David unpacks the economic message of President Trump on so-called Liberation Day.

David takes on tariffs today in advance of the big April 2 announcements everyone is expecting from the Trump administration. David’s expectations? No clarity at all -- an ongoing chaos -- and a fever swamp dream for lobbyists.

David chimes in this week on the U.K. tribunal ruling that an employee was constructively terminated by having their desk moved, but more importantly, on the absurdity of the whole thing. When we ask disinterested third parties like the state to mediate disputes over furniture between employees and employers, we are doing great damage to another party not involved in chair-gate -- and that party is the subject of today’s Capital Record.

David makes the case that there are some arguments that are better than others for protectionist economic policy, even if none of them are persuasive, but there are none so counterproductive and misguided as merely calling your ideological opponents “globalists.” If the argument in classical economics against government intervention via protective tariffs is that they hurt American exporters, they hurt American importers, and they hurt American consumers, then the vocalizing of opposition can hardly be connected to “globalism.” For those who play this game, the intent is not to make a coherent argument at all, but to obfuscate, poison the well, and substitute innuendo in place of argument. For those who care for the American worker, we must do better.

Does one need to convert their business success to charitable endeavors to create a “lasting Kingdom legacy”? Or can we say with conviction that our efforts in the marketplace are lasting, are meaningful, and, in fact, are vitally important? David goes after a well-intentioned but deeply misguided sentiment about business vs. philanthropy, and in so doing lays out a vision for economics that gets to the heart of what this podcast is about.

David sounds off on class warfare targeted at private equity firms daring to buy 0.06 percent of homes, and how counterproductive it is to the cause of a free and virtuous society to be going after the wrong people, for the wrong things, all the time.

David wants the CFPB dismantled, and he thinks Russ Vought’s philosophy at OMB about deregulation is the right one. But did Vought use a really bad example of “weaponization” this weekend, and are some bad actors bad examples for good deregulation? David unpacks this dilemma of freedom and virtuousness in a quick, needed diatribe.