Podcast appearances and mentions of tyler goodspeed

Join us for the IEA Ralph Harris Centenary Lecture featuring Tyler Goodspeed, former Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, who delivers his analysis of the UK's economic challenges. Goodspeed reveals that the UK is approximately 40% poorer per person than the US, with British workers producing less in a full year than American workers do by August. He explains how the 2008 financial crisis triggered not just a temporary downturn, but a fundamental change in the UK's growth trajectory, largely due to the different regulatory responses in the UK versus the US. The lecture goes on to examine how the UK's institutional structure - from banking to planning laws - has constrained growth. Goodspeed highlights that while US businesses get 80% of their external financing from venture capital and private equity, UK firms still rely on banks for 80% of their funding. He also discusses how green belt restrictions, energy policy, and tax structures create barriers to economic efficiency. The event includes a discussion with IEA Executive Director Tom Clougherty, Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz, and Professor Christian Bjørnskov, who explore these themes further. The panel examines why many UK problems stem from regulatory accumulation rather than any single ideology, making them harder to combat than the economic challenges of previous decades. The discussion concludes with audience questions covering topics from environmental policy to cultural attitudes toward entrepreneurship, offering practical insights into how the UK might return to stronger economic growth. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this episode of the IEA Podcast, we analyse Angela Rayner's new housing proposals, which include redefining "grey belt" land and changing how housing targets are calculated. Director of Communications Callum Price, Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz, and Managing Editor Daniel Freeman discussed why these market-friendly reforms are coming from an unexpected source and whether they'll be enough to tackle Britain's housing crisis.We then dive into economist Tyler Goodspeed's fascinating analysis of what's really holding back UK growth. While planning restrictions and energy costs play a role, Goodspeed highlights how post-2008 banking regulations have created a credit crunch for British businesses that helps explain the sudden drop in economic growth. The discussion explores why the US banking system, with its many smaller local banks, has proven more resilient. The conversation wraps up with a look at the government's latest push for 5% efficiency savings across departments. Our panel examines whether these targets are realistic, how bureaucracies tend to respond to such demands, and the deeper challenges facing civil service reform - from pay compression to the difficulty of measuring productivity in the public sector. We bring you a public affairs podcast with a difference. We want to get beyond the headlines and instead focus on the big ideas and foundational principles that matter to classical liberals. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

