tv Book Discussion on Saving Capitalism CSPAN December 30, 2015 12:15am-1:26am EST
rug that has issues on. both of these figures are sort of utilizing a false religion for political purpose. so it proves that once again i am an equal opportunity defender. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> good evening. i am excited to be with you tonight. let me tell you. [applause] and i may speak fast because
i am anxious to hear from robert. but i want to set him up because he is so important. the death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination. it will be a slow extinction apathy, and difference, and undernourishment. but not with the librarians reach. we applaud the madison public library and the foundations that bring us this book festival while the growing board of fiction and nonfiction feast to stimulate and satisfy, a sustainable table of ideas the cuisine of public life. and tonight we have special like because in this moment in the thick of presidential primary in this moment that
reveals the depth of the political divide across the country and also reveals an emerging populist movement in both the left and the right, in this moment that is marked by a clear shared sense that too many of us have been moved to the margins don't see a path back and in this moment where there is widespread hunger for the truth it is our luck to hear from the unique truth teller and did debunker of myths, a man who speaks with the authority of the scholar, rhodes scholar, a professor of public policy uc berkeley, and economist who has served presidents from both parties, secretary of labor and took his leave
power. wnyc ask, can robert rice said capitalism? if we work with them. no one that i know of has greater potential than p robert rice to bridge the good citizens on both left and the right to understand this moment. as a man of great dignity and grace insist with respect and good humor that the truth be told. [applause]
there are cross currents. this is sort of the epicenter of the american battle between the progressive forceshan and the regressive forces of america. is that a fair way ofto putting it? i don't want to disparage or sound harsh. especially because i am here at the invitation of thisa wonderful wisconsin book festival talk to you about a book . i am here because iec want you to read my book. if you buy it that is better, but here is what i am going to do. i will talk about the bookou and the themes of the book and try to work in economics and politics and then i'll take your questions. and i'm going to limit my remarks to three hours. is that okay?h
it is late and you want ton go too late. i am going to be about 45 minutes. but this is a book. here is the thing. it is called saving capitalism for the many, not the few. and i have two different reactions from people. some people say they are offended by the title,t capitalism does not need saving. it is perfectly fine as it is and then there is another group of people who say why do you want to save capitalism?f it is a perfect title because nobody likes it. but the most important aspect is the subtitle which is for the many, not the few. and that is really the issue here. because we have a problem.
there is a problem. in fact, i rely not just on polls to test will public opinion is about a political economic system, but i undertake a free-floating focus group that happened just today, lift the san francisco through denver here at the madison. to? you ever do that? did i come the right way?th you went through denver? why didn't you go through chicago? anyway, i went through denver and in the denver airport somebody came up to me, and this happened to me a number of times.e someone who i don't know because i am kind of conspicuous looking theyan come up to me and this person like to meet and said
, what are we going to do? now, i thought, put yourself in my place. i don't know this person.a a similar thing happened to meap about two weeks ago in and somebody can you believe it? now again, put yourself in my place. what? what?? now, what people are talking about and what people are talking about in my free-floating focus groupb is that they are very concerned , very worried, worried about.ey the economyrr
and our democracy and these are people who are not necessarily democrats or republicans. they don't even draw a sharp distinction between the economy and democracy. just the system and what they worry about is that the system is not functioning. it is malfunctioning.s we have a recovery that ist in its 6th year.ov most people don't feel like that and much recovery. the median household income adjusted for inflation is now below what it was at the start. averaging comes of gone up,
but don't mistake averages. averages and median. do you understand the difference? some of you do. shaquille o'neal and i have an average height of 6-foot two. 6 by you with me? do you get my drift? they pull off the average. you want to look at the median, half above and have below. w the median is not done well a at all. the united states economy is almost twice as large as it was 30 or 35 years ago and
yet most people adjusted for inflation and you have gotju to adjust for inflation. the typical worker is not really doing much better than he or she did 35 years agohd and the economy is so much bigger. later all the money go? class? and here is where -- did someone just accuse -- this is the tricky bit taller people get nervous because if you start talking about where the money went you can be accused as i have been of being a class warrior. i am not a class warrior. the class warrior.
