Podcasts about public policy research

Hillary Clinton derides her Epstein deposition as GOP ‘political theater'. Burger King rolls out employee assistance AI that listens in. The Pentagon's battle with Anthropic is really a war over who controls AI. Tampa airport teases pajama ban, triggering social media firestorm over dress code controversy. Bill Clinton set for Epstein deposition by House committee. White House 'circulating' 17-page executive order draft to declare emergency over voting. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks latest stock market trends. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, recaps the headline of the week. 

On Today's Episode –Mark and Matt are joined by Bonner Cohen again, and the fellas talk about this week's past State of the Union address by Pres. Trump.Tune in for all the Fun Bonner R. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Trump says he will declassify reports on UFOs. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has left a police station as he is released under investigation after 11 hours in custody. Friday Sound Salad. AI dating apps. US continuing to build up military near Iran. Olympic update. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks stock market trends. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks US/Iran relations. 

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

This week Big Debate hosts Ally Hunter Blair and Sophie Gregory are asking : ‘Should we be taking food security more seriously in the UK and is investing in farming the answer?' This is following the publication of a report by the UK government last month titled ‘Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security: A national security assessment'. Their guests include ffinlo Costain – Chief Executive of Farmwell and Founder of the Food and Global Security Network, and Laurie Laybourn – a researcher, author and strategist. Laurie leads the Strategic Climate Risks Initiative. He is also an Associate Fellow at Chatham House and holds fellowships at the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter.Link to the report - Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security - GOV.UK

With the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement coming up for review, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks whether our 2025 call for deeper trade integration still holds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA's 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics front, last year, we argued that the review would reinforce North America as a manufacturing block, even if it didn't fully resolve supply chain diversification from China. We think that remains true today, but with the added nuance that some of the more ambitious integration pathways may be pushed further out or structured outside of the formal USMCA chapters. So bottom line, our base case remains a measured, pragmatic outcome that reduces uncertainty, but preserves the core benefits of North American trade and supports growth across key asset classes. But it also increasingly looks like an outcome that may leave some strategic opportunities on the table for now, setting the stage for deeper alignment later – on a slightly longer horizon, or through a more flexible framework. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Food prices for Super Bowl parties. Friday Sound Salad. Super Bowl statistics. More Epstein files released. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about market trends. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks about immigration. Savannah Guthrie's mom still missing, police share new ransom details. 

Affordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes. But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective? Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior. Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments. Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient. So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed. Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Virginia's new Governor, Abigail Spanberger, openly admitted it's good for the state to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, not to protect the climate and environment, but rather because it's a great “cash grab.”   Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, explains how Virginia's participation in RGGI will raise energy costs, hurt low- and middle-income residents, and drive businesses out of the state, when he joined Joe Thomas, The Daily Signal's Virginia correspondent, on his podcast today.    “It's not about saving the planet, and we have to be very careful about what we mean when we say it makes money for Virginia. Actually, it's ultimately going to cost Virginia rate payers who, as a result of RGGI, as well as a result of other energy policies she's imposing as well as taxes she plans to raise, these people are going to see their disposable incomes reduced and you have to ask the question: to what end?” Follow us on Instagram for EXCLUSIVE bonus content and the chance to be featured in our episodes: https://www.instagram.com/problematicwomen/   Connect with our hosts on socials!   Elise McCue X: https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=EliseMcCue Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/elisemccueofficial/   Virginia Allen: X: https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=Virginia_Allen5 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/virginiaallenofficial/   Check out Top News in 10, hosted by The Daily Signal's Tony Kinnett: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMHBev3NsoUpc2Pzfk0n89cXWBqQltHY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All eyes have been on President Trump's address at the World Economic Forum. Michael Zezas, our Deputy Global Head of Research, and Ariana Salvatore, our Head of Public Policy Research, talk about potential implications for policy and the U.S. outlook.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors. It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically. So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know? Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance. Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines. So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today. Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's the type of thing that should manifest in a weaker dollar and higher term premia, steeper yield curves for U.S. Treasuries. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, and that dovetails really nicely with the work that we just put out with the FX team, kind of highlighting some of the policy factors as push factors for countries to move away from the dollar. We think that's happening marginally. We think it's not really a risk in the immediate term, but some of these policy drivers can actually create dollar weakness over the medium to longer term. Michael Zezas: Of course, to the extent that we get news that this is a head fake and that tensions are re-escalating, you'd expect some of those trades to start pushing markets back in the other direction again. Now, President Trump also talked quite a bit about domestic policy, largely about affordability, and some of the policy proposals he's put forward over the last couple of weeks. Was there any new details that you heard that you think are meaningful for investors? Ariana Salvatore: So, the short version is nothing really new, and the reality is that a lot of housing policy in particular is actually out of the hands of the executive. And even if you do see congressional action here, it's likely to be marginal. A lot of housing policy is done at the state level, and even bipartisan efforts to address both the demand and the supply sides of the equation have faced some resistance in Congress. That doesn't mean they can't reemerge. But we would need to see a very large decline in the mortgage rate to get noticeable effects on economic indicators like GDP, inflation and employment. And in terms of what this means for the housing outlook, the programs talked about so far should push sales marginally higher but have little impact on our expectations for our home prices. Now it's important to note that the president didn't spend that much time of the speech talking about housing affordability proposals, as was telegraphed ahead of time. And since that, the head of the NEC Kevin Hassett has said they plan to announce more details on housing in the coming days. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, on the two pieces here that investors have really focused on, which are capping institutional ownership of single-family homes and potentially capping interest rates on credit cards, it sounded like the president talked about he would go to Congress for authorization on those things.Is that right? And if so, how plausible is it that Congress could actually deliver those authorities? Ariana Salvatore: So, here's where I think it's really critical to understand the role that Congress has to play in all of these policy initiatives. So, there are not only political constraints, but there are also procedural ones. If we were to see Republicans kind of push for this 10 percent cap, for example, that likely would have to go through the reconciliation process. And that process, as we know, comes with a number of limitations because something like a 10 percent cap wouldn't have much of an impact on the federal budget in terms of revenues or outlays. We think it's most likely not going to be permissible under that framework. So, understanding that the first filter here is Congress, and the second filter is these procedural limitations that exist in and of themselves is really important context for understanding the president's proposals on housing.Michael Zezas: So, is it fair to say the starting point is that we think Congress is unlikely to act on these things? And what would you have to see that might make you think differently? Ariana Salvatore: I think where we're looking for signals from Republican leadership in Congress – because as of right now, it's been our thinking that a second reconciliation bill ahead of the midterm elections is not feasible. It's too difficult politically, it takes a lot of time, but if you see enough of a push from the president, we do think that can start to become feasible. Again, we have to keep in mind these procedural limitations and where the rest of the party falls on these issues. But I think they're possible if the administration pushes hard enough for them.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, even though we don't think it's likely, we obviously want to prepare in case that happens. When it comes to housing, it seems like our team has said institutional ownership of single-family housing is quite low, 1 percent or less. And so, restrictions there wouldn't necessarily change the game on home prices. What about the 10 percent cap on credit card interests? What are the broader ramifications that our colleagues see? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so I'd say generally speaking, when it comes to consumer credit affordability policies, our strategists think that these could actually translate to a benefit for consumer ABS performance because they tend to be a tailwind for a consumer that's struggled with rising delinquencies and defaults post-COVID, right? However, there are some specific proposals like this cap on credit cards, and that's likely going to have a negative consequence because it's going to limit credit access for consumers, especially for those carrying a balance. So, probably a little bit counterintuitive to the overall affordability agenda that the administration's trying to go for. Michael Zezas: So, lots of interesting stuff coming out of the speech. Lots of things we have to track over the next few weeks and months. It certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be a boring year two of the Trump term for investors. Ariana Salvatore: Certainly not, and not for us either. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for finding the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Trump pitches direct payments to consumers for health care. Friday Sound Salad. Another government shutdown possible in 15 days. Streamflation. Trump threatens to invoke Insurrection Act to quell anti-ICE protests in Minnesota. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about the latest moves by the Federal Reserve. Buddhist monks walking 2,300 miles from Texas to DC. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks about the major news stories of the week. 

On Today's Episode –“Save Okefenokee Swamp From UNESCO Control,” Mark and Bonner talk about the 450,000 acres, designated as a wildlife refuge by President Roservelt, and located mostly in Georgia, but spreading as far south as Florida, that was nominated to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site, by the Biden Administration. Numerous GA. County commissioners and other concerned stakeholders who want to keep this wildlife refuge in American hands. Says one commissioner, "...more than anything, I don't like any organization that I would consider an entangling alliance. Many of the UNESCO members are adversarial nations. China, Afghanistan, Russia would sit around a table and potentially vote on what should be domestic issues....."Tune in for all the Funhttps://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/11/stanford-scholar-examines-unescos-world-heritage-programBonner R. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

9:05 – 9:22 (17mins) Tony Kinnett, @DailySignal filling in for Rob Bluey today 9:25 – 9:37 (12mins) Weekly Feature: “THAT’S CRAP!!” 9:41 – 9:56 (15mins) NCPPR Guests: Stefan PadfieldTopic: Free Enterprise Project Rings in the New Year With Five Corporate Settlements Washington, D.C. — Shareholder activists with the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) have successfully negotiated shareholder proposal withdrawals with Prudential, Eli Lilly, Exxon, Capital One and AT&T. Stefan Padfield“As set forth on our website, ‘the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) is the original and premier opponent of the woke takeover of American corporate life and defender of true capitalism,'” says FEP Executive Director Stefan Padfield. “Each of the agreements set forth in this press release demonstrate the positive impact FEP is having by both pushing corporations to get back to neutral and supporting them when they do, all of which benefits shareholders and the prosperity-maximizing engine of free-market capitalism.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ice shooting in Portland, OR. Friday Sound Salad. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks news of the week. CES Day 4 highlights. Huge anti-government protests in Tehran and other Iranian cities. Houses passes ACA subsidies; fate of bill murky in Senate. Is the American Dream dead? People regaining weight after stopping GLP-1's. Latest jobs report.