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

The U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency is diminishing, which reduces the power that U.S. leaders have over the global economic system. In this episode, hear highlights from recent Congressional testimony during which financial elites examine the current status of the global financial system and what Congress is being told to do to address perceived threats to it (and to their own power). Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the show notes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd276-the-demise-of-dollar-dominance Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD269: NDAA 2023/Plan Ecuador CD230: Pacific Deterrence Initiative CD195: Yemen CD187: Combating China CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? International Monetary Fund “IMF Financial Activities List 2023.” Updated June 21, 2023. International Monetary Fund. “Weekly Report on Key Financial Statistics.” June 9, 2023. International Monetary Fund. “IMF Lending.” Updated December 2022. International Monetary Fund. Argentina “Argentina: Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies, and Technical Memorandum of Understanding” October 17, 2018. International Monetary Fund. “Argentina Policy Memorandum.” January 11, 1999. International Monetary Fund. Ecuador “Ecuador—Supplementary Letter of Intent.” March 13, 2003. International Monetary Fund. Smaller Banks within the World Trade System International Finance Corporation China “Members and Observers.” World Trade Organization. “ China and the WTO.” World Trade Organization. “From ‘China Shock' to deglobalisation shock: China's WTO accession and US economic engagement 20 years on.” Stephen Kirchner. January 24, 2022. United States Studies Centre. “The China Reckoning: How Beijing Defied American Expectations.” Kurt M. Campbell and Ely Ratner. February 13, 2018. Foreign Affairs. The World Bank “Who can borrow from the World Bank?” December 10, 2020. Bretton Woods Observer. “Domination of the United States on the World Bank.” Eric Toussaint. April 2, 2020. Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt. “Why Is the World Bank Still Lending to China?” Yukon Huang. January 15, 2020. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Congressional Stock Trade Tracking Quiver Quantitative Unusual Whales US Abuse of Sanctions “The Other Counteroffensive to Save Ukraine.” Lawrence Summers et. al. June 15, 2023. Foreign Affairs. Allies Pivoting “Europe must resist pressure to become ‘America's followers,' says Macron.” Jamil Anderlini and Clea Caulcutt. April 9, 2023. Politico. “US State Dept backs latest raft of Saudi, UAE, Jordan arms sales.” February 2, 2022. Al Jazeera. Witnesses Mark Rosen on Linkedin Daniel F. Runde on Linkedin “Membership Roster.” Accessed June 24, 2023. Council on Foreign Relations. Tyler Goodspeed on Linkedin Carla Norrlof - “Board of Directors.” Atlantic Council. Daniel McDowell bio Marshall Billingslea on Linkedin Audio Sources Dollar Dominance: Preserving the U.S. Dollar's Status as the Global Reserve Currency June 7, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Dr. Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow, Hoover Institution at Stanford University Dr. Michael Faulkender, Dean's Professor of Finance, Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland Dr. Daniel McDowell, Associate Professor, Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University Marshall Billingslea, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Dr. Carla Norrlöf, Senior Fellow, The Atlantic Council and Professor, University of Toronto Clips 34:05 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: In 2022, as the Ranking Member highlighted, 88% of all foreign exchange transactions by value involved the United States Dollar, a figure that has been roughly constant since 1989, which is testament to the substantial path dependence in international currency usage due to large positive network externalities. As the Ranking Member also highlighted, 59% of all official foreign exchange reserves were held in US dollars, which is down from a figure of 71.5% in 2001. By comparison 31% of all foreign exchange transactions by value involve the Euro, which is the second most commonly transacted currency, which accounted for 20% of official foreign exchange reserves. 34:50 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: The fact that 90% of all foreign exchange transactions continue to involve the United States dollar, and that global central banks continue to hold almost 60% of their foreign exchange reserves in US dollars confers net economic benefits on the United States economy. First, foreign demand for reserves of US dollars raises demand for dollar denominated securities, in particular United States Treasury's. This effectively lowers the cost of borrowing for US households, US companies, and federal, state and local governments. It also means that on average, the United States earns more on its investments in foreign assets than we have to pay on foreign investments in the United States, which allows the United States to import more goods and services than we export. Second, foreign demand for large reserves of US dollars and dollar denominated assets raises the value of the dollar and a stronger dollar benefits us consumers and businesses that are net importers of goods and services from abroad. Third, large reserve holdings of US currency abroad in effect constitutes an interest free loan to the United States worth about $10 to $20 billion per year. Fourth, the denomination of the majority of international transactions in US dollars likely modestly lowers the exchange rate risks faced by US companies. Fifth, the given the volume of foreign US dollar holdings and dollar denominated debt, monetary policy actions by foreign central banks generally have a smaller impact on financial conditions in the United States than actions by the United States Central Bank have on financial conditions in other countries. 36:40 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: However, the benefits of the US dollar's global reserve status are not without costs. The lower interest rates in the United States benefit US borrowers, especially the federal government. They also lower returns to US savers. In addition, though a stronger dollar benefits US consumers and businesses that net import goods and services from abroad, it does also disadvantage US firms that export goods and services abroad as well as firms that compete against imported goods and services. Furthermore, the perception of the US dollar as a safe haven asset means that demand for the dollar tends to increase in response to adverse macroeconomic events that are global in nature. As a result, the competitiveness of US exporters and US firms that compete against imported goods and services are likely to face an increased competitive disadvantage at times of elevated global macroeconomic stress. 37:35 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: However, despite these costs, studies generally find that the economic benefits of the dollar's prominent global status outweigh the costs, providing a modest net benefit to the United States economy. This does not include the substantial benefit to which the chairman referred of the United States dollar's centrality in global transactions, allowing the United States to utilize financial sanction tools when appropriate in support of national security objectives. 44:50 Dr. Daniel McDowell: With little more than the stroke of the President's pen or through an Act of Congress, the US government can use financial sanctions to impose enormous economic costs on targeted foreign actors, be they individuals, firms, or state institutions, by freezing their dollar assets or cutting them off from access to the banks through which those dollars flow. The consequences for individual targets, known as specially designated nationals or SDNs, are severe, significantly impairing targets capacity to participate in international trade, investment, debt repayment, and depriving them of access to their wealth. Over the last two decades, the United States has used the tool of financial sanctions with increasing frequency. For example, in the year 2000, just four foreign governments were directly targeted under a US Treasury Country Program overseen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Today that number is greater than 20, and if we include penalties from secondary sanctions the list gets even longer. The more that the United States has reached for financial sanctions, the more it has made adversaries and foreign capitals aware of the strategic vulnerability that stems from dependence on the dollar. Some governments have responded by implementing anti-dollar policies measures that are designed to reduce an economy's reliance on the US currency for investment in cross-border transactions. But these measures sometimes fail to achieve their goals. Others have produced modest levels of de-dollarization. Notable examples here include Russian steps to cut its dollar reserves and reduce the use of the dollar and trade settlement in the years leading up to its full scale invasion of Ukraine, or China's ongoing efforts to build its own international payments network based on the Yuan, efforts that have taken on a new sense of urgency as Beijing has become more aware of its own strategic vulnerabilities from Dollar dependence. 