Department. Think about the financial crisis, which is clearly something that's in the Treasury's domain. The vast majority of money for COVID flowed through the Treasury Department. You think about the IRA, a climate bill: the vast majority of that money flows through the Treasury Department.And Treasury doesn't have a dedicated staff that's just focused on implementation: How do we do this well? How do we make sure the right people are served? How do we make sure that we communicate this well? We did this to a degree by a team that was focused on the American Rescue Plan. But it was only focused on the American Rescue Plan. If I could start again, I would have said, “I want a permanent implementation structure within the Treasury Department of people who are cross-cutting, who only think about how we execute the policies that we pass through Congress and that we put together through an executive order. How do we do that extremely well?”Kyla: What you're talking about is very people-centric: How do we get an implementation team, and how do we make sure that the right people are doing the right jobs? Now we have DOGE, which is less people-centric. How do you reconcile what Doge is doing relative to what you would've done differently in this role that you had?As you would suspect, I wasn't excited about the fact we had lost the election, but initially I thought DOGE could be helpful with technology. I think marrying technology with people — that's the key to success for the government. We've never really been great at doing technology in the government.Part of the reason for that is a procurement process that is very slow because of how the federal acquisition rules work. What we are trying to do is prevent corruption and also waste, fraud, and abuse. But what that does is, it leads to slowness in our ability to get the technology on board that we need, and in getting the right people.I was hoping DOGE would bring in people who knew a great deal about technology and put us in a position where we could use that to build better products for the American people. I thought they would love Direct File, and that they would find ways to improve Direct File and expand it to more Americans.My view is that any American in the working class or middle class should not have to pay a company to file their taxes. We have the ability in this country, and I think Direct File was proving that. My goal, if we'd had more time, was to expand this to almost any American being able to use it. I thought they'd be able to accelerate that by bringing in the right people, but also the right technology. We were on that path before they took those two things apart.My sense is that you have to reform the way that we hire people because it's too hard to hire the right people. In some cases, you don't need some of the people you have today because technology is going to require different skills to do different things. It's easier to break something, I found, than it is to build something. I think that's what they're finding today as well.Santi: When I talk to left-of-center folks about the DOGE push, they tend to be skeptical about the idea that AI or modern technology can replace existing federal workers. I think some of that is a natural backlash to the extreme partisan coding of DOGE, and the fact that they're firing a lot of people very quickly. But what's your view? After DOGE, what kinds of roles would you like to see automated?Let me say: I disagree with the view that DOGE and technology can't replace some of the things that federal workers do today. My view is that “productivity enhancing” tech — it's not that it is going to make employees who are currently doing the job more productive. It is going to mean you need fewer employees. We have to be honest about that.Go to the IRS, for example. When I got there, we had a huge paper backlog at the IRS because, despite what most people think, millions of people still file their taxes by paper, and they send them to the IRS. And during the pandemic, the commissioner, who was then working for President Trump, decided to shut down the IRS for public health reasons — to make sure employees did not have to risk getting COVID.There were piles of paper backing up, so much so that they had filled cafeterias at the IRS facilities with huge piles of paper. The problem, of course, is that, unlike modern systems, you could not just machine-read those papers and put them into our systems. Much of that required humans to code those papers into the system by hand. There is no need in the 21st century for that to happen, so one of the things that we started to do was introduce this simple thing called scanning, where you would scan the papers — I know it sounds like a novel idea. That would help you get people's tax returns faster into the system, but also get checks out quickly, and allow us to see if people are underpaying their taxes, because we can use that data with a modern system. But over time, what would that mean? We'd need fewer people to enter the data from those forms.When we get money for the IRS from Congress, it is actually seen as revenue-raising because they expect it to bring down the debt and deficit, which is completely true. But the model Congress uses to do that is reliant on the number of full-time employees we hire. One challenge we have with the IRS — and in government systems in general — is that you don't get credit for technology investments that should improve your return on investment.So whenever we did the ROI calculations for the IRS, the Congressional Budget Office would calculate how much revenue we'd bring in, and it was always based on the number of people you had doing enforcement work that would lead to certain dollars coming in. So we got no credit for the technology investments. Which was absolutely the opposite of what we knew would be true: the more you invested in technology, the more likely you were to bring in more revenue, and you would be able to cut the cost of employees.Santi: If the CBO changed the way it scored technology improvements, would more Congresspeople be interested in funding technology?It is just a CBO issue. It's one we've tried to talk to them about over the last several years, but one where they've been unwilling to move. My view is that unlocking this will unlock greater investment in technology in a place like the IRS, because every dollar you invest in technology — I think — would earn back $10 in additional tax revenue we'd be able to collect from people who are skipping out on their taxes today. It's far more valuable to invest in that technology than to grow the number of employees working in enforcement at the IRS. You need both, but you can't say that a person is worth 5x their salary in revenue and that technology is worth 0. That makes no sense.Kyla: When we spoke about Direct File many months ago, people in my comment section were super excited and saying things like, “I just want the government to tell me how much money I owe.” When you think about the implementation of Direct File, what went right, and how do you think it has evolved?The thing that went right was that we proved that we could build something quite easily, and we built it ourselves, unlike many technology projects in government. We didn't go out and hire a bunch of consultants and contractors to do it. We did it with people at the IRS, but also with people from 18F and from GSA who worked in the government. We did it in partnership with a number of stakeholders outside the government who gave us advice, but the build was done by us.The reason that was important — and the reason it's important to build more things internally rather than hiring consulting firms or other people to build it — is that you then have the intellectual capital from building that, and that can be used to build other things. This was one product, but my view is that I want the IRS home page to one day look a lot more like the screen on your iPhone, so that you can click on the app on the IRS homepage that can help you, depending on what you need — if it's a Direct File, or if it's a tax transcript.By building Direct File internally, we were getting closer to that, and the user scores on the effectiveness of the tool and the ability to use it were through the roof. Even for a private sector company, it would've been seen as a great success. In the first year, we launched late in the filing season, mostly just to test the product, but also to build stakeholder support for it. In the limited release, 140,000 people used it. The average user said that before Direct File, it took them about 13 hours to file their taxes, and with Direct File, it took them just over an hour to file their taxes.But you also have to think about how much money the average American spends filing their taxes: about $200. That's $200 that a family making under $100,000 could invest in their kids, in paying some bills, rather than in filing their taxes.Even this year, with no advertising by the Trump administration of Direct File, we had more than 300,000 people use it. The user scores for the product were above 85%. The challenge, of course, is that instead of DOGE investing in improving the product — which was a place where you could have seen real intellectual capital go to work and make something that works for all Americans — they've decided to discontinue Direct File. [NB: There has been widespread reporting that the administration plans to discontinue Direct File. The GOP tax bill passed by the House would end Direct File if it becomes law. At the time of publication, the Direct File has not been discontinued.]The sad part is that when you think about where we are as a country, this is a tool that could both save people money, save people time, improve our ability to collect taxes, and is something that exists in almost every other developed economy. It makes no sense to me why you would end something like this rather than continue to develop it.Santi: People remember the failure of healthcare.gov, which crashed when it was rolled out all at once to everyone in the country. It was an embarrassing episode for the Obama administration, and political actors in that administration learned they had to pilot things and roll them out in phases.Is there a tension between that instinct — to test things slowly, to roll them out to a select group of users, and then to add users in following cycles — Is there a tension between that and trying to implement quickly, so that people see the benefit of the work you're doing?One of my bosses in the Obama administration was Jeff Zients, the person who was brought in to fix healthcare.gov. He relentlessly focused on execution. He always made the point that it's easy to come up with a strategy to some degree: you can figure out what the policy solution is. But the difference between good and great is how you execute against it. I think there is some tension there, but not as much as you would think.Once we were able to show that the pilot was a success, I got invited to states all over the country, like Maryland, to announce that they were joining Direct File the next year. These members of Congress wanted to do Direct File events telling people in their state, “This product that's worked so well elsewhere is coming to us next.” It gave us the ability to celebrate the success.I learned the lesson not just from Zients, but also from then-professor Elizabeth Warren, whom I worked for as chief of staff at the CFPB. One challenge we had at the CFPB was to build a complaint hotline, at that point mostly phone-operated, for people who were suffering. They said it would take us at least a year to build out all the product functions we need. We decided to take a modular approach and say, “How long would it take for us to build the system for one product? Let's try that and see how that works. We'll do a test.”It was successful, and we were able to use that to tell the story about the CFPB and what it would do, not just for mortgages, but for all these other products. We built user interest in the complaint hotline, in a way that we couldn't have if we'd waited to build the whole thing at once. While I think you're right that there is some tension between getting everyone to feel it right away and piloting; if the pilot is successful, it also gives you the opportunity to go out and sell this thing to people and say, “Here's what people who did the pilot are saying about this product.”I remember someone in Texas who was willing to do a direct-to-camera and talk about the ways that Direct File was so easy for them to use. It gets back to my point on message and messenger. Deputy Secretary Adeyemo telling you about this great thing the government did is one thing. But an American who looks like you, who's a nurse, who's a mom of two kids, telling you that this product actually worked for her: That's something that more people identify with.Healthcare.gov taught us the lesson of piloting and doing things in a modular way. This is what companies have been doing for decades. If it's worked for them, I think it can work for the government too.Santi: I'm a fan of Direct File, personally. I don't want this administration to kill it. But I was looking through some of the criticism that Direct File got: for instance, there's criticism about it rivaling the IRS Free File program, which is another IRS program that partners with nonprofits to help some folks file their taxes for free.Then there's this broader philosophical criticism: “I don't want the feds telling me how much I owe them.” The idea is that the government is incentivized to squeeze every last dollar out of you.I'm curious what you make of that, in part because I spoke recently to an American who worked on building e-government systems for Estonia. One of the things that has allowed Estonia to build cutting-edge digital systems in the government is that Estonia is a small and very high-trust society. Everybody's one degree of separation from everybody else.We're a much bigger and more diverse country. How do you think that affects the federal government's ability to build tools like Direct File?I think it affects it a lot, and it gets back to my point: not just the message but the messenger. I saw this not just with Direct File, but with the Advanced Child Tax Credit, which was intended to help kids who were living in poverty, but also families overall. What we found initially in the data was that, among families that didn't have to file taxes because they made too little, many of them were unwilling to take advantage of Direct File and the Advanced Child Tax Credit because they couldn't believe the government was doing something to just help them. I spent a lot of time with priests, pastors, and other community leaders in many of the communities where people were under-filing to try and get them to talk about this program and why it was something that they should apply for.One of the challenges we suffer from right now in America, overall, is a lack of trust in institutions. You have to really go local and try to rebuild that trust.That also speaks to taking a pilot approach that goes slower in some cases. Some of the criticism we got was, “Why don't you just fill out this form for us and then just send it to us, so that Direct File is just me pressing a button so I can pay my taxes?”Part of the challenge for us in doing that is a technology challenge: we are not there technologically. But the other problem is a trust problem. If I were to just fill out your taxes for you and send them to you, I think people, at this stage, would distrust the government and distrust the technology.Direct File had to be on a journey with people, showing people, “If I put in this information, it accurately sends me back my check.” As people develop more trust, we can also add more features to it that I think people will trust. But the key has to be: how do you earn that trust over time?We can't expect that if we put out a product that looks like something the Estonian government or Australia would put out, that people would trust it at this point. We have to realize that we are on a journey to regain the trust of the American people.The government can and will work for them, and Direct File was a part of that. We started to demonstrate that with that product because the people who used it in these communities became the spokespeople for it in a better way than I ever could be, than the Secretary or the President could be.Everyone knows that they need to pay their taxes because it's part of their responsibility living in this country. The things that make people the most upset is the fact that there are people who don't pay their taxes. We committed that we were going to go after them.The second frustration was: “Why do you make it so hard for me to pay my taxes? Why can't I get through to you on the phone line? Why do I have to pay somebody else to do my taxes?” Our goal was to solve those two problems by investing money and going after the people who just decided they weren't going to pay, but also by making it as easy as possible for you to pay your taxes and for most people, to get that tax refund as quickly as possible.But doing that was about going on a journey with people, about regaining their trust in an institution that mattered to them a great deal because 90 something-percent of the money that funds our government comes in through the IRS.Kyla: You have a piece out in Foreign Affairs called “Make Moscow Pay,” and what I found most interesting about that essay is that you said Europe needs to step it up because the United States won't. Talk through the role of Treasury in financial sanctions, and your reasons for writing this piece.People often think about the Treasury Department as doing a few things. One is working with Wall Street; another one is collecting your taxes. Most people don't think about the fact that the Treasury Department is a major part of the National Security Committee, because we have these tools called financial sections.They use the power of the dollar to try and change the behavior of foreign actors who are taking steps that aren't consistent with our national security interests. A great example of this is what we did with regard to Russia — saying that we're going to cut off Russian banks from the US financial system, which means that you can't transact in US dollars.The problem for any bank that can transact in dollars is that the backbone of most of the financial world is built on the US dollar. It increases their cost, it makes it more difficult for them to transact, and makes it harder for them to be part of the global economy, nearly impossible.And that's what we've done in lots of cases when it comes to Russia. We have financial sanction programs that touch all over the world, from Venezuela to Afghanistan. The US government, since 9/11, has used sanctions as one of its primary tools of impacting foreign policy. Some of them have gone well, some of them I think haven't gone as well, and there's a need for us to think through how we use those policies.Santi: What makes sanctions an