Our Deputy Director of Global Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore discuss the implications of the U.S action in Venezuela for global markets, foreign and domestic policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the latest events in Venezuela and its implications for global markets.It's Tuesday, January 6th at 10am in New York. So, Ariana, before we get into it: Long time listeners might have noticed in our intro, a changeup in our titles. Ariana, you're stepping in to lead day-to-day public policy research. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And Mike, you're taking on more of a leadership role across the research department globally. Michael Zezas: Right, which is great news for both of us. And because the interaction between public policy choices and financial markets is as critical as ever, and because collaboration is so important to how we do investment research at Morgan Stanley – tapping into expertise and insight wherever we can find it – you're still going to hear from one of – and sometimes both of us – here on Thoughts on the Market on a weekly basis. Ariana Salvatore: And this week is a great example of this dynamic as we start the New Year with investors trying to decide what, if anything, the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela means for the outlook for markets. Michael Zezas: Right. So, to that point, the New Year's barely begun, but it's already brought a dramatic geopolitical situation: The U.S. capture and arrest of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro – an event that can have far reaching implications for oil markets, energy, equities, sovereign credit, and politics. Ariana, thinking from the perspective of the investor, what's catching your attention right now? Ariana Salvatore: I think clients have been trying to get their arms around what this means for the future of U.S. foreign policy, as well as domestic policy making here too. On the first point, I would say this isn't necessarily a surprise or out of step with the goals that the Trump administration has been at least rhetorically emphasizing all year. Which is to say we think this is really just another data point in a pre-existing longer term trend toward multipolarity. Remember that involves linkage of economic and national security interest. It comes with its own set of investment themes, many of which we've written about, but one in particular would be elevated levels of defense spending globally, as we're in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. Another tangible takeaway I would say is on the USMCA review. I think the U.S. has likely even more leverage in the upcoming negotiations, and likely is going to push even harder for Mexico to put up trade barriers or take active steps to limit Chinese investment or influence in the country. Enforcement here obviously will be critical, as we've said. And ultimately, we do still think the review results in a slightly deeper trade integration than we have right now. But it's possible that you see tariffs on non-USMCA compliant goods higher, for example, throughout these talks. Michael Zezas: And does this affect at all your expectations for domestic policy choices from the U.S.? Ariana Salvatore: I think it's important to emphasize here that we're just seeing an increasingly diminished role for Congress to play. The past year has been punctuated by one-off US foreign policy actions and a usage of executive authority over a number of different policy areas like immigration, tariffs, and so on. So, I would say the clearest takeaway on the domestic front is we're seeing a policy making pattern that is faster and more unilateral, right? If you don't need time for consensus building on some of these issues, decisions are being made by a smaller and smaller group of people. That in itself just increases policy uncertainty and risk premia, I would say across the board. But Mike, let's turn it back specifically to Venezuela. One of the most important questions is on – what this all means for global oil markets. What are our strategists saying there? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, oil markets are the natural first place to look when it comes to the impact of these geopolitical events. And the answer more often than not is that the oil market tends not to react too much. And that seems to be the case here following the weekend's Venezuela developments. That's because we don't expect there to be much short-term supply impact. Over the medium-term risks to Venezuela's production skew higher. But while Venezuela famously holds one of the largest oil reserves in the world – it's about 17 percent of the world's oil reserves – in terms of production, its contribution is relatively small. It's less than 1 percent of global output. So, among the top 10 reserve holders, Venezuela is by far the smallest producer. So, you wouldn't expect there to be any real meaningful supply impact in the markets, at least in the near term. So, one area where there has been price movement is in the market for Venezuela sovereign bonds. They have been priced for low recovery values and the potential restructuring that was far off. But now with the U.S. more involved and the prospect of greater foreign investment into the country's oil production, investors have been bidding up the bond price in anticipation of potentially a sooner restructuring and higher recovery value for the bonds. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And to that point, our EM sovereign credit strategists anticipate limited spillover to broader LatAm sovereign credit. Any differentiation is more likely to reflect degrees of alignment with the U.S. and exposure to oil prices and potential increases in Venezuelan production, which could leave Mexico and Columbia among relative under underperformers. Michael Zezas: Right. And this seems like it's going to be an important theme all year because the U.S. actions in Venezuela seem to be a demonstration of the government's willingness to intervene in the Western Hemisphere to protect its interests more broadly. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, it's a topic that we could be spending much more time talking about this year. Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Kenya is facing rising public discontent over allegations of political corruption, economic stagnation and a shortage of good quality jobs, particularly for the country's Gen Z. One of the government's flagship responses is an ambitious push into digital outsourcing. It argues that call centres, coding work and other IT-enabled services can position the country as a global hub and generate a million new jobs within five years.The model has worked before in countries such as India and the Philippines, but the global landscape is shifting. Advances in artificial intelligence are already transforming the very roles Kenya hopes to attract, raising questions about whether this strategy can deliver long-term employment at scale.Tanya Beckett asks whether Kenya's vision for digital outsourcing can provide stability and opportunity for the country.This week on The Inquiry, we're asking: Can Kenya answer the call for employment?Contributors Joy Kiiru, senior lecturer at the Department of Economics and Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, KenyaMarcus Larsen, professor at the Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, DenmarkDeepa Mani, faculty member and deputy Dean for academic programmes at the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, India Boaz Munga, research consultant at the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, Nairobi, Kenya Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Evie Yabsley Editor: Tom Bigwood Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey(Photo: President of Kenya William Ruto. Credit: Luis Tato/Getty Images)

Top news stories of 2025. Greene claims Trump said his ‘friends will get hurt' on Epstein files. Trump threatens to 'knock the hell' out of Iran if they build weapons. Mike Lyons, military analyst, talks the Ukraine/Russia peace plan. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research gives a 2025 review. 2026 predictions. 