47:05 Dr. Daniel McDowell: The United States should reconsider the use of so-called symbolic financial sanctions. That is, if the main objective of a tranche of sanctions is to signal to the world or to a domestic audience that Washington disapproves of a foreign government's policy choices, other measures that can send a similar signal but do not politicize the dollar system ought to be considered first. Second, the use of financial sanctions against issuers of potential rival currencies in particular, China and its Yuan should face a higher bar of scrutiny. Even a small targeted sanctions program provides information to our adversaries about their vulnerabilities, and gives them time to prepare for a future event when a broad US sanctions program may be called upon as part of a major security crisis, when such measures will be most needed. Finally, whenever possible, US financial sanctions should be coordinated with our allies in Europe and Asia, who should feel as if they are key stakeholders in the dollar system and not vassals to it. Such coordinated efforts will prevent our friends from seeking to conduct business with U.S. adversaries outside of the dollar system and send a message to the whole world that moving activities into secondary currencies, like the Euro or the Yen, is not a safe haven. 48:35 Marshall Billingslea: I'll say at the outset that I agree with you and others that to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the dollar's demise have been greatly exaggerated. That said, we need to remind ourselves that in the 16th century the Spanish silver dollar was the dominant currency, in the 17th century it was Dutch florins, in the 18th century it was the pound sterling. The link between a nation's currency and its role as the relatively dominant political actor on the world stage is pretty clear. And that is why people like Lula from Brazil, Putin and Xi all aspire to undercut the role of the dollar as the global reserve currency. 50:00 Marshall Billingslea: If we look at what Russia did in the run-up to its further invasion of Ukraine, they began dumping ownership of treasury bonds in 2018. In that year, they plummeted from $96 billion and holdings down to $15 billion and they also started buying large amounts of gold. China is now, as the Ranking Member has observed, embarking on its own its own gold buying spree. I haven't seen the data for May, but April marked the sixth straight month of Chinese expansion in its gold holdings, and I'm not sure I believe the official figures. We have to recall that China is the dominant gold mining player around the world and half of those gold mining companies are state-owned. So the actual size of China's war chest when it comes to gold reserves may be far higher. In fact, I suspect inevitably far higher than official numbers suggest. Last year China also started dumping its treasuries. 2022 marked the largest or second largest decrease on record, with a drop of about $174 billion, and China stood at the lowest level since 2010. In terms of its holdings, though, this past March they did reverse course. This bears close watching because a sell-off may be a strong indicator of planned aggression. 51:20 Marshall Billingslea: The sheer size of the Chinese economy dwarfs what we've been contending with in the form of Iran, Russia, and so on. And one of the first things that the Biden administration did in the wake of Russia's attack was start sanctioning Russian banks and de-SWIFTing them. That's one thing when you're going after an economy smaller than the size of Texas; it's quite another when you consider that out of the 100 largest banks in the world, China has 20, and all four of the top four are Chinese banks. And that is why many within the Treasury contended when I was there, and they will contend to this day, that these Chinese banks are simply too big to sanction. I don't agree that we can allow that to stand but I do believe we have to start taking very swift action to put us in a situation where we could take punitive measures on these banks if necessary. 54:10 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: I will note that the Dollar's dominance is not quite as strong amongst private actors and private markets as it is with governments. In private transactions, it averages about 45% of the world's total. That includes FX transactions, but also things like issuance of international debt, securities, and cross-border banking. 54:55 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: The Chinese Yuan poses no immediate threat to dollar dominance. It accounts for roughly 3% of overall reserves. So far China has been successful in promoting the Yuan with its trade partners, but the Yuan is scarcely used by countries outside trade with China. China is a potential long term challenger due to its active pursuit of trade and investment relationships. If the Yuan is increasingly used by third countries, it will pose a greater threat to the dollar. 55:30 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: And in addition to these external threats, there is also a domestic threat. Flirting with the possibility of a voluntary default puts dollar dominance at risk. What should the US do to maintain dominance, to curb the domestic threat? Congress should consider creating an alternative mechanism for resolving political differences on government spending and its consequences. 56:00 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: To rein in external threats the United States should, whenever possible, implement multilateral sanctions in support of broadly endorsed goals to shore up the liberal international order. This is likely to limit dollar backlash. 59:40 Marshall Billingslea: The thing I do worry -- I come back to this fact that they've been buying a lot of gold -- that one of the things that they could do, which would be very concerning, if they wind up having larger reserves of gold than we believe, is they could start issuing Yuan or gold denominated, gold-backed Yuan contracts and that would further their ambition for introducing the Yuan onto the world stage. 1:05:00 Marshall Billingslea: China considers the actual composition of its foreign exchange reserves to be a state secret. So they don't publish and they they view it as a criminal offense to try to obtain that information in terms of the balance of how much is gold, how much Dollar or Euro denominated. But the numbers I've seen suggest that still at this moment, about 50% to 60% of their Foreign Exchange reserves are still in Dollars or Euros, which means that they are at high risk of sanctions; we can affect them. The problem is that that war chest that they've built up is enormous. It's more than $3 trillion that they have in Foreign Exchange reserves. Compare that with what Russia had at the onset of its assault, which was around $680 billion, of which we managed to freeze overseas half of it, but Russia is still keeping its economy going despite the Biden administration sanctions. So imagine how they're going to be able to continue with that sizable war kitty in Beijing if they do decide to go after the Taiwanese. 1:09:00 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: Short term I think the risk is that we continue to see diversification away from the dollar, PRC continuing to push other countries to use trade inverse invoicing and Renminbi, that they continue to promote the offshore Renminbi market, that they continue to promote or force bilateral clearing. Longer term, I think the bigger risk is that foreign investors no longer perceive the United States federal government debt to be as safe and risk free as it is today perceived. 1:41:20 Dr. Daniel McDowell: The demonstration of US control over the actual flow of dollars, of communication, absolutely provides information to adversaries to prepare for events where they may face similar circumstances. And so I think what we're seeing is China, we're seeing Russia, we're seeing other countries try to create alternative payments networks. Russia has its own SPFS payment messaging system. It's quite small. It was launched in 2014, not coincidentally, after the initial round of sanctions targeting Russia. In terms of CIPS, China's cross border payments network, Belarus announced it was having banks join immediately following the 2022 sanctions. So what I'm saying is there's a pattern between when the United States mobilizes control over the pipes and the messaging of cross-border payments and adversaries looking for alternatives. It doesn't mean they're using them, but they're getting plugged into the system as at least sort of a rainy day option in the event of a future targeting. 1:45:35 Dr. Daniel McDowell: I look at China not just as a typical country, because I think they're an alternative service provider. Most countries fall into alternative service users; they're looking for an alternative to the dollar. China, you could perhaps put Europe in this as well, are the only two sort of economic BLOCs capable, I think, of constructing an attractive enough cross-border payments network that could attract those alternative service users that are looking for that network. And so that's why I think again, with China, there should be a higher bar of scrutiny. 2:02:20 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: As deficits mount and as the debt burden rises above 100%, I think the Congressional Budget Office has it ending the budget window at about 119% of our economy, then we will probably observe an acceleration of diversification away from the dollar as a hedge. Again, I don't see another single currency displacing the dollar as the major international currency or as the major reserve currency, but continued diversification. International Financial Institutions in an Era of Great Power Competition May 25, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Jesse M. Schreger, Associate Professor of Business, Columbia Business School Mark Rosen, Partner, Advection Growth Capital and former Acting Executive Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Daniel F. Runde, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic & International Studies(CSIS) Rich Powell, Chief Executive Officer, ClearPath & ClearPath Action Daouda Sembene, Distinguished Nonresident Fellow, CGD and CEO, AfriCatalyst Clips 39:55 Mark Rosen: The IMF is the global lender of last resort to countries that are in economic distress. IMF borrowers usually have a balance of payments problem, are running out of foreign exchange reserves, and so cannot meet their obligations. The IMF negotiates a set of economic policies with the borrower in government to alleviate the crisis, and, conditional on the government implementing the agreed policies, provides a loan in tranches, normally over a three year period. 