continue our conversation is geoffrey tucker the editorial director for the american institute for economic research geoffrey thank you again for being with us we appreciate your patience we know it's a horrible thing the point ledger but i want your take on it what do you think about snowden saying that the ledgers you know messed up is not going to be around for a while and this report in the guardian. let's talk about snowden first he makes an interesting point and he has it in his address in the privacy concerns over the bar chain and obviously edward snowden's really focused on that issue of privacy the point of the public ledger has some advantages for creating an audit trail and by that i mean you know so that we can establish ownership rights and keep track and tell the truth and prevent fraud and all that's good on the other hand from a privacy point of view people used to say because it was anonymous it's never been anonymous it's always been sued on i'm so your public address is right there and it's true that it can be tracked and i and that's good for some things are bad for some things

continue our conversation is geoffrey tucker the editorial director for the american institute for economic research geoffrey thank you again for being with us we appreciate your patience we know it's a horrible thing the point ledger but i want your take on it what do you think about snowden saying that the ledgers you know messed up is not going to be around for a while and this report in the guardian. let's talk about snowden first he makes an interesting point and he is that he's addressing the privacy concerns or the block chain and obviously edward snowden is really focused on that issue of privacy the point of the public ledger has some advantages for creating an audit trail and by that i mean you know so that we can establish ownership rights and keep track and tell the truth and prevent fraud and all that's good on the other hand from a privacy point of view people used to say because it was anonymous it's never been anonymous it's always been sued on i'm so your public address is right there and it's true that it can be tracked and i and that's good for some things are bad for some things

earlier he is one of germany's leading economists and the former president of the evil institute for economic research and my colleague monika jones asked him how bad the impact of brecht's it would be on germany. yeah very bad until recently this was the third biggest export market no no longer we just heard declined a little bit but it is important for jorgen industry to be able to sell in britain but this is only one aspect much more important i think is the political aspect the librium in europe in the you will be distorted britain stood for an open e.u. . trying to have good trade links to the whole world no and germany under the umbrella of british protection in the sense. for protection had been able to sell its goods to the whole world and be an export champion in the sense even that is threatened by the brics it because the political powers in europe will change and i'm a little bit afraid that europe will become more protectionist in the biggest loser of that would probably be germany which right now is export champion if you say that a brit britain was sort of in favor of an open europe i m

economic adviser has resigned stating his opposition to the initiative. while a lot to take in but for more insight let's cross live to edward stringin president of the american institute for economic research thanks for coming on to the program edwards more controversy as we're seeing now. do you believe these tariffs will have the impact on expects. to be interested here falls because the figures seem quite big twenty five percent increase on steel imports yeah that's an element . i mean besides being anti-american being against american interest terrorists being bad for american consumers terrorists being bad for american corporations i would say tariffs are the best thing ever they're going to solve all of our world's problems right now it's just a disaster i can't believe we're even having this debate adam smith was really right when he wrote that we should have trade with all trade is mutually beneficial and two hundred something years later we're turning the clock back and somehow we're going to be producing everything ourselves just doesn't make any sense from an economic point of view. i mean what was going to be the repercussions if the u.s. goes ahead with imposing import tyrus w

what on the story now from geoffrey took he's the editorial director at the american institute for economic research great to have you and jeffrey donald trump says the decision to impose these tariffs is to protect the u.s. industries from aggressive trade practices is something he's kind of had in the pipeline for a long time it seems you do believe that that is the real motive. chompers a convinced american to list. behind a quarter century and time maybe even five hundred years. in a reactionary on trade policy and let me just be extremely clear about this american economists do not support this american newspapers do not support this intellectual's in our words as the american people do not support the american manufacturer of small business medium size business even big business banks there's very little support for this. so how does that happen don't trump has total authority in this one realm trade policy he can make his own judgments his own decisions which is truly tragic i would say even unconstitutional. and it just so happens we have a perfect storm here. protectionism as at the very co

the german institute for economic research in berlin today upped its growth forecast for germany for this year and next year because the grand coalition has implemented or is planning to implement a few measures likely to increase the disposable income of german households we see thank you very much. in frankfurt. after announcing record profits german comic a false charge and getting serious about the production of electric cars the manufacturer has picked partners to provide battery cells and related technology worth twenty billion euros the comical plans to equip sixteen production plants for the production of electric cars by twenty twenty two a strong increase from the three that are currently able to produce the folks who are now hopes to produce three million electric models per year by twenty twenty five. francis threatening to take legal action against technology giants google and apple for abusive business practices that could result in fines worth several million euros french fine and finance minister. said on wednesday france accuses the internet giants of the posing tari

