Podcast appearances and mentions of sam hammond

The race to develop ever-more-powerful AI is creating an unstable dynamic. It could lead us toward either dystopian centralized control or uncontrollable chaos. But there's a third option: a narrow path where technological power is matched with responsibility at every step.Sam Hammond is the chief economist at the Foundation for American Innovation. He brings a different perspective to this challenge than we do at CHT. Though he approaches AI from an innovation-first standpoint, we share a common mission on the biggest challenge facing humanity: finding and navigating this narrow path.This episode dives deep into the challenges ahead: How will AI reshape our institutions? Is complete surveillance inevitable, or can we build guardrails around it? Can our 19th-century government structures adapt fast enough, or will they be replaced by a faster moving private sector? And perhaps most importantly: how do we solve the coordination problems that could determine whether we build AI as a tool to empower humanity or as a superintelligence that we can't control?We're in the final window of choice before AI becomes fully entangled with our economy and society. This conversation explores how we might still get this right.Your Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on X: @HumaneTech_. You can find a full transcript, key takeaways, and much more on our Substack.RECOMMENDED MEDIA Tristan's TED talk on the Narrow PathSam's 95 Theses on AISam's proposal for a Manhattan Project for AI SafetySam's series on AI and LeviathanThe Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonDario Amodei's Machines of Loving Grace essay.Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World by Deirdre McCloskeyThe Paradox of Libertarianism by Tyler CowenDwarkesh Patel's interview with Kevin Roberts at the FAI's annual conferenceFurther reading on surveillance with 6GRECOMMENDED YUA EPISODESAGI Beyond the Buzz: What Is It, and Are We Ready?The Self-Preserving Machine: Why AI Learns to Deceive The Tech-God Complex: Why We Need to be Skeptics Decoding Our DNA: How AI Supercharges Medical Breakthroughs and Biological Threats with Kevin EsveltCORRECTIONSSam referenced a blog post titled “The Libertarian Paradox” by Tyler Cowen. The actual title is the “Paradox of Libertarianism.” Sam also referenced a blog post titled “The Collapse of Complex Societies” by Eli Dourado. The actual title is “A beginner's guide to sociopolitical collapse.”

House Republicans narrowly passed President Donald Trump's “big, beautiful” reconciliation bill, including a provision that would block states from enforcing new AI regulations for a decade. The proposal, which now heads to the Senate, has backing from industry but faces fierce opposition from state attorneys general and AI safety hawks. Even some opponents of tech regulation worry the moratorium is too broad and too long. On POLITICO Tech, host Steven Overly unpacks the proposal with Sam Hammond, the chief economist at the Foundation for American Innovation.  Steven Overly is the host of POLITICO Tech and covers the intersection of trade and technology. Nirmal Mulaikal is the co-host and producer of POLITICO Energy and producer of POLITICO Tech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AI has emerged as a critical geopolitical battleground where Washington and Beijing are racing not just for economic advantage, but military dominance. Despite these high stakes, there's surprising little consensus on how—or whether—to respond to frontier AI development.The polarized landscape features techno-optimists battling AI safety advocates, with the formerdismissing the latter as "doomers" who exaggerate existential risks. Meanwhile, AI business leaders face criticism for potentially overstating their companies' capabilities to attract investors and secure favorable regulations that protect their market positions.Democrats and civil rights advocates warn that focusing solely on catastrophic risks versus economic prosperity distracts from immediate harms like misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and synthetic media abuse. U.S. regulatory efforts have struggled, with California's SB 1047 failing last year and Trump repealing Biden's AI Executive Order on inauguration day. Even the future of the U.S. government's AI Safety Institute remains uncertain under the new administration.With a new administration in Washington, important questions linger: How should government approach AI's national security implications? Can corporate profit motives align with safer outcomes? And if the U.S. and China are locked in an AI arms race, is de-escalation possible, or are we heading toward a digital version of Mutually Assured Destruction?Joining me to explore these questions are Dan Hendrycks, AI researcher and Director of the Center for AI Safety and co-author of "Superintelligence Strategy," a framework for navigating advanced AI from a national security and geopolitical perspective, and FAI's own Sam Hammond, Senior Economist and AI policy expert.

Chinese AI startup DeepSeek's release of AI reasoning model R1 sent NVIDIA and other tech  stocks tumbling yesterday as investors questioned whether U.S. companies were spending too much on AI development. That's because DeepSeek claims it made this model for only $6 million, a fraction of the hundreds of millions that OpenAI spent making o1, its nearest competitor. Any news coming out of China should be viewed with appropriate skepticism, but R1 nonetheless challenges the conventional American wisdom about AI development—massive computing power and unprecedented investment will maintain U.S. AI supremacy.The timing couldn't be more relevant. Just last week, President Trump unveiled Stargate, a $500 billion public-private partnership with OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank, and Emirati investment firm MGX aimed at building AI infrastructure across America. Meanwhile, U.S. efforts to preserve its technological advantage through export controls face mounting challenges and skepticism. If Chinese companies can innovate despite restrictions on advanced AI chips, should the U.S. rethink its approach?To make sense of these developments and their implications for U.S. technological leadership, Evan is joined by Tim Fist, Senior Technology Fellow at the Institute for Progress, a think tank focused on accelerating scientific, technological, and industrial progress, and FAI Senior Economist Sam Hammond. 

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to economist Sam Hammond.  Canadian-born Hammond serves as the Senior Economist at the Foundation for American Innovation. His work primarily focuses on innovation and science policy, with particular attention to the societal and institutional impacts of disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence. Before his role at FAI, Hammond was Director of Poverty and Welfare Policy at the Niskanen Center. Hammond also held a research fellowship at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, focusing on policy issues related to technology and regulation. He holds a BA in Economics from Saint Mary's University and MA's in Economics from George Mason University and Carleton University. After a quick discussion about Canadian housing, Razib and Hammond consider his piece 95 theses about AI. Hammond's contention is that AI might prove as impactful as the printing press, or, at the outer edge equivalent to photosynthesis. Nearly two years into the current “AI hype cycle” we still haven't found the “killer app” of AI, but thinkers like Hammond are getting ahead of the likely inevitable societal changes. He believes that change is inevitable, and the details that need to be worked out are how we as a species adapt and evolve in response to our technology. Hammond contends that the AI-revolution is likely to produce changes in the next generation analogous to industrial transformations of the late 19th centuries and early 20th centuries, when cars, electrification and airplanes transformed civilization.    For early access, feel free to explore it there. https://www.razibkhan.com/p/sam-hammond-i-for-one-welcome-our   

President-elect Trump recently announced that entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk had forecast the idea in the tail end of the presidential election, championing a commission focused on cutting government spending and regulation. In a statement posted to Truth Social, the president-elect said DOGE would “pave the way for my administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies.” For his part, Musk said “this will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in government waste, which is a lot people.”Government waste has long been a focus for Republicans in Washington. The phrase “waste, fraud, and abuse” often generates a chuckle in DC circles, given how much the federal bureaucracy, government spending, and the national debt have grown despite decades of professed fiscal hawkishness. While critics of Trump and Musk are rolling their eyes at what they perceive as a toothless commission, proponents welcome the focus on government efficiency from the president-elect and the world's richest man, and are optimistic that Musk and Ramaswamy's expertise in the business world would bring much-needed outside perspectives on how to optimize the federal government.The Foundation for American Innovation has operated a project on government efficiency and tech modernization since 2019. FAI fellows just published a new paper on the topic of “An Efficiency Agenda for the Executive Branch.” To discuss DOGE, the challenges of streamlining bureaucracy, how AI might play a role in the efforts, and what Congress can do to help make DOGE a success, Evan is joined by Sam Hammond, Senior Economist at FAI and Dan Lips, Head of Policy at FAI. For a quick take on FAI's recommendations, check out Dan's oped in The Hill  linked here.

This week's interview is a live recording of a panel I hosted three weeks ago at the Bottlenecks Conference in San Francisco, with Sam Hammond and Jen Pahlka. We discussed:(00:00) Introduction(00:39) Do the right and left disagree about state capacity?(7:50) Will AI make the whole state capacity debate obsolete?(11:05) What cues should today's reformers take from the Progressive Era?(14:19) Should Trump use Schedule F?(20:18) Where is there bipartisan agreement on state capacity?(25:29) Why didn't COVID create more governance changes?Brief bios: Hammond is a Senior Economist at the Foundation for American Innovation where he focuses on AI policy. Pahlka is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center and the Federation of American Scientists and the author of Recoding America. We've interviewed her before. 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

On September 29th, Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1047, a controversial bill aimed at heading off catastrophic risks of large AI models. We previously covered the bill on The Dynamist in episode 64. In a statement, Newsom cited the bill's “stringent standards to even the most basic functions” and said he does “not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” Senator Scott Wiener, the bill's author, responded, “This veto leaves us with the troubling reality that companies aiming to create an extremely powerful technology face no binding restrictions from U.S. policymakers[.]”The bill had passed the California senate back in August by a vote of 30-9, having been the subject of fierce debate between AI companies big and small and researchers and advocates who fear a catastrophic AI event. Proponents want to get ahead of AI cyberattacks, AI weapons development, or doomsday scenarios by making developers liable to implement safety protocols.  Opponents argue that the bill will stifle innovation in California, calling it an “assault on open source” and a “harm to the budding AI ecosystem.”Aside from the merits of the legislation, it is arguably the first major political fight over AI in the U.S. where competing interests fought all the way to the governor's desk, attempting to sway the pen of Governor Newsom. The story featured a cast of characters from California Democrats like Nancy Pelosi to  billionaires like Elon Musk to major companies like Google and OpenAI. What does this battle say about who holds sway in emerging AI politics? What are the factions and alignments? And what does this all mean for next year in California and beyond?Evan is joined by Sam Hammond, Senior Economist at FAI and author of the Substack Second Best, and Dean Ball, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center, author of the Substack Hyperdimensional, and a non-resident fellow at FAI.