41:00 Mark Rosen: The biggest challenge the IMF faces today is China which, as we've heard, has lent vast sums to emerging market and low income countries in a non-transparent and irresponsible manner. Many IMF members are now struggling to repay China. 42:05 Mark Rosen: The United States is the largest shareholder in the IMF and has veto power over certain key decisions and it's critical that the US continues to maintain its ownership of more than 15% which enables it to have this veto power. 42:20 Mark Rosen: China for some time, has been pressing for an increased quota share at the IMF. However, given its irresponsible lending, and then willingness to provide debt relief to developing countries, this is not the time to reward China with increased ownership at the Fund. Two other issues I'd like to focus on are anti-corruption and the catalytic role of the private sector in the work of the IMF. Corruption is a severe problem for many emerging market countries, which do not have strong institutions that can confront and root out corruption. The IMF is certainly doing a much better job than it did historically on anti-corruption, but I believe it's critical that it continues to make anti corruption laws and policies front and center in the conditions of its lending programs, as well as a focus of its technical assistance. Only by reducing corruption will many of these countries be able to attract the vast amount of private sector investment which is potentially available and remains the ultimate key to reducing poverty. Establishing a rule of law, including laws to protect private property is key to unlocking this investment. And it should be a focus of the IMF and World Bank to encourage these countries to improve the rule of law and to fight corruption. If they do that, emerging market countries can attract private capital and grow rapidly as many countries that have followed that path have already done so successfully. 44:45 Daniel Runde: Multilateral development banks, MDBs, under US and Western leadership are one way that we can respond with something. The United States built and strengthened the MDB system. MDBs provide money, advice, data and convening power to help developing countries solve problems. If the US exerts its influence over these institutions, they are forced multipliers of a US-led global system. If we disregard our leadership role, then other actors, including China, can exert influence over them. The World Bank Group is a series of institutions: it lends money to national governments, it has a private sector arm, and has an insurance arm. There are a series of other regional development bank's including the InterAmerican Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank -- Taiwan is a member of the Asian Development Bank -- the African Development Bank and the EBRD, the European Bank for Reconstruction Development Bank, focused mainly on countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain. The United States has been instrumental in creating the majority of these institutions and remains the largest, or one of the largest, shareholders of every afformentioned MDB. Since the founding of these institutions, the US has used its shareholding power to shape the policies and activities of MDBs in indirect support of American foreign policy. 47:10 Daniel Runde: What role does China play in the MDBs? They're a shareholder. China continues to borrow from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. That is crazy. That needs to stop. China is a shareholder. Also, Chinese firms can bid on MDB projects. China wins a lot of in terms of dollar value, a lot of the dollar value of World Bank contracts. Something to take a look at. 47:35 Daniel Runde: How does the Belt and Road figure into the MDBs? You all have heard of the Belt and Road. Infrastructure is now a strategic issue. China's Belt and Road Initiative is a combination of construction and financing projects for roads, airports, and energy around the world. Unfortunately for us, BRI is an ambitious project that speaks to the hopes of China's friends and potential friends. To counter the BRI, the US needs a positive alternative that says more than, "Don't work with China." Right? That's not a strategy. We've got to have an alternative. 1:12:50 Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY): How do we end China's eligibility to borrow from the World Bank? Daniel Runde: The Asian Development Bank has said they're going to end their eligibility by 2025. We should absolutely hold them to that. There is a temptation for the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to continue to loan for a couple of reasons. One is they say, "Well, this is a window into how we can understand China better." There's lots of other ways to understand China better. And or this is a way for us to -- for a bunch of lending reasons that they do it. You all have the power of the purse, you have an ability, I think you should have blunted conversations with the administration about this. I suspect it's an open door, but it's going to require, I think, some pushing from Congress. I would encourage this committee to push the administration on ending lending to China. 1:14:30 Jesse Schreger: So fundamentally right now, the Renminbi is not yet positioned to compete with the US dollar for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the reason that the dollar plays the role it does in the international financial system is it provides the global safe asset. You're confident, except for the upcoming debt ceiling, that you will always be paid back if you own US dollars. That's fundamentally what you know. When you contemplate investing in China and holding Chinese Renminbi as reserves, you're not necessarily sure that you're gonna be able to turn that piece of paper into the goods and services that you need or intervening in FX markets. 1:21:15 Jesse Schreger: First and foremost, what China is trying to do is essentially convince countries around the world that the Renminbi is an alternative asset to invoice your trade and to invest in. And so on the investment side, they've been working very hard to actually allow in foreign capital, encouraging foreign central banks to hold Renminbi denominated bonds as their reserves. And on the trade side, they're encouraging firms to invoice, basically price their goods, in Renminbi. There's a few areas in which they've had challenges there. So first, we actually don't know who are holding most of these Renminbi denominated assets. What you can see is after the US sanctioned Russia back in 2014, it was the Russian Central Bank that effectively announced they were moving out of US dollar denominated assets and into Renminbi, so they did that publicly. And so China has effectively been trying to attract foreign capital of that form and a lot of the reasons for that is that China finds itself vulnerable in the dollar-based financial system. And so what I would say the fundamental area in which the United States can assure the dominance of the dollar is making everyone understand that US Treasuries are the world's safe asset that there is no state of the world in which the United States can or will default. 2:03:25 Jesse Schreger: I think the real way in which people start being able to issue and borrow in Renminbi is when people start thinking in terms of the goods that they need to buy and consume are in Renminbi. Fundamentally, most countries around the world, if they issue a bond in Renminbi, the calculation they have to do is then "okay, I'm going to take my renminbi and convert it into US dollars to buy the thing in which I need." And so while actions in the US financial system are certainly going to affect other countries decisions to borrow in Renminbi, the kind of underlying challenges in Chinese financial markets and fundamentally the lack of goods priced and sold in Renminbi are going to continue to hold back kind of a growth of this market for a while. And in particular, the fact that many countries are reluctant to try to raise money inside of China's liquid onshore capital markets for, effectively, fear of capital controls. If you've raised renminbi in China, you can't get that out and to your projects the way you can if you raise money in the US in dollars. 2:14:55 Daniel Runde: The business model of the World Bank is they lend money to richer countries with a pretty good credit rating and then they cross subsidize that by lending to poor countries with a poor credit rating. My view is, China can finance its own development, we should stop this practice. I think the Asian Development Bank has sort of gotten the memo, but the World Bank has not fully gotten the memo and they'll give you kind of World Bank-y answers to this sort of thing. We got to stop it. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA): Mr. Runde, I could not agree with you more. And you highlighted earlier, you know, by 2025, China should graduate from this program. I'd offer that 25 is two years too late. We can start funneling them off that now. Daniel Runde: I agree, sir. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA): I think you're in the right spot. Thank you. Music Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Editing Pro Podcast Solutions Production Assistance Clare Kuntz Balcer Cover photo Eric Prouzet on Unsplash

