In Radical Markets, Eric A. Posner and E. Glen Weyl envision new rules for markets in order to limit the tyranny of monopolies and majority rule. Their aim, with 5 revolutionary ideas to cure what they see as the most important issue of our time: inequality.
What are some of these “radical” ideas, and does our panel think they are the revolutionary ideas we need?
To listen to the Bedrosian Book Club discussion of Radical Markets, click the arrow in the player on this post. Or you can download it and subscribe through ApplePodcasts, Soundcloud, Google Play, Stitcher or your favorite podcasting app!
Capital Public Radio quoted Sherry Bebitch Jeffe of the USC Price School about California’s history of eccentric gubernatorial candidates.
According to Bedrosian Center Director Jeffery Jenkins, “there are few issues more important today than partisanship. We live in a world today where partisan divisions run so deep that some of the most basic things we expect from government aren’t being done. People inside and outside of Congress are more interested in skewering the other side rather than work together or find common ground.”
Did the recent government shutdown cause your confidence in government to soar?
We thought not. Luckily, Anthony spoke with UC San Diego prof Thad Kousser about where gridlock comes from, what to do about it, and whether politicians really deserve all the blame they get.
To listen to this episode of Our American Discourse, click the arrow in the player here. Or download it and subscribe through ApplePodcasts, Soundcloud, Google Play, Stitcher, or your favorite podcasting app – click the links or search “usc bedrosian.”
Voters have long suspected that politicians are corrupt, so much so that they’ve demanded a long list of ethics rules and anti-bribery regulations over the years. But it turns out there are still plenty of tricks left up their sleeves. The question is, do they use those tricks? Do they really have the power to enrich themselves at our expense? Today, we have a wealth of new evidence that finally answers those questions…
In this episode, Jordan Carr Peterson unveils the concerning conclusions of a series of research papers that pull back the veil on the financial interests of our policymakers—and the power they wield in their own favor.
To listen to this episode of Our American Discourse, click the arrow in the player here. Or download it and subscribe through ApplePodcasts, Soundcloud, or Google Play, Stitcher, or your favorite podcasting app – click the links or search “usc bedrosian.”
In this last piece in his “mandatory voting” series, Matt explains why he sees requiring voter turnout as the solution we should pursue, over many different options.
The most common “feature” of our current system—and one that would be maintained with most of these other electoral changes—is that even if your view “wins” at the polls, that does not mean that you represent the majority, but rather the majority of the most privileged.
Matt Schauer, Master of Public Administration candidate (2018), returns to the topic of mandatory voting. In this post, he addresses some of the common arguments against the policy proposal as well as obstacles to implementation.
Last time I talked about the system that would be designed and the various benefits we would enjoy because of a mandatory voter turnout law. Now I cover some of the obstacles to overcome.
Requiring me to vote tramples my First Amendment right to free speech. How dare you!
Matt Schauer, Master of Public Administration candidate (2018), returns with a look at the benefits and drawbacks of mandatory voting.
You know your wacky neighbor or uncle always spouting some loony policy that no one seems to agree with, but somehow manages to be supported at election time, every time? These ideological extremists would be drowned out with a mandatory voting law.
In Matt’s second piece on mandatory voting, he asks about the cost of low voter turnout.
Our society is made up of a wide range of groups with very different needs and aspirations, and therefore have different requirements of their candidates at election time. Thus, who actually participates has real material consequences in our community. So out of those who do choose to vote, who specifically is turning out?