​Should we accelerate into the AI future or proceed with caution? Do we even have a choice?From deep-tech disruptors to policymaking under time pressure, a battle over the fate of human civilization is now being waged on multiple fronts: Closed vs. Open, Hardware vs. Software, Safety vs. Ethics: in sum, Order vs. Chaos.Foundation for American Innovation and 8VC hosted a live recording of a conversation with Andrew Côté (Hyperstition founder, a16z scout) and Guillaume Verdon (Extropic founder, effective accelerationism creator), moderated by FAI Senior Economist Samuel Hammond. Andrew, Gil, and Sam discussed their visions for the future, the tradeoffs between centralized and decentralized AI, and the incentives facing founders, technologists, and government regulators.

For the end of the year, we're going to repost a few of Nathan's favorite AI scouting episodes from other shows. Today: Samuel Hammond joins the Future of Life Institute podcast to discuss how AGI will transform economies, governments, institutions, and other power structures. If you need an ecommerce platform, check out our sponsor Shopify: https://shopify.com/cognitive for a $1/month trial period. Samuel Hammond is a Canadian-born, DC-based senior economist for the Foundation for American Innovation, a think tank focused on bridging the cultures of Silicon Valley and DC. This conversation is super wide ranging, covering the most likely default path to AGI, the economic and institutional transformations that AI will beget, the critical distinction between thinking about AI in isolation versus as part of a dynamic system, the proposal for a Manhattan or Apollo like megaproject for AI safety, and lots more. You can subscribe to Future of Life Institute here: https://futureoflife.org/project/future-of-life-institute-podcast/ You can read Samuel Hammond's blog at https://www.secondbest.ca --- SPONSORS: Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. Shopify powers 10% of ALL eCommerce in the US. And Shopify's the global force behind Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen, and 1,000,000s of other entrepreneurs across 175 countries.From their all-in-one e-commerce platform, to their in-person POS system – wherever and whatever you're selling, Shopify's got you covered. With free Shopify Magic, sell more with less effort by whipping up captivating content that converts – from blog posts to product descriptions using AI. Sign up for $1/month trial period: https://shopify.com/cognitive MasterClass https://masterclass.com/cognitive get two memberships for the price of 1 Learn from the best to become your best. Learn how to negotiate a raise with Chris Voss or manage your relationships with Esther Perel. Boost your confidence and find practical takeaways you can apply to your life and at work. If you own a business or are a team leader, use MasterClass to empower and create future-ready employees and leaders. Moment of Zen listeners will get two memberships for the price of one at https://masterclass.com/cognitive Omneky is an omnichannel creative generation platform that lets you launch hundreds of thousands of ad iterations that actually work customized across all platforms, with a click of a button. Omneky combines generative AI and real-time advertising data. Mention "Cog Rev" for 10% off www.omneky.com NetSuite has 25 years of providing financial software for all your business needs. More than 36,000 businesses have already upgraded to NetSuite by Oracle, gaining visibility and control over their financials, inventory, HR, eCommerce, and more. If you're looking for an ERP platform ✅ head to NetSuite: http://netsuite.com/cognitive and download your own customized KPI checklist. X/SOCIAL: @labenz (Nathan) @hamandcheese (Sam) @FLIxrisk (Future of Live Institute) @gusdocker (Gus) @CogRev_Podcast (Cognitive Revolution) TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Intro: End of year and bonus episodes (04:24) Discussion on AI Timelines (14:08) Insights from Information Theory (15:11) Sponsors: Shopify | MasterClass (32:12) AI Progress and Hard Steps in Evolution (34:21) Sponsors: NetSuite | Omneky (39:12) Government Preparedness for Advanced AI (46:16) The Internet's Role in Mass Mobilization and Erosion of Trust (49:16) AI's Impact on the Economy and Job Market (01:05:47) The Role of AI in Monitoring and Surveillance (01:27:18) The Potential Dangers of Open-Sourcing AI (01:30:13) AI's Impact on Government Power (01:36:24) The Influence of AI on Society and Privacy (01:42:21) The Future of Government Services in a Techno-Feudalist Society (01:53:58) The Future of AI in Robotics (02:15:25) The Role of AI in the Future of Financial Markets

Is software eating the nation state? Technologies like crypto and AI are about to fundamentally restructure society from the bottom up. We brought economist and writer, Sam Hammond on to predict how society will be reorganized under this new paradigm and how those in power will respond. Sam Hammond is an economist for the Foundation for American Innovation, a think tank advising policies in DC whose slogan reads, “Build Tech. Promote Freedom.” Freedom and Tech. We like those two things on Bankless - and we're also concerned with the project of how to protect them in a world where software starts to eat the nation state (and the nation state feels threatened).  ------ ✨ DEBRIEF | Ryan & David unpacking the episode: https://www.bankless.com/debrief-sam-hammond  -----

Marc Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto set the tech world ablaze just a few short weeks ago – and now, he responds to his critics. A bold statement of principles arguing for the liberatory potential of technology, his manifesto generated criticism from both the left and right—including FAI's own Sam Hammond.In this special edition of The Dynamist, FAI Senior Fellow Jon Askonas and Marc Andreessen hash out the foundations of the Techno-Optimist politics of tomorrow. Marc is a cofounder and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. He has achieved two rare feats in the tech industry: pioneering a software category used by more than a billion people, and establishing multiple billion-dollar companies. You can read the Techno-Optimist Manifesto here, along with responses discussed on the episode from Ezra Klein and TechCrunch.

In this episode:Sam Hammond, senior economist at the Foundation for American Innovation, joins the podcast to talk about artificial intelligence and its transformative aspects on modern societywhat AI offers human society to advance our economy and our society, and the potential dangers of AI run amokhow AI and super-intelligent machines that match or exceed human cognition will mean for human nature and what it means to be a human beingTexts Mentioned:“Attention is All You Need” by Ashish VaswaniScience, Scientism, and Society webinarJon Askonas Conservative Conversations episode“Common Sense on AI” by Sam Hammond and Jon Askonas“AI and Leviathan: Part I” by Sam Hammond“AI and Leviathan: Part II” by Sam Hammond“AI and Leviathan: Part III” by Sam HammondLeviathan by Thomas HobbesRevolt of the Public by Martin Gurrifai.org“Second Best” substack by Sam HammondBecome a part of ISI:Become a MemberSupport ISIUpcoming ISI Events

Sam Hammond is a senior economist at the Foundation for American Innovation and is non-resident fellow at the Niskanen Institute. Sam is also a previous guest of the show, and he rejoins Macro Musings to talk about artificial intelligence and the future of the state. Specifically, David and Sam discuss the current AI environment, how private AI may replace functions of the state, key moments in the techno-feudalistic future of AI, and more.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Sam's Twitter: @hamandcheese Sam's FAI profile Sam's blog   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our new Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *AI and Leviathan: The Institutional Economics of an Intelligence Explosion* by Sam Hammond   *AI and Leviathan: Preparing for Regime Change* by Sam Hammond   *AI and Leviathan: A Timeline of Our Techno-Feudalist Future* by Sam Hammond   *Attention is All You Need* by Ashish Vaswani et al.

Samuel Hammond is a Canadian-born, DC-based senior economist for the Foundation for American Innovation, a think tank focused on bridging the cultures of Silicon Valley and DC. His research focuses on innovation and the institutional impact of disruptive technologies. He is an unconventional thinker and writer (Substack: https://www.secondbest.ca/) who participates in nuanced dialogue with different thinkers across economics, tech, policy, and philosophy. In this conversation we discuss Sam's views on AI, mental models for his worldview, polarization, and how political influence really works. We're proudly sponsored by Vanta. Get $1000 off Vanta with https://www.vanta.com/zen -- We're hiring across the board at Turpentine and for Erik's personal team on other projects he's incubating. He's hiring a Chief of Staff, EA, Head of Special Projects, Investment Associate, and more. For a list of JDs, check out: eriktorenberg.com. -- Please support our sponsors: Shopify | Vanta Shopify: https://shopify.com/torenberg for a $1/month trial period Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. Shopify powers 10% of all ecommerce in the US. And Shopify's the global force behind Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen, and 1,000,000s of other entrepreneurs across 175 countries. From their all-in-one ecommerce platform, to their in-person POS system – wherever and whatever you're selling, Shopify's got you covered. Sign up for $1/month trial period: https://shopify.com/torenberg. -- Compliance doesn't have to be complicated. In fact, with Vanta it can be super simple. Vanta automates the pricey, time-consuming process of prepping for SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and more. With Vanta, you can save up to 400 hours and 85% of costs. Vanta scales with your business, helping you successfully enter new markets, land bigger deals, and earn customer loyalty. Bonus? Upstream listeners get $1000 off Vanta. Just go to https://www.vanta.com/zen -- RECOMMENDED PODCAST:  Every week investor and writer of the popular newsletter The Diff, Byrne Hobart, and co-host Erik Torenberg discuss today's major inflection points in technology, business, and markets – and help listeners build a diversified portfolio of trends and ideas for the future. Subscribe to “The Riff” with Byrne Hobart and Erik Torenberg: https://link.chtbl.com/theriff -- LINKS: thefai.org https://www.secondbest.ca/ -- X/ TWITTER: @hamandcheese @joinfai @eriktorenberg (Erik) @upstream__pod -- TIMESTAMPS (01:00) Episode Preview (03:00) How Sam characterizes his worldview (07:25) The great founder theory (11:47) Between AI safety concerns and e/acc beliefs, here does Samuel fall on AI? (15:24) What would Sam say to libertarians? (16:00) Sponsor: NetSuite (18:11) What can we learn from Mormonism about AI risks and regulations ?(21:19) AI is leveling the playing field (25:00) Instead of libertarian, AI is communitarian (27:10) Lessons of Mormonism for adapting to technological revolutions (30:00) Do right or left beliefs qualify as a religion, with their own institutions? (40:57) Humanism, grey goo, and why waste is good (44:40) Mental model for government dysfunction (48:09) The think tank ecosystem and how influence really works in DC? (50:53) Samuel's interesting disagreements with: Balaji Srinivasan, Robin Hanson, Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan (52:27) What's the best argument for pluralism? (52:48) Ezra Klein and Chris Caldwell actually make the same argument about polarization

Local Legends, in this episode of the Why We Run podcast our tale from the pack comes from Sam Hammond, more commonly known these days as Man Vs Fridge. Sam is a Royal Marine who has decided that the best way to raise money for charities close to his heart would be to carry a 25kg fridge. His endeavours have led to 2 Guinness World Records in the half marathon, achieved in Brighton, and full marathon, achieved in London.  Listen to the secrets behind his success and how he approaches these incredibly difficult challenges. Enjoy!