your time and your thoughts jeffrey took as my guest editorial director at the american institute for economic research a pleasure. onto other news militants in the syrian rebel enclave of these thing going to have shelled a civilian convoy according to russia's defense ministry three hundred families were in that convoy trying to flee the area multiple casualties have been reported but i guess the looks into the story. according to the russian military the three hundred families had allegedly gathered together to leave eastern ghouta crossing the frontlines is always dangerous so it's best done when there's a safe window with the agreement of both deliverance the syrian government was waiting for them the rebels in this he knew what was going on and shelled them they reportedly shelled the procession of civilians i mean a kilometer before they were out of east ghouta and then to top it all off they shelled the relatives and journalists waiting in the syrian side at the end of the corridor nothing's changed they aren't allowing civilians to leave just like the islam islam is brother and did in aleppo.

seventy years ago in los angeles works in germany to this day claudio comfort's the german institute for economic research says the battle lines have shifted. we're seeing unlikely alliances nature activists or people purporting to protect nature are suddenly teaming up with politicians who are also against renewables or with climate change deniers. and they all share the same goal to talk down renewables publicly they claim to favor environmentalists friendly power generation but in the background they're using other means to oppose it german companies are also active lobbyists in the u.s. employees of the chemical giant buyer donated eighteen thousand dollars to republican congressman michael conaway of texas over the last six years he's a prominent climate change denier. who would change the phrase ology because it's up the. it's not not warming. and they paid thirty four thousand dollars to fred upton he casts doubt on whether anything can be done about climate change no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise if some predicted. the buyer employees in the u.s. used what is cal

other string than at the american institute for economic research president joins us now.had >> good morning, lauren. to expect he'll double down on what was before the house? >> will not sue inflation and solve all the worlds problems and delay. connell: did he make any rookie mistakes? >> a bit out of my house with monetary policy and we really need to be figuring out what is going on in his mind. the problem i have is long and variable lags. these inherited policy from the nike, for the island from a few years ago and maybe the inflation from derek's reaction is going to be showing up now. and we all have to be guessing what is going on in his mind. connell: it is tricky to be the fed chief. you don't want to spook the market and he has to figure out how it's going to talk to the community. do you expect any comments in particular i.d. regulating the bank that is not does into regulation as janet yellen. >> i'm going to read his mind and say yes. one of the things that i'm a little more optimistic about him on compared to yell and if he's less of a zealous regulator. th

how far there is to go in the fight for equality so let's go over to the table then and speak to our guest alexander federal from the german institute of economic research she joins us here in the studio to talk more about this situation to take a look at the numbers thank you for being with us firstly can you explain to us what's the difference between the management board in the supervisory board and why all the few women on the management board so as the name says as. supervisory board has the function to supervise the workings of a firm whereas the management board is actually responsible for the workings of the firm so after this is the body that meets the decisions do you think that gender quotas in the economy are an adequate tool to get more women into the top positions well according to the numbers that you have shown us they seem to be an adequate tool because they are implemented in this revised rewards and they work in the supervisory board so maybe it's worth to think of extending this quarter's also to other firms not only to this one hundred seventh that you mentioned and what else needs to be done quotas that one facet i want to see as s

heritage foundation, to the kato institute, to the center-left brookings institution, to the left-wing center for economic and policy researchwhite house barely offers serious arguments about it, instead providing a bogus argument for the tariffs, even though china provides only a tiny portion of these goods to the united states. despite research showing that previous protectionist policies have failed, that the steel industry has lost more jobs due to efficiency in automation than to trade and that preserving one job in the steel/automobile industry through tariffs can cost consumers a whopping $1.5 million, administration supporters no longer even offer a response. the data is simply dismissed as partisan spin or fake news. and the finally point is the dpgop is being transform spooded into party that is basically hostile to foreigners. even traditional allies like the europeans are increasingly viewed with great suspicion. it is bizarre to have chosen these tariffs that most threaten american allies. now, trade does produce disruptions, especially severe ones in recent decades. the most sensible, cost-effective way to deal