Badger Institute's Mike Nichols, Media Research Center's Curtis Houck, WMC's Scott Manley, National Center for Public Policy Research for Esther Bouquet, Rep Derrick Van Order, Dr. Duke Show's Duke Pesta

Massachusetts is considered one of the hardest states for young adults to buy a home. Only 36.4% under the age of 35 are homeowners, according to the National Association of Home Builders. What can be done to help make housing more affordable in the Greater Boston area? What do you think will help you with housing affordability in your community? Andrew Mikula, who is a senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and chair of Legalize Starter Homes joined us to discuss housing affordability and take calls on housing in your community.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We kicked off the program with four news stories and different guests on the stories we think you need to know about! Boston’s Housing Market Has Become UnaffordableGuest: Andrew Mikula - senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and chair of Legalize Starter Homes According to a new Monster.com survey, 47% of U.S. workers have engaged in revenge quitting.Guest: Jon Bowerman – entrepreneur, self-taught developer and cofounder of Stealth Consulting Young Americans are increasingly planning for retirement by investing in the stock market while putting off homeownership.Guest: Ron Glasgow - financial strategist and heads up Glasgow Investment Solutions TSA to charge $45 fee for travelers without proper IDGuest: Andrea Sachs – Travel reporter for WaPoSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ukraine would cede territory to Russia in draft of Trump peace plan. Sharia law and Texas. US keeping the pressure up on Venezuela. Controversy over AI Christmas toys. Trump calls lawmakers' message to military to refuse illegal orders ‘seditious'. Transportation Department asks passengers to ‘dress with respect' at airports. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital talks the economy. NASA releases new photos of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research.

Jeffrey Epstein wrote that Trump knew of sexual abuse but didn't participate. Starbucks unionized workers go on strike, demanding labor contract. Clash over healthcare subsidies threatens to reshape 2026 midterms. Congressional hemp restrictions threaten $28 billion industry, sending companies scrambling. Trump promises of direct checks test his economic message. US tariffs on coffee and bananas to ease under new trade deals. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about the latest stock market trends. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research. 

Sam Alvis of the the Institute for Public Policy Research joined us at JOETowers to talk about why Labour must bring down energy bills, and how. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case challenging the current administration's tariff policy. Our Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Research explains the potential magnitude of the case's outcome for markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Today, we discuss the challenge against tariffs at the Supreme Court and how it might affect markets.It's Thursday, Nov 6th at 11am in New York.This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of most of the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Investors are paying close attention because if the Supreme rules against the administration, it could undo much of the four-five times tariff increase that's taken place in the U.S. this year. That would seem to set up this hearing, and a subsequent ruling which could come as early as this month, as a clear market catalyst. But, like many policy issues affecting the economic and markets outlook, the reality is more complicated. Here's what you need to know.First, there's ample debate among experts about how the court will rule. That may seem surprising given the court's makeup. Three of the nine judges were appointed by President Trump, and six of the nine by Republican Presidents. But it's not clear they'll agree that the President used his executive power in a way consistent with the law that granted the executive branch this particular power. That law is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. And, without getting into too much detail, the law appears to have been designed to deal with economic crises and foreign adversaries, which the court might argue is not evident when considering tariffs levied against traditional allies.But, the next important point is that a ruling against the Trump administration might not actually change much around U.S. tariff levels. How is that possible? It's because the administration has other executive tariff powers it can deploy if needed, and ones that are arguably more durable. For example, Section 301 gives a President wide latitude to designate a trading partner as undertaking unfair trade practices. So this authority could be swapped in for IEEPA. That could take time, as Section 301 requires a study to be submitted, but there are other temporary authorities that could bridge the gap. So the U.S. can likely ensure continuity of current tariff levels if it wants – keeping tariffs more of a constant than a variable in our outlook.Of course, we have to consider ways we could be wrong. For example, the administration could use a ruling against it to re-focus instead on product specific tariffs through Section 232. That likely would result in U.S. effective tariff rates drifting a bit lower, alleviating some of the pressure our economists see on the consumer and corporate importers, adding more support to risk assets. But that scenario might come with some volatility along the way if the administration feels the need to float larger product specific tariff levels before settling on more palatable levels – similar to what happened in April.So bottom line, there's more tariff policy noise to navigate this year. It could bring some market volatility, and maybe even a bit of upside, but the most likely outcome is that we circle back to the approximate levels we are today. Setting up for 2026, that means other debates – like how companies respond to tariffs and capital spending incentives – are probably more important to the outlook than the level of tariffs themselves. We're digging in on all that and will keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