Artificial intelligence is all the rage these days. The large language model ChatGPT reached over 100 million users in record time, and AI is growing more accessible and relevant for everyday consumers. While many are cheering the AI revolution and heralding a brighter future, others are sounding the alarm. Elon Musk has warned AI could spell “civilizational destruction” without proper safety protocols. Is AI moving too fast, or is this the pace of innovation our economy needs? What should policymakers do, if anything, to tackle the challenges posed by AI? Evan is joined by Sam Hammond, Senior Economist at Lincoln Network.“Polluting the agentic commons,” a piece by Sam on what happens when chat agents go viral“Before the Flood,” a piece by Sam on the future of AI

As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, we consider the question of whether there are limits to what computers can know and how this compares to human understanding. Joining me on this episode is Sam Hammond, the director of social policy at the Niskanen Center, and Zohar Atkins, a rabbi and host of the podcast "Meditations with Zohar." We discuss The impact of AI on creativity and human thought. Fears around AI and the centralization of power. The potential for AI to have an egalitarian effect on closing innate and environmental differences such as education and access to information. Whether the creative class will be automated out of their jobs. Outro music: Genesis by Daniela Adrade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SJ6KNhA9QY Check out the substack at chinatalk.media Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, we consider the question of whether there are limits to what computers can know and how this compares to human understanding. Joining me on this episode is Sam Hammond, the director of social policy at the Niskanen Center, and Zohar Atkins, a rabbi and host of the podcast "Meditations with Zohar." We discuss The impact of AI on creativity and human thought. Fears around AI and the centralization of power. The potential for AI to have an egalitarian effect on closing innate and environmental differences such as education and access to information. Whether the creative class will be automated out of their jobs. Outro music: Genesis by Daniela Adrade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SJ6KNhA9QY Check out the substack at chinatalk.media Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Julieanna Mawko of the Public Affairs team connected with Dr. Pamela Rogers (Director of Research and Professional Learning) and Nichole Grant (Researcher and Policy Analyst) to discuss CTF/FCE's latest pandemic research report "But at what cost?” Teacher mental health during COVID-19.  CTF/FCE President Sam Hammond also joined to outline what these findings mean for publicly funded public education at large | Julieanna Mawko, de l'équipe des Affaires publiques, a réuni Pamela Rogers, Ph. D., (directrice de la Recherche et de l'Apprentissage professionnel) et Nichole Grant (recherchiste et analyste des politiques) pour discuter le rapport de la CTF/FCE « Mais à quel prix? » Santé mentale du personnel enseignant pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Le président de la CTF/FCE, Sam Hammond, se joint aussi à elles pour parler de ce que les résultats de l'étude signifient, plus largement, pour l'éducation publique financée par l'État.(Podcast in English only with transcript, as well as English and French highlights one-pager| Balado en anglais, accompagné d'un document d'une page en français et en anglais présentant les faits saillants du balado).Learn more | Pour en savoir plusCheck out the Perspective's blog by Pamela Rogers and Nichole Grant: Educator mental health beyond resources: We need to address our work culture | Lisez le dernier article de Pamela Rogers et Nichole Grant sur notre blogue Perspectives : La santé mentale des éducateurs et éducatrices au-delà des ressources : nous devons améliorer la culture de notre milieu de travail.The Source podcast is produced by the CTF/FCE in Ottawa, on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People. / La balado Source est produite à Ottawa, sur le territoire traditionnel non cédé du peuple algonquin anichinabé, par la CTF/FCE. Follow us on social media / Suivez-nous dans les médias sociaux : Twitter @CTFFCE, Facebook @CTF.FCE, Instagram @ctffce.Views expressed do not necessarily represent the policies nor the views of the CTF/FCE. / Les points de vue exprimés dans cet épisode ne représentent pas forcément les principes directeurs ou les points de vue de la CTF/FCE.

Hub Dialogues (part of The Hub, Canada's daily information source for public policy – http://www.thehub.ca/) are in-depth conversations about big ideas from the worlds of business, economics, geopolitics, public policy, and technology. The Hub Dialogues feature The Hub's editor-at-large, Sean Speer, in conversation with leading entrepreneurs, policymakers, scholars, and thinkers on the issues and challenges that will shape Canada's future at home and abroad. This episode features Sean Speer in conversation with the Niskanen Center's Director of Poverty and Welfare Policy Sam Hammond on industrial and trade policy and his search for a new Left-Right synthesis in favour of higher rates of economic growth and more social welfare spending. If you like what you are hearing on Hub Dialogues consider subscribing to The Hub's daily email newsletter featuring our insights and analysis on public policy issues. Subscription is free. Simply sign up here: https://newsletter.thehub.ca/. The Hub is Canada's leading information source on public policy. Stridently non-partisan, The Hub is committed to delivering to Canadians the latest analysis and cutting-edge perspectives into the debates that are shaping our collective future. Visit The Hub now at http://www.thehub.ca/. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

So, what source files is Netflix working with? Cos they're not good. Just how did Sam & Hammond explain the whole symbiote thing to Jacob? The Tok'ra really are environmentally conscious people. Daniel, where exactly are all these hosts going to be coming from? Kevin the goa'uld must be really slow at dialing the gate.

Why are so many crucial parts of a good life becoming more and more expensive over time?  And why is "Let's just use the government to pay for it" not a satisfactory response? Sam Hammond and Daniel Takash of the Niskanen Center join the podcast to talk about their new report "Cost Disease Socialism".  We discuss why education, childcare, healthcare and housing are rapidly increasing in cost, as well as the best ways to address the core issues causing these increases. Check out the report - https://www.niskanencenter.org/cost-disease-socialism-how-subsidizing-costs-while-restricting-supply-drives-americas-fiscal-imbalance/   To make sure you hear every episode, join our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/neoliberalproject. Patrons get access to exclusive bonus episodes, our sticker-of-the-month club, and our insider Slack.  Become a supporter today! Got questions for the Neoliberal Podcast?  Send them to mailbag@neoliberalproject.org Follow us at: https://twitter.com/ne0liberal https://www.instagram.com/neoliberalproject/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/1930401007051265/   Join a local chapter at https://neoliberalproject.org/join

The Sunday edition of the Best Fight Back, from the week that was, with Bob Komsic Interviews with: - Sam Hammond, David Cravit, and Ryan Imgrund on the lack of a plan for school vaccines - Stephen Holyday and Brad Bradford on the lack of vaccine passports in Toronto - Yves Giroux on the lack of funding for long-term care - Alison Engel-Yan and Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd on the lack of vaccine transparency among healthcare workers - And the best calls of the week!

Libby Znaimer is joined by Sam Hammond, President of the The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) followed by David Cravit, Vice President, Zoomer Media and Chief Membership Officer at CARP as well as Ryan Imgrund, an educator in York Region, and a bio-statistician who has been providing daily COVID-19 analysis for Ontario and Canada. Yesterday, the province released it's back to school plan. Some of the measures included are: staff and students must conduct a self-screen daily before attending classes, students between grades 1 and 12 will have to be masked in indoor spaces with the exception of physical education classes and while eating. One of the more important aspects of this plan is that there is no mandate on vaccinations. Sam reacts to the latest. ---- REACTION TO NYC'S VACCINE PASSPORT POLICY

In Today's "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Samuel Hammond, Director of Poverty & Welfare Policy at the Niskanen Center, to discuss the sorry state of pro-family policies in the United States (like the child tax credit), how to alleviate poverty nationwide, what if anything America can learn from Canadian welfare policies, and FDR's "New Deal." Particular attention is paid to the "child tax credit." So if you are a family policy wonk, this is the episode for you.Samuel Hammond is the Director of Poverty and Welfare Policy at the Niskanen Center. His commentary has been published in the Atlantic, the National Review, and the American Conservative. He has also been featured in New York Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Vox, and Slate.He previously worked as an economist for the Government of Canada specializing in rural economic development, and as a graduate research fellow for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. His research focuses on the effectiveness of cash transfers in alleviating poverty, and how free markets can be complemented by robust systems of social insurance.Learn more about Samuel Hammond's work at https://www.niskanencenter.org/author/samuel-hammond/––––––Follow American Moment on Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-695775BitChute – https://www.bitchute.com/channel/Xr42d9swu7O9/Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced and edited by Jared Cummings. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Endless Frontier Act, the most important piece of legislation no one's heard of, got blown to bits in committee this week. Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center joins to discuss.  My recent coverage in the ChinaTalk newsletter https://chinatalk.substack.com/p/endless-frontier-the-most-important  Sam's coverage: https://www.niskanencenter.org/how-congress-ruined-the-endless-frontier-act/  Outtro Music: Live As You Like by (my new favorite artist) Takayan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85NA-prJZJE

The Endless Frontier Act, the most important piece of legislation no one's heard of, got blown to bits in committee this week. Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center joins to discuss.  My recent coverage in the ChinaTalk newsletter https://chinatalk.substack.com/p/endless-frontier-the-most-important  Sam's coverage: https://www.niskanencenter.org/how-congress-ruined-the-endless-frontier-act/  Outtro Music: Live As You Like by (my new favorite artist) Takayan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85NA-prJZJE Get bonus content on Patreon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Rebecca joined Greg Duncan and Sam Hammond for a panel discussion about the prospects for a U.S. child allowance -- and why it's needed now more than ever -- hosted by the American Constitution Society's New York Chapter. Subscribe to Off-Kilter on iTunes. show notes: https://offkiltershow.medium.com/the-case-for-a-u-s-child-allowance-1bb04067c3d3

Frequent flyer Sam Hammond joins the show to talk about the Romney child tax credit. Cohosted by Josiah Neeley of the R Street Institute and Doug McCullough of the Lone Star Policy Institute.

