Economic Inequality: Are We Measuring It Right and What Does It Mean?
Featuring John F. Early, Former Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and President of Vital Few, LLC.
Some political leaders are saying that income and wealth inequality are at unacceptable levels and need to be countered by higher taxes on the wealthy and more transfer payments. But the data used to support those arguments are often misunderstood and omit key elements of the picture. John Early will describe gaps in the official data used in the inequality debate and discuss alternative income measures that better capture the well-being of different groups. Early argues that policymakers need to get the facts right before imposing prescriptions on the economy.
October 26, 2020
Joe Biden’s Tax and Spending Plans
Featuring Chris Edwards and Caleb O. Brown
The assumptions underlying Biden campaign’s tax and spending plans give us a false picture of what those policies would mean for the economy. Chris Edwards explains why.
You can support the Cato Daily Podcast and the Cato Institute by becoming a Podcast Sponsor.
Learn more: https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/joe-bidens-tax-spending-plans?queryID=0862c9c980a07716b7e0a2b26a0d9abc
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ktv4nclzZI
http://www.cato.org/events/living-guns-liberals-case-second-amendment
In the aftermath of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, firearm regulation has understandably moved to the forefront of our national political debate. Even before Newtown, the tragic mass shootings in Arizona and Colorado, and the botched Operation Fast and Furious, had kept this issue in the news. But many now are indicating that this tragedy, its nature and how it has stunned our nation, pushes the issue to a tipping point.
While America has a tradition of private gun ownership for self-defense and sport, what can be done about the growing conflict between an individual's right to own guns and the public's desire to be safe from gun violence? The Second Amendment has long been one of the most divisive issues in American society. While there have been few national legal developments since the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), states have been adjusting their laws — and public facilities changing their security systems — ever since the Columbine school shooting in 1999, and litigation continues in the lower courts.
Unfortunately, national discussions of gun policy often devolve into sound bites, dueling headlines, lobbying campaigns, but accomplish little. Polarized, entrenched positions fail to constructively grapple with the fundamental policy question: How do we keep guns away from violent criminals? Should we focus on mental illness, background checks, assault weapons, or something else? In Living with Guns, former New York Times reporter and editor Craig Whitney re-examines the right to bear arms, why it was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and how it came to be misunderstood. Whitney proposes pragmatic solutions to control gun violence rather than guns, and ideas to keep them out of the hands of the people whom everyone agrees shouldn't have them. Commenting on this timely new book will be Alan Gura and Alan Morrison, who were on opposite sides of the Heller case.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9rsVL-M5Jw
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9074
Cato Institute Senior Fellow and Georgetown University law professor Randy E. Barnett discusses the arguments to be presented to the Supreme Court beginning March 26.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83IKbYVLfHY
Featuring Joseph Loconte, Associate Professor of History, The King’s College; Daniel Philpott, Professor of Religion and Global Politics, University of Notre Dame; Mustafa Akyol, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.
Liberalism, a political philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment and champions reason, freedom, and equality, has lately been criticized by some religious thinkers in the West. Liberalism, in their view, only “atomizes” individuals, weakens society, and ultimately corrodes all faiths.
Yet other religious intellectuals think that there are many reasons to appreciate liberalism, including the very freedom that the believers have found in liberal societies to practice and manifest their faith and to be free from the persecutions that have defined much of human history. Moreover, they think that under liberalism, religions flourish in healthier ways — through persuasion rather than coercion, and through civil society rather than state power.
This discussion is particularly relevant for Islam, since Muslim opinion leaders are often ambivalent, at best, on whether they should accept liberal standards of human rights or rather reject them as alien and detrimental. If liberalism is rejected even by Western Christians, whose religious traditions have been much more at peace with liberalism, Eastern Muslims will not even consider it.
Learn more: https://www.cato.org/people/mustafa-akyol
Want to find the Cato Institute elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/CatoInstitute/
Twitter - https://twitter.com/CatoInstitute
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/CatoInstitute/
-
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXPflh_dkYI
Featuring Adam Bates (@adamtaylorbates), policy analyst, Cato Institute Project on Criminal Justice; Molly Gill (@mmgillwriter), government affairs counsel, Families Against Mandatory Minimums; moderated by Caleb O. Brown (@cobrown), director of multimedia, Cato Institute.
Efforts at criminal justice reform at the federal level have gained some traction and the Department of Justice is in the process of releasing some 6,000 federal inmates early. Still, the United States incarcerates more than two-million people in state and federal prisons.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mSoOUlE-Q
The digitalization of financial services has made banking and trading more convenient than ever. But laws that were written before the digital era now collect untold amounts of consumer data to which the government has easy—and often unfettered—access. Recent legislative attempts have sought to expand that access even more. Does financial convenience have to come at the cost of financial privacy? Can cryptocurrency provide better privacy protection? Is it time to rethink how financial privacy is treated in a digital era? Join us for an outstanding virtual program featuring Marta Belcher, Paul Belonick, Michael Mosier, and Jennifer Schulp to discuss financial privacy in the digital era.
Submit questions in the comment box on this page and join the conversation on social media using #CatoEcon.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzgtcRDkgwk
Featuring Julian Sanchez (@normative), Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; Caleb O. Brown (@cobrown), Director of Multimedia, Cato Institute
The infamous “Nunes memo” has landed. Produced by Congressional staff and declassified by the President, the document alleged surveillance warrants on Trump campaign officials from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) were obtained without providing the court with important information.
Intelligence experts have generally been skeptical of the memo’s conclusions, but the fight over this document may do long-term damage to attempts to provide important oversight for the secretive FISC.
Join us for a live discussion of surveillance, the rights of Americans, and the future of reforming surveillance authorities.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJXarYJVztM
"Cato's had a major impact on free market thinking because of the consistency of our ideas."
— John Allison, Retired Chairman & CEO of BB&T and Former President & CEO The Cato Institute
Forty years ago, the Cato Institute opened its doors. See a timeline of our milestones, read about the future of liberty, and more: https://www.cato.org/cato40.
Then, join the conversation with #Cato40.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeTMFYcZFoE
During the pandemic, governments placed significant public and private pressure on social media companies to remove speech protected by the First Amendment, blurring the line between acceptable government speech and unconstitutional censorship by proxy. Concerns about this “jawboning” only grew with the recent decisions in Missouri v. Biden finding that the pressure applied by various government actors likely violated the First Amendment. But this case also revealed the limitations of broadly prohibiting government communications with private companies or merely relying on the courts to police government abuse. Join us as the panel discusses the options available to policymakers and why greater transparency is essential to combating such censorship.
Submit questions in the comment box on this page and join the conversation on social media using #Cato1A
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8plW2xN6UV0