Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade

Keywords: Ed Hirs, U.S. education, energy economics, global trade, energy policy
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
In-Sight Publishing, Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Correspondence: Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com)

Received: May 29, 2025
Accepted: November 8, 2025
Published: November 8, 2025

Abstract

This interview with energy economist Ed Hirs, an Energy Fellow at the University of Houston and Yale alumnus, provides a sweeping economic and policy analysis of contemporary American education, manufacturing, and global trade. Hirs discusses the decline of U.S. public education funding since the 1980s, linking it to weakened workforce development, rising tuition, and overreliance on international students. He examines the limitations of protectionist policies and reshoring efforts, arguing that sustainable growth depends on renewed investment in STEM education, vocational training, and academic freedom. The dialogue also addresses the role of university endowments, ideological pressures in academia, and broader issues of global capital flow and trade. Drawing from decades of professional and academic experience, Hirs presents a data-driven, historically informed critique of U.S. policy trends and their long-term consequences for innovation and civic stability.

Keywords: Academic Freedom, Education Funding, Energy Economics, Higher Education Policy, Protectionism, Reshoring Manufacturing, STEM Workforce, Trade Deficits, University Endowments, U.S. Economic Policy

Introduction

The conversation between Ed Hirs and Scott Douglas Jacobsen situates the current challenges in U.S. education and manufacturing policy within a historical and global context. Hirs, a respected economist and educator, traces the erosion of public investment in education from the post-Sputnik boom to the austerity politics of the late twentieth century. His analysis exposes how ideological shifts have reshaped universities into financially strained institutions reliant on tuition revenue and international enrollment. Beyond economics, Hirs engages the cultural and political consequences of protectionism and academic polarization, noting that both phenomena distort long-term innovation and free inquiry. The discussion moves fluidly from the National Defense Education Act to the Trump administration’s trade policies, from the moral function of academia to debates about free speech and donor influence, forming an expansive portrait of a nation at a crossroads between knowledge and ideology.

Main Text (Interview)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Interviewee: Ed Hirs

Ed Hirs is a Yale-educated energy economist and an Energy Fellow at the University of Houston, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in energy economics. Known for his precise, nonpartisan analysis, he is a trusted voice on energy markets, corporate governance, and public policy. Hirs frequently contributes to national and international media and co-chairs the Yale Alumni in Energy conference, promoting fact-based dialogue on global energy security and sustainable economic strategies. Hirs speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the decline of U.S. education funding, the challenges of reshoring manufacturing, and the economic impact of protectionist policies. Hirs also explores the financial dynamics of universities, academic freedom, and global trade. Drawing on insights into university endowments, ideological polarization, and real-world experiences in Ukraine, this wide-ranging interview provides a critical examination of American policy, public discourse, and the future of higher education and innovation.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How would you describe the state of education in the United States today?

Ed Hirs: The U.S. made a significant investment in science and education during the 1950s and 1960s, especially after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957. That moment spurred the passage of the National Defence Education Act in 1958 and later led to the expansion of public universities and increased federal research funding. There was a national realization that we needed to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and civic leaders.

That urgency drove public investment in education and innovation. However, beginning in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, a shift away from this model began to occur. We saw the rise of an anti-intellectual political current that distrusted higher education, particularly elite institutions. Since then, public funding for education—especially at the state level—has stagnated or declined in real terms while tuition has increased. At the same time, ideological movements have sought to divert public education funds to private and religious schools through voucher programs and charter systems.

This shift undermines long-term workforce development and the strength of civic society. One consequence is now visible even to policymakers pushing these changes: amid economic nationalism and trade wars, there is an expectation that major companies—such as Ford, General Motors, Hewlett Packard, and Apple—can rapidly bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

However, that’s not feasible in the short term. It requires a massive investment and a skilled workforce that does not exist at the necessary scale. The U.S. has underinvested in vocational education and STEM training for decades. Workforce development has not been treated as a strategic national priority.

Meanwhile, many leading American universities—such as UT Austin, Texas A&M, the University of Houston, Yale, and Harvard—have become more reliant on international students, particularly at the graduate level, because these students often pay full tuition and help offset budget shortfalls caused by declining public investment. This trend is especially pronounced in STEM fields.

It’s not accidental—it’s a financial survival strategy for universities that face flat or declining state funding.

