In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Managing Editor Dan Freeman interviews Aymen Aulaiwi, DPhil student at Lincoln College, Oxford, in the second part of a three-part series examining the Soviet economy's rise, peak and downfall. The conversation explores how Stalin transformed the Soviet Union's economy starting in 1928, synthesising earlier Bolshevik policies into a brutal command system. They discuss Stalin's collectivisation drive that forced peasants to "socialise their cows" and surrender private plots to collective farms, leading to the liquidation of the kulaks - the most productive farmers - and the devastating Holodomor famine that killed an estimated 8.5 million people by 1932.

The discussion examines the mechanics of Stalin's command economy through the Five-Year Plans, where Gosplan set production targets for heavy industry while ignoring consumer demand. Aulaiwi explains the three fundamental problems with command economies: information asymmetries that made central planning impossible, soft budget constraints that eliminated efficiency incentives, and principal-agent problems that led to widespread lying and shirking. He illustrates these concepts through relatable examples, from why you can't buy sheets of steel at a catalogue to how the fictional hero Stakhanov was used to manipulate workers, and explains why Stalin paradoxically became "history's most brutal capitalist" by suppressing consumption to fund industrial investment.

The episode concludes with an assessment of Stalin's economic legacy, challenging the common defence that industrialisation was necessary to defeat Nazi Germany. Aulaiwi presents evidence showing that agricultural output actually declined during collectivisation, with Soviet children growing at only 6% the rate of American children by the mid-1930s. He describes Stalin's economy as "an empire of rusting steel and rotting corpses," exemplified by projects like the Belomor Canal where 25,000 prisoners died building a waterway too shallow for real shipping. The conversation demonstrates how Stalin's command economy prioritized impressive-sounding output figures over actual human welfare, producing goods nobody wanted while imposing enormous human costs.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Executive Director Tom Clougherty interviews Lord Jim O'Neill, former Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs and the economist who coined the term "BRICS." The conversation covers Britain's decade-long economic stagnation, examining whether the 2008 financial crisis exposed deep-seated problems or created new ones. O'Neill discusses his work on regional inequality and the Northern Powerhouse initiative, explaining why cities like Manchester, Leeds, and Liverpool fail to demonstrate the productivity gains seen in other countries' major urban centres.

O'Neill shares insights from his time developing the Northern Powerhouse concept, highlighting Greater Manchester's recent productivity improvements and his belief that "not enough people at Goldman go on the tube." The discussion explores how centralized decision-making from Whitehall has coincided with geographic inequality, and why local authorities need real powers over skills policy and transport. O'Neill advocates for an "Elizabeth line for the North" that could create a single labor market of 9 million people, potentially rivaling London's economic impact.

The interview concludes with O'Neill's views on global governance, discussing how the BRICS vs G7 standoff has created dysfunction in international cooperation. He argues that "leaders are good at creating additional things, but they're not very good at getting rid of them," and suggests that financial markets may eventually force the UK to undertake serious reforms on welfare, housing, and planning. Despite the challenges, O'Neill remains cautiously optimistic about emerging signs of change in both regional productivity and housing market dynamics.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Head of Media Reem Ibrahim interviews Tom Clougherty, the IEA Executive Director, and Kristian Niemietz, the IEA's Editorial Director. The conversation covers Rachel Reeves' recent speech on financial regulation, examining both the positive moves toward deregulation and concerning developments like government-backed mortgage guarantees. They also analyse the latest labour market statistics showing 178,000 job losses since June 2024 and the alarming rise in economic inactivity, with 21% of working-age adults now economically inactive.

The discussion explores how employer National Insurance contribution increases and tighter employment regulation are creating significant headwinds for job creation and wage growth. Tom and Kristian argue that the UK's historically flexible labour market advantage is being eroded through cumulative regulatory burdens, comparing the situation to slowly boiling a frog. They examine how both Conservative and Labour governments have contributed to this regulatory creep, moving Britain away from the labour market flexibility that once distinguished it from continental Europe.

The interview concludes with an examination of public attitudes toward taxation and spending, drawing on new research showing that when people understand how much tax they actually pay, support for tax cuts increases by 12% while support for spending cuts rises dramatically by 22 percentage points. With public spending approaching 50% of GDP, they discuss the political and economic challenges facing Britain as fiscal pressures mount and the traditional assumption that voters want higher taxes for better public services comes under question.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs Podcast, Managing Editor Dan Freeman interviews Aymen Aulaiwi, DPhil student at Lincoln College, Oxford, in the first of a three-part series examining the Soviet economy's rise, peak and downfall. The conversation begins with an analysis of Russia's economic state in 1900, exploring the autocratic tsarist system, the dominance of agriculture with over 80% of the population working the land, and early signs of industrial progress driven by foreign investment and state-directed policy under Finance Minister Sergei Witte. They discuss the limitations of serfdom's abolition in 1861, the challenges of the village commune system (mir), and Stolypin's land reforms that attempted to create private agricultural plots.