On Today's Episode –Hello again everyone…today we welcome back Bonner Cohen who is going to talk to us about Climate issues and the Supreme Court. But first, Mark tells us how we could fix the healthcare issues in about a weekend. Our FDA is an armed enforcement bureau for big pharma.We then hop into Dr. Cohen's topic…great stuff.Tune in for all the Fun Topic-https://www.cfact.org/2025/09/26/supreme-court-must-halt-states-climate-shakedowns/ Bonner R. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this month's podcast we spoke to Dr Jamie O'Halloran, senior research fellow at the influential progressive think tank IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research.We discussed their new report Taking Stock: Counting the economic costs of alcohol harm, which looks at the impact of alcohol harm on people's productivity at work. We also spoke about why the public health economic arguments can be harder to make than the industry arguments, and what employers and the government can do to reduce alcohol harm and improve productivity.On the episode Dr O'Halloran explained that:What we're trying to show in this paper is that alcohol-related productivity losses are holding us back. It's going to lead to lower growth, lower output, and then reduced profit, reduced taxable profits for government. It should be in everyone's interest to target alcohol harm, not just for health, but then also for the economic benefits too. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit instalcstud.substack.com

Birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the United States' territory, regardless of a parent's nationality. But should this legal principle be removed from the Constitution? Those arguing it shouldn't say that it prevents children from being punished for their parents' status, while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions. But those calling to end the practice argue it fuels illegal immigration and strains the overburdened immigration system. Now, we debate: Should America End Birthright Citizenship?  This debate was recorded on October 9, 2025 at 1 PM at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ.  This event is part of a new partnership between Open to Debate and Arizona State University's Institute of Politics to bring live debate programming to ASU's campus in a special series titled PRO/CONversations. Produced by Arizona PBS in the Arizona State University Media Enterprise—which will air and promote the recorded programs—the series is designed to model civil discourse for students while offering hands-on production experience to ASU journalism students.     Arguing Yes:   Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies  Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board    Arguing No:   Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General  Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.   Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

34 charged in NBA, poker gambling cases include Chauncey Billups, Terry Rozier and alleged mob figures. Placing the blame for the government shutdown. Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over TV ads. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Chad's Scary Movie Countdown #6. Trump says he "may go back to Congress" on Venezuela land strikes. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks about the AI bubble. Latest inflation numbers. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks Trumps plans for Venezuela. 

The latest unemployment figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the jobless rate has risen to its highest level since the pandemic in 2021 - but analysts also say the jobs market is stabilising after a year of volatility. Meanwhile, wage growth in the UK cooled slightly over the summer, from 4.8 per cent to 4.7 per cent. Does this mean that getting a job is becoming harder? And how do these statistics play out in the capital? Joe Evans, a researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, is here to help us unpack the figures. And in part two, The Standard's Commissioning Editor and Culture Writer Vicky Jessop joins us to review Guillermo del Toro's new Frankenstein film, which is in cinemas from October and on Netflix from November 7. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trump administration tells Congress the U.S. is in "armed conflict" with drug cartels after Venezuela boat strikes. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Chad's NFL picks. Government shutdown day 3. Latest poll shows a growing distrust in media. Updates from UK mass stabbing. Zach Abraham of Bulwark Capital Management. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Suspect in Charlie Kirk assassination in custody. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital Management, talks stagflation. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute of Public Policy Research, reflects on a draining week. Economic concerns and the rise of poverty. The impact of sports on national unity. 

League tables of the best and worst-performing NHS trusts in England have been published by the Department of Health and Social Care for the first time. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the tables would help inform the public and allow them to exercise choice, but critics are less certain. Sebastian Reese, Head of Health at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, is here to discuss the pros and cons. And in part two, as Prince Harry visits the UK, speculation mounts over whether he will reconcile with the estranged royal family, particularly King Charles. Freelance journalist Alice Cockerell has spoken to insiders and joins us with the latest. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture California is pushing the green new scam. they are now forcing companies to produce audit report on their CO2 emissions. This will be a disaster for California. Appeals court overrules Chutkan and axes billions from climate agenda. Trump is following in the footsteps of Andrew Jackson. Big Pharma is in a big panic. Trump authorized the EUA and trapped Big Pharma. They showed Trump one set of results and the public they tried to hide the actual results, the mislead the government and the public. The Judicial coup is failing for the [DS], everyday that passes they try to stop Trump but they are losing. The [DS] will become desperate and they will push and event, this is all they have left. Watch the water something is about to happen.   Economy California Fights Trump Deregulation by Implementing Its Own ‘Green Accounting' Rule California is leading the resistance against President Donald Trump's deregulation agenda with new rules that will force companies operating in the state to produce audited reports on their CO2 emissions, and analysts say these rules may soon apply to companies throughout the United States. California is preparing to implement two laws, SB 253 and SB 261, which would require companies operating in the state to monitor and report their CO2 emissions, as well as those of their suppliers and customers. These rules, originally passed in 2023, are similar but broader in scope than the mandate that was imposed nationwide by the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Biden administration, but which was effectively canceled under the current Trump administration. “I think the goal of California right now is to get as many other states as it possibly can to go along with this,” Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, Source: dailysignal.com BREAKING: Appeals Court EXCORIATES Obama Judge Chutkan, Sides with Trump Administration, Axes Billions of Dollars in Biden-Era Climate Grants Earlier this year US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, granted an injunction against the EPA and barred Lee Zeldin from clawing back the money that was being sheltered at Citibank for 8 different ‘green' nonprofits. Lee Zeldin previously clawed back the $20 billion in grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and Citibank agreed to freezing the funds earmarked for the eight nonprofits. A federal appeals court on Tuesday delivered a huge blow to Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan and sided with the Trump Administration by axing billions of dollars in Biden-era climate grants.  , a three-judge panel sided with Trump's EPA in a 2-1 decision. The three-judge panel included: Majority: Rao (Trump), Katsas (Trump) and dissent: Pillard (Obama). Judge Rao wrote the majority opinion and absolutely excoriated Judge Chutkan. “We conclude the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The grantees are not likely to succeed on the merits because their claims are essentially contractual, and therefore jurisdiction lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims. And while the district court had jurisdiction over the grantees' constitutional claim, that claim is meritless. Moreover, the equities strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund. Accordingly, we vacate the injunction,” Judge Rao wrote for the majority opinion.