Jacobsen: And that shifts access away from domestic students?

Hirs: Yes, it can. Countries like China benefit by sending students to U.S. universities rather than building out equivalent institutions at scale. These students often receive state backing and pay full tuition in the U.S. This creates a perverse incentive: American institutions prioritize full-paying international students, while domestic students—especially those from working-class or middle-income families—are increasingly priced out or squeezed by limited slots and inadequate financial aid.

This dynamic erodes the U.S.’s ability to cultivate homegrown talent in science, medicine, and public leadership.

This problem has been acknowledged in academic circles for years, but policy action has been minimal. If we were to attempt a severe course correction, the key questions would be: How quickly could the shift occur, and is there the political, social, and financial will to enact it?

The encouraging part is that such a shift would not be prohibitively expensive. Reinvesting in scholarships, faculty recruitment, and institutional support is relatively affordable compared to other federal spending priorities. It is entirely within reach—if the political will exists.

Jacobsen: How long would it take to build a domestic workforce to manufacture PCs and cell phones?

Hirs: It is likely three to five years to begin meaningful operations, assuming strong political will and substantial investment in training, infrastructure, and supply chains.

Jacobsen: Is there a willingness to do this currently?

Hirs: Not that we have seen—at least, not at scale.

Jacobsen: How would such a shift impact international trade and economics?

Hirs: In the short term, it would not significantly change global trade flows. However, tariffs remain a significant issue. Yes, they can provide temporary protection to domestic industries, but they also raise costs for consumers and disrupt global supply chains.

Jacobsen: How does this relate to the Trump administration’s approach?

Hirs: The Trump administration has promoted protectionist policies that may appear effective on paper—especially if viewed through a nineteenth-century economic lens, reminiscent of mercantilism. Much of what emerges from Project 2025 reflects this outdated thinking. But that is not how the real, globalized economy functions today.

Jacobsen: The U.S. runs trade deficits with many countries, including Canada. Is that a problem?

Hirs: Not inherently. Canada often produces goods more efficiently or inexpensively. The U.S. pays for these goods in U.S. dollars, which foreign trading partners accumulate. Eventually, those dollars return in the form of investments in American assets—such as the stock market, bond market, and real estate.

Jacobsen: So, what happens when trade slows down?

Hirs: With a tariff war slowing global trade, trading partners may begin to divest their U.S. holdings, disrupting this capital recycling. That weakens capital inflow, putting downward pressure on U.S. asset prices. It could deflate markets.

Jacobsen: Has this already started?

Hirs: To some extent. The U.S. stock market has become more volatile. The U.S. dollar index (DXY) has seen fluctuations, and it has dropped more than 10% since President Trump’s inauguration this year.  But volatility is evident. Retirees, especially those with 401(k) plans, are feeling it. As tariffs increase costs, domestic producers have also raised prices. It all burdens the consumer as the higher prices are passed through to them..

Jacobsen: Does this raise the risk of recession?

Hirs: Absolutely. The U.S. had a recession in 2020 due to the pandemic, but these protectionist policies could worsen future downturns. Whether the Trump administration is equipped to manage such complexity is uncertain.

Jacobsen: Let’s talk about university endowments. What kind of capital are we dealing with?

Hirs: University of British Columbia: about CAD 2.1 billion. University of Toronto: roughly CAD 3.1 billion. McGill: about CAD 1.8 billion. Harvard University alone: around USD 49 billion as of 2023. These are massive reserves that can be used for research and innovation.

Jacobsen: How much wealth do universities generate?

Hirs: It is hard to quantify precisely. However, through patents, startups, and technology transfer, universities play a central role in the U.S. knowledge economy. According to AUTM data, U.S. universities generate over 1,000 new startups annually and contribute billions of dollars in economic value. May I suggest that you connect with one journalist who covers this well, Janet Lorin of Bloomberg?

Jacobsen: You mentioned Janet Lorin—what does she cover?

Hirs: She’s with Bloomberg and covers higher education. Somebody—I cannot recall who—did a study analyzing the return on investment for MBA tuition. Schools such as Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, and MIT all rank highly in this regard. The top 20 MBA programs generally pay for themselves over time through career earnings.

Jacobsen: And what about programs outside of business?

