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.

This is a remedial course in how banking works, the tension between deposit rates and borrowing rates, and the way in which freedom and virtue are cultivated by true relationship banking. An episode you won’t want to miss!

It is amazing how, these days, the word “bipartisan” is always attached to Republicans doing something leftist in economic policy, and never Democrats doing something pro-market. And the bipartisanship of the Hawley-Sanders bill to cap credit card interest rates is a wonderful reason to not be yearning for bipartisanship. In this episode of Capital Record, David provides principle-based reasons for opposing this federal overreach, and it is a set of principles that have held up very well over time. A must listen!

How can we have an honest conversation about tariffs as public policy, let alone one rooted in first principles, if the conversation changes every five minutes? David uses this podcast to focus the attention where it belongs, to separate categories, and to encourage thoughtful and siloed analysis about the American worker, about tax revenue, about trade deficits, about human rights, and about negotiating tactics -- in a coherent and sensible manner. One may just find that the right policy decision on a given matter is easier to come by with good faith, logic, and conversation than bouncing around without focus or purpose.

With the RFK confirmation hearings in the news, could it be that “health and human services” is not just a story about vaccines, snack foods, and the controversy around Robert Kennedy, but is actually an economic story, with a lesson for us all about the reason people use words like “big pharma” and “big business”?