there is a subtle difference. read that the economy cannot function unless you have a large and growing middle class and that was the poor can aspire and get into the middle class because you don't have enough purchasing power.th people at the top are not going to spend much. you needw aggregate demand, the purchasing power to keep the economy going which is one reason this economy and recovery has been fairly anemic.n particularly relative to how far down we went. you would expect a big bounce back, and it was not that big bounce back. o that is one big problem that comes out ofth not having a
large and growing middle classng and having almost all the economic gains, but there is a 2nd problem. and that has to do with what i get to in this book and it has to do with power. let me just explain. because for about 30 years now i have been writing and teachingn and commenting and even secretary of laboring over the issue of widening inequality. most of the time i had most other people focus on two big factors. one is globalization. rarely is a term gone so directly from obscurity to meaninglessness without any intervening
period coherence. just the integration of all sortsn of different production systems are on the globeou so that there isg almost no big american company anymore.o they are global.a they sell empire and put the money and pay her don't pay taxes all around the globe. it is what we are calling globalizationc, but there is another factor,e technological change, and that means many people get displaced by technology. this is not new but the pace of technological displacemente is much faster today. i'm talking about technological displacement and saying what i genuinely believe that if you have got an excellent education youd are likely to be on the b
winning side side of the great divide in terms of technology and globalization. they are working for you and if you don't have such a great education then you don't have the connections that go with the great education you are likely to be on the losing side of the great divide with regard to globalization and technological change. at least that's what i've been saying and i still believe that's important and i still believe education is terribly terribly important. i want you to know i honor teachers. can i just say that? [applause] teachers have been scapegoated for too long and they don't deserve it. but beyond globalization and technological change and a related issue of education there is this question of power and
that's what i wrote this book about because it cannot be ignored. let me explain what i mean by power because his income and wealth go to the top, so also this power, political power. you can't divorce the two. even louis brandeis the great jurist said we have a choice in america. he said this in the early decades of the 20th century. he said we have a choice. we can either have great wealth in the hands of a few or we can have a democracy but we cannot have both. what was louis brandeis talking about? this was way before that shameless and shameful decision citizens united. we are talking about early 20th century. louis brandeis understood it because he was within living memory of the first gilded age and he knew great wealth in a
few hands that great political power and when you have great political power over the system then you have the power to change the rules of the economy. to benefit the people of the top and keep until it until the playing field of the economy in favor of the big corporations are the big banks were the big billionaires at the top well then they have even more resources. for campaign contributions and lobbying and even propaganda. and so you've invented a vicious cycle of compounded wealth and power. louis brandeis saw that and everyone digs through the first gilded age was aware of this. it's something that they saw. they would saw the robber barons
of the 1880s and the 90s. they saw what they did. they saw they basically a lot of the income wealth of an entire society and they used their own accumulated wealth and power to corrupt the political process. they put their lackeys with sacks of cash down on the desk of clients and legislators. we had inequality and even worse than inequality today. we had urban and rural squalor. even worse squalor than we have today and if we were meeting in the 1900s instead of in 2015 many of you would be saying to yourself something like you are probably saying to yourself, can it get any worse? will be going to do about it like the people i meet in
airports, strange people i don't know come up to me desperately and some very cynical but then what happened in 1901, there was suddenly a progressive era. the lone voices like robert lafollett. suddenly they were partitioning all over america. teddy roosevelt became president accidentally and teddy roosevelt not allowed exactly, he permitted a progressive era that fundamentally changed the organization of the economy. saved capitalism by his own excesses. and then of course after the great crash of 1929 we had no choice but to save capitalism once again from its own excesses and that again had to do with the reorganization and reorganizing the power structure behind the economy.
