On Wednesday, January 7, President Trump sent out two messages via social media: First, that he was “banning institutional ownership of residential real estate.” Later, that he was “outlawing return of capital to shareholders.” The Warren/Sanders/Mamdani wing of the Democratic Party is celebrating. The Reagan/Hayek/Laffer wing of the Republican wing is scratching its head.

Today, David goes back to the utterly incoherent idea that institutions putting investment into residential real estate (all 0.4 percent of the single-family residences this represent) is behind the affordability issues. He reminds listeners what “supply-side” growth means. And he does a quick refresher on capital formation, and how capital is needed to innovate, and that how capital gets treated is somewhat relevant to that process. It’s a plea to remember first principles when it comes to economic policy, and why we have spent a lifetime rejecting this Marxian drivel.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The new mayor of New York City is praising collectivism and urging optimism for what it can do. Many freedom lovers want to give a history lesson to the mayor about the 20th century’s horror of collectivist failures around the globe. But in addition to those needed history lessons, New Yorkers are welcome to their own current rent laws and the debacle they have created for those who claim to want more affordable rent options. In the first episode of Capital Record this new year, David explains how bad policies with good intentions do the same damage that bad policies with bad intentions do, and uses a real-life policy illustration to demonstrate why collectivism has always failed.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are exclusive deals of private companies for select investors exacerbating the divide between haves and have-nots? Or is there an entirely different lesson in the fact that there are substantially fewer public companies than there used to be? Is this a class struggle issue, or rather, a by-product of certain unavoidable realities combined with unintended consequences of policy decisions. Put differently -- are there some trying to have their cake and eat it, too?

Show notes:
Inside the Invitation-Only Stock Market for the Wealthy

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Scott Galloway is no conservative, and I am not sure he would like me nearly as much as I like him. But despite his professed atheism and center-left political leanings, a certain common grace has enabled Galloway to become a counter-voice in today’s responsibility-averse culture. His new book, Notes on Being a Man, offer a few truisms that are desperately needed, desperately lacking, and profound for their counter-cultural tenor. In today’s Capital Record, we will look at how this message may be the lowest hanging fruit for a free and virtuous society in this current societal moment.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

If tariffs are “making us rich,” and if tariffs are “beautiful,” and if tariffs are “finally making things fair again,” and if tariffs are everything the administration has told us they are, why have there been exemptions, exclusions, and carveouts on $1.7 trillion of imports so far? Don’t get me wrong -- I would favor excluding tariffs on 100 percent of imports. But the question we address on Capital Record today is why we have exempted so many special parties and particular products if tariffs are such a force of good? As you will see, the question answers itself.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

President Trump announced on Monday that he was signing an executive order to have ONE RULE (his words, not mine) when it comes to artificial intelligence, seeking to suppress the Tenth Amendment rights of states to have their own regulatory framework around, well, every single other industry on the planet. Over the weekend the president said he was concerned about the Netflix purchase of Warner Brothers because “that might give them too big of a market share.”

These feigned antitrust/monopolistic concerns and blatant disregard for states' rights in favor of a behemoth federal government control are longstanding beliefs and practices of the New Deal, big government left. They have been anathema to the right for time eternal.

These are deeply concerning shifts in both action and philosophy that must be fervently resisted by those who still revere the Constitution and cherish the very concept of economic liberty.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A little debate broke out on social media when a left-wing progressive mocked the idea that “absolute” standards of living are more important than “relative” ones. To some, what people aspire to is merely “to have a better life than the people around them,” and not “to have a better life.”

What is the truth here? And does it matter? If people really are merely concerned with “upping” their neighbors, couldn’t we do that pretty easily without driving burdensome things like “progress”?

On today’s Capital Record, David takes on the reality of human nature and the fundamental aim of economics. Ultimately, we find ourselves back to the Tenth Commandment to resolve one tension, and to the Garden of Eden to resolve another!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Nobel Prize for economics has gone to some serious winners over the years -- Hayek, Friedman, and Mundell come to mind. But the Nobel committee has shamed itself over the years as well (looking at you, Krugman), and more recently seemed to indicate a bias toward so-called economic justice than actual economic productivity and prosperity. That is why this year’s winners are an encouragement to those of us who see growth as a moral good, and a rising standard of living for all as dependent on progress, innovation, and growth. It is good for the field of economics when good work is rewarded that explains how the world works, and why. It is far better than rewarding econometrics that explain neither.

Show Notes:

WSJ article by David Henderson

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.