effective tool? Positions on sanctions don't line up neatly on partisan lines. Sanctions have a mixed track record, and you'll have Republicans who say sanctions have failed, and you'll have Democrats say sanctions have been an effective tool, and vice versa.The way I think about sanctions is that they are intended to bring change, and the only way that they work is that they're part of an overarching foreign policy strategy. That type of behavior change was what we saw when Iran came to the table and wanted to negotiate a way to reduce sanctions in exchange for limits on their nuclear program. That's the type of behavior change we're trying to accomplish with sanctions, but you can't do it with sanctions alone. You need a foreign policy strategy. We didn't do it by the United States confronting Iran; we got our allies and partners to work together with us. When I came into office in 2021, Secretary Yellen asked me to do a review of our sanctions policies — what's worked, what hasn't — because it had been 20 years since the 9/11 attacks.And the most important lesson I learned was that the sanctions programs that were the most effective were the ones we did on a multilateral basis — so we did it with our friends and allies. Part of the reason for this is that while the dollar is the most dominant currency around the world, oftentimes if you can't do something in dollars, you do it in a euro, or you do it in a Japanese yen, or pound sterling.The benefit of having allies all over the world is that the dominant, convertible currencies in the world are controlled by allies and partners. When we acted together with them, we were more effective in curtailing the economic activity of our adversary, and our pressure is more likely to lead to them changing their behavior.We had to be very cautious about collateral damage. You might be targeting an individual, but by targeting that individual, you might make it harder for a company they're affiliated with to continue doing business, or for a country that they're in to get access to banking services. Let's say that you're a huge bank in America, and you're worried about sanctions risk in a small country where you do little business. Why not pull out, rather than having to put in place a huge compliance program? One of the challenges that we have is that the people who make the decisions about whether to extend sanctions don't necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about some of these economic consequences of the sanctions approach.Whenever I was around the table and we were making a decision about using weapons, there was a process that was very elaborate that ended up with something going to the president. You'd often think about kinetic force very seriously, because you were going to have to get the president to make a decision. We didn't always take that kind of rigor when it came to thinking about using our sanctions policy, but the impact on the lives of people in these countries was just as significant for their access to not only money, but to food and to the resources they needed to live.Santi: What do you make of the effectiveness of the initial sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine? I've heard mixed reviews from folks inside and outside the Biden administration.Sanctions, again, to my point, are only a tool. They've had to be part of a larger strategy, and I think those sanctions were quite effective. I think the saving grace for the Russians has been the fact that China has largely been able and willing to give them access to the things they need to continue to perpetuate.There was a choice for Ukraine, but when you think about Russia's economy today vs. Russia's economy before the sanctions were put in place, it's vastly different. Inflation in Russia still runs far higher than inflation anywhere else in the world. If you were a Russian citizen, you would feel the impacts of sanctions.The challenge, of course, is that it hasn't changed Vladimir Putin's behavior or the behavior of the Kremlin, largely because they've had access to the goods and supplies they need from China, Iran, and North Korea. But over time, it means Russia's economy is becoming less competitive. They have less access to resources; they're going to struggle.I think everyone hoped that sanctions would immediately change the calculus of the Kremlin, but we've never seen that to be the case. When sanctions are effective, they take time, because the economic consequences continue to compound over time, and they have to be part of a larger strategy for the behavior of the individual. That's why I wrote the article, because while the Kremlin and Russia are under pressure, their view is that ultimately the West is going to get tired of supporting Ukraine, financially and politically, because the economic consequences for us — while not as significant as for Moscow or for Kiev — have been quite significant, when you think about the cost of living issues in Europe.I think it's important to write this now, when it appears that Russia is stalling on negotiations, because ultimately, US financial support is waning. We just know that the Trump administration is not willing to put more money into Ukraine, so Europe is going to have to do more, at a time when their economic situation is quite complicated as well.They've got a lot to do to build up their economy and their military-industrial base. Asking them to also increase their support for Ukraine at the same time is going to be quite difficult. So using this money that Russia owes to Ukraine — because they owe them compensation at this moment — can be quite influential in helping support the Ukrainians, but also changing Russia's calculus with regard to the ability of Ukraine to sustain itself.Kyla: On CNBC about a month ago, you said if we ever have a recession over the next couple of months or so, it would be a self-inflicted one. Do you still resonate with that idea? To build on the point I was making, the economy has done quite well over the course of the first few months of the year, largely because of the strength of the consumer, where our balance sheets are still quite strong. Companies in America have done well. The biggest headwind the US economy faces has been self-inflicted by the tariffs the president has put on. Part of what I still do is talk to CEOs of companies, big and small. Small businesses feel the impact of this even more than the big businesses. What they tell me is that it's not just the tariffs and the fact that they are making it more expensive for them to get the goods that they need, but it's the uncertainty created by the off-again, on-again, nature of those tariffs that makes it impossible for them to plan for what supplies they're going to get the next quarter. How are they going to fulfill their orders? What employees are they going to need? It's having a real impact on the performance of these companies, but also their ability to hire people and plan for the future.If you go to the grocery store, you're going to start seeing — and you're starting to see already — price increases. The thing that Americans care most about is, the cost of living is just too high. You're at the grocery store, as you're shopping for your kids for the summer, you're going to see costs go up because of a self-imposed tax we've put in place. So I still do think that if we do find ourselves in a recession, it's going to be because of the tariffs we've put in place.Even if we don't enter a technical recession, what we're seeing now is that those tariffs are going to raise the cost for people when they go out to buy things. It's going to raise the cost of building homes, which is going to make it harder for people to get houses, which is ultimately going to have an impact on the economy that isn't what I think the president or anyone wants at this point.Kyla: Is there anything else we haven't asked about? I think the place where we continue, as a country, to struggle is that, given the federal system we have, many of these problems aren't just in Washington — they're in state and local governments as well. When you think about the challenges to building more housing in this country, you can't just solve it by doing things at the federal level. You have to get state and local governments unified in taking a proactive approach. Part of this has to be not just financial or regulatory from the federal government, but we have to do more things that force state and local governments to get out of the way of people being able to build more housing. I think that the conversations that you've had on your show, and the conversations we're having in government, need to move past our regular policy conversations of: “Should we do more on LIHTC? Should we try to fix NEPA?” Those, to me, are table stakes, and we're in the middle of what I'd say is a generational crisis when it comes to housing. We have to be willing to treat it like a crisis, rather than what I think we've done so far, which is take incremental steps at different levels to try and solve this. That's one thing that I wanted to make sure that I said, because I think it's the most important thing that we can do at the moment.Kyla: Absolutely. During your time there, the Treasury was doing so much with zoning reform, with financial incentives. What I really liked about our last conversation was how much you talked about how important it is that workers can live close to work. Are you optimistic that we will be able to address the problem, or do you think we are sinking into quicksand?I'd say a little bit of both, and the thing that I'm doing now is getting hyperlocal. One of the projects I'm working on in my post-administration life is I'm working with 15 churches in D.C., where they have vacant land and want to use it to build affordable housing as quickly as possible.I'm learning that even when you have the land donated for free and you're willing to work as quickly as possible, it's still quite hard because you have regulations and financial issues that often get in the way of building things. Part of what we have to do now is just launch as many natural experiments as possible to see what works.What I've learned already from this lived experience is that even cities that are trying to get out of the way and make it easier to build housing struggle because of what you all know to be true, which is that the local politics of this is quite complicated. Oftentimes, the way that you get them over the line is by creating incentives or disincentives.In the past, I talked a lot about incentives in terms of “giving people money to do things.” I'm now in favor of “not giving money to people who don't do things” — if you don't take steps to fix your zoning, some of the federal money that you regularly get is not coming to your jurisdiction. I'm going to reallocate that money to places that are doing this activity. I think we have to take those types of radical steps.It's similar to what we did with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, where if you didn't spend your money, we could take your money back and reallocate it to people who were giving away emergency rental assistance money.That motivates people a lot — when they feel like something's going to be taken away from them. I'm of the view that we have to find more radical things that we can do to get housing built. If we don't, costs will continue to rise faster than people's incomes.Santi: Wally, I have to ask after that point you just made: did you read the paper by my colleague Chris Elmendorf on using LIHTC funds? The idea is to re-allocate those federal funds away from big, expensive cities and into other places in a state, if the cities don't commit to basic zoning reforms.I completely agree with him, and I think I would go even further than just LIHTC money. I would reallocate non-housing money as well, because from my standpoint, if you think about the most important issue for a family, it's being able to find housing that is affordable near their place of work and where their kids go to school. I said that on purpose. I didn't say “affordable housing.” I said “housing that is affordable,” because affordable housing is, in lots of ways, targeted towards a population of people who need it the most. But for even people who are middle income in this country, it crowds out their ability to pay for other things when housing costs continue to creep higher.The only way we solve that problem is if you get rid of restrictive zoning covenants and fix permitting. The natural thing that every city and state is thinking about right now is throwing more money at the problem. There's going to need to be money here, just in light of some of the headwinds, but it's going to be more costly and less effective if we don't fix the underlying issues that are making it hard to build housing where we want it.Right now in California, we're having a huge debate over what we do with infill housing in urban areas. A simple solution — you don't have to do another environmental review if one was already done in this area— is taking months to work through the California legislature, which demonstrates that we're going too slow. California's seeing an exodus of people. I just talked to a CEO who said, “I'm moving my business because the people who work for me can't afford to live in California anymore.” This is the kind of problem that you can solve. State legislatures, Congress, and executives have to get together and take some radical steps to make it easier to build housing.I appreciate what you said about what we were doing at Treasury, but from my standpoint, I wish we had done more earlier to focus on this issue. We had a lot going on, but fundamentally, the most important thing on housing is taking a step to try and build housing today, which is going to have an impact on the economy 10, 20, 30 years from now. We just have to start doing that as soon as possible.Thanks to Emma Hilbert for her transcript and audio edits. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Director of the National Economic Council of the United States Kevin Hassett joins the show to talk about the tariffs and more.  Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts: ihr.fm/3InlkL8 Is The Big Beautiful Bill Bloated? The hour kicks off with a detailed discussion of what President Donald Trump has dubbed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” a sweeping piece of legislation currently under debate on Capitol Hill. President Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and other GOP leaders are rallying behind the bill, which includes major tax cuts, regulatory rollbacks, and incentives aimed at boosting the U.S. economy. The hosts predict the bill will pass, likening the political theatrics to previous debt ceiling and speaker vote showdowns. Key highlights of the bill include: Permanent extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts Elimination of taxes on tips Adjustments to SALT (state and local tax) deductions Phased elimination of EV and green energy tax credits Increased funding for defense and immigration enforcement Tightening of SNAP (food stamp) eligibility A $4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling Buck Sexton shares insights from a recent interview with the head of the National Economic Council, emphasizing that the bill could result in $7,000–$12,000 in annual savings for the average American household. However, both hosts acknowledge conservative criticism over the bill’s lack of deeper spending cuts and its continuation of certain green energy subsidies. Democrats Don't Believe Illegal Immigration is a Crime Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show dive deep into the explosive political and legal controversy surrounding Congresswoman LaMonica McIver’s arrest for allegedly obstructing ICE agents during a detention center visit. Hosts Clay and Buck analyze the implications of her actions, highlighting the irony of her past “no one is above the law” rhetoric—previously aimed at Donald Trump—now being turned against her. They explore the broader theme of political hypocrisy and the consequences of “lawfare,” emphasizing how Democrats are now facing the same legal tactics they once championed. The hour also features a sharp critique of the Democratic Party’s stance on illegal immigration. Clay and Buck argue that Democrats no longer view illegal immigration as a crime, citing McIver’s confrontation with ICE as emblematic of a broader ideological shift. They question why Democratic leaders prioritize the rights of non-citizens over the needs of underserved American communities, particularly Black constituents in urban districts like McIver’s New Jersey 10th, which is nearly 50% Black. The hosts suggest that this disconnect may be driving more minority voters toward the GOP, referencing recent political shifts in cities like New York and Chicago. Tom Homan, former acting ICE director, is featured in a clip reinforcing the legal boundaries McIver allegedly crossed, underscoring the seriousness of interfering with federal law enforcement. The discussion then pivots to the racial and ideological motivations behind Democratic immigration policies, with Buck asserting that modern leftist movements have replaced class solidarity with race-based solidarity, often to the detriment of their own constituents. This is a Crazy Story Clay and Buck dive into the intersection of sports, culture, and politics, delivering a compelling mix of commentary and breaking news. This hour kicks off with a heated discussion surrounding the viral WNBA incident involving Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, which sparked a broader cultural debate. The hosts analyze the fallout from ESPN personalities Robert Griffin III and Ryan Clark, highlighting the racial and personal tensions that erupted over a simple foul in a women’s basketball game. The segment underscores how Clark’s rising stardom is reshaping the WNBA and exposing underlying resentments within the league. The conversation transitions into a broader cultural critique, with Clay and Buck exploring how race, media narratives, and sports collide in today’s polarized environment. They draw parallels to historical moments in tennis and golf, emphasizing how stars like Serena Williams and Tiger Woods were embraced across racial lines—contrasting that with the current backlash against Clark. James Blair, WH Deputy Chief of Staff, on Clean Up in Aisle Biden The hosts welcome White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair, who provides exclusive insights into the forthcoming “Big Beautiful Bill.” Blair outlines the bill’s key components, including historic middle-class tax cuts, increased border security funding, military modernization, and aggressive fiscal reforms aimed at reducing the national deficit. He also teases the potential announcement of the “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative, likened to Israel’s Iron Dome, as part of President Trump’s broader national security strategy. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

