Podcasts about trade policy studies

Sphere is excited to introduce a new suite of interdisciplinary globalization resources to spark discussion with students about the impacts of globalization on society and progress. Globalization has been evolving and connecting societies for centuries, but it has faced renewed attention, particularly in relation to trade and tariff policies. Through moderated discussion with Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics and the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, we will explore what globalization is, what is produced, what alternatives there are, and perspectives on how individuals view global integration in the future.Following our discussion, we will examine strategies for integrating economic concepts in your class to help students analyze and evaluate the underpinnings of decisions impacting policies around topics that influence current and future global integration. We will demonstrate how you can help students visualize globalization through integrative projects in a lesson suite based on a simulated world and with standalone explainer lessons helping students understand economic concepts such as comparative advantage. Through tools, lessons, and multimedia resources, we are excited to help you bring topics explored in this webinar to your classroom. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gary and Shannon bring you the latest stories out of Washington during Swamp Watch. Guest: Clark Packard, Research Fellow in the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato Institute. Get some bunny facts from our new producer Nikki Dobrin. 

In this episode of Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson, I'm giving my take (to the best of my ability—because I'm not a tariff expert and neither are most of the people chiming in right now) on Trump's gutsy new tariff move. It's the one that's got half the country cheering and the other half clutching their pearls. While the media yells “economic suicide,” I'm here to suggest that this strategy might actually work—but not overnight. We'll talk about the possibility of long-term gain, the reality of short-term discomfort, and the cultural obsession with instant results when what's often required is patience. I will also go over our collective short attention spans and why longer attention spans are needed for understanding complex issues like this. Every answer won't fit in a 15 second soundbite. At the end of the day, we'll have to pray, wait, and see. Some of the smartest plays take time to unfold.—https://noblegoldinvestments.com/learn/gold-and-silver-guide/?utm_campaign=21243613394&utm_source=g&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=&utm_term=noble%20gold&seg_aprod=&ad_id=698073353663&oid=2&affid=1&utm_source=google&affiliate_source=googleads_brand_bmbc&utm_term=noble%20gold&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADQ2DzJSJ_mi5cJo8dO2FNUs7uNy-&gclid=CjwKCAjwktO_BhBrEiwAV70jXtjSCyioSM2Hz1McTAlR3f8t3KCDDN3-XBWLaIzwJmiEGe0ztxIk5RoCnM0QAvD_BwE

Daniel Griswold, the former director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, joins Chelsea Follett to discuss the true legacy of globalization.

On this hour of the Chris and Amy Show on KMOX, hosts Chris Rongey and Amy Marxkors are joined by Scott Lincicome, Vice President of General Economics at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, analyzes the blocked merger between US Steel and Nippon Steel, addressing its implications for jobs, Granite City's community, and national security concerns. Next, Connor Kerrigan, Director of Communications for Mayor Tishaura Jones, defends the mayor's extensive travel schedule. He explains that most trips are funded privately or by organizations and highlights how the mayor's efforts have secured millions in federal funding for projects like the airport, Metrolink, and violence prevention. Kerrigan emphasizes the mayor's constant communication with her team during travels, her ability to return quickly in emergencies, and her direct involvement in the city's winter storm response.

Tommy talks with Colin Grabow, Associate Director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies

November 20, 2024 ~ Donald Trump named Howard Lutnick as his Secretary of Commerce. Daniel Ikenson, Founder and president of Ikenomics Consulting and former director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, joins Kevin to discuss what it means for trades and tariffs.

How to special interests influence trade policy? Is Milton Friedman making a comeback? And why is milk never on sale? Scott Lincicome joins Econception with Dominic Pino to discuss. Scott Lincicome is the vice president of general economics and Cato Institutes's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. He writes on international and domestic economic issues, including international trade; subsidies and industrial policy; manufacturing and global supply chains; and economic dynamism.

We've promised this one for a very long time. But now that Trump is returning to the White House—the mercantilist maniac who recently said “the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariff'”—we finally followed through. By popular demand, we called upon Scott Lincicome, senior visiting lecturer at Duke University Law School and vice president of general economics and Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, to answer all of your questions on protectionism, tariffs, and trade. Don't care about such things!? Well, this episode is a double feature! After Scott's masterclass on free trade, the lads stick around to discuss Trump's appointments (ummm….this was a day before the Gaetz-Gabbard selections), “neocons,” and the WNBA. And for you subscribers: we will drop Moynihan's conversation with Bard College historian Sean McMeekin in the next few days. For you non-subscribers…what are you waiting for?? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.wethefifth.com/subscribe

On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about the need for a reindustrialization policy for America. First on the show is Stephen Miran, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former senior advisor for economic policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Later, we hear from Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute and Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. You can find Steve on X, formerly Twitter, at @SteveMiran and Scott at @ScottLincicome.

Do we still need to create jobs? What are labor unions, and how do they actually work? Scott Lincicome joins host Dominic Pino to discuss all things labor market. Scott Lincicome is the Cato Institute's vice president of general economics and Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. He writes on international and domestic economic issues, including international trade; subsidies and industrial policy; manufacturing and global supply chains; and economic dynamism.

A little-known U.S. law called the Jones Act shapes climate tech in weird ways — like hindering offshore wind deployment and pushing up energy prices. The law, part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, requires all cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by ships that meet strict standards. Those ships must be built in American shipyards, owned by an American company, registered in the U.S., and crewed by a majority American crew. As a result, building cargo ships in the U.S., and operating them between U.S. ports, is way more expensive than building and operating ships in other countries — and relatively few U.S. ships get built. So what are the impacts on climate tech? In this episode, Shayle talks to Colin Grabow, research fellow at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. They cover topics like: How the Jones Act increases the money and time required to deploy offshore wind turbines Why it costs less to ship U.S. oil and gas abroad than to domestic markets How it pushes domestic shipping to rely on trucks and trains instead of ships The history of the act and potential ways it could change Recommended Resources: WIRED: The US Has Big Plans for Wind Energy—but an Obscure 1920s Law Is Getting in the Way Cato Institute: Jones Act Leaves New England Vulnerable to Wintertime Calamity Cato Institute: Environmental Costs of the Jones Act Are growing concerns over AI's power demand justified? Join us for our upcoming Transition-AI event featuring three experts with a range of views on how to address the energy needs of hyperscale computing, driven by artificial intelligence. Don't miss this live, virtual event on May 8.