director of information at coerce that's the economic community of west african states and in johannesburg martin is senior researcher of the institute for securities that is welcome to all let me start by asking mr with this we're talking about attacks targeting. the french embassy and the army's headquarters is this likely to raise questions about how do the attackers managed to get into highly secured areas you know it's very difficult i don't think any any kountry any government in the world can prevent totally terrorist attacks to happen. but of course and what you can do is to you can do your best actually but the most important thing is the context why and you see places where there are no attacks no terrorist attacks because there's no breeding ground for that at when this is most most efficient in combating terrorism and what we've been seeing here is that the talks the rhetorical is mainly barely about military means about security forces but all the background is really being ignored and what we see there are two things here you have the real breeding ground which is mali and there is a spear over effect and the second thing i

government spending and we are not willing to do that for ourselves. , seniorbert whaples research fellow at independent institute. also an economicsofessor at wake forest university. thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up, we will be taking more of your calls. later on, the weekly standard's alice boyd will be here to discuss her recent article on the success of the me too movement and its broader impacts on the modern feminist movement. stay tuned. we will be right back. >> sunday night on q&a, former agentorter -- border talks about his book "the line becomes a river." >> the woman was pregnant. that is why she could not keep up. they were lost for three days after their group left them. they were drinking filthy water from capital tanks. they made it to a village in the border patrol got called and i was the agent that was supposed to take them in. i started talking with them. it turned out that this pregnant woman had grown up in iowa and she spoke perfect english. she was a schoolteacher in iowa. and i think her husband saw that we were talking and we had a connection and he leaned ove

economic advisers dr. kevin hassett. he has prior to join ing ting t administration, the director of research for domestic policy with the american enterprise institute, and he has served as economic adviser to multiple presidential campaigns and in addition to prior experience with the senior economist with the several board, he has been a v visiting professor at the university, and associate professor at columbia university, and chairman hassett, you are recognized for the testimony. >> thank you, vice chairman paul, and rank iing members of e committee for inviting me for the economic report of the agenda. >> thank you for recognize meg. we are looking at reforming the tax code, and eliminating regulation, and improving cyber crime and improving the conditions that made it hard for the middle-class to the recover from the recession. i reviewed the literature in our modeling finds that we could get a 4,000 wage increase from the law's new increase from the macro economy and we have seen that 4.7 million have received raises and improvements from today, band the calculations, companies have announced investments of $1991 billion and we have modified

for lunch. the author of among many accomplishments, the author of trumpomo,ics. he is the author -- the founder of institutional research farm, and an investment management diverse.g investment strategies his economic acumen and influence in triggering a worldwide taxcutting movement in the 1980's earned him the distinction of many publications as of the father of supply-side economics. in fact, he was the brains behind the most recent tax-cut bill that we have seen. how many of you have gotten their $1000 bonus out of that? couple of hands, that is great. advisory board for president reagan on both of his terms. thatcher in the u.k.. he has years of experience and helped and has distinguish him in the business community. he has been widely acknowledged for his economic achievements. if you have not taught one, i believe there are several on sale next door. go check them out. please give a hand. we are honored to have him here. please help me welcome dr. laffer. [applause] dr. laffer: you didn't have to stop on my account? [laughter] you are talking about my favorite topic. me. [laughter] if i can be serious for a second, being here today and seeing all of you and the organization and the leadershi

research from the economic policy institute shows that american workers without a high school education have seen wages 17% since 1979, adjusted for inflation. high school education, no declined byes have 2%. the chart to my left displays this, shows what i'm talking about. you can see the massive wage growth. thoseage declines for with a high school degree or less. one of my top priorities is to make sure that hard-working arkansans can share in the prosperity that we see in our country in ways that they have not over the course of my lifetime. mr. chairman, you write, i should say that the entire board writes on page two and page three of the monetary policy report that although there is no way to know with precision, the labor market appears to be near or beyond full employment at present. what is your personal assessment of this matter? are we at full employment, today? say inn powell: as we the statement of longer run goals and policy strategy, there's no place that you can directly observed. we look at a range of indicators that say we are at war beyond full employment. wages fromnt to prime age males, it's hard to give a cl

research on the economic policy institute shows that american workers without a high school education have seen their wages declined by 17% since 1979 adjusted for inflation and workers a with a high school education with no college. the chart to my left displays this and shows what i'm talking about. you can see the wage growth for those of the college degree or advanced degree and the wage decline for those with a high school degree or less. it's to ensure that they share the economic prosperity that we see in the country in ways that they have not over the course of my lifetime. the board writes on page two and three of the monetary policy report although there is no way to know what position the labor market appears to be near him it's beyond four employment at present. what is your personal assessment of the matter? >> as we say in the statement of the long-run goals and partnering strategies, there is no place you can direct if we look at the range of indicators i would say most of them indicate we are either at or beyond full employment. there's a couple that suggest we are not and i would point to the labor force participation. it's hard

