Words & Numbers

Economists use the term “creative destruction” a fair amount, but what does it actually mean? It generally refers to a company going out of business, or sometimes whole sectors of the economy vanishing as disruptive technologies and strategies come into play. It is very easy to see the “destruction” part of creative destruction. We see the empty storefronts and people out of work because the businesses they worked for couldn’t afford to pay them anymore. We point fingers and lament the loss of these former favorites. So where does the “creation” part of all this come in? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they take a close look at this and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Scientists develop a strain of saline-tolerant rice Discrimination at Harvard Foolishness of the Week New York socialist wonders why people are moving to Florida Topic of the Week: Creative destruction Good and Bad Destruction: Buggy Whips and Broken Windows Ten jobs that no longer exist Join the Conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage         Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Canada recently legalized the possession and use of marijuana and proposed legislation to pardon those previously convicted of such “crimes.” So, it’s as good a time as any to take a look at how such things are handled in the United States. While, yes, in the majority of states, there is some provision for certain kinds of legal use of marijuana—including full legalization in a few—the fact remains that the plant itself remains completely illegal at the federal level. In aggregate, across the United States, the clearance rate—that is, of criminal cases being considered solved—for violent crimes is less than 50 percent and less than 20 percent for property crimes. In 2016, there were more arrests for marijuana possession across the country than for all violent crimes combined. And that’s just one single aspect of the American criminal “justice” system. Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, a noted criminal justice scholar, joins James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they take an unvarnished look at the state of criminal justice in the United States on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Gloves let users feel virtual objects Trump orders cabinet to cut spending 5% Foolishness of the Week  Nebraska’s honesty in advertising Topic of the Week: Clark Neily on the imbalance of power in our judicial system Clark Neily Canada legalizes marijuana and moves to pardon possession Join the Conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Imagine, if you will, that the United States federal government somehow received all of the money it normally would for the entire year on January 1st. The day it would have spent it all and started deficit spending (that is, spending money it simply doesn’t have) could be dubbed “Deficit Day.” This year, 2018, that day falls on October 19th. From this day until the end of the year, the US Federal Government is spending money it doesn’t have to the tune of about $11 billion per day. So what does that mean for the government? What does that mean for the people? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they dive into this and more on this week’s episode of Words & Numbers Show Notes: Trump administration stifles free speech Foolishness of the Week Government regulating pizza toppings Topic of the Week: Deficit Day Congressional Budget Office projections Federal receipts and outlays over time Interest rate on the federal debt Student loan debt statistics Flemming v. Nestor (1960): You do not have an earned right to Social Security benefits Helvering v. Davis (1937): Social Security taxes are part of the general revenue Join the Conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When it comes to free trade agreements, ideally they should be very short. Four words would suffice: “Trade will be free.” But politicians being what they are, what we (that is to say, Mexico, Canada, and the United States) actually have to replace NAFTA is a 1,800-page tome called the USMCA. Hundreds of pages of caveats doesn’t sound very much like free trade. That said, this trade agreement, like all trade agreements, rests on the the myth that it is countries that trade with each other. Countries are aggregates; they can’t actually do anything. It is individuals who trade with each other. Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they weigh in on trade agreements and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Authorities may shoot down private drones Amazon reacts to the $15 wage Foolishness of the Week Jazz hands Topic of the Week: Trade Trade data Infographic of trade data Join the Conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, we’re answering listener questions. What’s going on with this scary, dystopian Chinese social credit system? What government agency would you get rid of? What happens when religious leaders (allowed to freely exercise their faith as enshrined in the First Amendment) don’t allow their followers the right of free speech (also enshrined in the First Amendment)? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they answer these listener questions and more on this week’s second Listener Special episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Foolishness of the Week Texas legislator wants to require political speech Pennsylvania legislator wants to ban political speech Topic of the week: Listener questions Modern monetary theory More on modern monetary theory Water rights Join the conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Worries about mob rule have been around longer than our Constitution. Indeed, James Madison wrote about the problems of “factions” in what we’ve come to call the Federalist Papers. We like to think that our three branches of government with their checks and balances are impervious to the evils of faction. But today we may be living Madison’s nightmare. Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes Controlling aging Jeff Bezos donates $2 billion What it feels like to be Jeff Bezos Foolishness of the Week Outlawing sitting and lying down Topic of the Week: Political factions and mob rule Madison’s warning about mob rule Federalist 10 Federal debt as a fraction of GDP (1790 to 2050) Join the conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Imposing “price gouging” bans after a natural disaster doesn’t actually help anybody. On paper, it looks ideal. Shoppers who don’t have funds and didn’t prepare for the storm can still afford to buy everything, even if it’s completely last-minute and a bit of a race to the finish line. But the reality is that price-gouging laws don’t make things better, nor do they make things fairer. In the face of a category 1 hurricane like Florence, they just create more scarcity and destroy incentives to keep the supply chain moving. In the end, it doesn’t matter how low the price of your wares are if you can’t actually buy it. Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they delve into this topic and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Dominos’ CEO earned $8.6 million in 2016 Dominos will fix the roads Foolishness of the week Get a Dominos tattoo and get free pizza Topic of the week: Price gouging Cafeteria economists Uber and surge pricing Join the conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Conservative and liberal: probably the two most commonly used words to describe a person’s political affiliations. And, of course, we all know that Republicans are all conservatives and Democrats are all liberals, and this is the way it’s always been. Right? Well, no, not really. The way that we’ve come to understand these terms currently has drifted pretty far afield of the way these words have been used previously. Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they get super-semantic about political labels and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: California bill requiring women on boards of directors California law easing restrictions on legally changing one’s gender Elon Musk smokes pot on the air Join the Conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The word “capitalism” has become incredibly loaded over the years. And since the term was actually popularized by Karl Marx to be the foil for his own ideology, that’s fairly understandable. It brings to mind all of the very worst aspects embodied by the elite, greedy, rent-seeking Gordon Geckos of the world, hoarding their capital resources like dragons on a pile of gold and profiting from the hard work of laborers while doing nothing productive themselves. This characterization, while incredibly common, is simply incorrect. Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss the actual meaning of capitalism and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: MIT study of commute times Marchetti’s constant Commute times in the 50 states California requires companies to place women on boards Foolishness of the Week: Laura Ingraham wants Facebook to be a public utility Topic of the Week: Capitalism: Capitalism Prices as signals Join the Conversation: Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We’re experiencing the rise of a new kind of socialist. The original definition of socialism—state ownership of the means of production—is beginning to fall by the wayside. What self-proclaimed socialists are asking for now is for the state to control the means of production. While this might seem like a pedantic distinction, it’s an important one. But the rebranding of socialism by democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez still fails to take into account the most important aspect of sound economics: human behavior. Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they drill down into the pitfalls of socialism and more on this week’s episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Half the world will be middle-class by 2020 World poverty rates Madsen Pirie High schooler faces prison for shooting zombies Foolishness of the week NASCAR driver loses sponsorship for father’s remarks Topic of the week: Socialism Socialism Theory of pervasive shortages under socialism Join the conversation Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Words & Numbers Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices