Cato Event Podcast

Immigration is one of the most controversial public policy topics today. On one hand, tens of millions of immigrants and their children are assimilating and integrating into American economic life. On the other, concerns about immigrants and how they will affect the economic future of Americans and our nation as a whole is one of the best predictors of support for Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, many of those concerns are fueled by misunderstanding the effects that immigrants and their descendants have on the U.S. economy. This special conference, timed just prior to the Presidential election, brings together some of the best minds and researchers on the economics of immigration to help inform Americans and to guide policymakers.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A well-timed gif immortalizing U.S. gymnast McKayla Maroney’s stunning acrobatics in the women’s vault final of the artistic gymnastics event set the overall tone of the 2012 London Olympics and has no doubt been watched far more times, by far more people, than the live event ever was. When McKayla was awarded the silver medal for her efforts, the world was at least as unimpressed as she was, with the face she made on the winner’s podium quickly becoming one of the most recognizable and long-lasting memes on the Internet. Later that year, McKayla and President Obama posed for a photograph in the Oval Office, emulating her by-then trademark scowl and crossed arms.McKayla is far from the only Olympian to have crossed pop culture barriers in this way. American swimmer Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time, is the subject of numerous memes. Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt’s victory pose fueled a photo craze called “Bolting,” while a picture taken of British track and field athlete Mo Farah during the 5,000-meter race inspired the popular photoshop meme Mo Farah Running Away From Things.It’s therefore no surprise that when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) issued constrictive new rules governing how brands, news agencies, and more could discuss the Olympics online, the Internet was incredulous.Nonsponsor businesses are banned from using any of the Olympics’ trademarked words or phrases (including “Olympic,” “Olympian,” “Team USA,” “Go for the gold,” and “Let the games begin”) or “terms that reference the location of the Olympics” (including “Rio 2016”). The rules sternly warn that “the use of Olympic material transformed into graphic animated formats such as animated GIFs … or short video formats such as Vines … is expressly prohibited.” Hashtags that include Olympics trademarks (such as #TeamUSA or #Rio2016), posting Olympics results, retweeting official Olympics social media accounts, and using social media to wish athletes luck are all verboten.But, despite the IOC’s stern warning, the Internet is still awash with gifs, tweets, memes, and more—with many of them coming from nonsponsors, and at least one American business is suing for the right to root for the home team.Meanwhile, the IOC stands by what sees as a righteous defense of its intellectual property, raising important questions about free speech and digital copyright.What is the proper balance between intellectual property and freedom of speech? Does digital copyright impose a chilling effect on online speech and innovation—or does widespread circumvention of such legal impositions weaken the rule of law? Is the IOC’s (and Minnesota business Zerorez) “sue first” mentality indicative of the overlawyering of America and the international community? What do conflicts like these mean for the future of digital media? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has played a unique role in the world. It defended war-ravaged nations, enabling them to rebuild, and led a global coalition during the Cold War. Today it continues to provide security for other nations against a number of threats, from a rising China to non-state actors such as ISIS and al Qaeda. Washington also tries to adjudicate disputes, much as a baseball umpire ensures that the players obey the rules of the game. The United States and the rest of the world have benefited, but it has come at a cost. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused millions of Americans to question the nation’s global role. A new documentary, American Umpire, explores how the United States assumed these responsibilities in the first place. Then, through a series of interviews with prominent policymakers, scholars, military leaders, and journalists, it considers possible options for the future. Writer and producer Elizabeth Cobbs will join us for a special screening of the film, followed by a discussion, with a distinguished panel of experts, of its implications for U.S. foreign policy. Please join us. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welfare reform was not just one of the most important legislative achievements of its era, it continues to serve as the starting point for discussions of poverty and inequality today. The conference will look back at the goals of welfare reform and whether or not it has achieved them, as well as looking forward to next steps. We hope to answer such questions as the following: Did welfare reform achieve its goal of moving people from welfare to work? Did welfare reform improve economic self-sufficiency and mobility? How did welfare reform impact family structure, health, and child achievement? Did reformed welfare still provide an adequate safety net during the economic turbulence of the last decade? Is welfare reform still relevant today? How can we build on welfare reform to reduce poverty and increase opportunity? What should a safety net look like in the future? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welfare reform was not just one of the most important legislative achievements of its era, it continues to serve as the starting point for discussions of poverty and inequality today. The conference will look back at the goals of welfare reform and whether or not it has achieved them, as well as looking forward to next steps. We hope to answer such questions as the following: Did welfare reform achieve its goal of moving people from welfare to work? Did welfare reform improve economic self-sufficiency and mobility? How did welfare reform impact family structure, health, and child achievement? Did reformed welfare still provide an adequate safety net during the economic turbulence of the last decade? Is welfare reform still relevant today? How can we build on welfare reform to reduce poverty and increase opportunity? What should a safety net look like in the future? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welfare reform was not just one of the most important legislative achievements of its era, it continues to serve as the starting point for discussions of poverty and inequality today. The conference will look back at the goals of welfare reform and whether or not it has achieved them, as well as looking forward to next steps. We hope to answer such questions as the following: Did welfare reform achieve its goal of moving people from welfare to work? Did welfare reform improve economic self-sufficiency and mobility? How did welfare reform impact family structure, health, and child achievement? Did reformed welfare still provide an adequate safety net during the economic turbulence of the last decade? Is welfare reform still relevant today? How can we build on welfare reform to reduce poverty and increase opportunity? What should a safety net look like in the future? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The mythology at the heart of the Star Wars motion pictures has become a powerful common language for talking about not just good versus evil, fathers and sons, and destiny and choice, but also foundational political ideas like the role of government, the nature of power, the decay of institutions, and the need for and permissibility of rebellion and revolution. In The World According to Star Wars, legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein offers insights on theses topics and more, showing how and why Star Wars resonates so deeply with so many and what it has to teach us about the most important questions we face today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From Cato University 2016: Summer Seminar on Political EconomyThe Cato Institute’s premier educational event, this annual program brings together outstanding faculty and participants from across the country and, often, from around the globe in order to examine the roots of our commitment to liberty and limited government, and explore the ideas and values on which the American republic was founded. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During child abuse trials, jurors naturally defer to the testimony of medical experts who are called to explain an infant’s injuries. But if that medical testimony is based on questionable science, innocent people will be vulnerable to overzealous prosecutors. A new documentary, The Syndrome, follows the efforts of a group of doctors, scientists, and legal scholars who challenge the validity of “shaken baby syndrome,” a child abuse theory used in hundreds of prosecutions each year. Filmmaker Meryl Goldsmith and investigative reporter Susan Goldsmith examine the debate over this theory and focus on the men and women who are dedicating their lives to defending people who are unfairly prosecuted and freeing those who have already been wrongly convicted. Join us for a screening of this controversial film.This film screening will not be livestreamed. Join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoEvents. Follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Andrew Johnson opposed the Smithsonian Institution all his life, James Buchannan vetoed the Morrill Land-Grant Bill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt halved the federal government’s research budgets, Harry Truman vetoed the National Science Foundation bill, Dwight Eisenhower dedicated much of his farewell address to regretting the government funding of university science, and Lyndon Johnson complained that the National Institutes of Health had produced no measurable health benefits. What inspired these presidents’ antipathy? What can we learn from it?We often hear about the accomplishments of state-funded science, and yet we have few ways of measuring its failure. While we can easily note the prima facie folly of shrimp treadmills, the true negative effects are often the science that is foregone in order to advance government priorities. The distortions caused by this scrambling of incentives and actors were duly noted by some of the more prescient of our former presidents.Terence Kealey, Cato Institute Senior Visiting Fellow, former president of the University of Buckingham, and author of the landmark book, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research will explain why successive presidents understood we could improve science by keeping the government out. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement reached last year between the United States and 11 other Pacific-Rim nations. The deal was signed earlier this year, but congressional ratification faces substantive and political obstacles in 2016–and possibly well beyond.Like all U.S. free-trade agreements, the TPP is not free trade, but managed trade. It achieves reductions in many trade barriers, while creating and prolonging other forms of protectionism. Does that mean free traders should oppose them? After all, past agreements have reduced domestic impediments to trade, expanded our economic freedoms, and locked in positive reforms, even if only as the residual byproduct of an ill-premised mercantilist process. Ultimately, free trade agreements have delivered freer trade.If the agreement as written delivers more liberalization than protectionism and can be considered "net liberalizing," then it is credible to argue that free traders should support ratification of the TPP. Whether they do, then, depends on their capacity to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.At this policy event, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman will present his case for the TPP, which will be followed by a panel discussion of the Cato Institute's TPP assessment and a second panel discussion of the substantive and political obstacles to ratification.Download the abstract of the forthcoming Cato publication: "Should Free Traders Support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? An