Scott Lincicome is the vice president of general economics and Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. Biden's New liquid natural gas (LNG) Pause - Policy vs. Politics

On this week's episode Ron and Ed welcome Colin Grabow of the CATO Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies to talk about the Jones Act (aka Merchant Marine Act of 1920) which regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports, oh, and, makes stuff more expensive for all of us while benefitting a select few. You will learn the main reason why food and other sundry items are more expensive in Hawaii and Puerto Rice; why the Northeast US imports natural gas from Russia instead of getting it from the US; and many more insanities.

On this week's episode Ron and Ed welcome Colin Grabow of the CATO Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies to talk about the Jones Act (aka Merchant Marine Act of 1920) which regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports, oh, and, makes stuff more expensive for all of us while benefitting a select few. You will learn the main reason why food and other sundry items are more expensive in Hawaii and Puerto Rice; why the Northeast US imports natural gas from Russia instead of getting it from the US; and many more insanities.

Explore the intricate realms of global economics with Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome), vice president of general economics and Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, in this in-depth conversation that transcends traditional boundaries. He joins podcast hosts Jim Iurio (⁠@jimiurio⁠) and Bob Iaccino (⁠@Bob_Iaccino⁠) for a deep dive into the realms of macroeconomic policy, economic dynamism, regulatory reform, inflation and the unseen forces shaping the economic landscape. From dissecting the impact of government policies on economic dynamism to exploring the nuances of trade, immigration, and regulatory frameworks, Lincicome shares. He shares his views on dollar hegemony, the recent JetBlue Spirit deal to the potential implications of rate hikes. This episode is in partnership with Mint Mobile.  URL: trymintmobile.com/futuresedge Promo Code: futuresedge

In the weeks following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there was a flurry of articles, commentaries and videos predicting that the event signaled the end of globalization. Part of this prediction was based on policymakers and business leaders seeing the risks of global supply chains in countries with dissimilar political, economic and human rights alignments. What does the push to onshore and friend shore clean energy supply chains mean for global trade? How can trade be used as a tool to address climate change?  Allegra Dawes hosts this episode with Ambassador Jayme White, the Deputy United States Trade Representative; Peter Rashish, the Vice President and Director of the Geoeconomics program at the American German Institute; and Colin Grabow, a research fellow with the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute; and special thanks to Emily Benson, the Director of the Project on Trade and Technology at CSIS. 

ALEC Federalism, Homeland Security & International Relations Task Force Senior Director Karla Jones sat down with Colin Grabow, Research Fellow at the CATO Institute Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, to discuss The Jones Act and its implications on maritime commerce and national security. Special Guest: Colin Grabow.

Join Dane as he dives deep into the intricacies of the Jones Act with guest Colin Grabow, a research fellow at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. In this episode, we discuss the requirements and implications of the Jones Act, and how it affects the cost and efficiency of shipping within the United States. Colin provides an in-depth analysis of the Act's effects on economic development, with a particular focus on its impacts on the coastal regions of Texas. We also explore potential paths forward and solutions to mitigate the negative effects of the Act on the domestic economy. Like this show? Please leave us a review here (https://econdevshow.com/rate-this-podcast/) — even one sentence helps! Special Guest: Colin Grabow.

As part of Women's History Month, ALEC Senior Task Force Director Karla Jones sits down with one of the nation's foremost experts on international trade Gabriella Beaumont‐Smith of the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. They look at the international trade aspects of the ongoing baby formula crisis in the United States. Data shows that there is enough supply of baby formula in the market, so why are parents still seeing empty shelves in stores? Jones and Beaumont-Smith also discuss barriers preventing American parents from freely buying infant formula from safe trading partners that most of us would consider safe such as Canada. Finally, they consider options state government have to ensure their citizens have access to baby food formula. Special Guest: Gabriella Beaumont-Smith.

In a prior episode, Gabriela Rodriguez of American Compass argued that the Jones Act, a law aimed at supporting the U.S. ship building should be reformed—not repealed. On The Dynamist's first ever “rebuttal episode,” Evan is joined by Colin Grabow, a research fellow at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. They discuss why Grabow supports a full repeal of the Jones Act, his response to Rodriguez's proposed reforms, and what a post-Jones Act world might look like. Cato blog, “More Industrial Policy Won't Solve the Jones Act's Many Problems”Op-ed in The Atlantic, “The Obscure Maritime Law That Ruins Your Commute”

Scott Lincicome, Cato Institute's director of general economics and Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, joined today's episode of the Let People Prosper Show where we discussed:    1. Why the government is not the solution to our nation's problems and how the government is often the problem;   2. What trade is and is not, why we need it, and why we should not be afraid of it; and   3. His newly released book, "Empowering the New American Worker: Market-Based Solutions for Today's Workforce," with multiple authors on the path forward to help everyday working Americans. Hint: it's not with more government! (See Scott's latest WSJ article)  See the show notes page for this episode posted at www.vanceginn.substack.com for more info. Please rate with 5 stars and subscribe to the Let People Prosper Show if you enjoyed this episode. And be sure to check out the other episodes.

