How Do We Fix It?

The last time the U.S. faced a major showdown over the debt ceiling was a decade ago. Much like today, House Republicans insisted on spending cuts before they would vote to raise the amount of money the government could borrow. Then-President Obama and now-President Biden said they would not negotiate.Who will blink first? Nearly all economists and financial experts say that a debt default would have extremely serious consequences for the everyday economy and America's place in the world.We look at the massive U.S. debt mountain, which has leverage in the current game of chicken, and discusses why both political parties are so reluctant to get serious about the debt. Our guest, fixed income specialist, and economist, Chris Low of FHN Financial comes up with potential fixes.This show is an explainer— ideal for anyone who wants to learn about the crisis and understand the fundamental difference between debt and annual deficits. We look at reasons for the huge increase in government red ink in recent years, which include the impact of the COVID pandemic, and recovering from the 2008-9 financial crisis.U.S. debt is an astonishing six times what it was in 2000— the largest it's ever been compared with the size of the economy. The Government hit the $31.4 trillion legal limit last month, forcing a potential crisis. By law, the ceiling must be raised or the U.S. will fail to pay some of its debts. If this happens, a recession or worse could be one of the consequences."If you miss a payment it is a default," Chris Low tells us. "The U.S. credit rating would go from the second highest possible to the lowest possible overnight."A default "would be painful, and that pain would be felt by every business, every consumer, every household that borrows."Recommendation: Richard has just read "The Gentle Art of Swedish Death Cleaning: How to Free Yourself and Your Family From a Lifetime of Clutter." During their conversation at the end of the show, Jim says "death cleaning" is a terrible way of describing a sensible practice. Richard suggests that "streamlining" might be easier on the ear. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sixty years ago in his most famous speech, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of his vision of an America transformed. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," he said. Was this an argument for a color-blind society, or should racism be thought of as structural and systematic? Ibram X. Khendi, author of the best-selling book, "How To Be An AntiRacist", argues that "the most threatening racist movement" is the drive for race-neutrality. Our guest, Bion Bartning, argues that instead of emphasizing our common humanity, the approach of Kendhi and others lumps people into simplistic racial groupings.Bartning founded the non-profit group, The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). In its mission statement, FAIR calls for "advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity.""Really, we should be anti-racism, the ideology, and not anti-racist, the individual," Bartning tells us. He calls for a pro-human approach. "There is a burning need to reaffirm the core principles of the civil rights movement... integration, healing divisions and moving forward together as one people." He says that in recent years a different form of anti-racism has emerged that goes against these ideas.Bartning launched FAIR after pulling his two children out of one of New York City's most prestigious private schools because he thought that the new anti-racist curriculum was encouraging kids to look at themselves and others primarily through the lens of race and see the world in a pessimistic, grievance-oriented way. We discuss his personal story and ideas in this episode.Recommendation: Richard has just read and thoroughly enjoyed John Steinbeck's beloved 1962 memoir, "Travels With Charley, In Search of America" Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

One way to help solve America's polarization crisis is to hang out with someone not like you. Someone who sees the world differently or comes from a cultural background, social class, racial or ethnic group other than your own.While social media, political elites and national news outlets profit from polarization, the rest of us do not. This episode looks at one highly successful local initiative to push back against the conflict entrepreneurs who want to make us angry, fearful and divided.Our guest is Liz Joyner, founder and President of The Village Square, a non-profit based in Tallahassee, Florida, dedicated to reviving civic connections across divisions inside American communities. For the past 17 years she's been the leader of an organization that describes itself as "a nervy bunch of liberals and conservatives who believe that dialogue and disagreement make for a good conversation, a good country and a good time"Most of us live in neighborhoods and among friends who think like us, especially about politics. That’s a problem because not only are we divided, but don’t understand the other side. The number of people who say our country is headed in the wrong direction has remained very high throughout most of the past decade.Liz believes that with the help of food and a sense of humor all kinds of people can be in the same room. They don't have to agree, but in many cases she says, Americans are not as divided as we think. "We disagree in soundbites that professional polarizers are working to divide us over, but in paragraphs we agree way more than we think we do," she tells us.As for the polarizers? "l think they're playing us all, and we ought to be done with them," Liz tells us. The Village Square has organized dozens of public events, ranging from a few dozen people to audiences of more than a thousand breaking bread and enjoying a lively conversation.Recommendation: Jim is reading "The Matter of Everything" by physicist and science communicator Dr. Suzie Sheehy. The book is a journey through the experiments that not only unlocked the nature of matter and shaped our understanding of the cosmos, but also changed the way we live.Bonus Recommendation: Jim enjoys listening to The Glenn Show podcast with economist Glenn Loury. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

