Cato Event Podcast

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.