Tariffs are typically recognized as a tax. But that framing assumes the only objective is efficiency.

Since China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, the balance of global manufacturing power has shifted dramatically. Where the United States once dominated, it now depends on foreign supply in strategically important sectors. In an era of supply chain fragility and strategic uncertainty, industrial capacity is not just an economic variable – it is leverage.

The rollout of broad tariffs in 2025 drew widespread criticism. The more consequential question is whether a targeted industrial strategy can reduce strategic vulnerability without imposing unnecessary economic cost, and how much exposure a nation can afford in the name of free trade.

Bitcoin is often described as “digital gold.” Both are presented as inflation hedges with supply constraints beyond the control of any single government. But do they serve the same economic function?

In this episode, Duke finance professor Campbell Harvey argues that Bitcoin’s extreme volatility and structural risks undermine its claim to safe-haven status. He examines the deeper differences between Bitcoin and gold, including valuation uncertainty, network vulnerability, and the importance of tangible use and long-term credibility in establishing a store of value.

If speculation is not the enduring promise of crypto, what is? Harvey turns to the tokenization of real-world assets and the potential for blockchain technology to increase financial efficiency and support economic growth.

Explore Professor Harvey’s referenced paper here: Gold and Bitcoin

What does the nomination of a new Federal Reserve chair signal about the future direction of U.S. monetary policy?

Professor Harvey uses the announcement as a lens to examine a deeper question inside central banking. He explains how prediction markets anticipated the decision, then draws a clear distinction between crisis intervention and ongoing economic fine-tuning. While aggressive Fed action can be appropriate in moments of stress, Cam argues that prolonged zero interest rates and large-scale quantitative easing outside crisis periods have created serious unintended consequences.

The conversation breaks down those consequences in concrete terms, including higher government debt, the survival of unproductive firms, reduced labor mobility, distorted investment decisions, and slower long-term growth. It also raises a governance question: when monetary policy begins shaping outcomes traditionally decided by elected officials, where should the line be drawn?