Myrtle Beach, SC, Orlando, FL and Washington, D.C. January 2, 2019—Thinking Outside the Boxe has released the transcripts of the question and answer session from its 2018 Annual Symposium. Participants included correspondents from Gastonia, North Carolina; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Owatonna, Minnesota; and Sheffield, Jamaica. Digger Cartwright also participated.
This year’s Symposium addressed tariffs and manufacturing competitiveness, congressional misconduct settlements, concentration of power in technology companies, continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling, the sustainability of the college-education model, coastal adaptation, the opioid epidemic, planned obsolescence, dependence on foreign pharmaceuticals, election-security standards, the gig economy, campaign finance, urban densification, infrastructure priorities after extreme weather, and the scope of U.S. military commitments.
The transcript is available at www.ThinkingOutsideTheBoxe.com. Transcripts of Mr. Cartwright’s responses have not been released by his office as yet.
About Thinking Outside the Boxe
Thinking Outside the Boxe is a private, independent research and commentary organization dedicated to examining politics, finance, economics, world affairs, law, public policy, and the conduct of institutions from perspectives often absent from conventional media and public debate. Through original research, commentary, symposiums, and contributions from a diverse group of correspondents, Thinking Outside the Boxe seeks to broaden the parameters of public knowledge, challenge prevailing assumptions, and encourage thoughtful debate on issues of national and international importance.
Thinking Outside the Boxe is nonpartisan and independent of political parties, universities, media organizations, and institutional orthodoxies. Its work reflects a continuing commitment to limited government, lawful borders, fiscal seriousness, open inquiry, constitutional principles, and the belief that a free people are best served when arguments are tested against evidence rather than restricted to an approved range of opinion. Its correspondents may disagree with one another, but they share a willingness to examine difficult questions, reach conclusions, and say what conventional institutions sometimes will not.