MN school shooting being politicized. Trump admin. moving detainees out of "Alligator Alcatraz" after judge orders facility operations to wind down. A wave of active shooter hoaxes at universities brings panic and turmoil to the start of the school year. Consumer prices rise 2.7% annually in July, less than expected amid tariff worries. CDC director Susan Monarez fired by Trump administration. Holiday travel tips. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research, talks about Gavin Newsom probable presidential run. 

Erik Menendez denied parole after yearslong fight for release. California now to decide on redistricting. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Over 100K Americans rush to join Trump's massive ICE hiring spree nationwide. John Bolton's home raided by federal agents. Gen Z cell phone addiction. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy institute for Public Policy Research.

Donald Trump departs for Alaska to meet Vladimir Putin to discuss war in Ukraine. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Man accused of throwing Subway sandwich at federal officer charged with felony assault. Zach Abraham of Bulwark Capital Management. Jim Kennedy from the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research. 

The capital is experiencing its fourth heatwave of the summer, with amber warnings in place for parts of England until Wednesday, as temperatures are expected to hit 34 degrees. But housing in the UK isn't designed for such heat, and residents of tower blocks are at particular risk. Experts say that many new homes being built in the UK are not designed to withstand extreme summer temperatures. To find out more, architecture writer Phin Harper joins us alongside Joshua Emden, a senior research fellow at The Institute for Public Policy Research think tank. And in part two, author Amber Medland discusses her latest book Attention Seeker, about life with ADHD and how the neurodevelopment disorder affects dating and relationships. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trump presents data with economist Stephen Moore, days after BLS chief fired. Texas Democrats face deadline to return or face GOP expulsion lawsuit. Israel's security cabinet approves a plan to take over Gaza City. Trump threatens to have the Federal government take over DC. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks the economy. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research talks about Texas redistricting. 

Trump unleashes sweeping new tariffs in a blow to global trade. Jobs not threatened by AI. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. How Trump's poll numbers on immigration have shifted as he has enacted his agenda. NTSB to wrap up final day of public hearings into deadly midair crash near DCA. Kerr County, Texas, lead emergency management official says he was asleep during deadly flooding. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institue for Public Policy Research, talks about Texas redistricting.

Trump denies writing letter to Jeffrey Epstein with drawing of a naked woman. CBS cancels ‘Late Show With Stephen Colbert'. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Zach Abraham of Bulwark Capital Management. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Today unemployment rates have risen to 4.7%, which is the highest rate since the second lockdown of the coronavirus pandemic in 2021. But what's the truth behind the figures? Professor Ashwin Kumar, Director of Research and Policy at the Institute of Public Policy Research, is here to unpack the data. And in part two, The Standard's dance critic David Jay explores the uncertain landscape of youth dance, ahead of Sadler's Wells and Sadler's Wells East YFX festival. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Treasury minister Darren Jones has left open the prospect of freezing the thresholds for paying income tax beyond 2028, as the government scrambles to balance the public finances. Pranesh Narayanan, a research fellow within the Institute for Public Policy Research, explains what the impact of this would be, and explores other ways to raise tax revenues. And in part two, lifestyle journalist Jessica Salter reveals why London gym Before the Lights has become a celebrity hangout. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trump, Hegseth slam news coverage of US intel report on Iran attack. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Sean "Diddy" Combs trial wrapping up. Big Beautiful BIll facing hurdles in the Senate. Zach Abraham of Bulwark Capital Management. Fireball seen shooting across the sky in Southeastern U.S. SCOTUS rules on Trump's birthright citizenship order, testing lower court powers. Trump administration plans to deport Abrego Garcia to 3rd country. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Israel hits the ‘heart' of Iran's nuclear program in Natanz facility strike. Sen Alex Padilla dragged out of Noem immigration briefing in LA. Friday Sound Salad. Jim Kennedy of the Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research. One person survives 787 crash in India. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. 