because arguably, arguably by the late 1920s, are you still with me? some of you have left me. so try to stay here because this is important. i know i'm in history but history has a tendency to repeat itself and i want you to listen to this because in the late 1920s, 19281% was taking on 23% of total national income and that meant that everybody else in order to maintain their lifestyles had to go deeper into deeper into debt and to bed debt bubble burst and there was a lot of well you all remember. you don't often remember. maybe you weren't actually there. i wasn't that there was a crash in 1928. interestingly if you look at what happened in 1923 there was a crash in 29. if you look at what happened in
1928 in terms of 23.5% of income in the hands of the top 1% when did that repeat itself again click the repeated itself again in 2007. you see when you have that much wealth and income at the top once again everybody else goes deeper and deeper into debt. you have a lot of speculation and then you have debt bubbles and in this case housing bubbles explode and then everybody has to start the organizing. we didn't do quite debeaugrine icing we did in the 1930s or in a progressive era but there was some reorganizing. we will get back to them. in this book i basically try to explode re-related mythologies. it stopped all of us from understanding what we need to do
together. mythology number one. there was a market that exists in the universe somehow separate from government and politics. now this is a mythology. very often i'm called to debate by conservatives and public arenas and elsewhere and no matter what we are talking about, we could be talking about global warming or climate change. we could be talking about agriculture. we could be talking about marine biology. it doesn't matter what we are talking about. within four minutes we were in a debate about which do you trust less government for the free market and i want to suggest to you that is a silly and meaningless debate. it does not have a market without government. markets don't exist in the state
of nature. in the state of nature it's all survival of the fittest. the biggest, most powerful. like my playground in kindergarten. it was terrifying. i wanted civilization and in a civilized society we have rules. we have rules. rules defined the basic holding box of the market. what is property? you might think that's pretty obvious. it's not that obvious. it's changing constantly. changing constantly somewhat sometimes because of social norms. we used to believe that we had the civil war that some people could own other people as property. and now we have all sorts of legal maneuvers and legislative maneuvers around the most important form of property in our current economy which is called intellectual property.
and the question there is what can be made and to patents or copyrights? the genome? can you owned the genome? there is a lot of government activity around that. can you owned anatomic von? there are a lot of questions about what can be owned. property is not just given. it is a decision or a contract. what can be bought and sold? can you buy and sell baby's? can you buy and sell sex? can you buy and sell boats? some of these things are bought and sold regardless of whether it's legal. there are plot markets the black markets are dangerous. the question is what is legal and enforceable and what is
fraud? do you know what fraud is? it's interesting that in this country in the united states we define insider trading, and this is like stock fraud. we defied insider trading in a very peculiar way. right now if i'm a ceo and i'm playing golf with my best friend and i tell my best friend that tomorrow my company is going to do something that's going to dramatically affect the stock price of my company and that's insider information by the way. it's confidential and you are not supposed to trade on it trade on the bed of my buddy takes that information and tells his best friend who happens to be a hedge fund manager and doesn't tell him where he got the information and a hedge fund manager just knows that it's accurate and my golfing buddy says it absolutely must be in that hedge fund manager makes a huge bad and makes a billion
dollars off of that that that's entirely legal. no other country allows that form of insider trading. it defines insider-trading so broadly. what i tried to show in this book is that wherever you look in terms of the rules of capitalism, the pacing building blocks and even bankruptcy. bankruptcy should be something something -- are you still with me? bankruptcy is something that ought to be -- people say it's just bankruptcy, that's the law. it's not just the law. bankruptcy is designed in a peculiar and particular way. if you are a major major business, if you are presidential candidate for example, now i do want to get partisan. if you want to declare bankruptcy and protect your assets you can use bankruptcy.
on the other hand if you are a homeowner who got caught in the downdraft of the great recession for example in 20 more on your home than your home is worth can you use bankruptcy to re-organize your dad's? now. ora if you are former student and you have a mountain of student debt that keeps on getting bigger and bigger even though you are tying to pay it off you are still owing more and more in the interest on that debt keeps growing can you use bankruptcy to rear qunai is your student at? now. now what i've just described to you with regard to some examples, property, patents, contracts, broad insider-trading , even student debt, bankruptcy. these are some of the rules of the market and they are determined by judges,
administrative agencies, legislators and the question is who has the most influence over setting these rules? that's the issue. the issue is not market versus government. the issue is looking at the system as an integrated system of political economy and that's the way we really should at least have a look at it, that see only realistic way we can look at it. is this system designed to help most of us or is it designed to help just a few at the top who have the most influence over the rules? that is the message. but you see it's the basic question. it is a critical question. it's what we all ought to be talking about. we all ought to be upset
regardless of whether we call ourselves liberals or progressives or democrats or republicans or conservatives or tea party types, we all should be upset that the economy is rigged. [applause] you are applauding because it's rigged. here is the issue. it's not that anybody is doing anything evil. everybody is doing everything out of their own self-interest. and the lobbying that one individual big corporation or one very wealthy person or one big banks were few banks together, lobbying and campaign contributions, the kind of support for think tanks and for other avenues public opinion
formation. all of that is self-interest and we think self onto us -- interests makes the economy -- is not the self-interest is bad. it's a compounded effect of all of that interest behavior particularly when you have so much inequality and you have so many resources at the top rate the compounding effect of that interest behavior is too unbalanced the system even more. myth number two. myth number one is you can't separate marketing government. you have to ask who benefits and why. myth number two, you are paid what you are worth. you laugh.