for research education in economics. beside her we have eric hentges. i didn't have a lot of time to practice their executive dirt at the life sciences institute. a former life he was also the former executive director of usda center for nutrition policy promotion. michael taylor, currently a senior fellow at the meridian institute, also former deputy commissioner for medicine at the fda. a very distinguished panel. quick programming note. this is a 60 minute spot we have. we are going to talk amongst ourselves for about 30 minutes a night am hoping to take 20 minutes of questions. realizing i didn't bring my phone appear. if you have any pressing questions were panelists, we will take questions during the end. without further ado, we will jump into it here. the title of our panel today instead evidence-based policy. a lot of people in the public your return like science-based policy, they think we are talking about some unimpeachable incontrovertible standard of evidence. but i gather, from you over the last few days that this is not necessarily the case, that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the science that informs our policy come esp

research policy and advocacy agendas. prior to that, she was vice president and first director of the technology institute at the joint center for political economic studies. and so, we're certainly delighted to have you back as well, nicole. just a little bit about the format for this all-star panel. each panelist is going to kick things off with an opening remark going about five minutes. we ask you to keep that to five-minute or the panel buzzer will go off. after that time will give the panelists, if they wish come a moment or two to briefly respond to anything they hear. following that, we will have some question time here on the panel. i'll direct them questions to her all-star panelists. following that, we will open it up to the audience. as we go along, if you have any kind of question that comes to mind, please hang onto it and we will hopefully get to you for our folks in tv land. we don't have any operators standing by to take your questions, but for those who are following on twitter, we have a twitter handle that is #sfs -- her opening remarks, i will first start with james assey. >> accursed da. [laughter] thank you comest death. tha

for research education in economics. beside her we have eric hentges -- did i say it right? i didn't have a lot of time to practice their good executive director of the international lifetime institute and a former life he was also the former executive director of usda center for nutrition policy and promotion. and we have michael taylor, senior fellow at the readiness to do, all also at the fda. so very distinguished panel. quick programming note. this is a 15 minute spot i think we have. we will talk amongst ourselves for about 30 minutes and i'm hoping to take 20 minutes of questions. realizing i didn't bring my phone appear, but if you have any pressing questions were panelists, we will take questions towards the end. without further ado, i thought we would jump into it here. the title of our panel today is the science of evidence-based policy. i think when a lot of people in the public eerie terms like science-based policy, they think we are talking about an unimpeachable incontrovertible standard of evidence. but i gather from my conversations from the three of you over the last few days that this is not necessarily the case, that there is in fact a great deal of uncertainty i

leading the discussion is the senior research fellow financial regulations and monetary policy in our institute for economic freedom. studies and writes about the monetary policy, the reform of fannie mae and freddie mac it focuses on the best way to address difficulties in large financial companies under the rubric of the too big to fail problem. the joint heritage and 2013 and was a tenured professor the collegcollege of business teachg finance economics and statistics and served as the tax policy analyst in the center for data analysis and he holds a doctorate degree in financial economics from new orleans. please join me in welcoming norbert michel. [applause] >> thank you. joining me here today i will do a short version in the interest of time, joining me from the far left is my colleague david gergen who's who is a senior fn economic policy at heritage and next to him is the group executive vice president of congressional relations and strategy the independent community bankers association and then aaron klein last but not least was a fellow in economic studies and directo atr of the center on regulat

get are particularly the diseases that the national institute of health needs to be doing research on because there's not much of an economic driver for private sector reap search on a -- research on a disease that almost nobody has. a lot of the money we put into n.i.h. research we try to put in without any specific category where we say you take this money and you do what you think needs to be done and we'll have oversight on what you did but a bunch of members in the house are not going to try to become the research deciders for the united states of america and by the way for the world when you do that. we're also looking at in this bill the crucial fight on the opioid epidemic. the president says it's a crisis, and he's right. it's the number one cause of accidental death in the country today. it exceeded car accidents as a cause of death in the country, in missouri, and in many other states. the last two funding bills have put almost an additional $1 billion into opioids from where we were just three years ago. mr. president, you will remember that in the last continuing resolution, some specific money, about $3 billion more doll