DAMION1In our 'Glass Lewis complained that the gum-based equity should vest after being stuck to the bottom of his chair in 5 years and not 3 while ISS said, "shit, it just feels like it might be a lot of money probably"' headline of the week. Warner Discovery Shareholders Vote Against CEO David Zaslav's Pay In our 'When 52% is way too wimpy and 54% is a step too far' headline of the week. Cement Industry Pledges 53% Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050In our 'Immature college dropout finally realizes full professional potential' headline of the week. Misogyny in the metaverse: is Mark Zuckerberg's dream world a no-go area for women? In our 'Has this weird kind of taste, almost as if it came from McDonald's' headline of the week. McDonald's McCrispy Strips receive mixed reviews as analysts question impact on upcoming Snack WrapI just like to point out how stupid and serious headlines like this areIn our 'What do you mean I can't take a 24-gallon container of hand sanitizer in my carry-on bag?' headline of the week. Sorry, you can't use your Costco membership card to get through TSAMATT1In our 'Also known as $45,555 per military personnel deployed in LA.' headline of the week. Taser Boss Tops Ranking of Highest-Paid CEOs, With $165 Million. Here's the List.The marines have been deployed - there are 76 active director veterans tagged in our database, including 6 admirals and 13 former marines. So far, zero statements yet about using the military to quell protests?In our 'We were 91% in favor of you when you were lead independent director with a 24 year tenure and connections to most of the board, but this year, you missed an important meeting where we asked Reed and Ted what we're supposed to do so we call all agree. This is unacceptable. You're fired.' headline of the week. Netflix Shareholders Vote to Oust Jay Hoag, Its Lead Independent Director, but the Board May Decide to Keep HimIn our 'Waltons reject all proposals, but maybe we can make that headline sound better' headline of the week. Walmart, PayPal shareholders reject DEI overhauls as corporate America continues retreat from social issuesOrganization United for Respect racial equity audit: 6.8%. National Center for Public Policy Research's report investigating delays in reversing DEI: 0.4%. But yes, shareholders reject DEI overhauls.In our 'I'm telling mom! Moooooom!' headline of the week. Trump attacks Musk and questions their future ties amid growing feudIn our 'Get some' headline of the week. Lessons in corporate governance from the Trump-Musk spatDAMION2In our 'Men' headline of the week. Women hold 24% of CEO pipeline roles, but just 8% of promotions. What's going wrong?In our 'Disney teases summer blockbuster movie starring Zac Efron: "Revenge of the College Dropout"' headline of the week. Inside OpenAI's Plan to Embed ChatGPT Into College Students' LivesMeta forming new AI lab helmed by Scale AI CEO Alex Wang: MIT dropoutIn our 'Is this why 66% of Americans think that "society is broken" according to an Ipsos survey released this week?' headline of the week. Just one woman has ever founded and led a Fortune 500 company. Here's her storyThe only woman ever to run a Fortune 500 company she founded was Marion Sandler. She was the cofounder of mortgage lender Golden West Financial, which she led with her husband and co-CEO Herb Sandler for more than four decades. She was one of the first two women CEOs on the Fortune 500 in 1997 In our 'As long as he's not drinking Dr. Pepper I think he'll be ok' headline of the week. Keurig Dr Pepper's CEO drinks at least 300 milligrams of caffeine per day. Is that safe?Tim Cofer-17% gender influence gap: 3W total of 11% influence2W of 10 execs (one is HR)In our 'Other candidates considered were Dyle T Lick and Tyle L Dick' headline of the week. BJ's Restaurant announces Lyle D Tick as new president and CEO MATT2In our 'It ISN'T about the middle school manflake dictator' headline of the week. United Airlines Shuts Down Starlink WiFi Service on Its Planes After the Antennaes Caused Problems With Its Jets' EquipmentIn our 'It IS all about the middle school manflake dictator' headline of the week. United Airlines CEO: ‘We're probably doing more AI than anyone'Just obviously without the antennasIn our 'Texas's attorney general announces Blackrock is no longer woke, but will remain on the "suspiciously Jewish" list' headline of the week. BlackRock Escapes Texas Oil-Boycott List After ESG RetreatIn our 'Texas's attorney general announces they are replacing Blackrock with Texas on Texas's investment ban list going forward' headline of the week. Texas finalizes $1.8B to build solar, battery, and gas-powered microgridsIn our 'There are none reasons' headline of the week. Why Apple iOS 26 might make you want to make phone calls againTim Cook and Arthur Levinson's greatest innovation yet: call holding.

