Cato Event Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Dan Awrey (Cornell Law School), Albert Forkner (Wyoming Division of Banking), and Jai Massari (Davis Polk) in a panel discussion moderated by Jon Hill from Law360 on how banking regulators should approach crypto regulation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Chris Brummer (Georgetown Law), Katherine Cooper (Murphy & McGonigle), and Melissa Netram (FS Vector) in a panel moderated by Sarah Wynn from CQ Roll Call to discuss the CFTC’s role in crypto regulation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

America has repeatedly managed to escape earlier periods of factional antipathy, insider domination, and gridlock through its openness to a practice both simple and powerful: political innovation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Panel 4: Helicopter Money and Fiscal QEWilliam Nelson, Executive Vice President and Chief Economist, Bank Policy InstituteRobert C. Hockett, Edward Cornell Professor of Law, Cornell Law SchoolFrances Coppola, Columnist, CoinDeskKevin Dowd, Professor of Finance and Economics, Durham University Business SchoolModerated by Edward Luce, US National Editor, Financial Times Full Event: https://www.cato.org/events/39th-annual-monetary-conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Panel 3: An Expanded Fed Mandate?Otmar Issing, President, Center for Financial Studies at Goethe University, Frankfurt, and former Chief Economist at the European Central BankKaren Petrou, Managing Partner, Federal Financial AnalyticsScott Sumner, Ralph G. Hawtrey Chair of Monetary Policy, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityModerated by Jeanna Smialek, Federal Reserve and Economics Reporter, New York TimesFull Event: https://www.cato.org/events/39th-annual-monetary-conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Luncheon Address: Populism and Central BanksBarry Eichengreen, George C. Pardee and Helen N. Pardee Professor of Economics and Political Science, University of California, BerkeleyFull Event: https://www.cato.org/events/39th-annual-monetary-conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Panel 2: Fiscal Dominance and the Return of InflationJohn H. Cochrane, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford UniversityFernando M. Martin, Assistant Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisMark Sobel, U.S. Chairman, Official Monetary and Financial Institutions ForumDavid Beckworth, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityModerated by Greg Ip, Chief Economics Correspondent, Wall Street JournalFull Event: https://www.cato.org/events/39th-annual-monetary-conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Panel 1: The Populist Challenge to Fed IndependenceCharles Goodhart, Emeritus Professor of Banking and Finance, London School of EconomicsRosa María Lastra, Sir John Lubbock Chair in Banking Law, Queen Mary University of LondonCarola Binder, Assistant Professor of Economics, Haverford CollegeChristina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaModerated by Allison Schrager, Senior Fellow, Manhattan InstituteFull Event: https://www.cato.org/events/39th-annual-monetary-conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcoming RemarksJames A. Dorn, Vice President for Monetary Studies, Cato InstituteKeynote AddressRaghuram Rajan, Katherine Dusak Miller Distinguished Service Professor of Finance, University of Chicago Booth School of BusinessFull Event: https://www.cato.org/events/39th-annual-monetary-conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Do the nation’s highest officers, including the president, have a right to lie, no matter what damage their falsehoods cause? Does freedom of expression protect falsehoods? If so, are lies by candidates and public officials protected? And is there a constitutional path, without violating the First Amendment, to stop a president whose persistent lies endanger our lives and our democracy?Perhaps counterintuitively, the general answer to each question is “yes.” Drawing from dramatic court cases about defamers, proponents of birtherism, braggarts, and office holders, Ross reveals the almost insurmountable constitutional and practical obstacles to legal efforts to rein in public deception. She explains the rules that govern the treatment of lies, while also demonstrating the incalculable damage that presidential mendacity may foster.Falsehoods have been at issue in every presidential impeachment proceeding from Nixon to Trump. But, until now, no one has analyzed why public lies might be impeachable offenses, and whether the First Amendment would provide a defense. Noting that speech by public employees does not receive the same First Amendment protection as the speech of ordinary citizens, Ross proposes the constitutionally viable solution of treating presidents as public employees who work for the people. Charged with oversight of the Executive, Congress may—and should—put future presidents on notice that material lies to the public on substantial matters will be deemed a “high crime and misdemeanor” subject to censure and even impeachment.Please join us for a lively discussion of an issue that could not be of greater importance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Domestic terrorism has been a part of the American political landscape since the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the Civil War’s aftermath. During the turbulent transformation of American society during the 1960s and 1970s, a new kind of domestic terrorism threat emerged. Homegrown leftist guerrilla groups, such as the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army, carried out hundreds of attacks in the United States. The Nixon administration went to previously unseen lengths to hunt down student radicals and other political activists who, while in the minority, engaged in bombings and other violence. Author Daniel Chard argues that the Nixon approach, by creating bureaucratic structures, surveillance, and group infiltration tactics, was the progenitor of the methods used during the post‑9/​11 war on terror. Join us for a discussion of Daniel Chard’s new book that explores this history and its continuing relevance today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2014, the United States and 17 other countries began negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to create an Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA). The