there is a tautology there. you are paid what you're worth in the markets because that is what you are paid. but usually when somebody says you are paid what you are worth their meaning more than that. they usually are meaning something that has a moral concept. that is you are paid what you're worth and some morally justifiable way. that's the usual meeting of you are paid what you're worth but if you follow myth number one and the logic of myth number one you see if the market is being created the moral justification in the market may not either. in other words you are not paid what you are worth an immoral way. you were paid what you are worth an immoral way way on the to the extent that the market is organized in a more like justifiable fashion.
you have hedge fund managers that are taking on a billion dollars a year. are they worth a billion dollars a year? not in any moral significant way. they may be getting a billion dollars a year because they get all the inside information that you don't get. you have more and more people who are called working poor. now that's a category of people, the working poor that at least in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and even the 90s we didn't have that many people who are working full time and poor. our property population tended to the people who are not working, who couldn't work who for some reason or another were kicked out of the market or were not able to work or were disabled. now we have people who are working full-time and they are poor.
simultaneously we have another group of people not nearly as large but they are also increasing. there are the nonworking rich. mostly airs to vast fortunes. we are in the midst by the way according to many researchers we are in the midst of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history from very wealthy people to their peers. those two groups the working poor and the nonworking rich dose of -- both of them to some extent violated. they stick meritocratic principle that we all believe in there's also the ceos. in the 1960s chief executive officers of big companies are earning on average about 20 times what the typical employee
was earning. now the ceo of a large company is earning about 300 times what the typical employee is earning. now are they worth that? they are not worth it any other than the a sense that is what they are earning. there is nothing that socially reviles printer times versus 20 times. in fact one might argue that many of these ceos are now creating to some extent because most people are not prospering, maybe they are worth much less than they used to be. you get my point. the whole idea of you earn what you're worth is questionable when the market is under the influence and constantly being
reorganized the people who are very wealthy and big corporations and banks and so forth and now myth number three. i don't want to give you too much. i want to give a lot away here because if i give it away, i'm just giving you a little bit. myth number three is that the most important issues and questions that divide liberals and conservatives have to do with how much we tax the wealthy and redistribute to everybody else. that's an important question. i grant you it's a very important question but by focusing on taxing and redistributing we are missing a very big part of the puzzle. we are missing all of what call the predispositions upward from you and me and most people to
big corporations and the banks and their executives and major shareholders. what do i mean? i mean for example you and i and everybody else pays for the pharmaceuticals we buy here in the united states than anybody in any advanced industrial country pays. now why is that? partly it's because pharmaceutical companies can take their patents. remember i was talking about intellectual property a while ago, they can take their patents and extend those patents artificially by paying the producers of generic equivalents not to introduce the generic. it's called pay for delay. now it is perfectly legal in the united states. it is not legal in most other
advanced industrial countries. but you see what that does. that means you and i pay more and that's it redistribution of worth. i say pre-distribution because it's inside the market. they don't even know about it. there was a time not that many years ago when we could buy our pharmaceuticals from canada. does anybody remember that? that's illegal now. you can't do that. i could give you many other examples of what has happened in the united states. medicare, big medicare programs no longer have the capacity legally, it's no longer legally allowed to negotiate with drug companies for lower pharmaceutical prices. all of this is the result of local power. this is the political power of the pharmaceutical companies that results in a direct
redistribution upward. or to take another example internet service. some of you groan. do i suspect perhaps your internet service is not quite what you want? you don't know the half of it. we in the united states, we pay more for internet service and get slower service than the citizens of almost any other dance to industrial country. why is that? it's because 80% of us don't have a choice of internet service providers and when you don't have a choice guess what? you into paying more and you often get lousy service. why do we get a choice? does it have anything to do with power and politics? do you bet.