We all know that things are a little more expensive when we head to the grocery store. But what does inflation actually mean? How did we get to where we are, and what happens next? What does history have to say about our current economic situation? Annika sits down with Tyler Goodspeed of the Hoover Institution. Dr. Goodspeed served in the White House as Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2020-2021, and was formerly on the Faculty of Economics at the University of Oxford, where he specialized in financial history.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

We all know that things are a little more expensive when we head to the grocery store. But what does inflation actually mean? How did we get to where we are, and what happens next? What does history have to say about our current economic situation? Annika sits down with Tyler Goodspeed of the Hoover Institution. Dr. Goodspeed served in the White House as Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2020-2021, and was formerly on the Faculty of Economics at the University of Oxford, where he specialized in financial history.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

We all know that things are a little more expensive when we head to the grocery store. But what does inflation actually mean? How did we get to where we are, and what happens next? What does history have to say about our current economic situation? Annika sits down with Tyler Goodspeed of the Hoover Institution. Dr. Goodspeed served in the White House as Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2020-2021, and was formerly on the Faculty of Economics at the University of Oxford, where he specialized in financial history.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance

We all know that things are a little more expensive when we head to the grocery store. But what does inflation actually mean? How did we get to where we are, and what happens next? What does history have to say about our current economic situation? Annika sits down with Tyler Goodspeed of the Hoover Institution. Dr. Goodspeed served in the White House as Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2020-2021, and was formerly on the Faculty of Economics at the University of Oxford, where he specialized in financial history.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's podcast, IEA Director of Public Policy and Communications Matthew Lesh discussed the reasons behind Britain's sluggish economic growth with Dr Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

On today's episode of the "Let People Prosper" show, which was recorded on Feb. 24, 2023, I'm honored to be joined by Dr. Tyler Goodspeed, who is an economist, fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and was acting chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers from 2020 - 2021. We discuss: 1) His fascinating experience working inside the White House in numerous roles from 2017 - 2021; 2) What decisions led to present-day inflationary pressures, and why we need market growth; and 3) Why America is at high risk for a recession as well as reasons to be optimistic for future improvement and much more. Please like this video and subscribe to the channel if you enjoyed this podcast! For thoughtful economic insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more at my website: https://www.vanceginn.com/.

Joe and Eric continue their discussion with Tyler Goodspeed and explore disruptions that come from inflation. Tyler reveals that the best indicator of how the economy is doing in high and medium inflation environments is the consumer, better than government economists and academics. Tyler explains how the US dollar is the world's reserve currency and is not under threat by China, or any other entity at this time. But he does say that he could see other central banks diversifying into more than US Treasuries.

In the next part of this conversation Joe and Eric probe Tyler for his thoughts on current economic challenges. Specifically, the show looks at how to unwind the regulatory hurdles put in place by the current administration. Tyler also explores the problems with the workforce participation rate and whether extending federal supplemental unemployment benefits kept people out of the workforce. Additionally, we explore how inflation caused declines in real wages and impacts on the US consumer.

Tyler Goodspeed is the guest for the next three episodes with Joe and Eric. Tyler served on the Council of Economic Advisors and is currently at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He recently spent time in the UK advising Liz Truss, the shortest serving Prime Minister in U.K. history. Tyler then shared an insider perspective on why her policy rollouts did not go as well as they could have, and the experiences he had in Great Britain with the think tank culture of London.

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

Iowa Business Report Monday EditionSep. 26, 2022     Former White House Council of Economic Advisors member Tyler Goodspeed on the higher amount of interest the U.S. will have to pay on its debt due to each Fed increase in interest rates to combat inflation.