2022 was another year of COVID-induced anxiety with widespread worries about democracy, polarization, climate change and threats to democracy. But in this new year special Richard and Jim say we have reached peak fear. America may well be calming down and headed towards a new sense of normal. Our co-hosts throw caution to the wind with a series of fresh outside-the-box forecasts for the twelve months to come.We make predictions about the retreat of COVID, the outlook for inflation, and the migration crisis on the southern border that threatens havoc for the Administration. Hear what could happen next in Ukraine's war against Russian aggression. We also look closely at China's new struggles with COVID, street protests, and slowing growth.In a special section on technology and science, we focus on stunning advances in cancer and Alzheimer treatments plus new innovations in AI and the likely impact of ChatGTP, the app that's just been released to the public and is already raising ethical issues for schools, universities, and employers.We promise to release a scorecard of how we did at the end of the year. Is Jim right when he says there is a real likelihood of a new energy crisis in 2023?Is Richard's forecast about the 2024 Presidential race on target?Jim and Richard also share their year-end hopes for the new year and recommendations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In some ways, our culture is less tolerant and more fragile than it once was. The teaching of literature in schools and colleges is often caught in the crossfire of the culture wars. Support for canceling books and authors by the illiberal left and demands to ban books from the reactionary right have led to the removal of important literature from classrooms and libraries. In this episode author and literature professor, Deborah Appleman mounts a rousing case for teaching troubling texts in troubling times. "Our classrooms need to remain a space where critical thinking is taught, tolerance from different viewpoints is modeled, and the sometimes-harsh truth of our history and literary heritage are not hidden," she says. Her latest book is "Literature and The New Culture Wars."Professor Appleman taught high school English for nine years before receiving her doctorate from the University of Minnesota. She is chair of Educational Studies at Carleton College. Her recent research has focused on teaching college-level language and literature courses to the incarcerated.We discuss how free speech and free thinking are under assault from puritans from the right and the left. We examine the costs to curiosity as well as to open and free inquiry— so essential to a thriving democracy. We look at the impact of the recent global pandemic on teaching and education. "Life is tough. Life is hard and full of bumps and bruises,' Professor Appleman tells us. "You can't hide the hurt of life from young people. Literature is not life but it can be in some ways a preparation for what life has to offer us.""Doing no harm does not mean causing no discomfort for students. Learning requires cognitive dissonance. Learning requires that you are off-balance both psychologically and emotionally sometimes....It's in disequilibrium that we learn."Read more here from Pamela Paul of The New York Times. She wrote this year about the impact of book bans on the publishing industry: "Parents, schools and readers should demand access to all kinds of books, whether they personally approve of the content or not. For those on the illiberal left to conduct their own campaigns of censorship while bemoaning the book-burning impulses of the right is to violate the core tenets of liberalism. We’re better than this."Recommendation: Richard has read "This Is Happiness" by Niall Williams and set in a remote village in Ireland. Richard calls the novel "enchanting and wonderful."  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Every day Americans take the reliable supply of electricity for granted. Except during severe storms, we rarely, if ever, think that the lights might not turn on in the morning.But in some parts of the country, consumers face the threat of rolling blackouts, and sudden surges in the price of electricity. Nearly two years ago, nearly 300 people died when the Texas power grid partially failed during a winter cold snap. California came close to a grid collapse last summer. And New England might be in big trouble this coming winter. Energy analyst, author, and chemist, Meredith Angwin, is our guest in this episode of "How Do We Fix It?" Her latest book is “Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of our Electric Grid.”  In recent years, our podcast co-host Jim Meigs has written extensively on energy, and says it's a bad idea to shut down nuclear power plants that supply large amounts of reliable energy and aren't dependent on the weather.   But the threatened electricity grid crisis is not just about how we make power—it’s how we deliver power to users. For big chunks of the country that system has changed radically in recent decades. Reforms that were meant to make our energy system more competitive backfired. The fragile gird matters more than at any time in memory for three reasons: - The need to decarbonize energy production to limit the future impacts of climate change. - Modern technology requires a big increase in electricity output.- The geopolitical clash over energy has grown more intense and violent since Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.We also discuss why it's not enough to add more solar panels, wind turbines and hydro-electric power to the system. We need new and improved transmission lines to move all that power.Recommendation: Richard is watching "Extraordinary Attorney Woo", a South Korean TV series about a brilliant rookie attorney who has autism spectrum disorder.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We have a 2022 post-election show with a twist. Instead of focusing on which party is up or down, we open the hood and examine the engine of our democracy. Voters delivered a clear verdict: Most election deniers were defeated as many voters, especially independents, split their ballots, and shunned the extremes.Our guests are Layla Zaidane, President and CEO of Millennial Action Project— the nation's largest nonpartisan organization of young lawmakers— and David Meyers, founding Executive Editor of the democracy newsletter, The Fulcrum.In the days before the election, the media was full of warnings, and perhaps some hyperbole, about the perilous state of American democracy. Both of our guests and podcast co-hosts agree that many of the results were reassuring for the guardrails of the electoral system."I think when the dust settles we're going to feel pretty good about this election," Layla told us. "Things went really well," said David. "The continued use of voting-by-mail and early voting has gone a long way towards making sure more people had the opportunity to vote and not wait in very long lines."We also examine the arguments over Ranked-Choice Voting, open primaries, and the need for a quicker vote account in some states where results took well over a week to come through.In their conversation after the interview, Jim and Richard debate voting-my-mail, early voting, reforming the primaries, and how to encourage states to make improvements in vote tabulation. Richard favors limited action by Congress, but Jim is vigorously opposed to any federal reforms or interference in how states conduct their elections.Recommendation: Richard is reading "Broken News. Why the Media Rage Machine Divides America and How to Fight Back", by political journalist Chris Stirewalt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