Colin Grabow on The Jones Act 2: Treason, Hurricanes, and CruisesEpisode description: Colin Grabow, a research fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, talks to us today about the Jones Act. He gives us a refresher on what the Jones Act is, but for more details listen to our first episode on the topic, Colin Grabow on The Jones Act.He talks to us about the recent treason charges against critics of the Jones Act, the effects of the Jones Act in times of emergencies -namely Hurricane Fiona- and the Jones Act for cruise ships, the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Colin Grabow, a research fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, talks to us today about the Jones Act. He gives us a refresher on what the Jones Act is, but for more details listen to our first episode on the topic, Colin Grabow on The Jones Act.He talks to us about the recent treason charges against critics of the Jones Act, the effects of the Jones Act in times of emergencies -namely Hurricane Fiona- and the Jones Act for cruise ships, the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Since at least the 2016 U.S. presidential election, policymakers on the right and the left have lamented the plight of the "American Worker" and promised to fix it. Unfortunately the most common "pro-worker" policies today—heavy on government intervention in labor, trade, or other markets—suffer from critical flaws. They overlook the laundry list of current laws and regulations that distort markets, harm most American workers, and breed economic sclerosis. They ignore market-based solutions to boost workers' independence, mobility, wealth, resilience, and quality of life. And they are based on stereotypes that fundamentally misrepresent who today's "American Worker" really is. Recent trends in manufacturing, remote work, independent work, globalization, and other areas argue for a different kind of "pro-worker" policy—one that, instead of promoting a certain kind of worker, promising cradle-to-grave protection from disruption, or presuming that the employment and lifestyle trends of today will last beyond tomorrow, maximizes Americans' autonomy, mobility, and living standards. This book identifies what Cato Institute scholars believe to be the most important market-oriented policies to achieve these objectives, on issues like education, labor regulation, licensing, housing, healthcare, criminal justice, and consumer necessities. Each chapter identifies the problems facing American workers and suggests pro-market ways for federal, state, and local officials to fix them. Combined, these policies will give individuals the freedom and resources they need to be the "American worker" they want to be—not the one a few policymakers think they should be—and to be happier and more prosperous in the process. Learn more: https://www.cato.org/commentary/labor-day-better-policy-all-american-workers Scott Lincicome is the director of general economics and Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. He writes on international and domestic economic issues, including international trade; subsidies and industrial policy; manufacturing and global supply chains; and economic dynamism. Learn more: https://www.cato.org/people/scott-lincicome Chelsea Follett is the managing editor of Human​Progress​.org, a project of the Cato Institute that seeks to educate the public on the global improvements in well‐​being by providing free empirical data on long‐​term developments. Learn more: https://www.cato.org/people/chelsea-follett