May 20, 2025 ~ The upcoming Memorial Day weekend signals increased travel and spending, raising questions about rising costs. Daniel Hornung, former deputy director of the National Economic Council, talks with Lloyd, Jamie, and Chris about when consumers can expect to experience the cost of tariffs.

Democrats continue their town hall tour through Republican districts. Senator Chris Murphy and Rep. Maxwell Frost join The Weekend to discuss their own recent tours, how Democrats should counter Trump's extreme agenda. Plus, their thoughts on the looming budget cuts as House Republicans scramble to get their budget bill across the finish line. And, former director of the National Economic Council, Gene Sperling and former Congressman Charlie Dent share their thoughts on Trump's chaotic economic policies and the recent trade talks with China.

Bharat Ramamurti, former deputy director of President Joe Biden's National Economic Council, joins the show to talk about a possible “Trumpcession” and the drastic cuts congressional Republicans want to make to programs that help Americans meet their basic needs. Daniella and Colin also talk about President Donald Trump's trade wars and speak with Andrew Miller, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

May 7, 2025 ~ Republicans are struggling to find a unified approach to extend the 2017 tax cuts due to internal disagreements on how to handle the substantial cost. Lloyd, Jamie, and Chris Renwick talk with Daniel Hornung, former deputy director of the National Economic Council & deputy assistant to President Biden, about whether to offset the cost through program cuts or to accept increased deficits.

It's been a month since Donald Trump celebrated his “Liberation Day,” announcing a wide range of what he called reciprocal tariffs on a number of countries, with China facing the steepest. Since then matters have been on a roller coaster ride as the President first fiercely defended the plan and then paused it for most countries except China. While fears about the impact on the U.S. and the world have escalated, the economy seems to be toddling along. But great uncertainty remains - not just on tariffs but on the scope and scale of Republican tax plans and the budget. On this episode of Free Expression, Director of the National Economic Council of the United States Kevin Hassett discusses the latest job numbers to come out, how the tariffs began as a place of negotiation, and how the tax plan is progressing through Congress.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump might be beginning to realize that all of that business acumen he thinks he has, might not really exist. He's starting to soften his tariff stance as the markets quake. Former deputy director of the National Economic Council, Bharat Ramamurti, discusses. Plus, John McCarthy, President Biden's former senior adviser for political engagement who would meet with Pope Francis, discusses the Pope's legacy and how he influenced the political world. 

What is "disparate impact?" You may not have heard of it, but this concept massively changed America for the worst over the past fifty years. Charlie explains what disparate impact is and why Trump's new EO to get rid of it is so crucial. Kevin Hassett of the National Economic Council offers promising updates on Trump tariffs and the American economy. Become a member at members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is "disparate impact?" You may not have heard of it, but this concept massively changed America for the worst over the past fifty years. Charlie explains what disparate impact is and why Trump's new EO to get rid of it is so crucial. Kevin Hassett of the National Economic Council offers promising updates on Trump tariffs and the American economy. Become a member at members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pags dives into the brewing chaos at CBS News and unleashes a blistering critique of Lesley Stahl—asking the question: is legacy media finally cracking? PLUS—an exclusive in-person interview with Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council, recorded from inside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. From the state of the U.S. economy to the bold moves of the Trump administration, this is a front-row seat to the policies shaping America's future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the second hour of The Rita Cosby Show, Rita plays her discussion with Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council and also talks about how grateful she was for the opportunity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stigall was invited to the White House as they celebrate their first 100 days in office. You'll hear conversations with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as well as the Director of the National Economic Council of the United States Kevin Hassett. Great perspective on the markets, the border, men in women's sports, the courts, the interaction between the President and members of his team and much more! Plus, Erin Maguire - one of the nation's best Republican strategists and commentators joins Stigall in his D.C. studio for analysis of the bonkers Democrat messaging and where does she see this Republican Congress headed on on big, beautiful bill and their prospects of maintaining control next fall. And will SCOTUS side with parents who want to opt out of their public school's mandatory LGBTQ reading programs? Landmark Legal's Michael O'Neill weighs in on this as well as what to do about the lawfare coming from Democrat district judges from around the country. -For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigallFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPodListen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShow -Help protect your wealth with real, physical gold and silver. Texas Bullion Exchange helps everyday Americans diversify with tailored portfolios, IRA rollovers, and expert support every step of the way.

