Nicole Gelinas joins Brian Anderson to discuss the consequences of inflation in New York City and the impact of rising subway crime.
Are tech giants such as Google, Amazon, or Facebook dangerous? Do they have too much power? Dive into the murky waters of antitrust as Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about monopoly, antitrust policy, and competition in the 21st century.
Published in 1992, political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’ described a world in which he saw the 70+ year struggle between the authoritarian styles of government meeting an unequivocal end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. What triumphed – principally the American system of ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ – was a model that in many ways proceeded to envelope the rest of the world in the coming years. For this, Fukuyama gets much right, but as the title of the book implies, the notion of an end to all other forms of civilization is questionable, and in the light of the rise of rival development models in Asia and a tentatively resurgent Russia, the thesis appears inaccurate at best, or grossly absurd at worst.
In this live recording of the Lawfare Live event, “Ukraine and the Future of National Security Law,” Natalie Orpett moderated a panel of experts, including Brian Finucane, senior adviser for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group; Chimene Keitner, professor of international law at UC Hastings; Todd Huntley, director of the National Security Law Program at Georgetown Law; and Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare senior editor and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. They talked about a wide range of issues coming out of the current conflict in Ukraine, ranging from war crimes, to sanctions, to information operations, to the multidimensional role that technology is playing. They talked about what we’re seeing now and what it may mean for the future of national security law and international law.
Dara Lind sits down with Vox Supreme Court correspondent Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) for a deep dive into the leaked draft opinion on abortion written by Justice Samuel Alito. They discuss the text of the opinion itself; why Alito was chosen to write it; and what could happen in the days, weeks, and months following a ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
In a leak unprecedented in modern history, Justice Samuel Alito’s draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade has been published by Politico. But the leak is only part of the story. If Roe really is overruled, the political landscape of America’s states will be more important than ever. Our editors, joined by both Matt Peterson and Helen Roy, have thoughts on the logic of the draft decision, as well as where we go from here.
This points to a roadmap for state governments. Natural resource firms cannot go anywhere, which is also what Gov. Palin targeted. Firms tied to military bases and other immovable economic centers count as well. There is another thing to check. What firms own buildings versus rent. Right now, commercial real estate is an albatross for firms because of the remote work revolution due to covid. Firms that own skyscrapers or even large industrial complexes are much more at risk than those that rent. It’s a sunk cost, and they are not likely to off-load the property in this market nor want to build elsewhere. These firms also chose in the last twenty years to build in red states due to favorable business climates and low taxation or state mandated benefit costs. Where are chicken processors going to go, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon? They’d have to scrap their plants and set up a new pipeline of illegal workers who are managed in tucked away spots around the plant. They will not want to pay higher salaries for the higher cost of living nor provide benefits that red states do not require, on top of, paying higher taxes.
“I am delighted to present to you the 2022 Investor Value Voter Guide, the third in our series of annual guides to voting your shareholder proxies in the interests of healthy and productive companies and solid economic growth; and against the new racism and sexism of “equity,” politically driven, climate-catastrophist zero-carbon schedules and the other hard-left goals of so-called stakeholder capitalism and ESG.”
The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.