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.

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.