aim of these talks was to remove or reduce tariffs on important environmentally friendly products such as wind turbines, solar panels, and energy‐​efficient technology. An EGA would allow for freer trade in green products, which would increase global access to environmentally friendly goods. Formal negotiations grew to involve 46 WTO members, representing 90 percent of global trade in environmental goods.But negotiations on the EGA have stalled since 2016, when negotiators encountered trouble defining what would be included in the list of covered goods. Controversial additions to the list by China prompted European Union resistance to the deal, and the Trump administration decided against pushing for the resumption of EGA talks. President Biden should call for a return to negotiations and for negotiators to resolve difficult questions, such as what should count as an environmental good, whether services should be included, how broad the EGA should be, and more.Please join us at 12:00 p.m. on Monday, November 8, for a discussion featuring U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene (D‑WA), Maureen Hinman, and Cato’s James Bacchus and Inu Manak. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What explains the explosion in growth and prosperity that humanity has experienced in the past couple centuries? Why did that process take root more readily in some places than in others, and how can its spread be encouraged? Professors Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Haber will provide separate accounts. McCloskey will contest standard economic explanations and describe the key role of liberal ideas, ideology, and ethics in producing the conditions for human flourishing. Haber will explain how differing ecological factors influenced social organization centuries ago, conditioning subsequent paths of economic growth and institutional development. Charles Calomiris will lead the conversation, exploring the extent to which these views are complementary, the reach of their explanatory power, and how the social sciences and politics should think about the mainsprings of human progress.The discussion will be based on new research papers that McCloskey and Haber presented at an academic colloquium at the Cato Institute as part of Cato’s Exploring the Role of Freedom in Human Progress project. This project was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When the state offers money, licenses, or other benefits (such as reduced sentences) with “strings” attached, that’s a powerful method of government control. The federal government increasingly uses this method to induce states, localities, and private parties to submit to conditions of its choosing. And yet this formidable power can enable it to sidestep vital limits that would otherwise apply to its authority. For example, it can secure submission to rules that it would lack the constitutional power to order directly or that would otherwise be subject to the checks and balances of the political process.Courts and lawyers have brought to bear on this problem the theory of “unconstitutional conditions,” but in Purchasing Submission, renowned legal scholar Philip Hamburger argues that a broader critique is needed if we are to protect liberty and rein in the danger of arbitrary power. Please join us for a lively discussion of a new book by one of today’s preeminent constitutional thinkers. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Who should supply the nation with digital currency? Should the Fed do it, should the private sector do it, or should it be provided by some combination of the two? Join us on November 2 for a conversation with J. Christopher Giancarlo, former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Dante Disparte, Circle’s chief strategy officer and head of global policy. The event will be moderated by Cato’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives director emeritus George Selgin, during which Giancarlo and Disparte will discuss the merits of digital currency, both public and private. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full event: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty and Inequality in California (Los Angeles) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Beginning in the 19th century with Anthony Comstock, America’s “censor in chief,” The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder explores how censors operate and why they wore out their welcome in society at large. This book explains how the same tactics were tried and eventually failed in the 20th century, with efforts to censor music, comic books, television, and other forms of popular entertainment. The historic examples illustrate not only the mindset and tactics of censors but also why they are the ultimate counterculture warriors and why, in free societies, censors never occupy the moral high ground. This forum and book will interest anyone who wants to know more about why freedom of speech is important and how protections for free expression became part of the American identity.Please join us for a lively discussion of a major new work by one of America’s leading advocates for freedom of speech. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full event: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty and Inequality in California (Sacramento) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full event: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty and Inequality in California (Sacramento) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full event: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty and Inequality in California (Sacramento) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full event: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty and Inequality in California (Sacramento) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This conference, part of Cato’s Project on Poverty and Inequality in California, will bring together a diverse group of political, business, and academic leaders to discuss regulatory and other barriers to rebuilding economic opportunity in poor and minority communities ravaged by COVID-19.Full event: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty and Inequality in California (Sacramento) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Some prominent interpretations of Islam, the second‐​largest religion in the world, defy human freedom by