The discussion covers the devastating economic impact of World War One on Russia's underdeveloped manufacturing capacity and infrastructure, leading to the February Revolution of 1917 and the collapse of the tsarist regime. Aulaiwi explains the complex power-sharing arrangement between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet, examining the different socialist factions including the Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Bolsheviks. The conversation explores Lenin's theoretical justification for bypassing traditional Marxist stages of development, drawing on Marx's own correspondence about Russia's potential to leap from feudalism to socialism through peasant communes and international revolution.

The episode concludes with an examination of War Communism (1918-1921), where the Bolsheviks nationalised industry, requisitioned grain from peasants, and launched class warfare against the kulaks while attempting to abolish money during the civil war period. They discuss how this radical programme led to economic collapse and famine, forcing Lenin to introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921 - a mixed economy approach that allowed private enterprise in small businesses and free markets in agriculture while maintaining state control of major industries. The conversation ends with the tensions this created within the party, setting up the ideological battle between Bukharin's support for gradual development and Trotsky's call for primitive socialist accumulation that would ultimately shape Stalin's approach.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs briefing, Director of Communications Callum Price interviews Professor Len Shackleton, IEA Editorial and Research Fellow, about his latest discussion paper "Liberating the Labour Market." The conversation examines how Britain's labour market operates, with around 65% of workers employed by private businesses, 20% in the public sector, and the remainder in charities and nonprofits. They discuss how increasing employment regulation over the past 40 years has created a growing "wedge" between what employers pay and what employees receive, with compliance costs now supporting nearly half a million human resources workers compared to far fewer four decades ago.

Professor Shackleton traces the evolution from the Thatcher-era trade union reforms of the 1980s to the current Employment Rights Bill, which spans 299 pages and carries an estimated £5 billion cost. He argues that employment mandates - requirements for employers to provide benefits like parental leave - function as stealth taxes that ultimately reduce worker pay over time. The discussion covers how these regulations have eroded Britain's traditionally flexible labour market advantage compared to heavily regulated European economies, with particular concern about the impact on youth employment opportunities as businesses face higher costs for hiring young workers.

The briefing concludes with Shackleton's reform proposals, including scrapping the apprenticeship levy and reviewing occupational regulation requirements that force workers to obtain formal qualifications for jobs like estate agency - a requirement unique to Britain among European countries. He warns that the Employment Rights Bill's union-friendly provisions, including extended strike mandates and easier recognition processes, could lead to increased public sector militancy. Despite these challenges, Shackleton maintains optimism about the private sector's ability to generate employment, pointing to the post-COVID job creation surge as evidence of business adaptability when not constrained by excessive regulation.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs explainer, former Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland, IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics Christopher Snowdon, and former ASH Director Clive Bates examine the UK government's proposal to introduce a “generational tobacco ban” as part of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The panel explores the legal, economic, and public health implications of a policy that would raise the legal smoking age year by year — effectively banning tobacco for future generations.

The discussion delves into the legal vulnerabilities of the legislation, including potential challenges under the Equality Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. Buckland outlines how the bill may conflict with the Windsor Framework and create constitutional difficulties in Northern Ireland. Snowdon highlights the unintended consequences of prohibition, drawing on recent examples from Australia where overregulation has led to black market violence and arson attacks. Bates critiques the policy's negligible health impact, arguing that it distracts from more effective harm reduction strategies.

The panel also assesses the government's failure to conduct adequate regulatory and equalities impact assessments, the risks of increasing criminalisation, and the broader political motivations behind the bill. They compare the UK’s approach with international examples such as Sweden, which has achieved the lowest adult smoking rates in Europe not through prohibition but by promoting safer alternatives like nicotine pouches and snus.

The speakers conclude that the generational ban is unlikely to achieve meaningful health outcomes, may exacerbate the illicit tobacco trade, and undermines adult choice while ignoring the six million existing smokers. Instead, they call for a pragmatic, evidence-based approach focused on enabling safer alternatives rather than coercive bans.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs explainer, IEA Director Eamonn Butler discusses his new book "An Introduction to Schools of Economic Thought" and explores the major economic theories that have shaped our understanding of how resources are created and distributed. Butler examines the evolution from pre-classical economics through Adam Smith's revolutionary ideas about wealth creation, Karl Marx's labour theory of value, and the Austrian School's emphasis on individual choice and subjective value.

The discussion covers how different schools approached fundamental economic questions, from the classical economists who challenged mercantilism to the Austrian School's critique of central planning. Butler explains the Keynesian revolution and its focus on government management of the macro economy, the Chicago School's monetarism and economic approach to human behaviour, and the neoclassical synthesis that attempted to mathematise economic theory. He also examines Public Choice economics and its sceptical view of government action, along with modern Behavioural Economics and its insights into human decision-making biases.