Hirs: That is more difficult to quantify. How do you define return on investment for an English major, a philosophy major, or even an economics major? What is the metric—salary, intellectual contribution, cultural impact? Someone has done this kind of broader assessment, but I do not remember who. Your point is well-taken.

Jacobsen: That postsecondary education has more than just economic value.

Hirs: Economic outcomes are just one part of it. There are broader social contributions and cultural functions that flow from academia. Universities are fulcrums for public discourse, innovation, and democratic development.

Jacobsen: Any personal stories that bring this to life?

Hirs: I remember meeting alums who had objected to Yale going co-ed in the 1960s. Some were outright dismissive—saying things like “women don’t contribute to society.” And then, of course, their daughters applied to Yale. It was ironic and revealing.

Jacobsen: It becomes personal when it affects them. If you take the most restrictive, least charitable view of women and deny them access to education—as we’re seeing now in Afghanistan under the Taliban—you’re crippling not just women but entire societies. Over the last five years, Afghanistan has consistently ranked at or near the bottom in several major global indexes, including the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report, when reliable data is available. Even if women are primarily in the home, they’re still educating the next generation.

Hirs: Precisely. An educated mother becomes her child’s first teacher. That matters. It was a strong signal of value and foresight—a significant investment.

Jacobsen: Is Buffett stepping down? It marks the end of an era. A whole chapter of American economic history is closing—and the country is changing, too.

Jacobsen: There’s also the influence of figures like Peter Thiel and the broader tech-bro culture. Yes, we do not have to go too deep into that, but there’s a kind of libertarian futurism emerging—especially around projects like Starbase in Texas. It is the seasteading idea transplanted onto land. Libertarian techno-utopia?

That’s the vision. I remember hearing Cory Doctorow speak about this on Democracy Now!—I believe it was during an interview with Amy Goodman. He pointed out that many of these tech leaders—Musk included—have read the speculative literature on techno-futurism but have only absorbed the libertarian aspects of it. They selectively ignored the counterbalancing ethical, social, and political dimensions that round out a responsible vision for the future. So, futurism becomes a one-note ideology. 

It’s all acceleration, no accountability. And now we see these increasingly bizarre ideologies being proposed—swearing at astronauts, picking bits and pieces from different belief systems. It’s like: “Take one from here, two from there, three from over there.” It is à la carte. It’s syncretic. Technotheology or something like that.

All right—so let’s shift. Any comments on limitations to academic freedom, whether from students or administration?

Hirs: One of the most noticeable developments is the rise in self-censorship. In specific campus environments, speaking out against the prevailing orthodoxy—whatever it may be—can lead to professional or social punishment. For example, it was difficult in the 1960s to be a professor openly supporting the Vietnam War. Likewise, in the early 2000s, supporting the Iraq War could isolate you. The pendulum swings dramatically in different eras.

Jacobsen: So it’s a function of the prevailing political climate?

Hirs: Exactly. But speaking out does not merit removal.  From an institutional perspective, if there is any activity—regardless of ideology—that interferes with the university’s operations, that’s a violation of the code of conduct. Universities enter into contractual relationships with both students and faculty. Breaking those agreements—especially in ways that obstruct university functions—can be grounds for disciplinary action or termination.

Jacobsen: That does not preclude informed or polite discussion, of course.

Hirs: No, not at all. Informed discussion is essential. But physical interference—for example, blocking access to classrooms or facilities—is disruptive and should not be tolerated in any institution of higher learning.

Jacobsen: What about civil demonstration, especially where it involves government interference or international students facing open threats?

Hirs: Peaceful protest in public areas is a legal right. But when demonstrations begin to block entryways, disrupt classes, or interfere with others’ ability to access what they’ve contractually paid for, that crosses a line. Universities have legal obligations to maintain a functioning educational environment.

Jacobsen: And the question of universities accepting money from controversial or political sources?

Hirs: It’s naïve to think universities can accept large sums of money without strings attached. Many university presidents are realizing that now. Whether it’s foreign governments, corporations, or ideologically motivated donors, money often comes with expectations—spoken or unspoken.

Jacobsen: Let’s end with something lighter. What’s controversial to you these days?

Hirs: Pete Rose.

Jacobsen: What’s up with Pete Rose?