calling for the punishment of apostates and blasphemers, the imposition of religious practices, or discrimination against women and minorities. In his new book published by lib​er​tar​i​an​ism​.org, Why, as a Muslim, I Defend Liberty, Cato Institute senior fellow Mustafa Akyol offers a nuanced critique of these problems by acknowledging their roots in the religious tradition. Yet he also shows that there are strong grounds in the same religious tradition to defend freedom of speech and religion and to harmonize Islam with liberal democracy, the market economy, and a peaceful world order. He also reminds us that liberty isn’t merely a Western idea but a universal value also long cherished by Islamic liberals.Akyol will have a conversation with Prof. Vali Nasr about the main themes in his book, which Nasr defined as “a must‐​read for Muslims and non‐​Muslims.” We hope you will join us for this important discussion and look forward to your engaging questions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1905, the Supreme Court rendered two landmark decisions on the scope of individual liberty: Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Lochner v. New York. Jacobson’s broad deference to public health authority lived side by side with Lochner’s broader conception of economic liberty. While the restrictive precedent, Jacobson, now governs all pandemic response, Lochner is no longer available as a check, having been thrown in the dustbin of legal history. Judges follow a variant of Jacobson that’s far removed from the actual decision to resolve disputes over religious freedom, abortion, gun rights, voting, and more. Over the course of a century, four prominent justices established the irrepressible myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts.At a time when state police power has imposed unprecedented limits on individuals’ ability to provide for themselves, Lochner should be brought out of lockdown. The rationales for Lochner’s subsequent disavowal by the Court are largely inapplicable to the COVID-19 situation. Shutdown orders and the like have an economic effect but are not economic policy. They may be one of the broadest assertions of sovereign authority in peacetime, but we lack the constitutional language to deal with the potential danger to liberty implicated by such measures. Please join Josh Blackman and Eugene Kontorovich to discuss their recent work in this area, with commentary by Wendy Mariner. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Developed by Sphere alumnus and AP world history teacher Sean Kinnard, these dynamic lessons easily bring to life the story of human progress in your classroom. Suitable for multiple subject areas and grade levels, these easily adapted resources cover such topics as the industrial revolution, famine and agriculture, innovation, comparative world history, and the growth of human flourishing and prosperity. These lessons represent the initial launch of Sphere’s goal to develop classroom resources that help support you as a teacher in your effort to bring civic culture to the classroom. In this webinar, you will also learn more about what’s in the development pipeline and exciting updates about Sphere Summit 2022. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Cato Institute is pleased to welcome Arizona governor Doug Ducey to the F. A. Hayek Auditorium this Thursday, October 14, from 2–3 p.m. for a panel discussion with Cato senior fellow Dr. Jeffrey Singer. “Happier and Healthier—Arizona’s Success with Free Markets” will explore the state’s leadership in public policies that seek to use free‐​market principles to improve the health care outcomes for its residents and how those policies might serve as a model for other states. Arizona has led with introducing first‐​in‐​the‐​nation telehealth reform and first‐​in‐​the‐​nation occupational licensure recognition; making better use of the health care expertise in the state workforce; combating the opioid crisis with proven solutions; and implementing a slate of executive actions that have made it easier to move to Arizona, get to work, access quality health care, and live a productive life. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion are at the heart of liberty. For hundreds of years, people have flocked to the United States to escape religious persecution and censorship. Judge David Stras joins us for a special address, reflecting on how his grandparents’ harrowing experiences during the Holocaust shaped his own beliefs on these precious First Amendment freedoms. Following his address, we will be joined by nationally renowned First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, himself an immigrant, to discuss these issues as well as the recent rise in anti‐​Semitism in the United States. We hope you will join us for this timely discussion and look forward to your engaging questions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller overturning provisions of DC’s gun licensing laws, it set off a wave of legal challenges, policy fights, and legislation across the country. Join prominent legal scholars of the Second Amendment for this interactive conversation as they discuss the Heller ruling and the subsequent legal and legislative fights and provide an overview of where things stand today. This conversation is all the timelier, as the Supreme Court will consider a major new Second Amendment case in the coming term, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A new documentary, Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage?, tells the personal stories of how people are affected by the tax exemptions, subsidies, government regulations, and bailouts used to help big business. Hosted by Free to Choose Executive Editor and Cato Institute Senior Fellow Johan Norberg and featuring former CEO of BB&T John Allison, the documentary reveals the government’s role in the 2008 financial crash.Please join us for an engaging and thought‐​provoking conversation with Norberg and Allison. A short segment of Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage? will be shown during the program.The documentary examines America’s system of farm subsidies, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Big Oil subsidies, government policies, bailouts, and tax breaks for big business. The program takes viewers across America to talk with individuals whose lives and livelihood have been directly affected by the outrages of corporate welfare.