i took a plane from san francisco this morning. people ask me and my focus group, sometimes they come up to me and this was actually a month and a half ago. somebody came up to me and asked me why our tickets so expansive? fuel costs have gone down. why is it still so expensive to travel when fuel costs have gone down? i introduce myself. and i explained as i'm going to explain to you that 15 years ago we had nine major airlines. now we have four major airlines and through many hubs there's only one or two. now when you have that degree of concentration, guess what? you don't have much choice and they can coordinate. or a less polite word is clued.
we could go through the entire economy. i've looked at what is happening to health insurers. they are merging. why are they merging? is it just economies of scale? may be some economies of scale. there are also merging because less competition gives them more power to set prices and also gives them more political power. you get my gist. wherever you look you see redistributions upward. we are paying more and even the example i give you a bankruptcy. certain people can use bankruptcy and if he can use bankruptcy that means you can get a better deal with your creditors. you can't use bankruptcy you have no bargaining leverage with your creditors. that means if they're redistribution upward for you.
and when you add up all of these upward redistributions you get a total that is much bigger then they're redistribution that people are talking about. another way of stating this is if you got rid of all the redistribution upwards you wouldn't would need nearly as much redistribution downward. but a lot of this is hidden and a lot of it escapes notice because we don't talk about it. we don't know it. are too focused on the old ideological debates over market versus governance where you get paid what you are worth overtaxing and redistributing. if we could get around or beyond
those days it really sees the system for what it actually is we might be able to actually have a constructive conversation about how we all reassert our power over our democracy and over our economy. in fact if you wanted to be terribly conspiratorial about it and i'm not as territory list. you might say there are some people or some groups or some institutions, big corporations, wall street, others who might prefer that we not make these and don't like is debating market versus government and paid what you are worth and taxing and redistributing because that will keep us all angry at each other. and we won't discover our
commonality. it's very easy to get into your own bubble. i know that. i used to teach and live in cambridge massachusetts. its own bubble, and ideological bubble, a blue city in a blue state and then 10 years ago i drove all across the country. i got a job in berkeley california and after driving across the country i found myself at berkeley and i began teaching at her glee and guess what? i was in the same bubble. 3000 miles apart, same place. better weather. by the way i love to drive across the country.
have you driven across america? it's a wonderful joy. it's an opportunity to get out of your bubble a little bit and i drove 10 years ago i was one of the first purchasers of a mini cooper. i drove my mini cooper and i got to oklahoma and there were no mini coopers and oklahoma. there may be one now but there weren't any mini coopers and oklahoma and so i was actually in a gas line outside of oklahoma city waiting for gas and these two truckers came up and they tapped on the window and i lowered the window and i say can i help you? they said what is this? i said it's a mini cooper. and they said how does anybody fit in there?
[laughter] i got out and i stood up and i said no problem. they looked very stricken. i said i'm from massachusetts and everybody there is under 5 feet tall. we are all in our bubbles. there is actually if we get out of the bubbles we might actually discover, it's possible we can discover there is more commonality. also getting out of the ideological debate. we might discover more commonality than there actually appears to be. the media doesn't help.
i was debating a conservative economist not that long ago and they were actually, we discovered because when you got under the sloganeering and propagandistic stuff when we got down to the specifics we discovered that we actually had much more agreement than we expected we would and we came to the station break and in my ear bud the producer said you have got to be angrier. i said we are modeling for the country something that is very useful and very important. the country can see that a republican and a democrat when you get down to details there's a lot more agreement than appears. the producer said you just have to be angrier. i said why? she said because you have the
entire public watching television and surfing through hundreds of channels and they will only stop when there was thick gladiator contests. people shouting at each other. i said i don't want that. i don't want to be angry for no reason. she said you must. at that point, i lost my temper. [laughter] but you see again a lot of this is for the challenge. my first full-time job was in the ford administration. that was a republican administration. my direct boss was a man named robert bork. do you remember him? [laughter] i actually liked him.
