Featuring Cato Institute Interns; and Heritage Foundation Interns; with an introduction by Mark Houser, Student Programs Coordinator, Cato Institute; moderated by Christopher Bedford, Senior Editor, Daily Caller.
A limited constitutional government calls for a rules-based, freemarket monetary system, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This issue of the Cato Journal examines the case for alternatives to central banking and the reforms needed to move toward free-market money.
Americans are finally enjoying an improving economy after years of recession and slow growth. The unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is expanding, and public confidence is rising. Surely our economic crisis is behind us. Or is it? In Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis, Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner examines the growing national debt and its dire implications for our future and explains why a looming financial meltdown may be far worse than anyone expects.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is not just a framework for utopia,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
The Implications of the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement
Featuring Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Henry D. Sokolski, Executive Director, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center; and Stephen P. Cohen, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution.
On October 1, 2008, Congress approved an agreement facilitating civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. Proponents of the agreement underscored its strategic benefits, hinting that an alliance of the world’s largest democracies would effectively check a rising China. Nonproliferation specialists, however, criticized the deal. They argued that accommodating India’s nuclear expansion would undermine other countries’ willingness to strengthen and enforce nonproliferation rules, send an ambiguous signal to other would-be proliferators, and weaken international institutions and rules that underpin global security. Will the extension of America and India’s partnership into the nuclear arena advance both countries’ long-term strategic goals, and was the agreement worth the subordination of nonproliferation and other objectives? Is it likely to give rise to two contending great power blocs in Asia — the United States and India on one side, China and Pakistan on the other? Join us for a discussion of these important issues.