It makes my blood boil. Since March I've been screaming about the Fed's total misreading of inflation — believing it's being caused by workers getting wage hikes, when the real cause is powerful corporations raising prices higher than their costs. I'm not so grandiose as to think my screams would have any direct influence on the Fed. My hope was that my argument and data might be picked up by a few voices in the media, which would lead some Democrats in Congress to pick up on it, and that maybe they'd put some pressure on the Fed — such as asking Fed chief Jerome Powell to respond to those arguments when he next testifies. It's not happened yet. Yesterday Powell and the Fed raised interest rates again — another three-quarters of a percent — bringing the official rate from near zero in March to over 3 percent now. Insane. Well, now I get a chance to tell Congress why this is insane. The House Oversight Committee's subcommittee on economic and consumer policy holds a hearing this morning and has asked me to testify. (Thankfully, they're allowing me to do it remotely from my home here in California, although the timing isn't ideal — the hearing starts 9 am Eastern Time, which is 6 am here — and because I'm the lead-off witness they want me to check in remotely at 5:45 am. I'll have to drink plenty of coffee.)When you testify before Congress, you get 5 minutes to summarize your views. You submit your detailed testimony, which is read by the committee's staff, who then give members of Congress questions to ask you based on the submitted testimony (the Democratic staff's questions are usually quite different from Republican staff's). Those questions, hopefully, allow you to get into the details. My aim is to state as clearly as possible that the underlying problem is not wage-price inflation. It's profit-price inflation. And the Fed's continuing rate hikes will hurt average workers by slowing the economy — making it harder for workers to get wage increases and causing many to lose their jobs. I'm going to suggest that Congress consider ways to control inflation that limit corporate profits rather than jobs and wages — such as a windfall profits tax, tougher antitrust enforcement, and even temporary price controls. Will Congress do any of this? Here again, I'm not so full of myself as to think I can sway a single member of Congress, let alone Congress as a whole. But in my experience, policy ideas that are useful and timely often find their way into politics — eventually displacing old ones that are no longer useful and may be damaging. At least that's my hope with “profit-price” inflation replacing the anachronistic “wage-price” inflation.I'm going to add my testimony to this post right after I testify this morning — and fill you in on what happened. ***The hearing was just adjourned. The good news is that the Democrats on the committee got it. They understood that big corporations raising their prices in excess of their costs — to score record profits — is a major reason for the inflation we're now experiencing. And workers are paying for those record profits in two ways — real wage losses (wage gains have been more than offset by price increases, making most workers worse off) and by the higher prices themselves (the result of corporations increasing their profit margins). I was particularly impressed by the chairman of the subcommittee, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (from the 8th district of Illinois), who understood the issues and expressed them cogently, and by Cori Bush (from the 1st district of Missouri), who asked terrific questions. Katie Porter did a fabulous job breaking the issue down. There was less discussion of remedies than I'd hoped — only passing reference to tougher antitrust enforcement and no real discussion of a windfall profits tax — and no criticism of the Fed (other than in my remarks and testimony). Not surprisingly, the Republicans on the committee were obstreperous and wildly partisan. All they did was try to blame inflation on the American Rescue Plan, Biden, and the Democrats. They repeatedly quoted Larry Summers's misleading claim that pandemic spending fueled inflation (even at one point asking me if I served with him in the Clinton administration, without giving me the chance to rebut him). They asked the Republican witness, Tyler Goodspeed (briefly chair of Trump's Council of Economic Advisors), to confirm their rhetorical questions but didn't ask me a thing. Like much of the rest of our governing processes, congressional hearings have degenerated into partisan posturing and name-calling. I experienced this starting in 1995 when Newt Gingrich became Speaker. For those of you who might be interested, here's the testimony I submitted this morning:***Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,My name is Robert Reich. I'm the Carmel P. Friesen Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.Last week's consumer price index report shows annual inflation in the United States still roaring at 8.3 percent annually [1] -- the worst breakout of inflation since the 1980s.In response, the Fed has raised interest rates from near zero in March to over 3 percent yesterday, and has signaled it will keep raising rates until inflation is under control.I believe this strategy is a mistake. It assumes the current inflation is being driven by wage hikes and a tight labor market. But the underlying problem is not wage-price inflation. It is profit-price inflation.The Fed's rate hikes are hurting average working Americans whose real wages are already falling. Congress should consider alternative ways to control inflation that focus on corporate profits rather than jobs and wages.1. What's causing the current inflation?Inflation is not being driven by the usual suspects:Don't blame raw materials. The prices of commodities – wheat, natural gas, oil, and metals -- are falling.[2] That's partly because of a global slowdown, particularly in China, that is reducing worldwide demand.Don't blame intermediate goods. Last Wednesday's Bureau of Labor Statistics report on producer prices was fairly encouraging.[3] Even the prices of semiconductors and electronic components are slowing.[4]Don't blame inflationary expectations. Last week's New York Fed survey of inflationary expectations [5] was very positive. Expectations of continuing inflation have declined across the board.And – importantly -- it's not wages.Jerome Powell worries that “the labor market is extremely tight,”[6] and to “an unhealthy level.”[7] Some economists claim that inflation is “grounded in a red hot labor market.”[8]With due respect, this analysis is wrong. Although pay is still climbing, wage hikes have not kept up with inflation. This means most workers' paychecks are shrinking, in terms of purchasing power. So rather than contributing to inflation, wages are reducing inflationary pressures.As the accompanying graph shows, inflation-adjusted earnings have plunged.[9]2. The underlying problem is profit-price inflationWhat's a major reason prices are rising? Corporations are increasing their profit margins.In the second quarter of this year, U.S. companies raked in profits that were the highest on record or close to levels not seen in over half a century. As a share of GDP, U.S. corporate profits in the second quarter rose to 12.25%, their highest levels since 1950. (See graph below)Notably, corporate profit margins – over and above costs – continue to grow. (See chart below.)The labor market is not “unhealthily” tight, as Jerome Powell asserts. Corporations are unhealthily powerful.In a normally competitive market, corporations would keep their prices down to prevent competitors from grabbing away customers. As the White House National Economic Council put it in a December report: “Businesses that face meaningful competition can't [raise profit margins], because they would lose business to a competitor that did not hike its margins.”[10]The underlying problem is that large American corporations have so much market power they can raise profit margins – and prices -- with impunity.Since the 1980s, two-thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated.[11] This concentration gives corporations the power to raise prices because it makes it easy for them to coordinate price increases with the handful of other companies in their same industry, without risking the possibility of losing customers, who have no other choice.For example, Monsanto now sets the prices for most of the nation's seed corn. Wall Street has consolidated into five giant banks. Airlines have merged from 12 carriers in 1980 to four today, which now control 80 percent of domestic seating capacity. The merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas has left the US with just one large producer of civilian aircraft — Boeing. Three giant cable companies dominate broadband: Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. A handful of drug companies control the pharmaceutical industry. Two giant firms dominate consumer staples. A handful of national retailers and food outlets dominate local markets. And so on.Such concentration makes it easy for corporations to raise their prices beyond what is required to offset rising input costs. More than half of the companies surveyed by the business services reviews website Digital.com reported raising prices beyond what was required to offset rising costs.[12]As The New York Times pointed out, “corporate executives have spent recent earnings calls [with Wall Street analysts] bragging about their newfound power to raise prices, often predicting that it will last.”[13]3.    Examples from specific sectorsTake a closer look at specific sectors and you'll see profit-price inflation in action:Grocery prices are through the roof largely because just 4 companies – Archer-Daniels-Midland, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus, known collectively as ABCD – control an estimated 70 to 90 percent of the global grain trade,[14] making grain markets are even more concentrated than energy markets. All have raised their prices and gained record profits. Last year was Cargill's most profitable year in its history, with almost $5 billion in net income.[15]At the same time, just 4 companies control up to 85 percent of meat and poultry processing.[16] They too have raised prices above costs. Tyson's net income soared 47 percent, while it spent $700 million in shareholder buybacks.[17]Consumer packaged goods conglomerates -- such as Coca-Cola, Hershey's, PepsiCo, and Mondelez – are also highly concentrated. And they too are raising prices and reporting record earnings.[18] Coca-Cola has credited its increased net operating revenues to price hikes. Procter and Gamble has boasted of the “biggest annual sales increase in 16 years” with its net earnings soaring to $14.7 billion following price hikes on all of its products. It has paid out over $19 billion to shareholders.[19] Shipping conglomerates are expected to top last year's profits by over 73 percent or $256 billion.[20] Here again, it's because they have the power to raise prices. 80 percent of global merchandise is moved through the Big 3 shipping alliances. You can see a similar pattern in freight railroads. Over the last six years, the five largest railroad freight lines have increased their operating margins by over a third.[21]The ten largest U.S. retailers – all enjoying significant market power – have raised consumer prices while collectively reporting $24.6 billion in increased profits during the last two fiscal years. These same companies also ramped up stock buybacks by nearly $45 billion year-over-year for a total of $79.1 billion.[22]Gas prices are finally declining.[23] But they're still high, and major oil companies continued to have enough pricing power to gain a whopping $46 billion in earnings in the second quarter of this year.[24] It would be one thing if these corporations were investing their profits in additional capacity. At least this would reduce future inflationary pressures. But they have been using their profits to buy back their own shares of stock. This may be good for shareholders -- buybacks reduce a company's shares outstanding, raising its profits-per-share -- but it does nothing for the economy.There is a direct historic analogy. At the end of World War II, when the United States attempted to shift back from war production to civilian production, it experienced bottlenecks similar to those caused by the pandemic. Then, as now, consumers had high pent-up demand for all sorts of products and services. Then, as now, large corporations with market power took advantage of limited supplies and soaring demand to increase their prices and enjoy windfall profits. Then, as now, inflation soared.4.   The Fed's rate hikes are aimed at the wrong culprit  The Fed is using the only tool it possesses to fight inflation – interest rate hikes -- to do the one thing it has done in the past to fight inflation – slow the economy so real wages drop and unemployment rises. But when inflation is being driven by corporate pricing power, the major consequence of Fed interest rate hikes is to further depress wages and limit jobs.Rate hikes eventually diminish corporate profits because consumers have less money to spend on goods and services. But by then, average working people will have taken it on the chin.  As the economy cools due to interest rate hikes, they are less likely to get wage increases that keep up with inflation. In consequence, they will fall further behind. As the economy slows and unemployment rises, average working people and the working poor will be the first to be fired and the last to be hired.On August 26, Powell said the Fed must continue to raise interest rates, even though it will “bring some pain” to households.[25]  How much pain? Researchers at the International Monetary fund estimate that unemployment may need to reach 7.5 percent -- double its current level -- to end the country's outbreak of high inflation. This would entail job losses of about 6 million people.[26]Who will bear this pain? Not corporate executives, not Wall Street, not the wealthy and not the upper-middle class. It will be borne by average working people.5.  Better ways to stop profit-price inflationIn fairness to the Fed, it doesn't have the tools it needs to prevent profit-price inflation. The responsibility falls on Congress and the administration to take on corporate pricing power directly through a windfall profits tax, bolder antitrust enforcement, and, if necessary, price controls.Congress and the Biden administration enacted a 1 percent tax on stock buybacks in the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act, along with a minimum corporate tax. These measures are important, but they don't go far enough. They still leave most of the burden of fighting inflation on average working people and the poor.A windfall profits tax would help. One way to structure it would be to place a temporarily tax on any price increases that exceed the producer price index – that is, the costs of producing consumer goods. Congress could also direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether prices reasonably reflect additional costs or amount to opportunistic price-gouging. The FTC already has the power to carry out such investigations and impose penalties under existing law.[27]Bold antitrust enforcement is essential. Antitrust litigation is complex and time consuming (I directed the policy planning staff at the Federal Trade Commission in the Carter Administration and saw this firsthand). But the credible threat of aggressive antitrust enforcement can deter corporations from raising prices higher than their costs.Congress must appropriate sufficient funds for the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission to enable both agencies to attack excessive corporate concentration, which continues to harm workers and consumers. Price controls should be a backstop. Price controls have many disadvantages, in terms of distorting markets and deterring investment. They worked well in World War II, less well in the 1970s when they were half-baked and badly executed.  But as I've argued, the current inflation is most directly analogous to what occurred immediately after World War II when supplies were still limited, pent-up demand had soared, and corporations were making windfall profits. At that time and under those circumstances, many of America's most distinguished economists argued that price controls on important goods should continue temporarily, in order to buy the time necessary to overcome supply bottlenecks and prevent corporate profiteering.[28] They should be considered now, for the same reasons.ConclusionCongress and the administration have the power to stop corporations from using their market power to raise prices. It is far better that Congress and the administration take direct against this sort of inflation than relying solely on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to slow the economy and risk another recession – putting the entire burden on fighting inflation on average working people, who are not responsible for it.[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm[2] https://www.intellinews.com/commodity-prices-fall-across-the-board-as-the-market-adjusts-to-the-sanctions-realities-256384/[3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm[4] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/14/intel_plans_price_hikes_for/[5] https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/research/2022/20220912[6] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20220321a.htm[7] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell2023221.htm[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/business/economy/inflation-markets-economy.html[9] Refinitiv Datastream/ BLS/ BEA. Reuters Graphic E. Burroughs.[10] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/12/10/recent-data-show-dominant-meat-processing-companies-are-taking-advantage-of-market-power-to-raise-prices-and-grow-profit-margins/[11] https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-the-u-s-economy[12] https://digital.com/half-of-retail-businesses-using-inflation-to-price-gouge/[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/business/economy/price-increases-inflation.html[14] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/23/record-profits-grain-firms-food-crisis-calls-windfall-tax?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other[15] https://accountable.us/meatpacking-profiteers-testifying-today-saw-nearly-13b-in-profits-after-racking-up-384m-in-price-fixing-fines-and-settlements/[16] https://accountable.us/meatpacking-profiteers-testifying-today-saw-nearly-13b-in-profits-after-racking-up-384m-in-price-fixing-fines-and-settlements/[17] https://accountable.us/meatpacking-profiteers-testifying-today-saw-nearly-13b-in-profits-after-racking-up-384m-in-price-fixing-fines-and-settlements/[18] https://www.modernretail.co/retailers/citing-inflation-cpg-conglomerates-are-raising-prices-and-earning-record-profits/[19] https://accountable.us/profiteering-watch-procter-gamble-boasts-biggest-annual-sales-increase-in-16-years-after-excessive-price-hikes/[20] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-09/container-lines-to-smash-year-old-profit-record-with-73-surge[21] https://www-wired-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.wired.com/story/a-us-freight-rail-crisis-threatens-more-supply-chain-chaos/amp[22] https://accountable.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CPI-Retail-Report-Release.pdf[23] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2022/09/07/oil-prices-hit-seven-month-low-as-recession-fears-weigh-on-demand[24] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/oil-companies-record-earnings-sky-high-gas-prices-linge-rcna40622[25] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/business/economy/jerome-powell-inflation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare[26] https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/understanding-u-s-inflation-during-the-covid-era/[27] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/675/text[28] https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1946/04/09/93087670.html?pageNumber=23 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