we didn't agree on the first, second, fourth, fifth, eighth and that night the minnesota constitution but we got along well am when i was in college i was an intern and i was an intern on capitol hill and my job was by was an intern for robert f. kennedy. iran is signature machine. you had to make sure all of the signatures were lined up perfectly. i was so bored i snuck in at night. keep it in this room if you would please because it could be a federal offense. i snuck in at night and i work on the stationary on robert f. kennedy stationery to my friends dear mr. dworkin congratulations on having the largest knows the new york state. robert f. kennedy. my friends still have these on their walls, and then one day
out of the senate elevator robert f. kennedy appeared. the first time i had seen him and he was surrounded by his aides and it was just such, my heart almost stopped and he looked at me and he said how was the summer going mob? he knew my name. he knew my name. and i couldn't speak. i just opened open my mouth and nothing came out, but had he asked me to go on and work is signature machine for the next year i would have done it i was so inspired and enthralled. those were inspiring times in washington. they were not great signs for the country. remember 67, 68 no matter what people say about the romantic
wonderful 67, 60 it was a horrible time. cities were burning and a 1968 martin luther king was assassinated and ultimately robert f. kennedy was assassinated and richard nixon was made president in vietnam was taking a huge toll. it was a horrible, horrible, horrible time but we got through it to you it was much worse than things are now. but it was not nearly as partisan. they were people called liberal republicans. i know it's hard to believe but there were liberal republicans and there were very moderate and considered consider democrats and people socialize in washington with one another. not everybody was noble. not everybody had the public good in mind all the time but it was not a city of anger.
let me summarize a little bit. i want to get to your questions. we are to have people lined up. you have already lined up. how do you know what i'm going to say? [laughter] oh we you read the book. [laughter] [applause] i want to and on this issue of anger because not only do people stop me in the airport of my focus group express a lot of dismaying condition worried that their son of anger out there as well. a lot of the anger has to do with the fact that people feel like they are doing everything they are supposed to be doing and they are falling behind and they worry their children will not do as well.
and they are getting stirred up. you see, we are on the cusp of a real populist wave and that's a cause of but also a cause for worry. it it's a cause for optimism because as in the late 1890s and as again a few times in american history those populist waves when enough people are riled up enough to give rise to major political change, i mean i broke this book long before bernie sanders and donald trump. i'm sorry most of those names are used in the same sentence but this is not going to be partisan. before either of them made an appearance but i say in the book that the major division politically in this country in
the future will not be democrats versus republicans or liberals versus and -- conservatives. it will be establishment versus anti-establishment. will the populist versus status quo. didn't think it would happen quite as fast. the good news is that is happening and it's happening not only in terms of bernie sanders campaign and to a different extent to donald trump and elsewhere it's happening as i travel around the country all over the country. i met with small farmers in minnesota who are organizing against some of the big factory farms and big agriculture. i met in st. louis with small business people who are organizing against some of the big walmart type big-box retailers and amazon driving amount of business. i met with 15 people in several cities that are determined to get a 15-dollar minimum wage.
i met with people who don't even know how much they have in common that they are organizing and they are organizing in the same direction, creating what john kenneth golf raith the person to whom i dedicate this book, my mentor once called countervailing power. john kenneth go break in the 1950s wrote a book called american capitalism, the concept of countervailing power in which he posited that the main reason that so many people were benefiting from the economy of the 1950s, while we were digitally creating the largest middle class the world had ever seen was because the legacy of the new deal had created these sources and centers of power that countervail for big corporations, the big banks and
the very wealthy. centers at countervailing power like regional banks countervail the power of wall street. countervailing powers such as small businesses and also farm cooperatives and also not the least labor unions. and what john kenneth galperin saw was the countervailing power was balancing our democracy and our economy. and what has happened, if you follow my logic is that we have lost the centers of countervailing power. and the good news is they are beginning to come back. we are on the cusp of a fundamental political change. we may not feel it every day. some of you may be feeling a
little bit but it is happening. the worry however is that populism comments in two different phases. historically in the world and united states one faces reformist populism where people say we are determined to save capitalism from its own excesses since save our democracy, rebuild institutions, free fashion is so works for everybody rather than the few. but when people are frustrated and angry there is also a different form of populism. the united states doesn't have this different form of populism historically all that often. let's call it authoritarian populism. it's a kind of populism where
there still is a great heel of anger and discontent and determination to overthrow the looming class of the status quo in the name of average working people but the difference is that it is not founded on reform of democracy. it's founded on a strongman who says follow me, i will change everything. by the way your enemy is them. authoritarian populism has to scapegoat's. it claims. the world has suffered a great deal because of authoritarian populism. america is not suffer that much. wisconsin actually has been the source of both kinds of populism. robert lafollett the great reform populist and progressives