Assessment of the Largest-Ever U.S. Preferential Trade Agreement," by Daniel Ikenson, Simon Lester, Scott Lincicome, Daniel Pearson, and K. William Watson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement reached last year between the United States and 11 other Pacific-Rim nations. The deal was signed earlier this year, but congressional ratification faces substantive and political obstacles in 2016–and possibly well beyond.Like all U.S. free-trade agreements, the TPP is not free trade, but managed trade. It achieves reductions in many trade barriers, while creating and prolonging other forms of protectionism. Does that mean free traders should oppose them? After all, past agreements have reduced domestic impediments to trade, expanded our economic freedoms, and locked in positive reforms, even if only as the residual byproduct of an ill-premised mercantilist process. Ultimately, free trade agreements have delivered freer trade.If the agreement as written delivers more liberalization than protectionism and can be considered "net liberalizing," then it is credible to argue that free traders should support ratification of the TPP. Whether they do, then, depends on their capacity to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.At this policy event, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman will present his case for the TPP, which will be followed by a panel discussion of the Cato Institute's TPP assessment and a second panel discussion of the substantive and political obstacles to ratification.Download the abstract of the forthcoming Cato publication: "Should Free Traders Support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? An Assessment of the Largest-Ever U.S. Preferential Trade Agreement," by Daniel Ikenson, Simon Lester, Scott Lincicome, Daniel Pearson, and K. William Watson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement reached last year between the United States and 11 other Pacific-Rim nations. The deal was signed earlier this year, but congressional ratification faces substantive and political obstacles in 2016–and possibly well beyond.Like all U.S. free-trade agreements, the TPP is not free trade, but managed trade. It achieves reductions in many trade barriers, while creating and prolonging other forms of protectionism. Does that mean free traders should oppose them? After all, past agreements have reduced domestic impediments to trade, expanded our economic freedoms, and locked in positive reforms, even if only as the residual byproduct of an ill-premised mercantilist process. Ultimately, free trade agreements have delivered freer trade.If the agreement as written delivers more liberalization than protectionism and can be considered "net liberalizing," then it is credible to argue that free traders should support ratification of the TPP. Whether they do, then, depends on their capacity to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.At this policy event, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman will present his case for the TPP, which will be followed by a panel discussion of the Cato Institute's TPP assessment and a second panel discussion of the substantive and political obstacles to ratification.Download the abstract of the forthcoming Cato publication: "Should Free Traders Support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? An Assessment of the Largest-Ever U.S. Preferential Trade Agreement," by Daniel Ikenson, Simon Lester, Scott Lincicome, Daniel Pearson, and K. William Watson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than $50 billion since 2007 as mail volume has plummeted. House and Senate committees are working on legislation to stem the losses, and a stamp price hike is in the mix. Meanwhile, many European nations have reinvigorated their postal systems by privatizing them and opening them to competition.What challenges does the USPS face, and what changes are being considered by Congress? Should the USPS be moved to the private sector, and should entrepreneurs be allowed to compete?Join our distinguished panel of experts to hear about the postal deficit crisis and ideas for major reforms. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Twenty-five years ago, India abandoned its traditional socialist policies and embraced economic liberalization and globalization. Consequently, it became a miracle economy, averaging 8.5 percent growth in the 2000s, and it is currently the fastest growing major economy in the world. Once the biggest beggar for foreign aid, it is now a net aid-giver. India has become a major global supplier of computer software and business services, small cars, and generic pharmaceuticals. It has been called a potential superpower and the only credible check to China’s dominance in Asia in the 21st century. Yet it faces major challenges. Most of India’s successes have been in the private sector, and most of its failures in the government sector. Its social indicators have improved more slowly than in almost any Asian miracle economy, or even in poor neighbors like Bangladesh. All government services are marred by poor quality, corruption, and waste. Join our panelists for a discussion on India’s prospects after 25 years of economic reform. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If enacted, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will promote economic growth in the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region by reducing protectionist trade barriers. The agreement will also set rules in areas other than trade policy, including minimum standards of patent protection in all member countries. These patent rules have led many groups to criticize the TPP and other similar agreements for increasing the cost of drugs in poor countries. Some proponents of the agreement counter by noting the importance of patent protection both for promoting the development of new drugs and for driving growth in high-tech industries.The most controversial pharmaceutical provision in the TPP has been a requirement to provide a greater period of exclusivity to a special class of drugs known as biologics. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has complained that the TPP's biologic provision is not strict enough, and powerful members of Congress may prevent the TPP's ratification unless something can be done to strengthen the rule.Are the TPP's patent rules too strong, too weak, or just right? Come hear our expert panel discuss what the TPP will do, or should do, to shape the global pharmaceutical market. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the past two decades Democratic and Republican leaders have viewed U.S. military power as indispensable to global stability. Known as "primacy" or "liberal hegemony," U.S. military alliances, they believed, would secure the peace between foreign powers, and armed interventions would be necessary to prevent terrorism and civil conflicts abroad.This grand strategy perspective is now undergoing major revisions, with many foreign policy and military experts now calling for restraint. The United States is now viewed as greatly benefiting from a robust state of national security thanks to its geographic, economic, and military advantages. Further, decades of rigorous military interventions and long-term military alliances have caused more problems than they solved—and a grand strategy of restraint aligns with the fundamental values at the core of our nation's founding.At this conference, experts on international security will deeply examine the major shifts now taking place in global perspectives, and will both confront and critically examine the arguments and assumptions of the "primacy" consensus. Panelists will also discuss what form a more restrained U.S. foreign policy should take, and the prospects for restraint given American politics today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the past two decades Democratic and Republican leaders have viewed U.S. military power as indispensable to global stability. Known as "primacy" or "liberal hegemony," U.S. military alliances, they believed, would secure the peace between foreign powers, and armed interventions would be necessary to prevent terrorism and civil conflicts abroad.This grand strategy perspective is now undergoing major revisions, with many foreign policy and military experts now calling for restraint. The United States is now viewed as greatly benefiting from a robust state of national security thanks to its geographic, economic, and military advantages. Further, decades of rigorous military interventions and long-term military alliances have caused more problems than they solved—and a grand strategy of restraint aligns with the fundamental values at the core of our nation's founding.At this conference, experts on international security will deeply examine the major shifts now taking place in global perspectives, and will both confront and critically examine the arguments and assumptions of the "primacy" consensus. Panelists will also discuss what form a more restrained U.S. foreign policy should take, and the prospects for restraint given American politics today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the past two decades Democratic and Republican leaders have viewed U.S. military power as indispensable to global stability. Known as "primacy" or "liberal hegemony," U.S. military alliances, they believed, would secure the peace between foreign powers, and armed interventions would be necessary to prevent terrorism and civil conflicts abroad.This grand strategy perspective is now undergoing major revisions, with many foreign policy and military experts now calling for restraint. The United States is now viewed as greatly benefiting from a robust state of national security thanks to its geographic, economic, and military advantages. Further, decades of rigorous military interventions and long-term military alliances have caused more problems than they solved—and a grand strategy of restraint aligns with the fundamental values at the core of our nation's founding.At this conference, experts on international security will deeply examine the major shifts now taking place in global perspectives, and will both confront and critically examine the arguments and assumptions of the "primacy" consensus. Panelists will also discuss what form a more restrained U.S. foreign policy should take, and the prospects for restraint given American politics today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the past two decades Democratic and Republican leaders have viewed U.S. military power as indispensable to global stability. Known as "primacy" or "liberal hegemony," U.S. military alliances, they believed, would secure the peace between foreign powers, and armed interventions would be necessary to prevent terrorism and civil conflicts abroad.This grand strategy perspective is now undergoing major revisions, with many foreign policy and military experts now calling for restraint. The United States is now viewed as greatly benefiting from a robust state of national security thanks to its geographic, economic, and military advantages. Further, decades of rigorous military interventions and long-term military alliances have caused more problems than they solved—and a grand strategy of restraint aligns with the fundamental values at the core of our nation's founding.At this conference, experts on international security will deeply examine the major shifts now taking place in global perspectives, and will both confront and critically examine the arguments and assumptions of the "primacy" consensus. Panelists will also discuss what form a more restrained U.S. foreign policy should take, and the prospects for restraint given American politics today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is “too much,” such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is “too much,” such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is “too much,” such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is “too much,” such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is "too much," such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ilya Somin’s Democracy and Political Ignorance has profoundly influenced libertarian thinking about voters and elections. More generally, the 2016 primary season has satisfied few and left the electorate choosing between two highly disliked presidential candidates. The appearance of the second edition of Democracy and Political Ignorance offers a chance to bring its author back to Cato for a broad discussion of his premises and conclusions in light of the 2016 voting. Does the election so far confirm the ideas in Democracy and Political Ignorance? What does the election so far tell us about the possibilities of limited government? Is populism a natural outgrowth, or a denial, of voter ignorance?Please join us to hear views of the 2016 election that go beyond the shallow and the mundane. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A whole brain emulation, or “em,” is a fully functional computational model of a specific human brain. As such, it thinks and feels much like the copied human mind would. Economist Robin Hanson predicts that the age of em is not that far off, and that copied human minds may soon be more common than biological ones. That’s a bold prediction, to be sure. Hanson’s new book, The Age of Em, explores the economic, social, and policy questions that we may face in this possible future. It also touches on the science of forecasting: What can we know about the future, using what tools, and with what degree of reliability? Even those who find farfetched his claims about brain emulation will do well to consider how sure they are of their own predictions of the future, and on what foundations they rest. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Evidence from academic institutions and international organizations shows dramatic improvements in human well-being. These improvements are especially striking in the developing world.Unfortunately, there is often a wide gap between the reality and public perception, including that of many policymakers, scholars in unrelated fields, and intelligent lay persons. To make matters worse, the media emphasizes bad news, while ignoring many positive long-term trends.To help correct popular misperceptions regarding the actual state of humanity, Cato created the HumanProgress project. Through the presentation of empirical data that focuses on long-term developments, the goal of the project is to provide a useful resource for legislative staff, scholars, journalists, students, and the general public. To learn more and to meet the team behind this remarkable venture, please join us. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives is pleased to announce another installment of its “live” edition of EconTalk. Join Russ Roberts as he interviews David Beckworth, the author of Boom and Bust Banking: The Causes and Cures of the Great Recession and of the widely read Market Monetarist blog, Macro and Other Market Musings, on the part that the Federal Reserve and other central banks played (and the part they ought to have played) in the Great Recession. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Shatz and Shapiro are co-authors of the forthcoming, Foundations of the Islamic State: Management, Money, and Terror in Iraq, 2005-2010 (RAND).Please join us for a discussion by two experts on one of the most important and consequential issues the United States faces today. In 2014, a militant group calling itself the Islamic State, or ISIL, but more generally known as ISIS, attracted widespread attention with several military victories in Iraq and Syria — particularly the takeover of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul. Cries of alarm escalated substantially a few months later after ISIS performed and webcast several beheadings of defenseless Western hostages. Unlike other groups designated as terrorist organizations, ISIS actually seeks to hold and govern — and then expand its control over — territory. Moreover, unlike the more wary al-Qaeda central, ISIS welcomes fighters from abroad. Some fear the potential return of people with Western passports who have joined it, as well as potential homegrown terrorists who might be inspired by ISIS’ propaganda or example.ISIS obtains finances by selling oil and antiquities and by extorting, or taxing, people under its control. Key to its success or failure is whether it will be able to fund itself through such activities and whether its social and economic viability can be undermined. In this panel, Howard Shatz and Jacob Shapiro will assess the degree to which the Islamic State is a viable economic and social entity, and the degree to which it is vulnerable. Please join us for what will be a highly informative event about a situation of significant importance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In discussions with his advisers, President Obama has been heard to worry about "leaving a loaded weapon lying around" for future presidents, Newsweek reported just before the 2012 election, in an article titled "Obama's Executive Power Grab. Yet in his second term, boasting that "I've got a pen and a phone," he's increasingly governed by unilateral directive, in areas ranging from education policy, immigration, and environmental regulation at home to military action abroad — ensuring that his successor will inherit a presidency with dangerously expansive powers.Likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has said she'll go "as far as I can, even beyond President Obama" unilaterally on immigration and use executive action to stop corporations from headquartering abroad to avoid taxes. "I won't refuse them," Republican frontrunner Donald Trump says of executive orders, "I will do a lot of right things."Is the expansion of unilateral executive power the "right thing" for our system of government or a "loaded weapon" that threatens the constitutional separation of powers? Join us for a lively presentation as we explore the recent relationship between the executive and congressional branches. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Three economists with new books discuss how to revive economic growth. Mark Skousen has long advocated a new measure of the economy called Gross Output (GO) as a more comprehensive measure of the economy than GDP, a valuable tool in analyzing the business cycle, and a better picture of what drives the economy, and now the federal government has begun publishing that statistic. Steve Forbes calls for patient-centered health care, a flat tax, and sound money as the keys to reform. George Gilder proposes a completely new framework for understanding economic growth. Books will be available for purchase. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.