Patreon-only episode, now public by popular demand!  Which of the Child Allowance plans would most help families?  Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project and Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center join the show to discuss both Mitt Romney's and the Democrat's child benefit plans.  We discuss the benefits of universal plans vs targeted benefits, which programs and tax breaks might be ended to pay for these plans (and whether or not that's appropriate, and why simple, easy to understand programs often succeed where complex programs fail.  Read Sam's work - https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/The-Conservative-Case-for-a-Child-Allowance.pdf https://www.niskanencenter.org/factsheet-senator-romneys-family-security-act/ Read Matt's work - https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/02/04/romneys-child-allowance-improves-on-biden-proposal/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/01/14/now-is-the-time-for-an-american-child-benefit/ To make sure you hear every episode, join our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/neoliberalproject. Patrons get access to exclusive bonus episodes, our sticker-of-the-month club, and our insider community Slack.  Become a supporter today! Got questions for the Neoliberal Podcast?  Send them to mailbag@neoliberalproject.org Follow us at: https://twitter.com/ne0liberal https://www.facebook.com/groups/1930401007051265/   Join a local chapter at https://neoliberalproject.org/join

GREG BRADY “GUEST HOST” FOR KELLY CUTRARA - MON FEB 8, 2021 Dr Gareth Millward from the University of Warwick's Centre, UK on Vaccine rollout across the pond John Thompson Tampa resident on the day after Super Bowl 2021. AND... Sam Hammond of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario on Back to school plan for today - Monday, February 8. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of ThinkCritical, Joshua Miller interviews Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center about the failures of American political economy. We touch on state capacity, mass executions of rats, civil service procurement, and the high road to a booming economy.

What are the current deficiencies in the US social safety net?  What's the difference between welfare and social insurance?  How can we modernize a run-down set of bureaucracies and systems?  Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center joins the show to discuss his ideas about why these systems function the way they do, and how we can best fix them. Part 2 coming soon, exclusively for our Patreon subscribers - we discuss the political realities involved in passing these policies, budget issues, how shifting political tribes impact messaging, and how to craft trans-partisan bills that appeal to both major parties. Further Reading: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth - https://www.niskanencenter.org/faster_fairer/supporting_workers_and_protecting_families.html Three Normative Models of the Welfare State - http://www.publicreason.ro/articol/49 Failure to Adjust - https://www.cfr.org/book/failure-adjust Just Institutions Matter - https://www.amazon.com/Just-Institutions-Matter-Political-Institutional/dp/0521598931   To make sure you hear part 2 of this episode (and every bonus episode!), join our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/neoliberalproject. Patrons get access to exclusive bonus episodes, our sticker-of-the-month club, and our insider community Slack.  Become a supporter today! Got questions for the Neoliberal Podcast?  Send them to mailbag@neoliberalproject.org Follow us at: https://twitter.com/ne0liberal https://www.facebook.com/groups/1930401007051265/   Join a local chapter at https://neoliberalproject.org/chapters  

Sam Hammond is the director of poverty and welfare policy at the Niskanen Center and Brink Lindsey is vice president and director of the Open Society Project at the Niskanen Center. Both are returning guests to the podcast, and they join David again on Macro Musings to talk about their new pro-growth report titled, *Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy.* Specifically, they detail a number of different policies the US government could adopt to achieve faster and fairer economic growth, including social insurance modernization, child allowances, and more.   Transcript for the episode can be found here: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/tags/macro-musings   Sam’s Twitter: @hamandcheese Sam’s Niskanen profile: https://www.niskanencenter.org/author/samuel-hammond/   Brink’s Twitter: @lindsey_brink Brink’s Niskanen profile: https://www.niskanencenter.org/author/brink-lindsey/   Related Links:   *Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy* by Brink Lindsey and Sam Hammond https://www.niskanencenter.org/faster-growth-fairer-growth-policies-for-a-high-road-high-performance-economy/   *Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?* by Nicholas Bloom, Charles Jones, John Van Reenen, and Michael Webb https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/IdeaPF.pdf   *How Asia Works* by Joe Studwell https://groveatlantic.com/book/how-asia-works/   David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth David’s blog: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/

Brink Lindsey and Sam Hammond of Niskanen Center chat with Josiah Neeley of R Street about their new white paper on economic policies.

We discuss The Beach Boys masterpiece, "Pet Sounds," with Instagram's dark lord of Meme, special guest Sam Hammond aka @Vomcruise.

When it comes to re-opening school, unions disagree with the Ontario governments over class sizes, ventilation, and whether the reopening plan violates the province's own health and safety rules. In fact, the dispute is headed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Last week we heard from the minister of education. Now, we welcomes Sam Hammond who represents more than 80,000 Elementary Teachers; Harvey Bishoff who represents more than 60,000 secondary teachers; and Liz Stuart who represents more than 45,000 Catholic school teachers.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Teachers call in to speak to EFTO union leader Sam Hammond and OSSTF leader Harvey Bischoff about measures they're taking to make sure teachers are heading into a safe workplace.

The Deep Dive is back this week with Part II of a wide-ranging conversation with the Niskanen Center's Sam Hammond. In this episode, John and Sam explore the growing ascendancy of so-called “economic patriotism” among conservative policymakers and pundits, characterized by a deep skepticism towards globalization and an embrace of industrial policy. They also discuss […] The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-deep-dive-with-john-lettieri-part-ii-with-sam-hammond-on-industrial-policy-the-supersonic-renaissance-and-the-quest-for-a-class-conscious-conservatism/ (The Deep Dive with John Lettieri: Part II with Sam Hammond on industrial policy, the supersonic renaissance, and the quest for a class-conscious conservatism) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

The Deep Dive is back this week with Part II of a wide-ranging conversation with the Niskanen Center’s Sam Hammond. In this episode, John and Sam explore the growing ascendancy of so-called “economic patriotism” among conservative policymakers and pundits, characterized by a deep skepticism towards globalization and an embrace of industrial policy. They also discuss […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/aei-podcast-channel/the-deep-dive-with-john-lettieri-part-ii-with-sam-hammond-on-industrial-policy-the-supersonic-renaissance-and-the-quest-for-a-class-conscious-conservatism/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to AEI Podcast Channel in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

This week features Part 1 of a two-part discussion with Samuel Hammond, Director of Poverty and Welfare Policy at the Niskanen Center. John and Sam discuss how free markets can be paired with more robust systems of social insurance to produce an economy that is more dynamic, prosperous, and rich in opportunity for all Americans. They […] The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-deep-dive-with-john-lettieri-sam-hammonds-vision-for-a-dynamic-free-market-welfare-state-part-1/ (The Deep Dive with John Lettieri: Sam Hammond's Vision for a Dynamic Free Market Welfare State (Part 1)) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

This week features Part 1 of a two-part discussion with Samuel Hammond, Director of Poverty and Welfare Policy at the Niskanen Center. John and Sam discuss how free markets can be paired with more robust systems of social insurance to produce an economy that is more dynamic, prosperous, and rich in opportunity for all Americans. They […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/aei-podcast-channel/the-deep-dive-with-john-lettieri-sam-hammonds-vision-for-a-dynamic-free-market-welfare-state-part-1/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to AEI Podcast Channel in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Sam Hammond, the president of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario describes teachers' concerns with all the uncertainty surrounding the coming school year; Our Queen's Park reporter, Mike Crawley, discusses some of the risks involved as much the province prepares to move into Stage 3 of reopening; A group of childcare providers are urging the government to allow full reopening in September. We hear why from Leigh Anne Jacques, owner of Beaches Montessori School; Wes Hall one of the creators of the BlackNorth Initiative tells us that they want to use 'business minds and business acumen' to help to solve anti-Black bias and racism in our education system and the business world.; Family doctor Peter Lin explains the risk from airborne coronavirus; Onawa Labelle, a psychology professor at the University of Windsor, updates on how those in recovery programs are coping with the relative isolation that's being experienced during the pandemic; Kate Schuyler recounts the drive home from Florida to Huntsville with her mother.

Libby Znaimer is joined by Sam Hammond, President of The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario. Today, Ontario's teachers unions are launching a legal challenge against Bill 124, which caps public sector wages at 1 percent. Listen live, weekdays from noon to 1, on Zoomer Radio!

1. Nevada Basketball recap vs USC, sound from Steve Alford, Nevada Women's Basketball recap vs Utah Valley 2. Nevada Football weekly press conference - hear from Jay Norvell on Fresno State 3. Nevada Football weekly press conference - hear from Sam Hammond, Carson Strong on Fresno State 4. Chris Murray joins the show - talks wolf pack football, basketball, Kaepernick 5. Recap on Raiders and Niners 6. Final thoughts

RadioLabour's Canada Report: Teachers in Ontario are for students and against cuts to education -- an interview with ETFO president Sam Hammond.