What does “abundance” actually mean—and who is it really for? In this episode, Goldy and Paul welcome back economic policy expert Mike Konczal to unpack the big new idea dominating political discourse: abundance. They dive into the buzz around Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's book “Abundance,” and Konczal's sharp critique of its deregulatory leanings, missed opportunities, and neoliberal undertones. From housing policy to green energy to the myth that deregulation alone can fix America's problems, this episode challenges the idea that more is always better, and asks what it would really take to build a future that's abundant for everyone—not just the rich. Mike Konczal is the Senior Director of Policy and Research at the Economic Security Project, where he oversees policy development, research, and strategic analysis to advance its ideas. Previously, he served as a Special Assistant to President Biden for Economic Policy and Chief Economist for the National Economic Council.  Social Media: @mtkonczal.bsky.social @mtkonczal Further reading:  Democracy Journal - The Abundance Doctrine Abundance By Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson  Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back By Marc Dunkelman  NBER Working Paper - Supply constraints do not explain house price and quantity growth across U.S. cities Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: The Pitch

The whole world is coming to the table to make a deal with the US. Kevin Hassett Director of the National Economic Council of the United States joins Cats and Cosby. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I hope you all had a blessed Easter weekend, celebrating with family and friends. I have 2 special guests on today's show that give us expert insight into the economy, global trade, tariffs and U.S. manufacturing. First I talk to Kevin Hassett, the Director of the National Economic Council, to walk us through recent developments within the Trump administration. As country after country lined-up to make a deal with President Trump, the president put a pause on all tariffs except China. President Trump has now raised the tariffs to 145% in relation to China. Essentially isolating China with the most extreme tariffs set the stage for other countries to decide how they wanted to respond. Hassett says 15 countries or more will come away with a good deal in the coming days and weeks. Hassett walks us down Main St. for American consumers and small business owner as to what they can expect to pay for goods. With 2 outstanding jobs reports and a reduction in inflation, the only question yet to be answered is will China come to the table? After that, Mick Mulvaney, the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget as well as the former White House Chief of Staff gives us his insight into global trade and the budget. Are the tariffs more effective as a negotiating tool or a real source of income for the United States? Can domestic industries that have been squandered be brought back to life? The Senate only cut $4 Billion in spending, showing they aren't interested in saving money as the GOP is making a push to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. Stick around to the end for a tour of the White House press briefing room! Featuring: Kevin Hassett Director of the National Economic Council https://www.hoover.org/profiles/kevin-hassett Mick Mulvaney Former Director of Office of Management and Budget Former White House Chief of Staff Former Congressman | South Carolina, District 5 https://actumllc.com/people/mick-mulvaney/ Today's show is brought to you by these great sponsors: Ramp Want $250?? Is your finance team bogged down with tedious work like tracking down receipts or dealing with invoices? Guess what... Ramp handles everything—receipt matching, categorization, approvals, the works. Ramp has easy-to-use cards, spend limits, approval flows, vendor payments, and more. Ramp makes all your spending smarter with seamless integration! Join Ramp now and get $250 upon sign-up. Just go to https://ramp.com/SPICER Wired 2 Fish Coffee Do you want to drink coffee from the finest coffee beans in the world? Wired 2 Fish sources directly from Mexico and Guatemala to bring you the freshest arabica coffee beans in the world. Wired 2 Fish cares so much about the earth that they give back 25% of their net profits to faith-based organizations and clean water initiatives. If you're a coffee lover and want to support a great company doing great work head to https://www.wired2fishcoffee.com/ use code: WECARE for 15% off your first order. TAX Network USA Talk with a strategist at Tax Network USA... it's FREE. Stop the threatening letters. Stop looking over your shoulder and put your IRS troubles behind you, once and for all. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, Tax Network USA can help you! Reach out to them today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit https://tnusa.com/SEANSPICER ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Yascha Mounk and Larry Summers also discuss the administration's tariffs. Lawrence H. Summers is the Charles W. Eliot University Professor and President Emeritus at Harvard University. He served as the 71st Secretary of the Treasury for President Clinton and the Director of the National Economic Council for President Obama. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Larry Summers discuss why tariffs are so concerning, how Harvard should react to the Trump administration cutting its funding, and whether the Democratic Party can become a credible opposition. Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Timothy Massad is currently a Senior Fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown Law School and a consultant on financial regulatory and fintech issues. Massad served as Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 2014-2017. Under his leadership, the agency implemented the Dodd Frank reforms of the over-the-counter swaps market and harmonized many aspects of cross-border regulation, including reaching a landmark agreement with the European Union on clearinghouse oversight. The agency also declared virtual currencies to be commodities, introduced reforms to address automated trading and strengthened cybersecurity protections. Previously, Mr. Massad served as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In that capacity, he oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the principal U.S. governmental response to the 2008 financial crisis. Massad was a partner in the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP. His practice included corporate finance, derivatives and advising boards of directors. Massad was also one of a small group of lawyers who drafted the original ISDA standard agreements for swaps.Howell Jackson is the James S. Reid, Jr., Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. His research interests include financial regulation, consumer financial protection, securities regulation, and federal budget policy. He has served as a consultant to the United States Treasury Department, the United Nations Development Program, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. He frequently consults with government agencies and congressional committees on issues related to financial regulation. From 2023 to 2024, he was a Senior Adviser to the National Economic Council.   Since 2005, Professor Jackson has been a trustee of College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF).  He has also served as a director of Commonwealth, a non-profit dedicated to strengthening financial opportunities for low and moderate-income consumers. At Harvard University, Professor Jackson has served as Senior Adviser to the President and Acting Dean of Harvard Law School. Before joining the Harvard Law School faculty in 1989, Professor Jackson was a law clerk for Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall and practiced law in Washington, D.C. Professor Jackson received his J.D. and M.B.A. degrees from Harvard University in 1982 and a B.A. from Brown University in 1976.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina.Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill .  

The Global Impact of US Economic Policies The international economic policies of the United States have shifted dramatically since the inauguration of Donald Trump as president at the end of January. Thus far, the most impactful have been a series of historically large tariff announcements on most countries in the world. Former US Treasury Economist, Brad Setser examines these policy changes and their implications for the US economy, global trade and investment flows, financial markets, and the role of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. He also discusses his work on US corporate tax strategies. Brad Setser is the Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr Setser served as a Senior Advisor to the United States Trade Representative from 2021 to 2022, where he worked on the resolution of a number of trade disputes. He had previously served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Economic Analysis in the U.S. Treasury from 2011 to 2015, and as a Director for International Economics on the staff of the National Economic Council and the National Security Council. He has published widely, including co-authoring, with Nouriel Roubini, Bailouts and Bail-ins: Responding to Financial Crises in Emerging Economies, and has contributed to publications such as Foreign Affairs, Finance and Development and Global Governance. He regularly blogs at Follow the Money.

Gary Cohn, the former National Economic Council director during President Trump's term on how shifting tariff policy is impacting investor sentiment and consumer demand. Then one top CIO says the “Stock market bottom is likely in place.” He gives us the sectors he's most bullish on. Plus new reports say China is ordering a halt of jet deliveries from Boeing. The latest in an escalating trade war.

Kevin Hassett is the Director of the National Economic Council, on today's show he walks us through everything that happened this week with respect to tariffs and the U.S. economy. As country after country lined-up to make a deal with President Trump, the president put a pause on all tariffs except China. President Trump has now raised the tariffs to 145% in relation to China. Essentially isolating China with the most extreme tariffs set the stage for other countries to decide how they wanted to respond. Hassett says 15 countries or more will come away with a good deal in the coming days and weeks. The turmoil in the bond market settled as the president called for the pause and new treasury bonds were very successfully auctioned off. Hassett walks us down Main St. for American consumers and small business owner as to what they can expect to pay for goods. With 2 outstanding jobs reports and a reduction in inflation, the only question yet to be answered is will China come to the table? After that our all-star panel gives their take on all the movement this week within the Trump administration. We have heard from a few different cabinet members this week, whose messaging is landing the most with Americans? Is President Trump isolating China a perfect execution of the Art of the Deal? Our panel weighs in... Featuring: Kevin Hassett Director of the National Economic Council Panel: Larry O'Connor Host | O'Connor & Co. https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ Jenn Pellegrino Senior Director of Media Affairs & Chief Spokesperson | AFPI https://americafirstpolicy.com/ Rob Bluey President & Executive Editor | The Daily Signal https://www.dailysignal.com/ Today's show is brought to you by these great sponsors: Ramp Want $250?? Is your finance team bogged down with tedious work like tracking down receipts or dealing with invoices? Guess what... Ramp handles everything—receipt matching, categorization, approvals, the works. Ramp has easy-to-use cards, spend limits, approval flows, vendor payments, and more. Ramp makes all your spending smarter with seamless integration!  Join Ramp now and get $250 upon sign-up. Just go to https://ramp.com/SPICER TAX Network USA Talk with a strategist at Tax Network USA... it's FREE. Stop the threatening letters. Stop looking over your shoulder and put your IRS troubles behind you, once and for all. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, Tax Network USA can help you! Reach out to them today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit https://tnusa.com/SEANSPICER ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ 3️⃣ Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ 4️⃣ Stay in touch with Sean on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanmspicer Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicer Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanmspicer/ 5️⃣ Follow The Sean Spicer Show on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanspicershow Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicershow Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanspicershow #politics #news #theseanspicershow #seanspicer #conservativemedia #podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

April 10, 2025 ~ President Trump's announcement of suspending new tariffs for most U.S. trading partners for 90 days does not include Chinese imports as these tariffs have been raised to 125 percent. Lloyd and Jamie talk to Daniel Hornung, former deputy director for the National Economic Council, about how these actions have specific implications for Michigan's economy.