Butler concludes by emphasising the importance of understanding these different schools of thought to grasp the historical context of economic ideas and to develop better frameworks for understanding economic life. He demonstrates how studying various economic approaches allows us to compare and contrast different explanations, potentially leading to improved economic thinking that builds upon the strengths of previous schools while addressing their limitations.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Director of Communications Callum Price hosts a discussion with Executive Director Tom Clougherty and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz on Labour's first year in government since their July 2024 election victory. The conversation examines Labour's economic performance, focusing on their growth mission, fiscal challenges, and supply-side reforms. They assess the government's struggles with their pro-growth agenda, the impact of their tax-and-spend budget that raised taxes by £40 billion while increasing spending by £70 billion, and the recent market turbulence around gilt yields and the pound.

The discussion explores Britain's fiscal fragility, with debt interest payments exceeding £100 billion annually and conventional debt measures at 100% of GDP. Clougherty and Niemietz analyse how the government's inability to control spending within their own coalition has created a challenging political cycle, while examining whether Labour could adopt a supply-side abundance agenda similar to progressive movements in the US. They also address the housing crisis, noting how regulatory burdens are undermining development viability even in high-demand areas like London, and discuss the broader implications for economic growth and political stability.

The conversation concludes with an examination of the re-emergence of socialism through figures like Jeremy Corbyn and international examples such as the recent electoral victory in New York, alongside practical policy discussions on fuel duty reform and price transparency in petrol retail. The hosts explore whether Britain faces a potential political realignment between nationalist populism and radical socialism, leaving classical liberals potentially marginalised, while considering the role of economic pressures like housing costs in driving support for more extreme political alternatives.

In this IEA podcast episode, Reem Ibrahim sits down with Professor Daniel Klein to unravel why Adam Smith-writing in 1776 as revolution erupted-predicted America would become "one of the greatest and most formidable empires that ever was in the world." Starting with Smith's remarkable GDP forecast that America would overtake Britain within a century (which proved dead right), they trace how the Scottish economist saw five liberal principles emerging in colonial thought that would drive unprecedented prosperity.

Daniel walks us through Smith's analysis of American thinkers like James Otis and John Adams, revealing how subsidiarity, religious freedom, limited government, free trade, and virtuous governance aligned with Smith's own philosophical framework. The discussion explores milestone moments-from Thomas Paine's Common Sense appearing months before The Wealth of Nations, to Smith's 1778 memo showing intimate knowledge of American affairs, and his prescient observation that "from shopkeepers, tradesmen and attorneys, they are become statesmen and legislators."

They examine Smith's radical insight about religious free markets - how Pennsylvania's pluralistic approach would produce "candor and moderation" better than established churches - and his conviction that America's "Don't Tread on Me" spirit reflected a healthy recognition that "government is the institutionalization of coercion." The conversation reveals hidden connections between Edinburgh Enlightenment thinkers and the Founding Fathers, showing how David Hume, Edmund Burke, and Smith himself favoured a "let them go" approach to American independence.

Looking to today's politics, they debate whether Smith would recognise his liberal hopes in modern America's centralised state, vast bureaucracy, and eroding constitutional checks. From Trump's tariffs to expanding federal power, Klein argues Smith would be "a lot less optimistic" about America's trajectory toward the subsidiarity and natural liberty he once celebrated. If you care about classical liberalism, constitutional design, or why the Scottish Enlightenment saw America as humanity's great experiment, this conversation is for you. Like, subscribe and hit the bell to catch future IEA podcast episodes.

In this Free the Power episode, IEA Andy Mayer sits down with writer and policy analyst Alex Chalmers (Trauma Machine Substack & Works in Progress) to unravel why nuclear power went from cheap and fast-to-build in the 1960s to eye-wateringly expensive today. Starting with fruit-fly radiation studies that won Hermann Muller a Nobel Prize and seeded the “no safe dose” dogma, they trace the cascading effects of U.S. weapons-testing mishaps, the birth of ALARA/ALARP regulation, and how a safety culture of ever-thicker concrete, cable and paperwork priced private builders out of the market.

Alex walks us through milestone moments—the Castle Bravo fallout scare, Three Mile Island’s zero-fatality meltdown, and the UK’s decision to demand extra HVAC filters on an advanced boiling-water reactor that would have reduced public exposure by less than “the radiation you get from eating one banana.” The discussion sets out the hidden trade-offs regulators ignore (fossil-fuel particulates kill far more people than low-dose radiation) and why cost escalations of 176 % in a decade were largely debt-finance and delay, not engineering fate.

Looking ahead, they debate ways to break the ratchet—smarter risk thresholds, local benefit-sharing, and the UK government’s new Nuclear Regulatory Task Force, which could let Britain reclaim its 1960s lead in affordable, abundant, low-carbon power. If you care about climate targets, energy bills or technological optimism, this conversation is for you. Like, subscribe and hit the bell to catch future Free the Power episodes.