No other issue has greater potential for common ground than America's housing affordability crisis. Progressives and conservatives alike agree that for far too many Americans there is a critical shortage of available homes.Since COVID erupted in 2020 the costs of apartment rentals and homes to buy have soared. According to the real estate firm Zillow, average U.S. home prices doubled in the past decade. In recent months mortgage rates went up to levels not seen in nearly two decades. With the growing possibility of a recession in the near future, there is no shortage of pessimism in the housing market today.We discuss solutions to the housing mess with Harvard University economist Ed Glaeser, author of "Rethinking Federal Housing Policy: How to Make Housing Plentiful and Affordable", "Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation" and many other books. Among the topics raised: The role played by zoning and environmental regulations in limiting homebuilding, Long-standing local resistance to new housing, The potential for pre-fabricated building to sharply reduce the cost of construction, Why giant companies face far few hurdles to business growth than many small neighborhood firms, and recent moves by some urban politicians on the left to support plans by developers to build new homes, even if much of it is neither subsidized nor fully affordable.  "The whole COVID era has been a spectacular time for housing price increases," Glaeser tells us. The shortage of homes for sale is one reason. So is rising demand for additional space as millions more people work from home. Another cause is "the longer-term dysfunction of our housing markets in failing to produce enough supply."Recommendation: Jim is reading "How The World Really Works" by Canadian professor Vaclav Smil, author of more than forty books on topics including energy, environmental and population change, food production and nutrition, technical innovation, and public policy.A special thank you to The Manhattan Institute and Director of Marketing Aaron Ricks for help with producing and recording this episode.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For much of the past fifty years, American political leaders of both parties have assumed that globalization and free trade would lead to more opportunity, higher living standards and increased business efficiency.But our guest, author and Financial Times columnist, Rana Foroohar, argues that with supply chain disruptions and growing economic insecurity in much of the world, the long reign of globalization is coming to end. A shift to more resilient and local businesses is now at hand. We discuss the reporting and findings in the brand new book, "Homecoming: The Path to Prosperity in a Post-Global World.""I think the pendulum of the old way is tapped out," Rana tells us. "Cheap money is over. Cheap labor from China is largely over. Cheap energy from Russia is definitely over."The war in Ukraine and the political and economic chaos that followed have brought the fragility of the global economic and political system into sharp relief. We discuss the argument that our economy is far too financialized and that this is leading to greater mistrust, vast inequality and more populist autocrats. As we do in all of our shows, we hear potential solutions. Rana argues that place-based economics and a wave of technological innovations now make it possible to keep investment and wealth closer to home. She makes the case that our economic system needs to be transformedRecommendation: Jim is thoroughly enjoying "Fly on the Wall", a podcast with Saturday Night Live alumni Dana Carvey and David Spade. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How do you tell the difference between truth and lies? The answer involves a careful process of seeking knowledge that may contradict our long held beliefs.  In this episode, our hosts share two conversations with expert guests who changed Jim and Richard's minds about how they approach topics central to our understanding of politics, science, and society.Journalist and scholar Jonathan Rauch is the author of the best-selling book, "The Constitution of Knowledge". He makes a stirring case for the social system of checks and balances used by scientists, lawyers, business leaders, and researchers to turn disagreements into verifiable facts. Alina Chan is a Canadian molecular biologist specializing in gene therapy and cell engineering at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, where she is a postdoctoral fellow. Chan is the co-author of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19."When she and several other scientists raised the possibility that the SARS CoV2 could have escaped from a lab, Chan's research was dismissed by many leading scientists and mainstream journalists. Some declared that her work was "a conspiracy theory." But Chan continues to ask crucial questions. The world needs to know the true origins of the pandemic in order to prevent the next dangerous virus from causing a future pandemic. A full and open investigation was never done.Both of our interviews underline the need for nuance, curiosity and open-minded approaches to the world's great problems. The "global network of people hunting for each others' errors is far and away the greatest technology ever invented," Rauch tells us. The constitution of knowledge, he says, "is a global conversation of people looking for truth, and more especially, looking for error."Recommendation: Richard is reading "Broken News" by political journalist Chris Stirewalt. This new book provides a crisp, passionate, well-judged argument of how the media rage machine divides America. Reporters in newsrooms are incentivized to write news stories that are full of emotion and anger. These reports very often get the most clicks and social media attention. This emphasis on anger and rage has polluted journalism, Stirewalt argues. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.