  Few domestic policy issues have proved more vexing to elected leaders in recent years than the nation's affordable housing shortage. And while there are several obvious causes for the problem — most notably in recent years, the pandemic — it was an issue on which the Biden administration was making some real headway through […]

Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett discusses the jobs data and the Trump administration's plan for government spending. He speaks with Bloomberg's Jonathan Ferro.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before Kevin Hassett was named director of President Trump's National Economic Council, he sat down with Margaret Hoover last September to discuss Trump's economic record and his second-term agenda.In this new cut of that interview, Hassett assesses the impact of tariffs in Trump's first term and defends his threats to impose new ones, including reciprocal tariffs on goods from countries that tax U.S. imports.Hassett, who previously served as chairman of Trump's White House Council of Economic Advisors, pushes back against Kamala Harris' criticisms of Trump's policies and predicts federal spending cuts if he is elected.He also comments on the importance of an independent Federal Reserve and responds to fellow Republicans who called Trump a threat to democracy after January 6th.Support for “Firing Line for Margaret Hoover” is provided by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, Peter and Mark Kalikow, Cliff and Laurel Asness, The Meadowlark Foundation, Charles R. Schwab, Damon Button, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, The Philip I Kent Foundation, Annie Lamont through The Lamont Family Fund, and Al and Kathy Hubbard. Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. 

Joe Lavorgna is a Managing Director and Chief Economist for SMBC Nikko Securities. He was previously the Chief Economist for the Americas at Natixis. While there, Joe took a one-year leave of absence to serve in the Trump administration, where he was Special Assistant to the President, and Chief Economist of the National Economic Council. Prior to Natixis, Joe spent 20 years with Deutsche Bank Securities in the Global Markets Division, where he was considered one of the leading Wall Street economists. Joe is also a Senior Fellow at the America First Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. In this podcast, we discuss what it was like working for Trump, why Trump is now more effective, thoughts on tariffs, taxes and immigration, and much more.    Follow us here for more amazing insights: https://macrohive.com/home-prime/ https://twitter.com/Macro_Hive https://www.linkedin.com/company/macro-hive