We discuss economic nationalism, national industrial policy, and regional economic disparity with Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center. Cohosted by Josiah Neeley of R Street Institute and Doug McCullough of the Lone Star Policy Institute. Produced by Ray Ingegneri.

In our first ever live episode of the Neolib Podcast, our panel makes the case against moderation but comes to an unexpected outcome.  This podcast is possible because of our supporters on Patreon. Patrons get access to exclusive bonus episodes, newsletters, neoliberal swag and community features. If you enjoy the content please consider supporting us at Patreon.com/neoliberalproject

Sam Hammond, President ETFO talks about additional funding for kids living with autism. School boards will receive additional funding of $12,300 per student.

In this roundtable episode, the group discusses labor market policy including $15 minimum wage, monopsony, and labor mobility. Patreon subscribers get access to full interviews which run twice as long. If you like what we do (and want Neoliberal stickers each month) consider supporting us.

Sam joins Matt and Colin to talk about DNA tests, market solutions to climate change and why Elizabeth Warren's plan just ain't it

The Canadian duo - Sam Hammond and Connor Fletcher - join the podcast for a rapid fire RNH on all things Canada

Sam Hammond is a policy analyst and covers topics in poverty and welfare for the Niskanen Center. Sam is a previous guest on Macro Musings, and he joins the show today to talk about his new article in National Review which addresses Senator Elizabeth Warren’s new proposal, the Accountable Capitalism Act, and its potentially negative effects. David and Sam also discuss the problematic stereotypes surrounding ‘corporate bigness’, the positive and negative features of co-determination, and why we need universal safety nets. Sam’s Twitter: @hamandcheese Sam’s Medium profile: https://medium.com/@hamandcheese Related Links: *Elizabeth Warren’s Corporate Catastrophe* by Sam Hammond https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-act-terrible-idea/ *Big is Beautiful: Debunking the Myth of Small Business* by Robert Atkinson and Michael Lind https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/big-beautiful *Concentration in US Labor Markets: Evidence from Online Vacancy Data* by Ioana Marinescu, Marshall Steinbaum, Bledi Taska & Jose Azar https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3133344 David’s blog: macromarketmusings.blogspot.com David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth

Photo: (Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail) The ETFO has launched a legal challenge against the Ontario government's decision to repeal the sex-ed curriculum. Bill chats with the President of the ETFO, Sam Hammond on this. Guest: Sam Hammond, President of the ETFO.

Photo: (THE CANADIAN PRESS IMAGES/Lars Hagberg) The Ontario NDP are being called out by the union COPE Ontario, for firing an employee and stopping payment to two others weeks before their human rights complaints are heard. Guest: Wade Poziomka, lawyer, Ross & McBride. Hamilton's Planning committee is planning on building two resident towers for students of Columbia International College, though some delegates that spoke last night were concerned about the slope alongside the 403 which it would face. They argue that it would not be sustainable enough and poses a threat to the community. Guest: Fred Eisenberger, Mayor, City of Hamilton. The ETFO has launched a legal challenge against the Ontario government's decision to repeal the sex-ed curriculum. Bill chats with the President of the ETFO, Sam Hammond on this. Guest: Sam Hammond, President of the ETFO.

Sam Hammond, president of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario has said that the union will defend any teacher that chooses to teach the sex education curriculum recently rescinded by Doug Ford's government. Guest: Barry Kay, Political Science Professor at Wilfred Laurier University - Scott shares a cringeworthy story involving a crocodile and college graduation. - Scott talks with Rick Zamperin about Johnyy Manziel's injury over the weekend, and the CFL's protocol for handling concussion. Guest: Rick Zamperin, host of The 5th Quarter, Senior Sports Director at Global News Radio 900 CHML

Yesterday, Carmen's Group made a “no strings attached” pitch to city councillors at a general issues meeting in its bid to take over the operation of three Hamilton entertainment facilities. The consortium also has its eyes on Sir John A. Macdonald Secondary School, which closes in 2019. What is the status of the bid and how did council respond to the pitch? Guest: PJ Mercanti, CEO of Carmen's Group The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario told members at its annual meeting yesterday that they denounce Doug Ford's vow to revert to the 1998 sex-ed curriculum. They're referring to the move as “irresponsible” and that they will defend any teacher who sticks to the 2015 curriculum. The message was delivered by ETFO president Sam Hammond. Does the province have a realistic chance of reverting the curriculum given the opposition from teachers? Guest - Manny Figuierdo, Director of Education at the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board

We often see economic policies being bundled together: one political party likes more regulation, high social spending, and overall government intervention in the economy; the other party favors less regulation and less government presence in the economy. But these different choices don't need to be packaged together. In fact, it's possible that high social spending can even reinforce and create more popular support for market-friendly policies. In this episode, Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center talks about his recent paper "The Free Market Welfare State." Read Sam's paper here: "The Free Market Welfare State" Music provided by The Benevolent Dictators via their recent album "Silent Revolution" all about Adam Smith.

Sam Hammond of the Niskanen Center talks about cash transfer, polarization and how the welfare state is going to save the free market.

Sam Hammond is a poverty and welfare policy analyst for the Niskanen Center and has recently published a new paper titled, *The Free-Market Welfare State: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World*. He joins the show today to discuss the paper along with some of his other research. Sam and David also discuss the repercussions of the China shock, how to reform America’s welfare system, and the design characteristics that would define an ideal social insurance state. Sam’s Twitter: @hamandcheese Sam’s Medium profile: https://medium.com/@hamandcheese Related Links: *The Free-Market Welfare State: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World* by Sam Hammond https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-free-market-welfare-state-preserving-dynamism-in-a-volatile-world/ *From Tiananmen to Outsourcing: the Effect of rising Import Competition on Congressional Voting Towards China* by John Seungmin Kuk, Deborah Seligsohn, & Jiakun Jack Zhang https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670564.2017.1363024?journalCode=cjcc20 *Populism and the Economics of Globalization* by Dani Rodrik https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/populism_and_the_economics_of_globalization.pdf *Food Stamp Entrepreneurs* by Gareth Olds https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-143_2cf7ba14-5bfa-4c34-85d9-0edc0ddc7ce6.pdf *If You Want to Rebuild Civil Society, Don’t Abolish Welfare – Decentralize it* by Sam Hammond https://niskanencenter.org/blog/rebuild-american-community/ *Diversity and Crowd-Out: A Theory of Cold-glow Giving* by Daniel M. Hungerman http://www.nber.org/papers/w13348.pdf *It Takes a Nation* by Rebecca Blank https://www.amazon.com/Takes-Nation-Rebecca-M-Blank/dp/0691004013 *Filthy Lucre: Economics for People Who Hate Capitalism* by Joseph Heath https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Lucre-Economics-People-Capitalism-ebook/dp/B0058DTHNU David’s blog: macromarketmusings.blogspot.com David’s Twitter: @DavidBeckworth

Sam Hammond returns to the podcast today to discuss the free market welfare state. He and Will Wilkinson have both written articles in this area recently, and we discuss some of the concepts they bring up. People tend to think of government functions on a one-dimensional spectrum with "big government" on one end and "small government" at the other. Sam points out that the welfare state is separable from the other functions of government (regulation, command and control, protectionism, etc.). Not only is this true in theory, but it is played out in practice, with Nordic countries having very large welfare states as well as high economic freedom. We discuss some of the problems with current welfare states and some ways to improve them. Related links: Study: "Early Medicaid Expansion Associated With Reduced Payday Borrowing In California" "Food Stamp Entrepreneurs," a study that shows that access to food stamps makes people more likely to start businesses.  

ETFO president Sam Hammond joins Kelly to talk about the problem and possible solutions.

