Mercatus Policy Download

On May 16th, the US Senate voted to repeal a Federal Communications Commission rule that was itself a repeal of the FCC’s 2015 rule intended to change the way the internet is regulated. The double repeal is now awaiting sign off from the House and the President, neither of which seem likely to support it. Still, the legislation has renewed the debate over ‘net neutrality,’ and how policymakers should regulate the internet. Here to unpack those issues are three experts on internet policy issues: Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, specializing in technology policy Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who focuses on telecommunications, internet regulation, and privacy issues Brendan Bordelon, tech and cybersecurity reporter at the National Journal Download this episode and subscribe to the Mercatus Policy Download on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.  Follow Chad on Twitter @ChadMReese.

Privacy and social media have always had a complicated relationship. On the one hand, users of sites like Facebook often voice concerns when they find out how much of their personal information ends up with advertisers. On the other hand, the roughly 2 billion active users of Facebook continue to provide that data voluntarily in exchange for free use of the platform. Add political advertising to that mix, and you have the ingredients for intense Congressional hearings featuring Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and a national conversation about whether or not the federal government should take a larger role in social media regulation. Here to address some of those challenges are three experts in the field: Adam Thierer, Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Ashkhen Kazaryan, Legal Fellow with TechFreedom Will Rinehart, American Action Forum’s Director of Technology and Innovation Policy   Download this episode and subscribe to the Mercatus Policy Download on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favor

The word “regulation” can be a pretty loaded one in the world of public policy. To some, it means health and safety protections necessary for a well-functioning economy and society. To others, it means unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions that kill jobs and favor large, established businesses. What just about everyone can agree on, however, is that there’s room for improvement in the existing regulatory system. Today, we’re talking about the idea of “win-win” regulatory reform. Or, put differently, how policymakers can approach improving the regulatory system to make sure it works better for everyone. To do that, we asked our distinguished panel of regulatory experts to discuss what to do with the long laundry list of unnecessary or outdated rules: Laura Jones, Executive Vice-President and Chief Strategic Officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses and a regulatory economist who has written for the Mercatus Center.  Kevin Falcon, Former Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier for British Col

Just about everyone who lives in a metropolitan coastal area understands the value of affordable housing. It's a given that if you want the benefits that come with living near lots of people and businesses, you're going to have to pay more for your mortgage or rent. That might be most obviously true of California, where growing demand and stagnant supply have produced 10 of the 11 most expensive metropolitan areas in the country. The state is aware of the problem and at least one potential response, California Senate Bill 827, would address it by limiting the ability of local governments to restrict housing supply. This expert panel will get us started by talking about California and SB 827 and then they’ll try to unpack what this means for the rest of the country: Matthew Yglesias, Vox.com Senior Correspondent and author of "The Rent Is Too Damn High” Emily Hamilton, Mercatus Center State and Local Policy Research Fellow Salim Furth, Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow   Check out Salim's newest paper o

What do felt hats, flamethrowers, soybeans, and aluminum all have in common? They're all potential targets for new tariffs in the escalating trade dispute between the United States and China. For some time, the US has been trending towards freer and more open trade, culminating the North American Free Trade Agreement and efforts to finalize the Trans‑Pacific Partnership. But that trend may have come to an abrupt halt under an administration that has famously said, "Trade wars are good and easy to win." Here to explain whether or not we're in a trade war already, what that means for the US and China, and what US policy makers should do going forward, are three experts in the field: Caroline Baum, regular contributor to Market Watch Dan Griswold, and Don Boudreaux, co-directors of the Mercatus Center's Program on the American Economy and Globalization Follow Chad on Twitter @ChadMReese.

Many US companies need to move data across borders, and it’s not just the ones you think. In addition to social media and tech firms, traditional companies like payment processors, logistics companies, and physical manufacturers also provide digital services across countries.   This makes them subject to data localization requirements, one of the key emerging issues in trade and trade agreements. Getting these requirements right will position countries to benefit from the increasingly vital benefits of the digital economy. Get them wrong, and countries will be shut out of this growth. In the case of data localization, the rules of the road are being written as we're driving on it. Thankfully our panel today has some ideas to keep us on the right path, with the US keeping to a principled approach that favors openness while safeguarding security and privacy. Guests: Christine McDaniel, a Mercatus scholar specializing in trade issues. Joshua Meltzer, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution  Brian Larkin, the

While the US health care debate focuses on insurance and funding, many people struggle to schedule a doctor visit in timely manner. In rural areas, simply finding a doctor nearby can be a challenge. Nationwide there could be a shortage of somewhere between 40,800 and 104,900 physicians by 2030. Access to health care, in other words, means more than having insurance. How to address this doctor shortage? Dr. Jeffrey Flier, former Dean of Harvard's Faculty of Medicine, has some ideas: Reform outdated accreditation practices. Remove barriers to creating new accredited US schools and training positions for physicians. This includes developing shorter and less expensive training paths. Allow more foreign-trained physicians. Provide paths to licensure that do not require retraining for qualified interna­tional medical graduates who have completed advanced clinical training in their home countries. These physicians are substantially more likely to practice in rural and poorer communities and in much-needed primary

Congress is attempting small reforms to Dodd‑Frank. Once the dust settles on the Crapo bill, it's going to be awhile before we hear from them again on the matter. The future of financial regulator policy now lies with the agencies. So what should be on the agenda? Highlights: A new idea for CFPB reform. The table agrees the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the place to watch. And J.W. Verret gives us a sneak peek of his best idea for reforming it: regulatory contracts. A better way forward for fintech regulation. Brian Knight note that financial regulators should carefully consider the risks associated with regulating via broad discretionary powers rather than via traditional rulemaking, and discussed a federal charter and state regulatory sandboxes as potential policy reform options for emerging fintech firms. What's Project Catalyst all about? No one knows.   The conversation also covered the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Volcker Rule. Today's guests: Mercatus schol