Why is reforming capitalism so essential? In the latest issue of Liberties Quarterly, Tim Wu argues that unregulated capitalism not only leads to economic monopolies, but also drives populist anger and authoritarian politics. In “The Real Road to Serfdom”, Wu advocates for "decentralized capitalism" with distributed economic power, citing examples from Scandinavia and East Asia. Drawing from his experience in the Biden administration's antitrust efforts, he emphasizes the importance of preventing industry concentration. Wu expresses concern about big tech's growing political influence and argues that challenging monopolies is critical for fostering innovation and maintaining economic progress in the United States.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our interview with Tim Wu:* Historical Parallels: Wu sees concerning parallels between our current era and the 1930s, characterized by concentrated economic power, fragile economic conditions, and the rise of populist leaders. He suggests we're in a period where leaders are moving beyond winning elections to attempting to alter constitutional frameworks.* The Monopoly-Autocracy Connection: Wu argues there's a dangerous cycle where monopolies create economic inequality, which generates populist anger, which then enables authoritarian leaders to rise to power. He cites Hugo Chavez as a pioneer of this modern autocratic model that leaders like Trump have followed.* Decentralized Capitalism: Wu advocates for an economic system with multiple centers of distributed economic power, rather than just a few giant companies accumulating wealth. He points to Denmark, Taiwan, and post-WWII East Asia as successful examples of more balanced economic structures.* Antitrust Legacy: Wu believes the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement efforts have created lasting changes in legal standards and public consciousness that won't be easily reversed. He emphasizes that challenging monopolies is crucial for maintaining innovation and preventing industry stagnation.* Big Tech and Power: Wu expresses concern about big tech companies' growing political influence, comparing it to historical examples like AT&T and IBM. He's particularly worried about AI potentially reinforcing existing power structures rather than democratizing opportunities.Complete Transcript: Tim Wu on The Real Road to SerfdomAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We live in very strange times. That's no exaggeration. Yesterday, we had Nick Bryant on the show, the author of The Forever War. He was the BBC's man in Washington, DC for a long time. In our conversation, Nick suggested that we're living in really historic times, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, perhaps even the beginnings of the Second World War.My guest today, like Nick, is a deep thinker. Tim Wu will be very well known to you for many things, including his book, The Attention Merchants. He was involved in the Biden White House, teaches law at Columbia University, and much more. He has a new book coming out later in the year on November 4th, The Age of Extraction. He has a very interesting essay in this issue of Liberties, the quarterly magazine of ideas, called "The Real Road to Serfdom."Tim had a couple of interesting tweets in the last couple of days, one comparing the behavior of President Trump to Germany's 1933 enabling act. And when it comes to Ukraine, Tim wrote, "How does the GOP feel about their president's evident plan to forfeit the Cold War?" Tim Wu is joining us from his home in the village of Manhattan. Tim, welcome. Before we get to your excellent essay in Liberties, how would you historicize what we're living through at the moment?Tim Wu: I think the 1930s are not the wrong way to look at it. Prior to that period, you had this extraordinary concentration of economic power in a very fragile environment. A lot of countries had experienced an enormous crash and you had the rise of populist leaders, with Mussolini being the pioneer of the model. This has been going on for at least 5 or 6 years now. We're in that middle period where it's moving away from people just winning elections to trying to really alter the constitution of their country. So I think the mid-30s is probably about right.Andrew Keen: You were involved in the Biden administration. You were one of the major thinkers when it came to antitrust. Have you been surprised with what's happened since Biden left office? The speed, the radicalness of this Trump administration?Tim Wu: Yes, because I expected something more like the first Trump administration, which was more of a show with a lot of flash but poor execution. This time around, the execution is also poor but more effective. I didn't fully expect that Elon Musk would actually be a government official at this point and that he'd have this sort of vandalism project going on. The fact they won all of the houses of Congress was part of the problem and has made the effort go faster.Andrew Keen: You talk about Musk. We've done many shows on Musk's role in all this and the seeming arrival of Silicon Valley or a certain version of Silicon Valley in Washington, DC. You're familiar with both worlds, the world of big tech and Silicon Valley and Washington. Is that your historical reading that these two worlds are coming together in this second Trump administration?Tim Wu: It's very natural for economic power to start to seek political power. It follows from the basic view of monopoly as a creature that wants to defend itself, and the second observation that the most effective means of self-defense is control of government. If you follow that very simple logic, it stands to reason that the most powerful economic entities would try to gain control of government.I want to talk about the next five years. The tech industry is following the lead of Palantir and Peter Thiel, who were pioneers in thinking that instead of trying to avoid government, they should try to control it. I think that is the obvious move over the next four years.Andrew Keen: I've been reading your excellent essay in Liberties, "The Real Road to Serfdom." When did you write it? It seems particularly pertinent this week, although of course you didn't write it knowing exactly what was going to be happening with Musk and Washington DC and Trump and Ukraine.Tim Wu: I wrote it about two years ago when I got out of the White House. The themes are trying to get at eternal issues about the dangers of economic power and concentrated economic power and its unaccountability. If it made predictions that are starting to come true, I don't know if that's good or bad.Andrew Keen: "The Real Road to Serfdom" is, of course, a reference to the Hayek book "The Road to Serfdom." Did you consciously use that title with reference to Hayek, or was that a Liberties decision?Tim Wu: That was my decision. At that point, and I may still write this, I was thinking of writing a book just called "The Real Road to Serfdom." I am both fascinated and a fan of Hayek in certain ways. I think he nailed certain things exactly right but makes big errors at the same time.To his credit, Hayek was very critical of monopoly and very critical of the role of the state in reinforcing monopoly. But he had an almost naivete about what powerful, unaccountable private economic entities would do with their power. That's essentially my criticism.Andrew Keen: In 2018, you wrote a book, "The Curse of Bigness." And in a way, this is an essay against bigness, but it's written—please correct me if I'm wrong—I read it as a critique of the left, suggesting that there were times in the essay, if you're reading it blind, you could have been reading Hayek in its critique of Marx and centralization and Lenin and Stalin and the Ukrainian famines. Is the message in the book, Tim—is your audience a progressive audience? Are you saying that it's a mistake to rely on bigness, so to speak, the state as a redistributive platform?Tim Wu: Not entirely. I'm very critical of communist planned economies, and that's part of it. But it's mainly a critique of libertarian faith in private economic power or sort of the blindness to the dangers of it.My basic thesis in "The Real Road to Serfdom" is that free market economies will tend to monopolize. Once monopoly power is achieved, it tends to set off a strong desire to extract as much wealth from the rest of the economy as it can, creating something closer to a feudal-type economy with an underclass. That tends to create a huge amount of resentment and populist anger, and democracies have to respond to that anger.The libertarian answer of saying that's fine, this problem will go away, is a terrible answer. History suggests that what happens instead is if democracy doesn't do anything, the state takes over, usually on the back of a populist strongman. It could be a communist, could be fascist, could be just a random authoritarian like in South America.I guess I'd say it's a critique of both the right and the left—the right for being blind to the dangers of concentrated economic power, and the left, especially the communist left, for idolizing the takeover of vital functions by a giant state, which has a track record as bad, if not worse, than purely private power.Andrew Keen: You bring up Hugo Chavez in the essay, the now departed Venezuelan strongman. You're obviously no great fan of his, but you do seem to suggest that Chavez, like so many other authoritarians, built his popularity on the truth of people's suffering. Is that fair?Tim Wu: That is very fair. In the 90s, when Chavez first came to power through popular election, everyone was mystified and thought he was some throwback to the dictators of the 60s and 70s. But he turned out to be a pioneer of our future, of the new form of autocrat, who appealed to the unfairness of the economy post-globalization.Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán, and certainly Donald Trump, are direct descendants of Hugo Chavez in their approach. They follow the same playbook, appealing to the same kind of pain and suffering, promising to act for the people as opposed to the elites, the foreigners, and the immigrants. Chavez is also a cautionary lesson. He started in a way which the population liked—he lowered gas prices, gave away money, nationalized industry. He was very popular. But then like most autocrats, he eventually turned the money to himself and destroyed his own country.Andrew Keen: Why are autocrats like Chavez and perhaps Trump so much better at capturing that anger than Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?Tim Wu: People who are outside the system like Chavez are able to tap into resentment and anger in a way which is less diluted by their direct information environment and their colleagues. Anyone who hangs around Washington, DC for a long time becomes more muted and careful. They lose credibility.That said, the fact that populist strongmen take over countries in distress suggests we need to avoid that level of economic distress in the first place and protect the middle class. Happy, contented middle-class countries don't tend to see the rise of authoritarian dictators. There isn't some Danish version of Hugo Chavez in the running right now.Andrew Keen: You bring up Denmark. Denmark always comes up in these kinds of conversations. What's admirable about your essay is you mostly don't fall into the Denmark trap of simply saying, "Why don't we all become like Denmark?" But at the same time, you acknowledge that the Danish model is attractive, suggesting we've misunderstood it or treated it superficially. What can and can't we learn from the Danish model?Tim Wu: American liberals often misunderstand the lesson of Scandinavia and other countries that have strong, prosperous middle classes like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. In Scandinavia's case, the go-to explanation is that it's just the liberals' favorite set of policies—high taxation, strong social support systems. But I think the structure of those economies is much more important.They have what Jacob Hacker calls very strong "pre-distribution." They've avoided just having a small set of monopolists who make all the money and then hopefully hand it out to other people. It goes back to their land reform in the early 19th century, where they set up a very different kind of economy with a broad distribution of productive assets.If I'm trying to promote a philosophy in this book, it's for people who are fed up with the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and think it leads to autocracy, but who are also no fans of communism or socialism. Just saying "let people pile up money and we'll tax it later" is not going to work. What you need is an economy structured with multiple centers of distributed economic power.Andrew Keen: The term that seems to summarize that in the essay is "architecture of parity." It's a bit clunky, but is that the best way to sum up your thinking?Tim Wu: I'm working on the terminology. Architecture of equality, parity, decentralized capitalism, distribution—these are all terms trying to capture it. It's more of a 19th century form of Christian or Catholic economics. People are grasping for the right word for an economic system that doesn't rely on just a few giant companies taking money from everybody and hopefully redistributing it. That model is broken and has a dangerous tendency to lead to toxicity. We need a better capitalism. An alternative title for this piece could have been "Saving Capitalism from Itself."Andrew Keen: Your name is most associated with tech and your critique of big tech. Does this get beyond big tech? Are there other sectors of the economy you're interested in fixing and reforming?Tim Wu: Absolutely. Silicon Valley is the most obvious and easiest entry point to talk about concentrated economic power. You can see the dependence on a small number of platforms that have earnings and profits far beyond what anyone imagined possible. But we're talking about an economy-wide, almost global set of problems.Some industries are worse. The meat processing industry in the United States is horrendously concentrated—it takes all the money from farmers, charges us too much for meat, and keeps it for itself. There are many industries where people are looking for something to understand or believe in that's different than socialism but different than this libertarian capitalism that ends up bankrupting people. Tech is the easiest way to talk about it, but not the be-all and end-all of my interest.Andrew Keen: Are there other examples where we're beginning to see decentralized capitalism? The essay was very strong on the critique, but I found fewer examples of decentralized capitalism in practice outside maybe Denmark in the 2020s.Tim Wu: East Asia post-World War II is a strong example of success. While no economy is purely small businesses, although Taiwan comes close, if you look at the East Asian story after World War II, one of the big features was an effort to reform land, give land to peasants, and create a landowning class to replace the feudal system. They had huge entrepreneurism, especially in Korea and Taiwan, less in Japan. This built a strong and prosperous middle and upper middle class.Japan has gone through hard times—they let their companies get too big and they stagnated. But Korea and Taiwan have gone from being third world economies to Taiwan now being wealthier per capita than Japan. The United States is another strong example, vacillating between being very big and very small. Even at its biggest, it still has a strong entrepreneurial culture and sectors with many small entities. Germany is another good example. There's no perfect version, but what I'm saying is that the model of monopolized economies and just having a few winners and hoping that anybody else can get tax payments is really a losing proposition.Andrew Keen: You were on Chris Hayes recently talking about antitrust. You're one of America's leading thinkers on antitrust and were brought into the Biden administration on the antitrust front. Is antitrust then the heart of the matter? Is this really the key to decentralizing capitalism?Tim Wu: I think it's a big tool, one of the tools of managing the economy. It works by preventing industries from merging their way into monopoly and keeps a careful eye on structure. In the same way that no one would say interest rates are the be-all and end-all of monetary policy, when we're talking about structural policy, having antitrust law actively preventing overconcentration is important.In the White House itself, we spent a lot of time trying to get other agencies to prevent their sectors, whether healthcare or transportation, from becoming overly monopolized and extractive. You can have many parts of the government involved—the antitrust agencies are key, but they're not the only solution.Andrew Keen: You wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic about Biden's antitrust initiatives. You said the outgoing president's legacy of revived antitrust enforcement won't be easy to undo. Trump is very good at breaking things. Why is it going to be hard to undo? Lina Khan's gone—the woman who seems to unite all of Silicon Valley in their dislike of her. What did Biden do to protect antitrust legislation?Tim Wu: The legal patterns have changed and the cases are ongoing. But I think more important is a change of consciousness and ideology and change in popular support. I don't think there is great support for letting big tech do whatever they want without oversight. There are people who believe in that and some of them have influence in this administration, but there's been a real change in consciousness.I note that the Federal Trade Commission has already announced that it's going to stick with the Biden administration's merger rules, and my strong sense is the Department of Justice will do the same. There are certain things that Trump did that we stuck with in the Biden administration because they were popular—the most obvious being the turn toward China. Going back to the Bush era approach of never bothering any monopolies, I just don't think there's an appetite for it.Andrew Keen: Why is Lina Khan so unpopular in Silicon Valley?Tim Wu: It's interesting. I'm not usually one to attribute things to sexism, but the Justice Department brought more cases against big tech than she did. Jonathan Kanter, who ran antitrust at Justice, won the case against Google. His firm was trying to break up Google. They may still do it, but somehow Lina Khan became the face of it. I think because she's young and a woman—I don't know why Jonathan Kanter didn't become the symbol in the same way.Andrew Keen: You bring up the AT&T and IBM cases in the US tech narrative in the essay, suggesting that we can learn a great deal from them. What can we learn from those cases?Tim Wu: The United States from the 70s through the 2010s was an extraordinarily innovative place and did amazing things in the tech industry. An important part of that was challenging the big IBM and AT&T monopolies. AT&T was broken into eight pieces. IBM was forced to begin selling its software separately and opened up the software markets to what became a new software industry.AT&T earlier had been forced to license the transistor, which opened up the semiconductor industry and to some degree the computing industry, and had to stay out of computing. The government intervened pretty forcefully—a form of industrial policy to weaken its tech monopolies. The lesson is that we need to do the same thing right now.Some people will ask about China, but I think the United States has always done best when it constantly challenges established power and creates room for entrepreneurs to take their shot. I want very much for the new AI companies to challenge the main tech platforms and see what comes of that, as opposed to becoming a stagnant industry. Everyone says nothing can become stagnant, but the aerospace industry was pretty quick-moving in the 60s, and now you have Boeing and Airbus sitting there. It's very easy for a tech industry to stagnate, and attacking monopolists is the best way to prevent that.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Google earlier. You had an interesting op-ed in The New York Times last year about what we should do about Google. My wife is head of litigation at Google, so I'm not entirely disinterested. I also have a career as a critic of Google. If Kent Walker was here, he would acknowledge some of the things he was saying. But he would say Google still innovates—Google hasn't become Boeing. It's innovating in AI, in self-driving cars, it's shifting search. Would he be entirely wrong?Tim Wu: No, he wouldn't be entirely wrong. In the same way that IBM kept going, AT&T kept going. What you want in tech industries is a fair fight. The problem with Google isn't that they're investing in AI or trying to build self-driving cars—that's great. The problem is that they were paying over $20 billion a year to Apple for a promise not to compete in search. Through control of the browsers and many other things, they were trying to make sure they could never be dislodged.My view of the economics is monopolists need to always be a little insecure. They need to be in a position where they can be challenged. That happens—there are companies who, like AT&T in the 70s or 60s, felt they were immune. It took the government to make space. I think it's very important for there to be opportunities to challenge the big guys and try to seize the pie.Andrew Keen: I'm curious where you are on Section 230. Google won their Supreme Court case when it came to Section 230. In this sense, I'm guessing you view Google as being on the side of the good guys.Tim Wu: Section 230 is interesting. In the early days of the Internet, it was an important infant industry protection. It was an insulation that was vital to get those little companies at the time to give them an opportunity to grow and build business models, because if you're being sued by billions of people, you can't really do too much.Section 230 was originally designed to protect people like AOL, who ran user forums and had millions of people discussing—kind of like Reddit. I think as Google and companies like Facebook became active in promoting materials and became more like media companies, the case for an absolutist Section 230 became a lot weaker. The law didn't really change but the companies did.Andrew Keen: You wrote the essay "The Real Road to Serfdom" a couple of years ago. You also talked earlier about AI. There's not a lot of AI in this, but 50% of all the investment in technology over the last year was in AI, and most of that has gone into these huge platforms—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini. Is AI now the central theater, both in the Road to Serfdom and in liberating ourselves from big tech?Tim Wu: Two years ago when I was writing this, I was determined not to say anything that would look stupid about AI later. There's a lot more on what I think about AI in my new book coming in November.I see AI as a classic potential successor technology. It obviously is the most significant successor to the web and the mass Internet of 20 years ago in terms of having potential to displace things like search and change the way people do various forms of productivity. How technology plays out depends a lot on the economic structure. If you think about a technology like the cotton gin, it didn't automatically lead to broad flourishing, but reinforced plantation slavery.What I hope happens with AI is that it sets off more competition and destabilization for some of the tech platforms as opposed to reinforcing their advantage and locking them in forever. I don't know if we know what's going to happen right now. I think it's extremely important that OpenAI stays separate from the existing tech companies, because if this just becomes the same players absorbing technology, that sounds a lot like the darker chapters in US tech history.Andrew Keen: And what about the power of AI to liberate ourselves from our brain power as the next industrial revolution? When I was reading the essay, I thought it would be a very good model, both as a warning and in terms of offering potential for us to create this new architecture of parity. Because the technology in itself, in theory at least, is one of parity—one of democratizing brainpower.Tim Wu: Yes, I agree it has extraordinary potential. Things can go in two directions. The Industrial Revolution is one example where you had more of a top-down centralization of the means of production that was very bad for many people initially, though there were longer-term gains.I would hope AI would be something more like the PC revolution in the 80s and 90s, which did augment individual humanity as opposed to collective enterprise. It allowed people to do things like start their own travel agency or accounting firm with just a computer. I am interested and bullish on the potential of AI to empower smaller units, but I'm concerned it will be used to reinforce existing economic structures. The jury's out—the future will tell us. Just hoping it's going to make humanity better is not going to be the best answer.Andrew Keen: When you were writing this essay, Web3 was still in vogue then—the idea of blockchain and crypto decentralizing the economy. But I didn't see any references to Web3 and the role of technology in democratizing capitalism in terms of the architecture of corporations. Are you skeptical of the Web3 ideology?Tim Wu: The essay had its limits since I was also talking about 18th century Denmark. I have a lot more on blockchain and Web3 in the book. The challenge with crypto and Bitcoin is that it both over-promises and delivers something. I've been very interested in crypto and blockchain for a long time. The challenge it's had is constantly promising to decentralize great systems and failing, then people stealing billions of dollars and ending up in prison.It has a dubious track record, but it does have this core potential for a certain class of people to earn money. I'm always in favor of anything that is an alternative means of earning money. There are people who made money on it. I just think it's failed to execute on its promises. Blockchain in particular has failed to be a real challenge to web technologies.Andrew Keen: As you say, Hayek inspired the book and in some sense this is intellectual. The father of decentralization in ideological terms was E.F. Schumacher. I don't think you reference him, but do you think there has been much thinking since Schumacher on the value of smallness and decentralized architectures? What do people like yourself add to what Schumacher missed in his critique of bigness?Tim Wu: Schumacher is a good example. Rawls is actually under-recognized as being interested in these things. I see myself as writing in the tradition of those figures and trying to pursue a political economy that values a more balanced economy and small production.Hopefully what I add is a level of institutional experience and practicality that was missing. Rawls is slightly unfair because he's a philosopher, but his model doesn't include firms—it's just individuals. So it's all about balancing between poor people and rich people when obviously economic power is also held by corporations.I'm trying to create more flesh on the bones of the "small is beautiful" philosophy and political economy that is less starry-eyed and more realistic. I'm putting forward the point that you're not sacrificing growth and you're taking less political risk with a more balanced economy. There's an adulation of bigness in our time—exciting big companies are glamorous. But long-term prosperity does better when you have more centers, a more balanced system. I'm not an ultra-centralist suggesting we should live in mud huts, but I do think the worship of monopoly is very similar to the worship of autocracy and is dangerous.Andrew Keen: Much to discuss. Tim Wu, thank you so much. The author of "The Real Road to Serfdom," fascinating essay in this month's issue of Liberties. I know "The Age of Extraction" will be coming out on November 10th.Tim Wu: In England and US at the same time.Andrew Keen: We'll get you back on the show. Fascinating conversation, Tim. Thank you so much.Hailed as the “architect” of the Biden administration's competition and antitrust policies, Tim Wu writes and teaches about private power and related topics. First known for coining the term “net neutrality” in 2002, in recent years Wu has been a leader in the revitalization of American antitrust and has taken a particular focus on the growing power of the big tech platforms. In 2021, he was appointed to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. A professor at Columbia Law School since 2006, Wu has also held posts in public service. He was enforcement counsel in the New York Attorney General's Office, worked on competition policy for the National Economic Council during the Barack Obama administration, and worked in antitrust enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, Wu was a Democratic primary candidate for lieutenant governor of New York. In his most recent book, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (2018), he argues that corporate and industrial concentration can lead to the rise of populism, nationalism, and extremist politicians. His previous books include The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads (2016), The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (2010), and Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (2006), which he co-authored with Jack Goldsmith. Wu was a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and also has written for Slate, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. He once explained the concept of net neutrality to late-night host Stephen Colbert while he rode a rollercoaster. He has been named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal; has made Politico's list of 50 most influential figures in American politics (more than once); and has been included in the Scientific American 50 of policy leadership. Wu is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as a law clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