“Many government programs begin with good intentions, but they result in unintended consequences,” says Norberg. “From what I’ve observed…it’s better to let the economy evolve in its own natural way, bumps and all, rather than to rely on government intervention.”Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage? was inspired by the book, Welfare for the Rich: How Your Tax Dollars End Up in Millionaires’ Pockets — and What You Can Do about It, by Phil Harvey and Lisa Conyers. It is airing on public television (check local listings) and streaming on the PBS App, YouTube, Roku, Venmo and on Free To Choose Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Civil War and its aftermath were a turning point in American history. Starting near the end of the war and then continuing during Reconstruction, Congress set to work drafting three constitutional amendments that would fundamentally alter our founding document. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments, aimed to protect the liberties that had previously been denied in much of the country. Together, these amendments abolished slavery, established the rights to due process and equal protection, and banned racial discrimination in voting laws.Today, the Reconstruction Amendments remain at the heart of some of our most contentious legal controversies: Does equal protection mandate equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? To what extent does due process carry with it substantive rights of personal autonomy? And do the “privileges or immunities” guaranteed to all citizens encompass a broader set of rights than courts have been willing to protect?To help us answer these questions, it is crucial to understand what those who drafted, debated, and ratified the Reconstruction Amendments thought and said. University of Richmond law professor Kurt Lash’s epic two‐​volume work is the most comprehensive source ever compiled of the key speeches, debates, and public dialogues that accompanied the drafting and ratification of these amendments. In this book forum, Professor Lash will comment on his work and the importance of primary historical sources to constitutional study. Professors Christopher Green and Richard Primus will also offer their thoughts on the work and its implications. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The social‐​distancing measures required to address the COVID-19 pandemic led to a newfound appreciation for the use of telehealth, a technological advance that has been available for several decades. State licensing laws for health care practitioners have impeded widespread use of telemedicine. Most states only permit health care practitioners to provide telehealth services to patients in the state in which the practitioners are licensed, a barrier to the free flow of health care services across state lines. Patients can travel to another state to receive medical treatment and even surgery from a doctor licensed in that state, but those doctors cannot provide telehealth services to the same patients unless they are licensed in the states in which the patients reside.While the pandemic led many states to suspend the barriers to movement of health care practitioners and to the delivery of telemedicine across state lines, these were only temporary emergency measures. Fortunately, some states are taking steps to avoid a return to the status quo ante. In May 2021, Arizona’s governor signed into law House Bill (HB) 2454, which allows the state’s residents to receive telehealth services from providers who hold licenses outside the state but within any of the other states or the District of Columbia. In 2019, Florida’s governor signed HB 23 into law, similarly liberalizing telehealth regulations. On the federal level, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded permanent coverage for telehealth services. Experts on telehealth regulations will compare recent state‐​level reforms and discuss the prospects for further reform on both the state and federal levels. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever since Congress created the income tax in 1913, workers have been able to avoid paying tax on income they receive in the form of fringe benefits, such as health insurance. The flip side of this feature is that Congress effectively threatens workers with higher taxes unless they allow their employer to control a large portion of their income and their health insurance. As marginal income‐​tax rates grew, so did that implicit penalty. As health insurance premiums grew, the amount of workers’ money this feature allows employers to control directly has grown to roughly $900 billion per year.Eighty‐​three years later, on August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a law creating tax‐​free Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). Archer MSAs freed workers to receive a small portion of their health benefits as cash—without a tax penalty. Later, President George W. Bush signed a law creating tax‐​free health savings accounts (HSAs), which allow workers to take more of their health benefits as cash without negative tax consequences. Even so, HSAs have reclaimed for workers less than 5 percent of that $900 billion.At this virtual forum, leading health policy scholars will commemorate the 25th anniversary of this milestone event and discuss how to return to workers every penny of that $900 billion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For an entire generation, at home and abroad, the United States has waged a war on terror. Fighting it has produced neither peace nor victory, but it has transformed America. A politically divided country turned the war on terror into a cultural and then tribal struggle, first on the ideological fringes and ultimately expanding to open a door for today’s nationalist, exclusionary resurgence.In Reign of Terror, journalist Spencer Ackerman argues that war on terror policies laid a foundation for American authoritarianism. In Ackerman’s account, Barack Obama’s failure to end the war on terror after the killing of Osama Bin Laden allowed cultural polarization to progress and set the groundwork for Donald Trump’s rise to power. As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11, please join us for a discussion of how the war on terror transformed the United States and the prospects for moving away from its divisive excesses. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.