ETFO has a list of demands for the new school year

What follows is an edited transcript of my conversation with Sam Hammond. Petersen: My guest today is Sam Hammond. He's a policy analyst at the Niskanen Center. Sam, welcome to Economics Detective Radio. Hammond: Hi! Petersen: Our topic today is supersonic air travel. Sam has written an article titled "Make America Boom Again" along with co-author Eli Dourado which revisits the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's ban on supersonic flight over the United States. So Sam let's start at the very start. Let's start by talking about the history of flight. How do we get from the Wright brothers to supersonic flight? Hammond: Well I think the most notable thing about the early history of aviation is how quickly and how rapidly we innovated. So the Wright brothers flew their initial voyage, their milestone flight in 1903 at seven miles per hour and within forty years we were already breaking the speed of sound. And actually very shortly after that not only were we breaking the speed of sound within military jets but we were on the cusp of commercializing it through the Concorde. So, what characterizes the early history of aviation is really rapid innovation. Part of that was driven by obviously two world wars but also that trickled out and percolated into the commercial space. That brings us to today. So in the progress that we made in air speeds in the first say 40 to 50 years of manned flight, we've actually regressed since then. Petersen: Okay, so the Concorde starts flying in I believe it's 1969 and the subject of your paper---the ban brought in by the F.A.A. on supersonic travel over the United States---comes in just four years later in 1973. So what happened in that four-year period? How did we go from rapidly advancing to banning what was at the time the latest technology? Hammond: It really began in the 60's. Everyone was seeing the progress that was being made in supersonic aircraft. And it was widely appreciated that it was only a matter of time before it would be commercialized. And there was actually a bit of a race going on between European countries and America of who would develop the first and the best supersonic jet. Because at the time, you know, this is way before Reagan deregulated the airlines. So these were the national projects almost akin to the space race. So in the 60's the F.A.A. and NASA began investigating whether supersonic airplanes could fly overland, because obviously they had them already in the form of military jets. And so they conducted a number of tests. One of the most important and famous tests was the test over Oklahoma City. So in 1964 the F.A.A. began a test over Oklahoma City where supersonic jets---military jets---would fly over the city eight times per day for six months continuously. And these were just regular old military jets, nothing about them was designed to mitigate the sonic boom. So eight times a day people in Oklahoma were hearing the sonic boom. It was rattling their windows. And at the end of it---at the end of the six-month period---even though about 75% of the people they asked said that they could tolerate the booms indefinitely, there were tens of thousands of complaints. And that's when the F.A.A. examined the complaints and rejected the vast majority of them as spurious. And that led to this huge public backlash. And so that was picked up by a guy named Richard Wiggs who founded the Anti-Concorde project. So the Concorde was being developed in the 60's by a partnership between France and Britain and it sort of represented the frontier of technology---not just aviation technology but technology in total---and Richard Wiggs had this view of the environment and technology as being in conflict. So he believed that as technology advances, we lose touch with our natural environment. And he was actually one of the most innovative, maverick early environmental activists. They're commonplace today but he was actually a pioneer. And so he took the complaints that occurred in Oklahoma City and his philosophy of environment and technology in conflict and began one of the most successful environmental NIMBY campaigns in history. He organized academics, he organized the residential associations near airports. He took out full-page ads in The New York Times. He got people to call their congress people. And so even though this was all becoming organized even before the Concorde was in use in 1973, it persuaded the F.A.A. and Congress to institute a ban on supersonic flying overland. So there is no jurisdiction over the ocean of course, so when the Concorde eventually came out it was able to fly over the ocean. This was their attempt to handicap the Concorde's success. Petersen: It's so strange to me that the government would fly supersonic jets over one city eight times a day for six months as an experiment. I mean when you experiment, usually you have to get the consent of the people you're experimenting on and that's what I'm familiar with but it's so--- Hammond: This was a different time. Petersen: Yes, so 1960s! To just experiment on an entire city against their will and just see what happens. Hammond: Yeah, I mean, any student of US history knows that our toleration for human experimentation has gone down quite a bit from the 60's and 70's. And if anything, flying a supersonic plane over a city was probably one of the least egregious things that was going on at the time. Petersen: Yeah well, tell me about sonic booms. I'm not a physicist so use small words. Hammond: Okay. So, if you've ever seen a speedboat drive through the water, it creates a wake in its path. And the same thing happens with planes only it's air. And air is in three dimensions so there's a cone, a wave that goes past an airplane as it flies through the air displacing the air in front of it, pushing it aside. But of course the speed of sound---and we get the concept of the speed of sound because sound is moving through air and so sound can only move as fast as air can move---and so when you approach the speed of sound you're pushing the air in front of the plane. You're pushing it, basically compressing against the air that's already there and so you reach this thing called the sound barrier where upon crossing the sound barrier you produce a shock wave where the air is becoming compacted and compacted and compacted and basically it's like the waves are on top of each other. And that creates a shockwave which radiates around the airplane and will reach the ground as this loud booming noise. Petersen: So it's not only loud---I've noticed in your paper---some people said it could break windows or damage buildings. Hammond: Right. So a lot of this goes back to---again---the Oklahoma City experiments where the fighter jets were flown over the city eight times a day. Sonic booms are shockwaves. There is no limit to how powerful a shockwave can be. So in principle sonic booms can break windows. In practice, they are about two pounds per square foot. This is this what the Concorde was approximately. And two pounds per square foot of air pressure is pretty weak. There were studies done in the 70's when the Concorde became active. And they found that it could do damage to old Civil War architecture and stuff like that and if you already had a window that had damage it could crack that window. But for practical purposes, buildings can withstand up to 11 pounds per square foot pressure before experiencing damage---Nasa's tested that extensively. So nonetheless the myth propagated in part because there were people in Oklahoma who claimed that their plaster cracked or that their windows broke. And so when the F.A.A. investigated it and basically threw out most of the claims as not being credible, that caused a big backlash and also caused a huge public relations disaster for the F.A.A. and for supersonic overland more generally and created this myth that it's very easy for a sonic boom to break their window. It's just not. Petersen: So the ban applies just over the United States. How do we know that that is what has stopped the progress of supersonic flight? After all, you'd think that there's the whole rest of the world and maybe transatlantic or transpacific flights could sustain a supersonic aviation industry? Hammond: So, there's a lot of variables going on. First of all---as I mentioned earlier---all the supersonic projects up to this point---except the Concorde---were abject failures. The US had one called the Boeing 2707. It just never got off the ground, in fact, in the industry aerospace engineers have a term for this. It's called a "boomdoggle"---a play on boondoggle---because countries that tried to produce a supersonic jet just ended up pouring literally billions of dollars down the drain. And you can't blame that on supersonic per se. That's a failure of central planning. I would say the same thing with the Concorde. The Concorde flew for 27 years. And at times it made money but you have to remember it was never designed with any commercial intent. It was designed to be a commercial airplane but it had no market testing. It was mostly a piece of a diplomatic or political gambit that Britain was using to try to get into the European Common Market. And so when Kennedy proposed the 2707 as a competitor, he also didn't do market tests or see what the demand was, he looked at the Concorde which sat about 100 passengers and said we need to do better than France so let's make it 300 passengers. And instead of flying at Mach two---twice the speed of sound---let's fly at Mach three---three times the speed of sound---so it was just the one-upmanship of nations, had nothing to do with whether it was market viable. And so the case I make is that, if you had a private sector in airplanes---which at the time we didn't really, at least in supersonic, it was all government driven---the first entry point, the natural entry point would be some kind of smaller business-jet. Because frankly if you don't know which routes are going to demand the most passengers you want to start small. You don't want to jump right to a 300-seat passenger jet. The Concorde was only 100 seats, as I said, and it routinely had trouble filling its cabin. But the thing with business jets---and there have been about half a dozen rigorous market analyses done in the last ten years that have found there is a demand for supersonic business jets---the thing about business jets though is they fly overland about 75% of the time. You're going from regional airports to regional airports. And so if the natural entry point to sort of begin on the supersonic learning curve, learning which routes have the most to manned is a smaller business jet, you're going to have to begin by flying overland. And then once you discover which routes will bear more people you can expand the capacity of the airplane and ultimately I think a private sector would work its way up to having a 100- to 300-seat passenger jet once it had established that the demand existed. And also big part of that is driving down costs, of course. The Concorde was the Concorde it never iterated it. The first model was the last model. In commercial aviation more generally in subsonic aviation we've learned over time how to reduce costs. Even though we fly a slower today than we did 50 years ago, subsonic commercial airplanes are vastly more efficient and we've achieved that efficiency because we've learned over time. Petersen: Okay, so the natural entry point is maybe carrying businessmen between New York and L.A. say, but that's illegal. And so the industry isn't able to sort of clear that hurdle. Is that basically what you're saying? Hammond: Yeah, I mean if you have a 12-person business jet. First of all, it's difficult to get a jet that small to have the range to even go across the ocean. You know you wouldn't necessarily being going from coast to coast in a small business jet right away. You might be going from New York to Houston, or something like that. The point is that you don't know. You don't know which routes are going to bear fruit, a priori. The Concorde flew between France and Britain and the U.S., but It also had roots into the Caribbean and lot of those routes have ended up being canceled in the 80's in part because they just kept losing money, but it was because they had tried to plan it all out a priori, as if they could just deduce which routes would make money. I don't trust that model. I think you have to begin by building something small that you know will meet demand and then expanding from that. And the most important part about this is there's open a confluence of technology in just the last 20 years. I have no illusions that supersonic business jets would have been a thing, say, in 1990. I think a lot of this is a recent phenomenon that's why supersonic overland is an idea whose time has come. There's just been such a breakthrough in technology, in reducing the intensity of sonic booms. And that has been really the biggest hurdle is getting the intensity of sonic booms to a level where people will tolerate it. Petersen: Right. So it seems like the F.A.A., when they banned supersonic flight, the concern was noise but they banned speed as sort of a proxy for noise. But what you're saying is that's a bad proxy you can have the speed without the noise. Hammond: Exactly. So it was an overreaction. What we advocate in our paper and at supersonicmyths.com is to replace the ban with a reasonable noise standard. Subsonic airplanes already adhere to a variety of noise standards, noise rules. If the issue is really noise---and we believe the issue is basically noise---the F.A.A. should just set a noise standard, say, 80 decibels, something like that, that would be like a lawnmower going by your house. And then let the market try to get below that line. The F.A.A. stance right now is that it will set a noise rule once it sees a supersonic airplane demonstrate that it can go below the noise that it finds acceptable. But it has never stated what it will find acceptable. So it's a sort of reverse order of operations where the F.A.A. wants to hear something that is quiet enough before telling us what is quiet enough. Petersen: And if you're Boeing and you're going to invest millions of dollars building an aircraft that does 80 decibels and the F.A.A. says 'not quiet enough' you're out millions of dollars. Hammond: That's right. And so today the biggest and really only large quiet supersonic project is still within NASA. NASA has been working on quiet supersonic technology pretty much continuously since the mid 80's under a variety of different project titles. And they're the only ones who are able to do it because it's federal money. They have no skin in the game. They do use contracts with, say, Lockheed. But those are still federal contracts. We would like to see more competition in this space. NASA is firm in its belief that a quiet supersonic jet is possible as early as 2020. How much sooner would we have gotten to that if we had the private sector involved? Petersen: Almost certainly much sooner. If we look at private space companies like Space X, they're an order of magnitude cheaper than NASA. They're much more efficient and able to launch rockets into space for a fraction of the cost that NASA has. So, maybe if we use that as our model, then however much NASA has spent on developing supersonic, divide that by ten and maybe that's what the private sector might cost. Hammond: Could very well be. The other thing is that, even today, NASA's effort is directed at the big passenger jets. And part of that is out of this democratic aspiration. They're the government, so they're trying to build something that the everyman could ride. But it's pretty common in new technologies for the early additions or for the early adopters to be of a sort of luxury class. You can think about Tesla's business model where they begin with a roadster and a luxury car---which is really only affordable to millionaires and the very wealthy---with the game plan that they're going to have a low volume high profit or high revenue car and reinvest those profits back into developing cheaper and cheaper versions until they get to a mass market version. We argue that that's exactly how the supersonic learning curve probably works as well. You want to begin with business jets which will of course be a luxury flying supersonic getting from New York to L.A. in two hours instead of five or six. It is worth it to some people. But those early models will of course be expensive. It will be expensive to ride not just because it's new technology and we haven't figured out how to drive down costs, but because a lower capacity means you're dividing the cost by fewer people. But over time those companies can reinvest, build bigger designs and drive down costs until you get to the point where virtually anyone can afford it. The company Boom, which is developing a supersonic jet for over the ocean, is projecting to drive their costs down to about $5,000 a ticket to go across the Atlantic, which is on par with business-class and first-class tickets. So they're projecting that for their own costs. It could very well be the case that that technology and that those cost estimates are probably similar for first models in the over-land market as well. And that's a far cry from the Concorde which cost about $20,000 per flight. So going from $20,000 a ticket to $5,000, that's what this one company is projecting and it's only their first model. Petersen: Right. So if something like Tesla cars or cell phones had to get permission through the political process when they were being developed, then maybe someone in the 90's would have said "Why should we allow cell phones if only rich people are going to use them?" And in the 90's they might have been right. But of course now we all have cell phones, and I guess what you're saying is in the 2020s or the 2030s we might all be flying at supersonic speeds when we go on our vacation. Hammond: I believe that. Elon Musk, in his Hyperloop paper, discusses the most efficient way of getting from point A to point B. And he argues in that paper---it's sort of an offhand comment he makes---but he suspects that for any city pair that's over 900 miles apart the most efficient way of getting from that city to the other city is supersonic. Petersen: So that's most pairs of big cities. Hammond: Not just most pairs of big cities but the average flight distance, not from where the passenger is starting to where he's going, but the average takeoff to landing for a passenger plane is about 900 miles. So that suggests that if that is an efficient distance for supersonic, the average flight could be flown efficiently at supersonic. Petersen: One issue that your paper goes into is that some people have alleged that supersonic aircraft---because they fly very high---might damage the ozone layer. Is there anything to that? Hammond: I won't say there's nothing to it, but it's been vastly overstated. I'll put it that way. This goes back again to the Concorde and the early environmental movement's objections to it. At the time the understanding of atmospheric science was very very poor compared to today and there were concerns that because the emissions from an aircraft include nitrogen oxides---which are a class of molecules that will bind with oxygen in the atmosphere to destroy ozone---that because the Concorde flew so close to the stratosphere---which is where the ozone layer begins---that these emissions could lead to the depletion of ozone. That's been rejected. The most alarmist versions of it were rejected. In the 70's people were claiming that if the Concorde or a fleet of Concordes were permitted to fly that we'd see catastrophic ozone collapse. That did not come to fruition obviously, the Concorde flew for 27 years. More recent studies now that we have large models of the atmosphere, simulated models of the atmosphere, have determined that a supersonic aircraft flying within 50 to 60,000 feet should in theory be ozone neutral. The reason is because there's actually this countervailing effect where a little bit lower in the atmosphere the nitrogen oxides actually produce ozone, and a little bit above in the stratosphere it depletes ozone. And if you're flying right on that line they roughly cancel out. Petersen: Okay. There were some fears in the 80's and 90's of other things we're doing seriously damaging the ozone layer. But was that a much larger threat than supersonic flight? Hammond: Well it was just a different sort of threat. There are different emissions in aerosols and so forth, CFCs. But out of the concern for the ozone in the 90's we got the Montreal Protocol and the Montreal Protocol is an international agreement to control the emissions of things that will deplete ozone and as supersonic makes its comeback, they will have to be fully compliant with those protocols. I still recommend that going forward there should be more research into this. Even since the Concorde retired, we have better models of the atmosphere and I'm sure there's actually teams that NASA and MIT that are studying this right now. Petersen: It can't hurt to look into it. But it seems like once something is banned or, you know, once the government sort of gets its hands on it and says "we're not so sure about this" we become incredibly risk-averse, we look at every possible downside and ignore the huge upside of just having a whole other industry and all that consumer surplus that you get from having an entire market that wasn't there before. Hammond: What I would say is the state of knowledge right now with respect to supersonic and ozone is well established enough to not worry. The catastrophic versions of the concerns have been utterly rejected. Even the more modest versions of it are called into question by the fact that, there seems to be this band around the around 60,000 to 50,000 feet where supersonic emissions are ozone neutral. There, of course, should be more study but we don't have to wait for those studies. The studies we already have are sufficient to suggest that we shouldn't be waiting for more data. We already have enough data to begin today. Petersen: It seems like there are two models of innovation. At one extreme end is the development of new drugs, where we have years upon years of vetting and studies and you have to comply with many requirements before you can get your new drug on the market and it costs billions of dollars. Adds a lot to the price of developing new medicine. And then there's the other model where somebody just makes something and we start using it. And maybe we worry about the implications, but by the time anyone thinks that "hey maybe this is a bad idea" it's already been universally adopted. So something like Facebook, where we were all already on Facebook before people started complaining "Hey what if this is ruining our social interactions or something?" Hammond: Or maybe all the fake news sites. Destroying democracy. Petersen: Yeah that's topical right? Facebook is now worried about its role as one of the main places young people get their news, or a lot of people get their news, and some things go viral that are not true or and might be misleading and might affect, say, the outcome of elections. Hammond: Apropos of Facebook and that topic, myths and misconceptions and viral falsehoods and urban legends, those are not new phenomena. That's why I had to create supersonicmyths.com. Because around supersonic, there's just a lot of misconception because there are a lot of people who think they're experts on the Concorde and think that the Concorde proves that supersonic is not economically viable. But they don't really understand that well. Petersen: Right and you could use the same sort of logic to say, "Look how costly the moon landing was. It's clearly impossible at that cost for any kind of space tourism or space commerce to be economically viable." But the issue is that the moon landing was very very expensive, but it was run by the U.S. government which tends to make all its activities very expensive. A future space tourism company might be much much cheaper and we just don't know until we see it, how much cheaper. Hammond: So I guess I should just comment a little bit on what the new technologies are that have made supersonic overland viable. And they really break down to three: first engines---jet engines---have become a way more powerful, way more efficient. They're way more capable in every way. So, the Concorde used an afterburner on its engine, which means upon takeoff it basically dumped kerosene and lit it on fire and that's why if you watch old videos of the Concorde taking off you see this trail of black smoke coming up behind it. That's the afterburner. Incredibly fuel inefficient, you're just burning fuel. This is what it needed at the time to get the extra boost, to get into the air, because it had to climb to 60,000 feet---which takes quite a bit of energy. Today we have vastly superior engines. In fact, most subsonic aircraft, most passenger planes that you would fly in any consumer flight are capable of going supersonic. They have a top speed which is subsonic but if you put them in overdrive you can go supersonic and in fact, the company I mentioned earlier---Boom---is using off-the-shelf engines to reach its max speed. Second is carbon fiber. So, the shape and the aerodynamics of shape matter a whole lot to supersonic and supersonic overland. The way we reduce booms is by affecting or altering the airfoil around the airplane. So, essentially you can use the shape of the airplane to modify the waves and smooth the waves out. So you don't have this like sudden shock and sudden dip. Instead, you have sort of this gradual rise and fall. And mostly when the human ear detects loudness what it's detecting is suddenness. So you can dramatically reduce the perception of loudness by modifying that airwave and you do that by modifying shape. Most planes are constructed of aluminum, which you can shape reasonably, but not nearly as much as carbon fiber and carbon fiber has become basically a commodity in recent years. It means basically any shape you want is incredibly cheap and incredibly strong. The third and final, probably most important thing is the power of computers and computer simulation. So prior to the early 2000s, I would say, when what's called computational fluid dynamics was really coming up. These are computational simulations of how fluids waters and airs move around shapes. That requires a lot of computing power which we've only recently achieved. Prior to that, if you want to design and test a prototype for a supersonic aircraft you would have to literally build a model and rent a wind tunnel, and then you'd have to have instruments try to imperfectly measure how the wind is moving around the aircraft. That is incredibly costly. So, computer simulation has really democratized. Some of the researchers who've done work on this are just grad students. They have software engineering expertise and they construct algorithms that will search through the space of all possible aircraft designs and try to find the one shape that reduces the sonic boom the best. And then because we have carbon fiber we can go and pour that shape and have the exact shape we want. Petersen: So it used to be, not only did you need the air tunnel but you had to---if you wanted to test 100 wing shapes---you had to physically build 100 wings. Now you tell a computer "here's 100 wing shapes," hit compile, come back the next morning and you have your simulated sound profiles? Hammond: It's actually even cooler than that. Instead you tell the program what you're looking for, and what you're