On The Dominic Carter Show, Dominic broadcasts live from Washington D.C. where he spoke with Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council of the United States and White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dominic speaks with Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council to discuss the multi-pronged approach to address inflation, criticizing the Biden administration's spending policies and highlighting President Trump's strategy of cutting government spending and increasing supply. Hassett also discusses the avian flu crisis and the Biden administration's handling of it, emphasizing plans to control it and reduce egg prices. Furthermore, he covers the benefits of renewing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for American families and businesses. On international trade, Hassett explains Trump's reciprocal trade approach to balance tariffs. Lastly, Hassett reassures listeners that economic conditions are improving under Trump's leadership, citing a decrease in market interest rates since Trump's inauguration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan", President Trump's national security team takes his MAGA movement to Europe. We talk to Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his first Sunday show interview since taking office. Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, joins the show to discuss the economy and inflation. And House Intelligence Committee Republican Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) discusses the annual Munich Security Conference that just finished, particularly around a peace deal for the war in Ukraine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk isn't just shaping the future of technology—he's wielding unprecedented influence over American policy with an official role in Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. With deep economic stakes in transportation, social media, satellite technology, and space exploration, his personal interests are increasingly intertwined with national policy, raising serious ethical red flags. Critics warn that his unchecked access to private data, his ability to control information sharing through X (formerly Twitter), and his lack of accountability pose a grave risk to democracy itself. We get into it with cybersecurity expert Nejolla Korris.  5:20 | But first...President Donald Trump sent shock waves around the world with his candid comments about the U.S. "owning" Gaza and displacing 1.8 million Palestinians along the way. 16:20 | The world's richest man has a huge influence on America's domestic and foreign policy as an unelected official. We talk to cybersecurity expert Nejolla Korris about Elon Musk's relationship with Donald Trump, America's move toward a tech oligarchy, and the rise of bots on social media sites.  NEJOLLA'S WORK: https://www.interveritas.com/ 1:03:30 | Got plans for Family Day weekend? Why not head out to Jasper! Ryan gives a sneak peek of his family's video collaboration with Tourism Jasper, and has details on an Edmonton fundraiser for Jasper Raft Tours. FAMILY DAY in JASPER: https://www.jasper.travel/blog/5-ways-celebrate-family-day-jasper-national-park/ RAISE THE RAFT: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1207727644688155&set=pcb.1207727728021480 1:11:11 | When should government fund or defund media? Jespo pulls back the curtain on Real Talk's position, including whether or not we receive a federal media subsidy.  1:32:20 | Do you engage when a friend or family member shares misinformation on social media? Ryan shares details of a current conundrum.  1:39:45 | Did you catch the awkward exchange between journalist Lauren Boothby and Edmonton Police Chief Dale McFee?  1:46:45 | Tough look for Edmonton, as Donald Trump's National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett takes a big swipe at Alberta's capital city on an international news broadcast.  GUY FELICELLA on REAL TALK: https://rtrj.info/051723GuyF TELL US WHAT YOU THINK: talk@ryanjespersen.com  HANG OUT WITH JESPO AT OTR ON SUPER BOWL SUNDAY: https://ontherocksyeg.com/ FOLLOW US ON TIKTOK, X, & INSTAGRAM: @realtalkrj & @ryanjespersen  JOIN US ON FACEBOOK & LINKEDIN: @ryanjespersen  REAL TALK MERCH: https://ryanjespersen.com/merch RECEIVE EXCLUSIVE PERKS - BECOME A REAL TALK PATRON: patreon.com/ryanjespersen THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING OUR SPONSORS! https://ryanjespersen.com/sponsors

Wayne Ting is CEO of Lime. The global leader in micromobility, the first to achieve a fully profitable year (2022). Last year, Lime did over $600M in gross bookings, $90M in EBITDA. Their 4-year top-line CAGR is 30%. Before joining Lime, Wayne spent four years at Uber in various roles, including Chief of Staff to CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, and General Manager of Uber's Northern California business. Wayne previously served as a Senior Policy Advisor on the White House's National Economic Council under President Obama.  In Today's Episode with Wayne Ting We Discuss: Is Lime Really a Good Business: How did Wayne turn Lime from losing $3 on every $1 to $90M in EBITDA? What worked? What did not work? What did Lime do that he wishes they had not done? What did they not do that he wishes they had done?  The Moments that Changed Everything: COVID: Lime lost 95% of their revenues overnight. What did Wayne and Lime do to save the business in such a short space of time? Uber Deal: How did the Uber deal led by Uber CEO, Dara, save Lime as a business? Battery Innovation: How did an innovation on the transportability of batteries and replacing them change the entire Lime business? The Dangers of VC Funding and Capital Efficiency: Why does Wayne believe that VC hype cycles are so damaging for companies and sectors? How did the heat around micromobility damage Lime?  What did Wayne and Lime do to increase their capital efficiency so much? What worked? What did not? AMA with the CEO of Lime: What company did Lime not acquire that Wayne wishes they had? How did having a stroke change the way that Wayne leads? Which competitor does Wayne most respect and admire? What were his biggest lessons from working with Dara @ Uber?      

Gary Cohn, Vice Chairman at IBM and former National Economic Council director, discusses the political difficulties in delivering US tax cuts, the corporate community’s optimism for President Donald Trump’s policies, and offers historical perspective on the yield curve. He is joined by Bloomberg's Jonathan Ferro and Lisa Abramowicz.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageThe episode centers around President-elect Trump's cabinet nominations, highlighting the speed and implications of his choices compared to previous administrations. With a focus on Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for the NIH and Kash Patel for FBI Director, the discussion emphasizes their potential to reshape health policy and law enforcement in America.  Most especially with Kevin Hassett at NEC.Key Points from the Episode:Trump's cabinet nominations signal a swift transition process  Historical context of delays in previous presidential confirmations  Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's nomination aims to reform the NIH  Overview of the Great Barrington Declaration and its significance  Kash Patel's background and potential to revitalize the FBI  Reflection on the implications for public trust in federal agenciesDiscussion of the importance of actionable leadership  Kevin Hassett at National Economic Council will regain the MOJO we had back in 2018, and 2019 to get the economy moving again.   Suggestions for further reading on related topicsOther resources: Fat Man, Thin Man podcast episodeWant to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!Because we care what you think about what we think and our website, please email David@teammojoacademy.com.