The Labor Department released the number of American jobs added in August: 315,000. Only slightly below expectations, CNBC's Steve Liesman and former CEA member Tyler Goodspeed consider what the report means for the Federal Reserve's next rate hike. According to a new study by a group of professors, commission-free trades might not be free. UCLA Irvine Professor Christopher Schwartz explains the study, the fee and payout discrepancies between brokerages, and shares the best and the worst firms for retail trader pockets. As offices across the U.S. gear up for a reunion, China is locking down over 21 million people because of 700 covid cases. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb discusses the difference between our approaches to public health, and shares which vaccines we should be getting–and when we should get them. Plus, Starbucks has named Howard Schultz's successor, and Lululemon delivered a strong quarterly performance.  In this episode:Dr. Scott Gottlieb, @ScottGottliebMDBecky Quick @BeckyQuickMike Santoli @michaelsantoliSteve Liesman, @SteveLiesmanCameron Costa, @CameronCostaNY

We all know that things are a little more expensive when we head to the grocery store. But what does inflation actually mean? How did we get to where we are, and what happens next? What does history have to say about our current economic situation? Annika sits down with Tyler Goodspeed of the Hoover […]

We all know that things are a little more expensive when we head to the grocery store. But what does inflation actually mean? How did we get to where we are, and what happens next? What does history have to say about our current economic situation? Annika sits down with Tyler Goodspeed of the Hoover Institution. Dr. Goodspeed served in the White House as Acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2020-2021, and was formerly on the Faculty of Economics at the University of Oxford, where he specialized in financial history.   