When does economic policy become industrial policy, and has the Biden administration crossed that line? In this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I'm talking with industrial policy skeptic Scott Lincicome about the CHIPS and Science Act, how competition with China complicates the argument for free markets, and more.Scott is the director of general economics and the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author of numerous reports on industrial policy and international free trade, including "The (Updated) Case for Free Trade" with Alfredo Carrillo Obregon and “Questioning Industrial Policy” with Huan Zhu. He's also the author of Capitolism, a Dispatch newsletter.In This Episode:* Is Bidenomics really about boosting productivity? (1:19)* We're all industrial policy enthusiasts now (3:37)* The climate change exception (9:34)* Thinking about China (17:29)* Can the US play the semiconductor game and win? (21:35)Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.Is Bidenomics really about boosting productivity?James Pethokoukis: The Biden administration has been doing quite a bit: this infrastructure bill, we've had a chips and R&D bill, now we have the Inflation Reduction Act. The president has said that one thing he's trying to do is boost the productive capacity of the economy. Do you view that as the main thrust of these bills?Scott Lincicome: No. I think it's actually much more about picking and choosing specific sectors. You can maybe argue for infrastructure: to the extent that roads and bridges are going to actually lead to the expansion of the national productive capacity, okay. But particularly with semiconductors and the IRA, this is just classic industrial policy. “The market has failed. We don't like the sectoral composition of the United States economy. In particular, we are not making enough semiconductors. We are not making enough solar panels and wind turbines and electric vehicles, and government needs to get involved. We need to not only encourage the consumption of these goods, but we need to actually forcibly, or through a lot of subsidies and sweeteners, incentivize onshoring of these critical industries.” I know that there are some attenuated ideas that this will then boost the overall productive capacity after several years. This is the whole idea that the Inflation Reduction Act will actually reduce inflation by spending all this money. But let's be clear: the immediate effects, the ones that don't require stretching the economic imagination beyond all recognizable length, are about a sectoral composition. It's about changing the shape of the US economy.We're all industrial policy enthusiasts nowA more market-oriented approach would focus on things like creating a favorable tax code that's neutral to sectoral composition and funding basic research. But with industrial policy, you care about sectoral composition. You care about what the economy looks like, rather than just GDP growth. Is America now doing full-throated industrial policy?No, but we definitely have pushed the envelope. That actually gets to one of the big myths that is pushed by industrial policy advocates here in the United States: this idea that we lived through this grand or terrible — depending on your viewpoint — era of free market fundamentalism in which Milton Friedman got a hold of the economy and ran it like a textbook. That's absolute nonsense. We have experimented with industrial policy for ages, going back to the ‘60s, the ‘70s, then into the ‘80s. We really liked it in the ‘80s and ‘90s. We backed off a little bit in the ‘90s and 2000s but still had tons of industrial policy initiatives to encourage certain types of manufacturing, certain types of jobs, to protect certain sectors. And some of this was new; some of it was longstanding stuff like the Jones Act. So the idea that we weren't engaging in industrial policy is pretty silly. But we certainly have pushed the accelerator down a little bit in the last few months, starting with the infrastructure bill which has local content provisions: “Buy American” this, “Use these American workers,” “Produce these types of charging stations,” that kind of stuff. Specific things, not just infrastructure as we normally consider it. But then really ramping up with the CHIPS Act, which certainly has some basic research stuff in it. But throws $80 billion — potentially more, depending on how these tax credits shake out — to domestic semiconductor manufacturers to actually put more fabs in the United StatesIt's a subsidy to build these plants in the United States.Correct, and with several strings attached even further. But the idea, generally, is (so the argument goes) the United States has experienced a dramatic collapse in semiconductor productive capacity over the last 30 years — thanks, again, to the Milton Friedmanites, us at Cato, we libertarians always run Washington so it's all our fault. And we need to tilt the scales. We need to do industrial policy like the Koreans and the Taiwanese and the Chinese are doing, and we need to get more fabs, semiconductor manufacturing facilities, here in the United States. That's the idea. And then the IRA basically turned the knob to 11. The IRA went and did very much the same thing with tens of billions of extra dollars — hundreds of billions, really — looking into renewable energy: all sorts of programs, advanced manufacturing, tax credits, grants, you name it. Again, this is not new. Most of the stuff that the IRA did was expand Obama-era programs that went on during the 2009 stimulus bill, essentially revitalizing some of these programs, for example at the Department of Energy, that had been in place for more than a decade.Industrial policy can refer to a lot of things: protecting industries from foreign trade, cutting checks to businesses or sectors deemed "important," or offering strategic tax breaks and the like. Is what we're doing now closer to classic industrial policy?This is classic industrial policy. And in a sense, I'm relieved. Because for the last two years, before the CHIPS bill and the IRA and a little bit on infrastructure, we had this very painful debate that we wonks have to have about definitions. If you listen to some industrial policy advocates out there, like Mariana Mazzucato, the Italian economist who's all the rage in Europe with industrial policy, to them — and there are some folks here in the United States who do this too — industrial policy is anything and everything. WTO reform was industrial policy, basic research gets thrown in, military spending … You get these ridiculous statements like, “Everything that goes into an iPhone was the result of government industrial policy.” That's a lot of nonsense. There's plenty of free-market, market-oriented, libertarian, whatever you want to call it, stuff that just does not meet the traditional definition of industrial policy, meaning targeted and directed government action — tariffs, subsidies, whatever — to achieve a specific microeconomic advantage over what the market could produce within national borders. And always pursuant to some strategic plan. This is not the NIH just giving out some grants. No, you have a big plan, a strategic plan, and you're going to go out and determine winners and losers. That is very much what we're doing in the CHIPS Act and the IRA. It's nice in the sense that we're getting back to a discussion of traditional industrial policy.The climate change exceptionCertainly some would argue, even if they're generally skeptical of industrial policy, they would say, “Well, sometimes we have to do it. Maybe for defense-related reasons we need to do it. Maybe there's some other emergency. People think climate change is that kind of thing: We can't wait for the market to figure it out. It's a pressing emergency, as much as a geopolitical conflict would be. It's that kind of thing. Therefore, we must act.Even zany libertarians like me acknowledge a national defense exception to all of this stuff. There's actually a lot of literature I've written about, about how national defense is quite different from socially related industrial policy. And for those reasons, and for very legitimate national security reasons, you tend to push defense-related stuff over the side. Even I am not going to say we should be outsourcing our nuclear weapons technologies to China. That kind of stuff is obvious. Just as importantly, or almost as importantly, there are pretty huge differences between defense procurement and commercial industrial policy. One is, there's no other buyer for defense-related stuff. The market is the government's market. That makes the government uniquely positioned and attuned as the consumer to care about how it's spending its money, to actually have sophisticated, detailed information about the sector. The government knows a lot more about tanks than basically anybody else, because the government is in the tank consumption business. Finally, the public tends to give the government a lot more of benefit of the doubt about failures, about dollar figures and the rest. It's kind of the government's unique, constitutional responsibility. National defense works. Climate change, though, I think is a problem. Because climate change is very much a consumption issue as much as it is a production issue. And it's very little of a domestic production issue. Of course we care about coal-fired electricity plants and the rest. But at the end of the day, all we really care is that we want to increase domestic consumption of renewable energy. With respect to all of these products, there's no need that solar panels be made in America. Quite frankly, there's a very strong argument that by raising the prices of our renewable energy goods — by slapping tariffs on them, by localization mandates like Buy American policies — we're actually raising the prices of these goods and then discouraging consumption of renewable energy. So there's a really tough tension between classic economic nationalist industrial policy and environmental goals. You don't have to take it from me. A big initiative of the Obama administration was to liberalize trade in environmental goods. The Obama administration quite rightly observed that production of these things is not nearly as important as consumption of these things. And what helps maximize consumption? Free trade. That deal never got finished. It's been shelved because, of course, everybody hates trade these days. But I think that it's a lot tougher argument on the climate change side that we need industrial policy, because it just doesn't have the same dynamic as something like national defense.Let me frame it somewhat differently. What if the policy was, “Here's how we're going to deal with climate change: We need to pull carbon from the air”? Carbon removal technology is something that doesn't really exist right now, other than in some very experimental forms. “We're going to fund it, just like Apollo, just like the Manhattan project.” Would you favor something like that, assuming you thought there was the actual need to pull carbon from the sky?This is a great example of where you have the industrial policy approach and the more market-oriented approach. The industrial policy approach is that we need that carbon capture technology to be made by Americans in America. And not just deployed by Americans; we need it made in America. Whereas the more free-market approach would be a prize: We don't care how it's made. We don't care who makes it, with a few security-related exceptions. If tomorrow the Korean government or Samsung or whatever comes up with the most amazing carbon capture technology in the world — it's like Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future, you just slap it on a power plant and suddenly we're zero emitters — you win the prize. We don't care that it was made by a Korean company. We don't care that they are going to be Korean jobs and not American jobs. No, the industrial policy side says, “We care a lot about who makes this stuff and that it's made in America, using American materials.” The pandemic, for all of its terribleness, provided us a pretty good example of the industrial policy approach to pandemic stuff and the market approach. And that's in the vaccines. The more free-market approach, essentially a prize but a procurement contract, was we went to Pfizer and BioNTech, and if you look at the contract for those vaccines, it said we have nothing to do with your supply chain. “We don't care how you do it. We don't care what you do. Just get an FDA-approved vaccine and we are all in, we're going to pay.” That's it. There are clauses in that contract that literally say we will have no control over how you make this whatever. A ton of global collaboration, of course. BioNTech is a German company, blah, blah, blah. Totally different approach: There's another company in Maryland called Emergent BioSolutions. Emergent BioSolutions is a heavily government-connected contract manufacturer that has been essentially put here for pandemic preparedness. Lots of government involvement over the years. Emergent was the kind of all-American government contractor model. It is very much similar to a lot of the stuff we hear today about what we need, not just for pandemics, but for other stuff as well: We need to put this factory in America; we need to put it right outside of Washington. Well, Emergent hasn't made a handful of finished doses, and in fact has had a ton of problems with sanitation issues. They've had to destroy a bunch of doses. It's a nice contrast between a more market-oriented approach and a very domestic-oriented approach, one being much more industrial policy than the other. We can argue on the margins about how we funded mRNA research back in the day… But look, comparatively, there are two very different approaches to economic policymaking.Thinking about ChinaIt was kind of easy to defend free markets during the Cold War, but have things become more complicated with China given the interdependence of our economies? How easy is it for you to maintain your pro-market views on industrial policy questions with China?China certainly makes it a little bit harder, and the nature of technology makes it a little bit harder. But we have existing laws and processes for a lot of that. You used a word there that sets off my libertarian Spidey senses. You said “important.” The issue there is, who decides what's important? The idea is not that we allow mass proliferation of dual-use technologies, we rely on China for weapons systems or critical inputs to weapon systems. But it's also that we have to have a lot of skepticism about what is and isn't important. I have very little problem allowing the Office of Foreign Assets Control and all the guys that commerce and whatever to apply the export control regime. We have US laws that require the Department of Defense to look at defense procurement and look at weak links in the chain. In fact, the Defense Production Act, before it was used to make baby formula, used to be used correctly. DOD used to look at its defense supply chain and say, “We don't have a stable producer of widgets that are important for our weapon systems. We need to subsidize that. We're going to give them $20 million.” You know what? No problem. The problem is that now the word “important” has become so distorted from its original meaning that steel rebar is being restricted on national security grounds. Not to mention all of the other areas. Certainly there is a need to consider China, to consider the natures of technologies and all that. But we've gone way, way beyond what is in any way a rational policy. And you have to be very concerned about politics. One of the little-known secrets about the global chip shortage is how American export control policy contributed to the global chip shortage. The Trump administration started restricting pretty basic semiconductor technologies to China and Huawei and the rest. That reduced the global supply of bulk semiconductors. I'm not talking about the fancy three nanometer or whatever stuff. I'm talking about the junky stuff that we put 100 of them in a car for not a great reason, but we do. Not only did that reduce global capacity, but it also caused all these Chinese companies to start hoarding chips because they were scared to death of being cut off from these chip supplies.Believe it or not, China remains very dependent on the United States for a lot of semiconductor stuff. That, of course, made things worse. The Biden administration quietly rolled some of that back in response to shortages. But that's the type of stuff we need to be really worried about. We also need to be concerned about, if we restrict these exports, is that just going to harm American tech champions like Qualcomm or whatever while bolstering French competitors, European competitors, Korean competitors, that are still going to sell to China anyway? There needs to be a very rational, skeptical approach to all this stuff. You can't just scream “China!” and then suddenly protect, subsidize, and do the rest. Of course, there are going to be exceptions. The goal is to get back to a saner approach to those exceptions.Can the US play the semiconductor game and win?How do you see this experiment with semiconductor subsidies playing out? When we look back at it in 10 years, will we say, “We learned that we can do that; we learned the United States can play that game and win,” or are we going to say, “It didn't really quite work out the way we'd hoped”?It's always hard, because any time there's a new industrial policy announcement, you're going to get companies that are beneficiaries making all these investment announcements. The goal and the hard part is then tracking and determining whether those announcements were made because of the subsidy or whether they were already going to do it and they're just trying to get government cash or curry favor with the administration and the rest. The other problem is determining what would've happened in the absence of the program. One of the things I was yelling about before the CHIPS Act was implemented was that semiconductor companies and big consumers, like Apple and Ford and GM, had realized years ago that they needed to rebalance a little bit. That, because of the pandemic, geopolitical stuff, and just other reasons, they were a little top heavy in Taiwan or in Asia. They started planning to invest back in the United States. Apple was saying, “We're willing to pay more to have Samsung right next to our big facility in Austin,” for example. All these investments were already planned before the CHIPS Act ever became a thing. Of course, the government is going to take credit for all of this. “We did all of this. Feast upon our works.” That's a challenge. I'm pretty confident, quite frankly, that they're going to run into a lot of problems. One problem is, like I said, they've attached strings to this stuff. There are prevailing wage requirements and other rules and regulations about favoring disadvantaged communities and all the usual stuff. These things always tend to gum up the works a little bit. The other big issue is that we run into preexisting policies that didn't fix: immigration bottlenecks, other labor supply problems. There was a big story in the AP last week that Intel in Ohio can't find construction workers. That's because we didn't liberalize immigration along with all this industrial policy money we just threw at the economy. We have, of course, plenty of tariffs on stuff that you need to build factories. We have tax policy with respect to expensing that discourages long-term investments in capital-intensive manufacturing. I can go down the list. We didn't fix any of that. At the end of the day, will we move the needle a little bit? Maybe. Government is very powerful; we're throwing a lot of money at this. But will there be a great global rebalancing? Color me quite skeptical. The other thing we have to consider are the risks. If we are successful and there is suddenly a glut in global semiconductors — reading the news right now, the semiconductor industry is actually kind of in some trouble globally right now. Gluts are popping up, people stockpiled, like I mentioned. And now they realize that actually Americans' consumption or the world's consumption of chips isn't insatiable. There are concerns there. If we have a chips-related glut, because the United States and Europe and Korea and others all threw subsidies at this, what are we going to do with all those extra chips? If you look back at the ‘80s and ‘90s, we had trade wars. We slapped tariffs on Japanese semiconductors and then Korean semiconductors, which caused all sorts of ripple effects throughout the US economy. It pushed the computer industry offshore, for example. Being a libertarian ideologue, but also a student of history and industrial policy, I remain pretty confident that we're going to look back on this and go: “Eh, that was not the greatest idea.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