White House National Economic Council Director Lael Brainard discusses the US dockworker strike halted as talks extended to January. Brainard spoke with Bloomberg's Jonathan Ferro, Lisa Abramowicz and Annmarie Hordern.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The United States is grappling with two of the biggest challenges it has ever faced: the rise of China and the threat of catastrophic climate change. At home, the Biden administration has forged a green industrial policy that could transform the U.S. economy. But as China threatens to dominate the global market for clean energy, it is not enough to invest domestically, Brian Deese argues in a new Foreign Affairs essay. Deese has been at the center of climate and economic policymaking for over a decade. He served as the director of the National Economic Council in the Biden administration, where he was one of the key architects behind the Inflation Reduction Act. During the Obama years, he helped lead the auto bailout and negotiate the Paris agreement on climate change. Now, he has a plan for the United States to lead the global energy transition on its own terms.

Leslie is joined by Brendan Duke, Senior Director for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The pair discuss two of his most recent pieces for CAP. (both listed below) 1. "Donald Trump Is Lying About Immigrants and Social Security/Medicare" (https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/donald-trump-is-lying-about-immigrants-and-social-security-medicare/) 2. "Harris' Plan To Raise the Minimum Wage and Eliminate Tax on Tips Would Benefit Service and Hospitality Workers" (www.americanprogressaction.org/article/harris-plan-to-raise-the-minimum-wage-and-eliminate-tax-on-tips-would-benefit-service-and-hospitality-workers/) Previously, Brendan was a senior policy adviser at the White House National Economic Council for the Biden-Harris administration, and a member of their presidential transition team. Duke estimated the cost of various provisions of the 'American Rescue Plan' and of the administration's 'Build Back Better' plan, as well as helped develop its overall budgetary frameworks. He also worked on the administration's Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force, where he served as the National Economic Council's point person on supply chain data during the port congestion crisis of 2021, and the infant formula crisis of 2022. His handle on X is @Brendan_Duke.

Leslie is joined by Brendan Duke, Senior Director for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The pair discuss two of his most recent pieces for CAP. (both listed below) 1. "Donald Trump Is Lying About Immigrants and Social Security/Medicare" (https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/donald-trump-is-lying-about-immigrants-and-social-security-medicare/) 2. "Harris' Plan To Raise the Minimum Wage and Eliminate Tax on Tips Would Benefit Service and Hospitality Workers" (www.americanprogressaction.org/article/harris-plan-to-raise-the-minimum-wage-and-eliminate-tax-on-tips-would-benefit-service-and-hospitality-workers/) Previously, Brendan was a senior policy adviser at the White House National Economic Council for the Biden-Harris administration, and a member of their presidential transition team. Duke estimated the cost of various provisions of the 'American Rescue Plan' and of the administration's 'Build Back Better' plan, as well as helped develop its overall budgetary frameworks. He also worked on the administration's Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force, where he served as the National Economic Council's point person on supply chain data during the port congestion crisis of 2021, and the infant formula crisis of 2022. His handle on X is @Brendan_Duke.

We revisit an episode from 2016 that asks: Has our culture's obsession with innovation led us to neglect the fact that things also need to be taken care of?  SOURCES:Martin Casado, general partner at Andreessen Horowitz.Ruth Schwartz Cowan, professor emerita of history and sociology of science at University of Pennsylvania.Edward Glaeser, professor of economics at Harvard University.Chris Lacinak, founder and president of AVPreserve.Andrew Russell, provost of SUNY Polytechnic Institute.Lawrence Summers, professor and president emeritus of Harvard University; former Secretary of the Treasury and former director of the National Economic Council.Lee Vinsel, professor of science, technology, and society at Virginia Tech. RESOURCES:“Hail the Maintainers," by Andrew Russell and Lee Vinsel (Aeon, 2016).“A Lesson on Infrastructure From the Anderson Bridge Fiasco,” by Lawrence Summers and Rachel Lipson (The Boston Globe, 2016).Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, by Edward Glaeser (2008).More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave, by Ruth Schwartz Cowan (1983). EXTRAS:"Freakonomics Radio Takes to the Skies," series by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Edward Glaeser Explains Why Some Cities Thrive While Others Fade Away," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2021)."Why Larry Summers Is the Economist Everyone Hates to Love," by Freakonomics Radio (2017).

To discuss the post-election future of US competition policy, ChinaTalk interviewed Peter Harrell and Nazak Nikakhtar. Nazak served in the Trump administration after a long career as a civil servant, where she was instrumental in shaping the Commerce Department's work on China, first at the International Trade Administration and later leading the Bureau of Industry and Security. Peter worked in the Biden administration on the National Economic Council and National Security Council, focusing on international economics, export controls, and investment restrictions. We discuss… The role of the executive in setting the industrial policy agenda Leadership shortcomings in the Biden and Trump administrations Competition with China — bipartisan consensus, bureaucratic inertia, and strategies to stop wasting time. Advice for America's next president, from export controls to pharmaceutical decoupling and alliance management Creative approaches to supply chain resilience This is 2023 CSET report Jordan referenced (See the “Understanding the Intangibles section) Outtro Music: Jun Mayuzumi - Black Room (Youtube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Leslie is joined by Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute, where he is part of their Housing Finance Policy Center.  Jim is also owner of Parrott Ryan Advisors, which provides strategic advice on housing finance issues to financial institutions active in the primary and secondary mortgage market. The two discuss the Opinion piece he co-wrote for the Washington Post with Moody Analytics' Chief Economist Mark Zandi.  It's titled, "Harris Plan Could Solve the Longtime Affordable Housing Crisis." (Link here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/21/harris-affordable-housing/) Before joining Urban in 2013, Jim Parrott spent several years in the Obama White House as a senior adviser at the National Economic Council, where he led the team of advisers charged with counseling the cabinet and president on housing issues. Before his time in the White House, Parrott was counsel to Secretary Donovan at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The website for the Urban Institute is www.Urban.org.

On Monday, the markets had one of its worst trading days since the 2008 financial crisis. Stocks tumbled around the world, with a global sell-off, amid fears of a recession. The VIX (an index often called “Wall Street's Fear Gauge”) was at times today as high as we saw it when the economy was shutting down for Covid.  This comes on the tail of a pretty insane news cycle: a presidential assassination attempt, Joe Biden dropping out of the race, the coronation of a new Democratic nominee, a stolen election (actually) in Venezuela, a Middle East on the brink of war. . . should I go on? But the most pressing issue to most Americans is and always has been the economy.  And with everything else going on, many of us have been paying far too little attention to the economic story here at home, and the policies that may have brought us to this moment we find ourselves in today.  To explain how we got here is Larry Summers. Summers was Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, and he was the director of the National Economic Council under President Obama. He was president of Harvard for five years. And he is one of the world's most prominent economists.  Today: What is going on in the market? What caused it? Was it avoidable? What happens next? And what are the long-term repercussions?  If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com/subscribe and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jason Bordoff is an expert on geopolitics, energy security and the clean energy transition. He is the Founding Director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, and he also held senior roles in the Obama administration, including on the National Economic Council, and the National Security Council. In this episode of World of DaaS, Auren and Jason discuss: The future of solarHow shale oil transformed US energyCritical minerals and energy securityRealities of the clean energy transitionLooking for more tech, data and venture capital intel? Head to worldofdaas.com for our podcast, newsletter and events, and follow us on X @worldofdaas.  You can find Auren Hoffman on X at @auren and Jason on X at @JasonBordoff.Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com)

Joseph Lavorgna was born in New Haven, Connecticut, and serves as a Senior Fellow at AFPI. Lavorgna previously served as the Chief Economist of the Americas at Natixis, a firm he joined after serving as Special Assistant to the President and Chief Economist of the National Economic Council during the Trump Administration.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe farmers are at it again, they are protesting their governments, this will not end, as long as the [CB]/[WEF] continue to push their agenda the people will push back. The banking system is trouble and as the economy breaks down this is going to wake the majority of the people up. The [DS] is trying everything to cover up their crimes, the coverup always gets you in the end. The hearing are not to prosecute but to catch these people in the coverup. Biden says the quiet part out loud, that Trump shouldn't be President even if he isn't running. What is the [DS] final goal? They are trying to have the people depopulate themselves and prepare them for transhumanism. Trump is showing the people the truth because the truth belongs to the people.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1797627510022373804 Minnesota Mayor Thanks Joe Biden For Canceling His Student Loans and it Backfires Big Time   A Minnesota mayor earning $130,000+ per year at his post thanked Joe Biden for canceling his student loan debt. St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter publicly celebrated hardworking Americans being forced to pay off his student loans even though he earns way more money than the average American worker. “The Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt. But they didn't stop me. I've relieved student debt for over 5 million Americans. I'm going to keep going,” Biden said in a post on X last week.   Melvin Carter's decision to brag about his student loan cancelation backfired.         Source: thegatewaypundit.com Fmr. Obama Adviser: Greed Isn't Causing Inflation, Companies Didn't Only Decide to Maximize Profit Under Biden  ,” Professor of the Practice of Economic Policy at Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School Jason Furman, who served as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama and on the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Economic Council under President Bill Clinton dismissed arguments that corporate greed is the cause of inflation and argued that companies always try to maximize their profits and didn't just start deciding to do so in the past couple years, and the real culprit was demand spiking. Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1798004871272272112   condition will change for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, ~33% of people surveyed face extreme stress about their debt. 33% of respondents are concerned about saving for the future and 32% are concerned about paying for unexpected expenses. American consumers are struggling. https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1797793840457490558 https://twitter.com/RealEJAntoni/status/1797721220630380908 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1797975642883215513  years 6. A record $17.7 trillion in total household debt How is this a "soft landing?" The disconnect between economic data and consumer sentiment is simply huge. Most of the data suggests things are "fine" while consumers are struggling. This is far from an indication of a healthy economy. Political/Rights ‘No One Is Above the Law': DOJ Declares in Opening Statement of Hunter Biden's Gun Trial Prosecutor Derek Hines delivered a blistering opening statement in Hunter Biden's gun trial on Tuesday, telling the jurors that “no one is above the law.” The opening salvo set the stage for the prosecution's framing of the trial. “It doesn't matter who you are or what your name is...