looking for is a shape that will reduce the sonic boom to whatever level you're aiming for. Basically you give it an objective and then instead of trying to design 100 designs and let it test 100 designs, you give it an objective and then it searches through literally hundreds of thousands of designs that it evolves on its own. Some of these algorithms are genetic in nature, so they evolve like biology evolves and they try to go down paths and try to find exactly what shape reduces or hits the objective. And you can have multiple objectives. You can even include the objective of low sonic boom, but you can also have that tempered by the objective of efficiency---fuel efficiency. Shape and size obviously you'd want to put into the objective function. We don't want this airplane to be ten miles long. It happened to be the case that the longer, more slender aircraft cut through the air better but a computer doesn't know on its own that a ten-mile long airplane is not feasible. So you basically give it multiple objectives and you hit play and you let the algorithm do its work. And it can literally iterate through hundreds and hundreds of thousands of designs. Petersen: And this is achievable by grad students just with software that is available, or you can get on a grad student budget? Hammond: Well, I imagine these are big research projects. They have university backing and industry does that too. But it's a single fixed cost instead of a repeated variable cost of having to rent a wind tunnel every single time you want to test. Petersen: So it sounds like despite the fact that there's been a supersonic ban and despite the fact that there is no supersonic industry, or no supersonic commercial flights going on in the world today, we still had advancement, but it's been mostly on the technology side, on the theoretical side. What we haven't seen is actual supersonic flights and testing the water, testing the market. I saw in your paper that you go through some estimates of the potential size of the supersonic market. Do you want to talk through some of those? Hammond: Sure. There has been by my count seven market analyses. Most of them from the mid-2000s till today. The estimates range from 180 supersonic business jets to over 600. So, these are companies like Gulfstream Aerospace, which is a leading business-jet manufacturer. They've done actually two or three of these market analyses. And they foresee up to 350 units for just themselves. So 350 business jets that they could produce over ten years. That is quite a demand. Petersen: And they're looking at things like whose opportunity cost of their time is high enough that they would pay maybe a few thousand extra dollars, maybe several thousand in order to save a few hours. And right now there are C.E.O.s, there are wealthy people who maybe live in the United Arab Emirates but want to commute to New York and right now that means sitting on a plane for---gosh I don't even know---it would be like 15 hours or something. If it could be six hours, for most of us, we might prefer to sit on a plane longer and pay significantly less. But if your time's really valuable, if you run a multi-million-dollar company, it really can be worth it to save some of your time, even at a high cost. Hammond: Of course it's possible if you had supersonic overland to leave New York and go to London and then come back to New York on the same day. There are people who would love to do that. I think what gets missed in this it's not just about going faster for its own sake. This makes the world smaller, it makes you rethink travel. So in addition to these American analyses, there have also been some surveys. One survey did a survey of business jet operators and importantly they asked them to basically state an estimate from zero to 100 what the likelihood is that they would buy a supersonic business jet if they could. When they asked that under the condition that there is still an overland ban the number was zero, so zero percent of people. The average person said that there was zero chance they'd buy a supersonic business jet if they can't fly overland but in the case that the ban is lifted, that number jumps to 50%. So half of the businesses that were surveyed would see a chance. Petersen: That's further evidence that it's not just that supersonic is unviable, it's that this legal restriction is in a very important market which is flying over the United States. That's what's killing the supersonic industry. One other the thing I saw on your website was, you talk about the tradeoff between noise and fuel efficiency in the context of airport noise restrictions. Could you tell me, how does that tradeoff work? Hammond: I think that one of the biggest barriers to the F.A.A. is the issue of airport noise. The F.A.A. has worked with I.K.O. and I.K.O is the UN's body who deals with aviation standards. They've worked for literally decades to try to ramp up the stringency of noise around airports and they're pretty proud of what they've accomplished. If you live near an airport today it's a much quieter experience than it would have been 20, 30, even 40 years ago. But this comes with a tradeoff. The way aircraft reduce noise is they have a bypass ratio. So at the extreme, you have a turbo-jet, which means all the air passes through the jet and then you have jets which bypass air around the jet. So, you have the jet in the center and that's what's pushing, propelling the plane forward. But then you also bypass air around the jet to basically insulate the noise. But that comes with a tradeoff. So the more air you bypass, the quieter it will be, but also the more fuel and the less thrust you get. And it happens with supersonic because you're going from sea level to 60,000 feet potentially, you actually have to really take off at a steep angle and you have to push up. You have to really get up high, basically, and so you could make the argument that we should tolerate slightly lower airport noise standards for supersonic at first, so they can use lower bypass ratio engines and therefore less fuel when they're making their incline. Petersen: So there's another paper from Mercatus, also written by your co-author Eli Dourado, and that one talks about the number of airport noise complaints that come from a really small concentrated number of households. I found that very funny. Just how concentrated are the airline airport noise complaints? Hammond: Let me say first that what we recommend for airport noise standards is stage three noise standards, which are what we currently use. So, currently if you live near an airport and you see a plane taking off and you can hear it slightly, that's the stage three noise standard. We're advocating that supersonic abide by that noise standard. That noise standard is being phased out for stage four and later stage five, which will be even stricter. So we're not saying anything like "Oh we should let planes be super noisy," we're saying "let supersonic planes be as noisy as the ones that we currently have taking off, and just give them a bit of a window before they're phased into these newer, more stringent noise standards that are coming down the pipeline." Eli's work with Raymond Russell, they found an amazing data set that includes records of who is making noise complaints, airport noise complaints. And they have them by airport and the astonishing thing they find is that these airports are getting sometimes tens of thousands of noise complaints every year but when they drill down into the data, it is just a handful of people making all the complaints. So a few examples. I live near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and in 2015 they had 8,760 noise complaints. Two individuals at one D.C. residents accounted for 6,852 of those complaints. So, two people in one building accounted for 78% of the complaints. They have a report called "Airport Noise NIMBYism: An Empirical Investigation" where they go through all the airports that have this data and they find evidence of the sort of concentration of complainers at every single airport. So, it's a pretty surprising thing and I think it's important to get this information out there because as we know from when the Concorde was banned overland, residents’ associations are a pretty powerful group to mobilize in opposition to something like this, and Congress people have the perception that---like San Francisco in 2015 had almost 900,000 those complaints to San Francisco International Airport. These are constituents, we want to reduce noise this is obviously something they care about. But in fact, in San Francisco's case, only 53 individuals accounted for 25,000 of the complaints. And those 25,000 were all during a single month---the month of October---which meant that the average person was making 477 calls per person. So, 30 days in a month, that's a lot of calls every single day. And this is San Francisco so wouldn't surprise me if there were some enterprising software developers who figured out a way to make complaints automatically. Petersen: So robot calls. It might be crazy people calling in a complaint every single time they hear an airplane, or it might be clever people robotically calling in a complaint every time there's an airplane. Except that I guess they didn't anticipate that someone would notice that all these calls were coming from the same location which kind of undermines their objective which would be to reduce noise in those areas. Of course, if you bought your house after the airport was already there making noise then economics says that that noise should already be priced into the value of the house. The person who loses is the person whose house is next to an empty lot and then the government announces "Hey we're going to build an airport here." You'd expect the change in home prices to happen immediately when that's announced and then every following owner has already accepted that cost and they've had cheaper real estate prices as a result. So, if you buy a house next to the airport and then try to pressure the airport to make less noise you're sort of trying to boost your property value when you already paid a discounted rate. You are already compensated for accepting that noise. Hammond: And not only that. But when people have done rigorous cost-benefit analyses of U.S. aviation noise standards and they consistently find that the costs of making airplanes less efficient on takeoff is greater than alternatives which include creative land use policies, like building in barriers that block sound near communities and stuff like that. So, if you have a community living very close to an airport, one alternative is to set global standards which say airplanes are to fly less efficiently and make less noise, or you build a wall. You build up a barrier or some insulation to protect the community from the noise. But the main point of this study that Eli and Raymond did---which by the way, if I remember this correct, is Mercatus's most downloaded paper in history---the main point is that we shouldn't be basing innovation policy, particularly something that can have very high impact, on a few crazy people and enterprising robot callers. Petersen: People who are affected by having less efficient aircraft, having slower aircraft, more expensive air travel just so outnumber the small number of people who live near airports. And you could get them all double-ply windows and help make their houses more soundproof. Probably much cheaper than hamstringing the entire airline industry. Hammond: Absolutely. I just want to recapitulate some things. Supersonic overland is today feasible. It can be economical, there are companies chomping at the bit to try to develop something that will be quiet and affordable. The only thing standing in their way is the F.A.A. and a public perception that the Concorde proved that supersonic is not viable. The F.A.A. could act today, it could issue a noise standard and allow developers to shoot for that standard. Even if a bill is passed today, what the F.A.A. wants to do is coordinate internationally with I.K.O. and I.K.O. is the UN body that---it's not a regulator---sets standards. The F.A.A. has a prominent role in guiding us towards standards, but it's an incredibly slow process. I.K.O meets every three years. If the F.A.A. were told to remove the ban tomorrow and they wanted to coordinate internationally, would mean we have to wait about three years. I.K.O. is meeting this year, obviously they're not going to talk about it this year---the agenda is all set. So they're going to be talking about it three years from now and then they'll be finalizing those rules three years from then. And then the F.A.A. will take those rules, propagate them globally and then we will have another two or three year regulating period where there's a notice and comment and everything else. So we're talking about ten years just to change this stupid ban that is obsolete and I think that speaks to a more fundamental problem in U.S. policy and regulation, which is, we create these massive bottlenecks. And it's no surprise that it happens to an idea that is such a no-brainer, like creating a noise rule for supersonic instead of a ban. You can find other examples in every other industry of every other emerging technology, where there are these obsolete rules that are getting in the way of better, more efficient, more affordable, faster technology. And even if they can be rolled out tomorrow, have to go through at times a decadal process of approval. So, I think it's no wonder that productivity innovation seems to be at a historical low. Petersen: My guest today has been Sam Hammond. Sam, thanks for being part of Economics Detective Radio. Hammond: Thank you.  

Carmel Kilkenny speaks with Sam Hammond about the overheated conditions in many southern Ontario classrooms last week.