On June 7, 2022, the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a live discussion on occupational licensing via Twitter Spaces.Utah Governor Spencer J. Cox opened the program with remarks on licensing reforms his state has recently pursued, and an expert panel featuring Jon Gabriel, Scott Lincicome, Colin Mortimer, and moderator Shoshana Weissmann then broke down the Governor’s remarks and discussed the issue more broadly.Featuring:- Spencer J. Cox, Governor, State of Utah- Jon Gabriel, Editor-in-Chief, Ricochet- Scott Lincicome, Director, General Economics and the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute- Colin Mortimer, Director, Center for New Liberalism- [Moderator] Shoshana Weissmann, Senior Manager of Digital Media and Fellow, R Street InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Colin Grabow is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, and he joins Macro Musings to talk about US trade policies, the Jones Act, and the consequences of this harmful maritime statute. Specifically, David and Colin also discuss the counterfactual world of TPP, the future of international trade, and how to fix the myriad of problems caused by the Jones Act.   Transcript for the episode can be found here: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/tags/macro-musings   Colin's Twitter: @cpgrabow Colin's Cato Institute profile: https://www.cato.org/people/colin-grabow   Related Links:   Cato's Project on Jones Act Reform: https://www.cato.org/project-jones-act-reform   *The Jones Act: A Burden America Can No Longer Bear* by Colin Grabow, Inu Manak, and Daniel Ikenson https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear   *Rust Buckets: How the Jones Act Undermines U.S. Shipbuilding and National Security* by Colin Grabow https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/rust-buckets-how-jones-act-undermines-us-shipbuilding-national-security   *The Progressive Case for Jones Act Reform* by Colin Grabow https://www.cato.org/study/progressive-case-jones-act-reform#:~:text=The%20Jones%20Act%20is%20unwise,repeal%2C%20of%20this%20odious%20law   *Candy-Coated Cartel: Time to Kill the U.S. Sugar Program* by Colin Grabow https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/candy-coated-cartel-time-kill-us-sugar-program   *5 Years Later and the United States is Still Paying for Its TPP Blunder* by Colin Grabow https://www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunder   *The Cato Trade Team's 2022 Policy Wish List* by Scott Lincicome, Inu Manak, Gabriella Beaumont-Smith & Colin Grabow https://www.cato.org/blog/cato-trade-teams-2022-policy-wish-list   *For Inflation Relief, the United States Should Look to Trade Liberalization* by Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Megan Hogan, & Yilin Wang https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/inflation-relief-united-states-should-look-trade-liberalization#:~:text=For%20inflation%20relief%2C%20the%20United%20States%20should%20look%20to%20trade%20liberalization,-Gary%20Clyde%20Hufbauer&text=With%20US%20inflation%20running%20at,calls%20anticompetitive%20behavior%20by%20corporations   *Biden's Frozen Trade Policy* by Anne Krueger https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-trade-policy-frozen-in-place-under-biden-by-anne-o-krueger-2022-02?barrier=accesspaylog   *Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy* by Douglas Irwin https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo24475328.html   David's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth David's blog: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/