Tyler Goodspeed served as the Acting Chairman and Vice Chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, having been appointed by the President as a Member of the Council in 2019 joins the Hammer & Nigel Show to talk about President Biden, the July Jobs Report Numbers, and more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

An EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with Dr. Tyler Goodspeed, former Acting Chairman and Vice Chairman of Pres. Trump's White House Council of Economic Advisers, talks GDP and Pres. Biden's 'Inflation Reduction Act of 2022'.  BREAKING NEWS as Pres. Biden talks LIVE about his own 'Inflation Reduction Act of 2022'.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Iowa Business Report Tuesday EditionJul. 12, 2022             Dr. Tyler Goodspeed, former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, on how the current administration should address inflation. 

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

Scott and Jeff discuss whether the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was effective. Often referred to as the Trump tax cuts, or the Trump Tax Reform, recent commentators have argued that it was highly effective. For example, Tyler Goodspeed and Kevin Hassett argued in the Wall Street Journal the TCJA "delivered as promised" by increasing investment, wages, and government revenues. Academic research, however, paints a more nuanced picture. Jeff keeps a list of academic studies that evaluate different aspects of the TCJA on the UNC Tax Center website called The TCJA Effects Tracker. We discuss why articles in the popular press that claim victory or defeat are almost always oversimplified.

On May 10, 2022, Aaron Hedlund, chief economist at the Show-Me Institute, and Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, discussed the impact of decades-high inflation on the economy, workers, and consumers, as well as the role of the Federal Reserve in solving the problem and the risk of the next recession. Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

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

Today on the Larry Kudlow Show: Larry talks with a number of very special guests about big government socialism, supply-side tax cuts, teachers on strike, wage hikes, and emphasizes to kill the bill! Guests include: Michael Goodwin, Kevin Warsh, Scott Rasmussen, Bjorn Lomborg, Tyler Goodspeed, Michelle Girard, Jim LaCamp, Liz Peek, and Steve Moore.

Larry Kudlow interviews Tyler Goodspeed on his show on January 8, 2022.

Today on the Larry Kudlow Show: Larry talks with a number of very special guests about big government socialism, supply-side tax cuts, teachers on strike, wage hikes, and emphasizes to kill the bill! Guests include: Michael Goodwin, Kevin Warsh, Scott Rasmussen, Bjorn Lomborg, Tyler Goodspeed, Michelle Girard, Jim LaCamp, Liz Peek, and Steve Moore.

Larry Kudlow interviews Tyler Goodspeed on his show on January 8, 2022.

Tyler Goodspeed is the Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. From 2020 to 2021 he served as Acting Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, having been appointed by the President as a Member of the Council in 2019. In that role he advised the Administration's economic response to the coronavirus pandemic, as well as subsequent economic recovery packages. He resigned from the Council on 7th January 2021, having previously served as Chief Economist for Macroeconomic Policy and Senior Economist for tax, public finance, and macroeconomics, playing an instrumental role in designing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.Before joining the Council, Dr. Goodspeed was on the Faculty of Economics at the University of Oxford and was a lecturer in economics at King's College London. He has published extensively on financial regulation, banking, and monetary economics, with particular attention to the role of access to credit in mitigating the effects of adverse aggregate shocks in historical contexts, especially exogenous environmental shocks. His research has appeared in three full-length monographs from academic presses, as well as numerous articles in peer-reviewed and edited journals. He received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from Harvard University; and he received his M.Phil from the University of Cambridge, where he was a Gates Scholar. He is currently a member of the American Economic Association and Economic History Association and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and was previously a member of the Economic History Society and Royal Economic Society.

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Matthew Lesh and Daniel Pryor are joined by Dr. Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution, former Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. They discuss Trump's economic policy in retrospective, the US economy and transatlantic relations. Guests:   Dr. Tyler Goodspeed (Kleinheinz Fellow, Hoover Institution) Daniel Pryor (Head of Programmes, Adam Smith Institute) Matthew Lesh (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) 

Dr. Tyler Goodspeed is the Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. From 2020-21 he was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Executive Office of the President, having previously served as Member, Chief Economist for Macroeconomic Policy, and Senior Economist for public finance and macroeconomics. Before joining the Council, he was a Junior Fellow in Economics at the University of Oxford, and Lecturer in Economics at King's College London. His primary research and teaching fields are economic history and monetary economics, with secondary interests in macroeconomics and political economy. Prior to earning his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2014, he received his A.B. from Harvard, summa cum laude, in 2008, and from 2008-2009 was a Gates Scholar at the University of Cambridge. Goodspeed's second book, Legislating Instability, examines the effects of unlimited liability and regulatory capture on financial stability in “free banking” Scotland. He also has a recent book, Famine and Finance, on the market for small loans during the Great Famine of Ireland, as well as companion articles in the Journal of Development Economics and World Bank Economic Review. Tyler's current research focuses on British and North American economic history, with particular attention to informal banking and the political economy of financial regulation, as well as long-run economic development. Previously, in his first book, Rethinking the Keynesian Revolution, he analyzed the debates between John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek, considering the relevance of those debates to contemporary monetary economics. He is also an avid distance runner.

As Washington mulls trillions in “human infrastructure” spending and remains at an impasse over raising the federal debt ceiling, what are the economic consequences? Hoover senior fellows Niall Ferguson and John Cochrane are joined by economic historian Tyler Goodspeed, Hoover's Kleinheinz Fellow and a former acting chair of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, to discuss the latest DC drama, the present supply-chain crisis and cryptocurrency's future. Recorded October 6, 2021

Tyler Goodspeed is the former director of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and currently the Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He has published three volumes on economic history and holds undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees from Harvard University. He has also studied at Cambridge and Oxford Universities and taught at King's College London.  Goodspeed explains why he pursued a job in the Trump administration, gives his thoughts on the economic policies of the Biden administration, and describes what it was like to watch one of the strongest economies in the history of the world implode over the course of several weeks in the spring of 2020.  Recorded on May 26, 2021

Tyler Goodspeed, Acting Chair of the WH Council of Economic Advisors, discusses the latest recovery efforts