Hirs: Well, he’s no longer alive and now his lifetime ban by Major League Baseball has been lifted.   I presume that the lifting of the ban makes him eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame. .

Jacobsen: So, will the Baseball Writers Association finally elect him to the Hall of Fame?

Hirs: I doubt it. He violated baseball’s one inviolable rule, betting on baseball.  I don’t think he’ll make it in.

Jacobsen: Who else is on the fence like that?

Hirs: That’s a whole other conversation.

Jacobsen: Larry Summers is back. He’s giving commentaries again.

Hirs: Yes—one of my old professors used to babysit him when he was two years old.

Jacobsen: Were they also grading his thesis back then?

Hirs: Apparently, he has not changed much.

Jacobsen: Even Cornel West has had public spats with him. West considered Summers brilliant—brainy—but perhaps too closely tied to entrenched interests. That’s beyond my area of expertise, however. Chris Hedges chalks it up to a more savant-like focus. That may be fair. These figures—Summers, West, Hedges—are all playing in the same intellectual ballpark. They are brilliant people. But yes, what else? Fundamentally, do you think academic freedom and free speech are under threat? Or is this just another phase of academic rebalancing?

Hirs: I do not think they’re under threat per se. But many people confuse academic freedom or freedom of speech with freedom to disrupt—and those are not the same thing.

Jacobsen: Do you think American academics—students, faculty, and administrators—sometimes confuse the U.S. First Amendment right to free speech with the idea of freedom from consequences?

Hirs: Potentially, yes. Imagine a professor who wants to give a controversial talk. The university provides a room—say, Smith Hall—for an hour. But no one shows up. The professor may feel suppressed, but is that suppression?

Jacobsen: There’s no obligation for others to promote or attend.

Hirs: Exactly. If no one publicizes it or attends, that’s not a violation of free speech. But then the professor might decide to chain themselves to the president’s office doors. That’s not protected expression—that’s disruption. And it restricts others’ freedom of movement. It becomes a form of grandstanding for attention, and from left to right, we see that it is not a productive strategy.

Jacobsen: There have been cases even in Canada—graduate students caught in protracted, unresolved conflicts with administrators.

I recall one such case you might be referring to. If I remember correctly, four different parties—including the university president, the program director, the head of the independent inquiry, and the graduate student’s testimony—all ultimately concluded that the student had done nothing wrong. The institution even issued a public apology.

The controversy dragged on for so long that Ontario changed its provincial policy in 2018–2019 to require universities to conduct an annual free speech review. Most institutions failed the first assessments. Still, the policy remains in place. Ironically, the case that helped create it turned out to be baseless—something made from nothing. It was a complete error that shaped public policy. Do you see similar cases in the U.S.?

Hirs: I am sure they exist, though I have not followed one closely. Yale follows and adheres to the Woodward Report, drafted in 1974 by C. Vann Woodward, the eminent historian. Many universities aspire to uphold its principles.

Jacobsen: What does the Woodward Report emphasize?

Hirs: That people can and should express their opinions, but not at the expense of the university’s core functions. Do not scream fire in a theatre, and do not disrupt the operations of the institution. That’s the short version.

Jacobsen: What’s your take on the cooptation of the term woke—a neologism with roots in African American subcultures nearly a century ago?

Hirs: It is not very easy. The rhetoric surrounding “woke” today is often exaggerated. Some criticisms are legitimate, but much of the discourse is performative. One of my professors was Robert Farris Thompson, a pioneer in African American art history and a founding figure in African American studies in the United States. His approach to cultural interpretation was rooted in depth, not distortion.

Jacobsen: If you’ve been around longer, I get it. That’s the one-time elders—or even younger people—always assert a bit of pride. “Well, I know the person.”

Hirs: Yes, exactly. “I know that guy.” It reminds me of that Woody Allen movie—where someone is talking nonsense, and Allen pulls out Marshall McLuhan.

Jacobsen: That’s right. McLuhan steps in and says, “You know nothing of my work.” I remember that. The guy’s in the movie line, pontificating.

Hirs: As Mark Twain once said, “Nothing ruins a good story like the appearance of an eyewitness.” My freshman English professor once had a run-in with a very self-important student. The student said, “You can’t say that about Faulkner!” So, next class, Lamar Stevens came in with photos of himself drinking and sailing with Bill Faulkner himself.

Jacobsen: That’s excellent. Hey, it’s a pleasure to meet you.

Hirs: Likewise, Scott. Nice to meet you, too.

Discussion

Hirs’ remarks weave together multiple threads: fiscal policy, higher education governance, and civic culture. He identifies the 1980s as a pivotal decade when the U.S. abandoned large-scale public investment in science and education, replacing it with privatization and ideological distrust of intellectual institutions. This shift, he argues, produced cascading effects—undermining STEM capacity, constraining workforce development, and weakening the nation’s ability to reshore industries. In his view, America’s economic resilience is inseparable from educational integrity.

Hirs’ reflections on tariffs and trade provide an economist’s corrective to populist narratives. Protectionist measures, he explains, may offer symbolic satisfaction but impose real costs through inflation, market volatility, and diminished investment. His emphasis on global capital recycling—foreign earnings returning to U.S. assets—frames trade deficits not as national weakness but as functional interdependence. Yet, he warns that sustained policy confusion can erode this balance, risking recessionary pressures and diminished global confidence.

Within academia, Hirs critiques the financialization of universities, exposing how endowments and tuition dependence distort institutional missions. He is particularly alert to the erosion of academic freedom—both from political interference and self-censorship. His invocation of the Woodward Report underscores a principled vision: that intellectual inquiry must coexist with institutional order. Even when addressing cultural issues such as the distortion of “woke” discourse, Hirs maintains a historian’s restraint and a teacher’s curiosity. His humor, whether about baseball or literary anecdotes, punctuates the gravity of his economic insights with human perspective.

Ultimately, the conversation captures an American economist deeply committed to rational discourse amid a turbulent era. Hirs’ argument—that education, innovation, and ethical reasoning are inseparable foundations of democracy—resonates as both critique and call to action.

Methods

The interview was conducted via typed questions—with explicit consent—for review, and curation. This process complied with applicable data protection laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e., recordings if any were stored securely, retained only as needed, and deleted upon request, as well in accordance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Advertising Standards Canada guidelines.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current article. All interview content remains the intellectual property of the interviewer and interviewee.

References

(No external academic sources were cited for this interview.)

Journal & Article Details

• Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
• Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
• Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
• Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
• Journal: In-Sight: Interviews
• Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
• Frequency: Four Times Per Year
• Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
• Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
• Fees: None (Free)
• Volume Numbering: 13
• Issue Numbering: 4
• Section: A
• Theme Type: Discipline
• Theme Premise: Economics
• Theme Part: None
• Formal Sub-Theme: None.
• Individual Publication Date: November 8, 2025
• Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2026
• Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
• Word Count: 2,878
• Image Credits: Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash
• ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 2369-6885

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges Enos Mafokate for his time, expertise, and valuable contributions. His thoughtful insights and detailed explanations have greatly enhanced the quality and depth of this work, providing a solid foundation for the discussion presented herein.

Author Contributions

S.D.J. conceived the subject matter, conducted the interview, transcribed and edited the conversation, and prepared the manuscript.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–Present.

Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.

Supplementary Information

Below are various citation formats for Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition)
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade. November 2025;13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. (2025, November 8). Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade. In-Sight Publishing, 13(4).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT)
JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade. In-Sight: Interviews, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 4, 2025.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. 2025. “Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.” In-Sight: Interviews 13 (4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition)
Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.” In-Sight: Interviews 13, no. 4 (November 2025). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.

Harvard
Jacobsen, S. (2025) ‘Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade’, In-Sight: Interviews, 13(4). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.

Harvard (Australian)
Jacobsen, S 2025, ‘Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade’, In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition)
Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade.” In-Sight: Interviews, vol. 13, no. 4, 2025, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics.

Vancouver/ICMJE
Jacobsen S. Conversation with Ed Hirs on U.S. Education, Energy Economics, and the Future of Global Trade [Internet]. 2025 Nov;13(4). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hirs-economics

Note on Formatting

This document follows an adapted Nature research-article format tailored for an interview. Traditional sections such as Methods, Results, and Discussion are replaced with clearly defined parts: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main Text (Interview), and a concluding Discussion, along with supplementary sections detailing Data Availability, References, and Author Contributions. This structure maintains scholarly rigor while effectively accommodating narrative content.