Why are Puerto Ricans buying liquid natural gas from the Russkies? Why are Hawaiian ranchers transporting cattle to the mainland with planes? Why is an Alaskan seafood company giving tons of fish a jaunt on 100 feet of rail track located entirely inside a Canadian port? To answer these absurd questions, the guys were thrilled to be joined by Colin Grabow, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies and one of the authors of The Case Against the Jones Act. Together they discuss the Jones Act's origins, its many harms, why it remains in place, and beyond #EndTheJonesAct, what can be done about it? If you would like to learn more, Colin and his primarily anti-Jones Act thoughts can be found on Twitter @cpgrabow. For further readings and references, check out the following: Project on Jones Act Reform https://www.cato.org/project-jones-act-reform The Jones Act: A Burden America Can No Longer Bear https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear The Case against the Jones Act https://www.cato.org/books/case-against-jones-act And as always, if you enjoyed this conversation and would like to hear others like it, be sure to like, review, and subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app. You can also follow us on Twitter at @NobodyDismal or email us at NobodyExpectsTheDismalScience@gmail.com. We promise to always respond, whether on-air or off.

INTERVIEW — Colin Grabow (@cpgrabow) is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies where his research focuses on domestic forms of trade protectionism such as the Jones Act and the U.S. sugar program. http://cato.org/jonesact -What is the Jones Act and how does it impact ordinary people? -Joe Biden's executive order means he wants more control over the shipping of goods -Why do Democrats support the Jones Act? -Legislative proposals from Sen. Mike Lee and others to amend the Jones Act -Examples of countries that do it better when it comes to cabotage laws -The impact of cabotage laws on your ability to travel cheaply and why we don't have Ryanair in the US -The Jones Act makes us poorer and impacts absolutely everything -Does the Jones Act help China? Broadcast on Consumer Choice Radio on August 5, 2021. Radio: http://sauga960am.ca Radio: http://bigtalkerfm.com  Website: http://consumerchoiceradio.com ***PODCAST***  Apple: http://apple.co/2G7avA8 Spotify: http://spoti.fi/3iXIKIS  Produced by the Consumer Choice Center. #jonesact#endthejonesact#consumerchoice Support the show: http://consumerchoicecenter.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to the Bridge Policy Download produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Today, we're bringing you the audio from a recent webinar we co-hosted with the Classical Liberal Institute on the current immigration debate. The panel shares insight from their recent books and working papers on the topic and then go on to discuss the benefits of immigration, reform options for our current Congress, how and why reform efforts should be informed by policy research, and much more. If you'd like to contact the scholar involved in this webinar, please email mercatusoutreach@mercatus.gmu.edu Dr. Liya Palagashvili, Senior Research Fellow here at Mercatus, will be moderating the discussion. The panel: Robert Krol, Senior Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University Chandran Kukathas, the dean and Lee Kong Chian Chair Professor of Political Science at the School of Social Sciences at Singapore Management University Adam Cox, Robert A. Kindler Professor of Law at NYU Alex Nowrasteh, Director of Immigration Studies and The Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies

Colin Grabow, policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, joins us this week to discuss foreign trade, protectionism, and the Jones Act.

Alex Nowrasteh is the director of immigration and trade at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. His popular publications have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, and most other major publications in the United States. His peer-reviewed academic publications have appeared in The World Bank Economic Review, the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Public Choice, and others. Alex regularly appears on Fox News, MSNBC, Bloomberg, NPR, and numerous television and radio stations across the United States.

Ron and Ed are both strong advocates of immigration although they do differ on some policy details. On this episode, we welcome Alex Nowrasteh, the director of immigration and trade at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. Alex understands not only the subtlety of immigration policy but can cite chapter and verse the latest data on immigration.

Ron and Ed are both strong advocates of immigration although they do differ on some policy details. On this episode, we welcome Alex Nowrasteh, the director of immigration and trade at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. Alex understands not only the subtlety of immigration policy but can cite chapter and verse the latest data on immigration.

Ron and Ed are both strong advocates of immigration although they do differ on some policy details. On this episode, we welcome Alex Nowrasteh, the director of immigration and trade at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. Alex understands not only the subtlety of immigration policy but can cite chapter and verse the latest data on immigration.

At this episode of WITcast, we are going to have a very interesting conversation about Biden's future agenda in international trade and how he may take the next four years dealing with the current trade challenges. For this debate we will count on Simon Lester, associate director of Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies; Aluisio de Lima Campos, chairman of the ABCI Institute and a trade policy scholar at the American University; and the founder of our women network, Renata Amaral, Adjunct Professor at the American University Washington College of Law. WITCast: the podcast of the Womeninsidetrade network! An international organization that contributes to the empowerment of women and seeks to address a gender gap that still exists in Brazil and in the world when it comes to international trade. www.womeninsidetrade.com.

Join Jimmy Sengenberger at the Crossroads with Simon Lester. Jimmy (@SengCenter) begins and ends the show with some thoughts on the importance of free trade and the folly of import taxes - also known as tariffs. In between, he speaks with Simon Lester (@snlester), associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, about President Trump's planned tax on Canadian aluminum imports, the harm tariffs inflict on the economy and individuals, and why free trade really is so beneficial to everyone. PHOTO FRIDAY SPONSOR: Joshua Sharf Photography! http://photo.jsharf.com/

Fredrik Erixon talks to Dan Ikenson, the director of the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. They start their discussion by talking about how free trade is seen in Washington under the presidency of Donald Trump....

The Jones Act is hailed by many in the maritime community as an essential lifeline to keep the domestic merchant marine viable. There is an equally vocal argument that it is not just unnecessary, but counterproductive.Are the assumptions being make by the pro-Jones Act faction wrong?To discuss the Jones Act from the skeptical school this Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern will be Colin Grabow, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.

In the second hour Jimmy is joined by President "Donald J. Trump".He also speaks with Simon Lester, Associate Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, about U.S trade deals and the USMCA.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the second hour Jimmy is joined by President "Donald J. Trump".He also speaks with Simon Lester, Associate Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, about U.S trade deals and the USMCA.

Dan Ikenson, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, joins Trevor Thrall and guest host John Glaser to discuss the economic and foreign policy implications of Trump’s recent trade deals.Daniel J. Ikenson bioDaniel J. Ikenson, “A Few Things to Like about the U.S.-China Trade Deal,” Cato at Liberty, December 16, 2019Daniel J. Ikenson, “Trump’s Alleged Trade Deal with China Would Fix Nothing,” Cato at Liberty, December 13, 2019Simon Lester and Inu Manak, “The USMCA Is Moving Forward (Too) Quickly,” Cato at Liberty, December 16, 2019 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

38 Minutes Suitable for All Ages Pete welcomes Colin Grabow to the show. Colin is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies where his research focuses on U.S. trade with Asia as well as domestic forms of trade protectionism such as the U.S. sugar program and the Jones Act. Colin discusses the aforementioned Jones Act explaining how it damages American interests and is the perfect example to use when discussing 'crony capitalism' with any audience. Colin's Cato Page Cato Jones Act Archive Pete's Patreon Pete's Bitbacker Pete's Books on Amazon Pete's Books Available for Crypto Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter

Alex sits down with Colin Grabow, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, to discuss problems with the Jones Act and the law's impact on American energy. Links: • More from Colin on issues surrounding the Jones Act: https://www.cato.org/blog/jones-act-isnt-working-just-ask-its-supporters • Details about Cato's upcoming event on the Jones Act: https://www.cato.org/events/jones-act-charting-new-course-after-century-failure • Lean more about the Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown - Friday, June 22, 20184:20 pm: Brett Stohlton, one of the organizers behind a referendum by a group of Holladay residents against a large mixed-use development on the site of the old Cottonwood Mall, joins Rod to discuss why the group wants to stop the project4:35 pm: Ryan Mellor, Chief of the Salt Lake City Fire Department, joins Rod to discuss the new fireworks regulations in Utah and what residents should expect leading up to July 4th6:05 pm: Congressman John Curtis joins Rod to discuss the state of his campaign heading into next week’s primary election6:20 pm: Colin Grabow, Analyst for the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, joins the show to discuss his recent op-ed questioning how Mitt Romney, if elected as a Utah Senator, will approach trade agreements6:35 pm: We’ll listen back to Rod’s conversation this week with Ben Domenech of The Federalist about how the drug cartels are playing a major role in the migrant crisis at the U.S. border

As the American President slaps a tax on Canadian steel and aluminium exports, Canada strikes back.  Dan Ikenson is the Director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Centre for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and joins Rob to discuss.

