Cato Event Podcast

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.

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.

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.

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.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is “too much,” such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is “too much,” such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Throughout our history, Americans have been a highly religious people. Indeed, many of the original colonists came to the New World specifically to escape religious persecution. And though somewhat less devout than we once were, the United States still leads the developed world in religiosity.Today, however, many feel that religious freedom is under serious—perhaps unprecedented—threat. With everything from health-insurance mandates, to the censoring of high school graduation speeches, to punishing vendors who refuse to work gay weddings, religious liberty seems to be increasingly curbed by powerful and intrusive government.What should we do when a law or government action, often not intended to inhibit religious exercise, nevertheless does? How much of a connection between church and state is “too much,” such that it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers? How can we maximize harmony between religious and nonreligious Americans?While these sorts of questions have arisen throughout American history, they may now be more important than ever. In this conference, we will seek to answer them. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.