joe mccarthy, somebody different. blaming, scaring, using fear as a device to build political power. we must beware of authoritarian capitalism. and authoritarian populism. but we will prevail. we, the people. thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you very much. and now i hope that i have --
who are you. connor i want to thank you for this wonderful festival and thank you for inviting me. >> let's thank robert one more time. >> no, don't bother. [applause] connor wants to skip the questions and go right to book signing but i like to have a couple of questions. is it okay? just a couple. if you will promise me to come and have me sign your book. let's do just a couple of questions. you signed up and you thought the book and i think you deserve to have a question. >> i will repeat your question
people can't hear. >> a western industrial country country -- i don't think it's on. >> i will repeat the question. >> germany is a western industrial country that did not outsource its manufacturing base. it runs trade surpluses. middle class works less hours and we do here. you have free education, university education for those who want it paid you have free health care. how is their study different than ours and how can we get there? >> the questions about germany and you are pointing out the fact that germany is a more acknowledged society right who are not only does it have free health care and free universities but it also come he didn't mentioned there important as co-determination. it that is workers are much more actively engaged and responsible
for the management of companies and there are many other features meaning that the top 1% and germany instead of taking on 20% of total income in germany as they do here for top 1% gets close to 11% of total income and by some measures the median worker in germany is doing better than a median worker in the united states. how do they do it? one way they do it is they have had a very very long tradition going back to bismarck. that is the social democratic tradition but let me be quick to jump in here and say there is nothing consistent between capitalism and social democracy. journalism is a capitalist country. denmark sweden and norway are all list. capitalism is the basic economic system even in communist china capitalism is becoming the basic
economic system. there were a question and again i think it's wrong to get involved in isms. they will will question your racing and i think it's a central question is why did that the system that's working for so many people rather than for an oligarchy or an aristocracy were plutocracy or whatever you want to call it at the top. therein lies a kind of the culture, a tradition that came out in my view really out of the embers of nazism and world war ii. not so much the social democratic tradition going back to bismarck is really much more recent sense that they were always together. it is social in the social innocence responsibility to each other but although that social contract is being tested by a lot of immigrants. and let me be very clear on this point. we are a nation of immigrants,
almost all of us except for the native americans and some people forcibly. we know how to assimilate people much easier than almost anybody else. we understand that immigrants are not our enemies. that is fundamental. thank you. [applause] >> thanks for your work and your writing and your comments mr. secretary. i just finished a master's degree in public policy at the robert lafollett school of public affairs here at madison and over the last two years i have had the opportunity to sit in a lecture for professor bob hayden that was called the labor market is in a mess. he would integrate detail about
how this recovery really has been dramatically different from the previous recoveries and some of the wise. we have the institute for research on poverty here that has established an excellent seminar series. so what i have seen for the last two years is a lot of the data, the facts that tell us just how broken things really are right now and at the same time you know as a class warrior you know this, there are a chairman is number of people out there who are dilute it into voting against their own economic self-interest. >> why would people vote against their economic self-interest? >> basically what i want to know if someone who has excelled in both academia and government at the highest level, what would you suggest, what are your
thoughts about this disregard for those facts and data? part of what made me worry about which type of populism we get is that people are really willing to pay attention. >> well, look one of the problems is that not only do we debate the wrong things, but we also divide around the wrong things. that is, there isn't or charlie a tendency, and this is particularly true among certain politicians and certain places at certain times to create in the middle-class or working-class ascents that their enemies are the poor or the immigrants or foreigners or union workers or however else you want to slice the pie. we all end up fighting over a
smaller and smaller slice of the pie without even realizing the slice is getting smaller and smaller. that fighting is blinding people to the larger economic story. my hope again with regard to this book, i hope with regard to all of you is that we can begin to undertake a dialogue, that will enable people to see not only their economic self-interest but their interest and a vibrant democracy. the number one issue it seems to me is to get big money out of politics. [applause] again i want to thank all of you and thank you for coming tonight. it was a great, great privilege. thank you.
>> the republican party has been deemed in the 1982 election. mckinley has been the governor of ohio and seen the country descend into a deep depression and republicans think the election of 1870 and 1896 is going to be there said he wants to be the nominee but he's not the rent -- the front-runner.
now from 2010 former treasury secretary henry paulson talks about his memoir on the brink. >> thank you all for being here and for being patient. the president scheduled news conference and i was anchoring the coverage so i jumped in the car and racier soon as i could read again thank you very much and