Donald Trump is talking new tarrifs... how will it affect us? Dan Ikenson, Director of Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies joins Rob.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is currently being renegotiated by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to get a better deal, or walk away entirely from NAFTA if necessary. Amidst the air of uncertainty surrounding the talks, a productive discussion surrounding the prospects and challenges to modernizing NAFTA has emerged. Though NAFTA was a cutting–edge trade deal in 1994, international trade has transformed significantly since then, most notably with the advent of the digital economy. This full–day conference explores both the politics and reality of the NAFTA negotiations, and puts forward ideas for what a modern NAFTA could look like. SESSION V: BREAKOUT SESSIONS Dispute SettlementJennifer Hillman, Georgetown University Law CenterJohn Magnus, TradeWinsMike Smart, Rock Creek AdvisorsModerator: Simon Lester, Trade Policy Analyst, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is currently being renegotiated by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to get a better deal, or walk away entirely from NAFTA if necessary. Amidst the air of uncertainty surrounding the talks, a productive discussion surrounding the prospects and challenges to modernizing NAFTA has emerged. Though NAFTA was a cutting–edge trade deal in 1994, international trade has transformed significantly since then, most notably with the advent of the digital economy. This full–day conference explores both the politics and reality of the NAFTA negotiations, and puts forward ideas for what a modern NAFTA could look like. WELCOMING REMARKSSimon Lester, Trade Policy Analyst, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato InstituteSESSION I: NAFTA'S ORIGIN & PURPOSEJohn Weekes, Bennett JonesRufus Yerxa, National Foreign Trade CouncilRicardo Ramirez, Appellate Body Member, World Trade OrganizationModerator: Jim Bacchus, Former Chairman of the WTO Appellate Body See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is currently being renegotiated by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to get a better deal, or walk away entirely from NAFTA if necessary. Amidst the air of uncertainty surrounding the talks, a productive discussion surrounding the prospects and challenges to modernizing NAFTA has emerged. Though NAFTA was a cutting–edge trade deal in 1994, international trade has transformed significantly since then, most notably with the advent of the digital economy. This full–day conference explores both the politics and reality of the NAFTA negotiations, and puts forward ideas for what a modern NAFTA could look like. SESSION II: THE DEBATE OVER NAFTAMarta Bengoa, City College of New YorkSteve Charnovitz, George Washington University Law SchoolDan Griswold, Mercatus CenterAlvaro Santos, Georgetown University Law CenterTodd Tucker, Roosevelt InstituteChristopher Wilson, Wilson CenterModerator: Dan Ikenson, Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is currently being renegotiated by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to get a better deal, or walk away entirely from NAFTA if necessary. Amidst the air of uncertainty surrounding the talks, a productive discussion surrounding the prospects and challenges to modernizing NAFTA has emerged. Though NAFTA was a cutting–edge trade deal in 1994, international trade has transformed significantly since then, most notably with the advent of the digital economy. This full–day conference explores both the politics and reality of the NAFTA negotiations, and puts forward ideas for what a modern NAFTA could look like. SESSION III: POLITICS & REALITYPhil Levy, Chicago Council on Foreign AffairsRicardo Ramirez, Appellate Body Member, World Trade OrganizationBill Reinsch, Stimson CenterModerator: Scott Lincicome, Adjunct Scholar, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is currently being renegotiated by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to get a better deal, or walk away entirely from NAFTA if necessary. Amidst the air of uncertainty surrounding the talks, a productive discussion surrounding the prospects and challenges to modernizing NAFTA has emerged. Though NAFTA was a cutting–edge trade deal in 1994, international trade has transformed significantly since then, most notably with the advent of the digital economy. This full–day conference explores both the politics and reality of the NAFTA negotiations, and puts forward ideas for what a modern NAFTA could look like. SESSION IV: HOW TO MODERNIZE NAFTAChristine Bliss, Coalition of Service IndustriesAmgad Shehata, UPSDavid Weller, GoogleModerator: Inu Manak, Visiting Scholar, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is currently being renegotiated by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to get a better deal, or walk away entirely from NAFTA if necessary. Amidst the air of uncertainty surrounding the talks, a productive discussion surrounding the prospects and challenges to modernizing NAFTA has emerged. Though NAFTA was a cutting–edge trade deal in 1994, international trade has transformed significantly since then, most notably with the advent of the digital economy. This full–day conference explores both the politics and reality of the NAFTA negotiations, and puts forward ideas for what a modern NAFTA could look like. SESSION V: BREAKOUT SESSIONS In the Shadow of NAFTA: Dairy, Lumber, and BombardierEd Farrell, OFW LawDan Ikenson, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato InstituteChris Sands, Johns Hopkins, School of Advanced International StudiesModerator: Colin Grabow, Trade Policy Analyst, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Randall and Dan talk about Dan's article, "Are U.S. Multinationals to Blame for High Unemployment?" Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C, and the author of the new Cato book, Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization. Since joining Cato in 1997, Mr. Griswold has authored major studies on globalization, trade, and immigration. He's written articles for major newspapers, appeared on CNBC, C-SPAN, CNN, PBS, and Fox News, and testified before House and Senate committees. Earlier in his career, Mr. Griswold was editorial page editor of a daily newspaper, the Colorado Springs Gazette, and a congressional press secretary. He holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a diploma in economics and a master's degree in the Politics of the World Economy from the London School of Economics.