Tariffs back on for now. Friday Sound Salad. Chad's Wheel of Surprise. Latest from the Sean "P. Diddy" Combs trial. Zach Abraham of Bulwark Capital Management. Jim Kennedy, Kennedy Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Erik Woodring discuss the ways tariffs are rewiring the tech hardware industry and how companies can mitigate the impact of the new U.S. trade policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Erik Woodring: And I'm Erik Woodring, Head of the U.S. IT Hardware team.Michael Zezas: Today, we continue our tariff coverage with a closer look at the impact on tech hardware. Products such as your smartphone, computers, and other personal devices.It's Thursday, April 17th at 10am in New York.President Trump's reciprocal tariffs announcements, followed by a 90 day pause and exemptions have created a lot of turmoil in the tech hardware space. People started panic buying smartphones, worried about rising costs, only to find out that smartphones may or may not be exempted.As I pointed out on this podcast before, these tariffs are also significantly accelerating the transition to a multipolar world. This process was already well underway before President Trump's second term, but it's gathering steam as trade pressures escalate. Which is why I wanted to talk to you, Erik, given your expertise.In the multipolar world, IT hardware has followed a China+1 strategy. What is the strategy, and does it help mitigate the impact from tariffs?Erik Woodring: Historically, most IT hardware products have been manufactured in China. Starting in 2018, during the first Trump administration, there was an effort by my universe to diversify production outside of China to countries friendly with China – including Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand. This has ultimately helped to protect from some tariffs, but this does not make really any of these countries immune from tariffs given what was announced on April 2nd.Michael Zezas: And what do the current tariffs – recognizing, of course, that they could change – what do those current tariffs mean for device costs and the underlying stocks that you cover?Erik Woodring: In short, device costs are going up, and as it relates to my stocks, there's plenty of uncertainty. If I maybe dig one level deeper, when the first round of tariffs were announced on April 2nd, the cumulative cost that my companies were facing from tariffs was over $50 billion. The weighted average tariff rate was about 25 per cent. Today, after some incremental announcements and some exemptions, the ultimate cumulative tariff cost that my universe faces is about $7 billion. That is equivalent to an average tariff rate of about 7 per cent. And what that means is that device costs on average will go up about 5 per cent.Of course, there are some that won't be raised at all. There are some device costs that might go up by 20 to 30 per cent. But ultimately, we do expect prices to go up and as a result, that creates a lot of uncertainties with IT hardware stocks.Michael Zezas: Okay, so let's make this real for our listeners. Suppose they're buying a new device, a smartphone, or maybe a new laptop. How would these new tariffs affect the consumer price?Erik Woodring: Sure. Let's use the example of a smartphone. $1000 smartphone typically will be imported for a cost of maybe $500. In this current tariff regime, that would mean cost would go up about $50. So, $1000 smartphone would be $1,050.You could use the same equivalent for a laptop; and then on the enterprise side, you could use the equivalent of a server, an AI server, or storage – much more expensive. Meaning while the percentage increase in the cost will be the same, the ultimate dollar expense will go up significantly more.Michael Zezas: And so, what are some of the mitigation strategies that companies might be able to use to lessen the impact of tariffs?Erik Woodring: If we start in the short term, there's two primary mitigation strategies. One is pulling forward inventory and imports ahead of the tariff deadline to ultimately mitigate those tariff costs. The second one would be to share in the cost of these tariffs with your suppliers. For IT hardware, there's hundreds of suppliers and ultimately billions of dollars of incremental tariff costs can be somewhat shared amongst these hundreds of companies.Longer term, there are a few other mitigation strategies. First moving your production out of China or out of even some of these China+1 countries to more favorable tariff locations, perhaps such as Mexico. Many products which come from Mexico in my universe are exempted because of the USMCA compliance. So that is a kind of a medium-term strategy that my companies can use.Ultimately, the medium-term strategy that's going to be most popular is raising prices, as we talked about. But some of my companies will also leverage affordability tools to make the cost ultimately borne out over a longer period of time. Meaning today, if you buy a smartphone over two-year of an installment plan, they could extend this installment plan to three years. That means that your monthly cost will go down by 33 per cent, even if the price of your smartphone is rising.And then longer term, ultimately, the mitigation tool will be whether you decide to go and follow the process of onshoring. Or if you decide to continue to follow China+1 or nearshoring, but to a greater extent.Michael Zezas: Right. So, then what about onshoring – that is moving production capacity to the U.S.? Is this a realistic scenario for IT hardware companies?Erik Woodring: In reality, no. There is some small volume production of IT hardware projects that is done in the United States. But the majority of the IT hardware ecosystem outside of the United States has been done for a specific reason. And that is for decades, my companies have leveraged skilled workers, skilled in tooling expertise. And that has developed over time, that is extremely important. Tech CEOs have said that the reason hardware production has been concentrated in China is not about the cost of labor in the country, but instead about the number of skilled workers and the proximity of those skilled workers in one location. There's also the benefit of having a number of companies that can aggregate tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of workers, in a specific factory space. That just makes it much more difficult to do in the United States. So, the headwinds to onshoring would be just the cost of building facilities in the United States. It would be finding the skilled labor. It would be finding resources available for building these facilities. It would also be the decision whether to use skilled labor or humanoids or robots.Longer term, I think the decision most of my companies will have to face is the cost and time of moving your supply chain, which will take longer than three years versus, you know, the current presidential term, which will last another, call it three and a half years.Michael Zezas: Okay. And so how does all of this impact demand for tech hardware, and what's your outlook for the industry in the second half of this year?Erik Woodring: There's two impacts that we're seeing right now. In some cases, more mission critical products are being pulled forward, meaning companies or consumers are going and buying their latest and greatest device because they're concerned about a future pricing increase.The other impact is going to be generally lower demand. What we're most concerned about is that a pull forward in the second quarter ultimately leads to weaker demand in the second half – because generally speaking, uncertainty, whether that's policy or macro more broadly, leads to more concerns with hardware spending and ultimately a lower level of spending. So any 2Q pull forward could mean an even weaker second half of the year.Michael Zezas: Alright, Erik, thanks for taking the time to talk.Erik Woodring: Great. Thanks for speaking, Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Steven Wilson, a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and co-founder of the National Summer School Initiative, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the downfall of the American education system and explain whether it can be redeemed. You can find Wilson's book The Lost Decade: Returning to the Fight for Better Schools in America here. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Steven Wilson, a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and co-founder of the National Summer School Initiative, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the downfall of the American education system and explain whether it can be redeemed. You can find […]