tv JFK and the Reagan Revolution CSPAN September 24, 2016 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
if slave ship captain was caught and brought back to new york for trial it was very, very, very rare for him to get convicted. half the time, more than half he time they never even method it to the trial. just allowed to slip out of the jail. judges and juries were notoriously lenient with them. i they were convicted and sentenced to anything they would be sentenced to two months or four months in jail as o'opposeed to being hung. the whole long history of new york's involvement in the transatlantic slave attraction only one slave ship captain was ever hanged for and if it that was because he had the bad luck to get caught after lincoln was in the white house the civil war had started. so, the politics had shifted. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2. it's television for serious readers. here's a look at primetime for this evening on booktv.
we kick off in just a few minutes with cnbc's lawrence kudlow and brian dough metro vic, discussing the policies over the kennedy and reagan administrations and then at 10:00 p.m., representative dave brat discusses economics and politics and remembers his victory over former house major yet lighter eric cantor. interviewed by ed jill his -- jill less -- gillespie and a 11:00 p.m. they look at modern day russia and the effect of putinism. that happens on booktv and we kick it off with lawrence kudlow and bryan dim dough -- dough
metro vic. and brian domitrovic. >> good evening everyone. my name is lena and my husband are and are owner's the book store. want to know if you can hear me. we have a new sound system. does work well? great, wonderful. well, we are obviously thrilled, honored, to be celebrating the publication of jfk and the reagan revolution. we have the two co-authors with us. a man who needs no introduction, mr. lawyer larry kudlow and his coauthor, brian domitrovic, the so-prefer and chair of the sam houston state university and they worked on the book together and will be talking about i together and we're so thrilled
and so honored to have you both here. temperature for coming, and i should mention also, larry lives across the street and he is a regular customer here, has been for years. >> over 20 years. >> that makes it so much -- so special, and so personal. so, please join me in can being larry and brian. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. appreciate it. are we on both mics? we welcome c-span, by the way. thank you for covering this, appreciate it very much. so, yeah, it's true i'm larry cud low and i'm a local -- kudlow and i'm a local. when penguin and random house started organizing this thing -- which one? that works? this one doesn't sound great but we'll do what we can. penguin and random house said, a while back when we got this thing written and published,
it's good to have a couple of local book stores itch -- i said. ah-ha, across the street. it's a terrific idea. we have done tons and tons of media. people have been wonderful to us. lovely oped piece in today's "wall street journal." this miss co-author and great find, brian domitrovic. he is a cure cowerrer to and he head of the laffer -- >> serb associate. >> of the laffer center and long-time friend of mine. his prior book was all about the classical supply side revival going on and he is a harvard trained historian. in fact as i've said before, his historiography is the glue that held this book tolling. why want to doest just read a few experts and brian will then speak of whatever he wishes to
speak about and then we'll enjoy some wine, cheese, whatever it us there. i want to begin with this real simple. the underscore to the -- the underheading to today's oped piece that the journal published, return to jfk's rising tide model. , and then underneath says kennedy and reagan both -- bipartisan tax cuts and that is just what is needed now. if you take away anything that you -- you may disagree with in and appreciate that. i love disagreements. i've been in the disagreement business for a long time. tv and radio. and so i fine it's going to be a q & a so you can come right at it. i'm used to that as long as it's civil. the very essence of this book is that first john f. kennedy, and then 20 years later, ronald reagan, both used lower marginal
tax rate as wells a sound dollar to revise moribund economics, -- economies, this is not'm from the 18th for 15th century. this is something from recent times and the 20th century. and our argument is, we have experienced a long, dry spell, the last 15 year, frankly under republicans and democrats, president and congress, poor economic growth. very poor growth. and that's one over -- of the opinion we make. you can draw whatever conclusions you want to draw but our intent here is not to write a politicized book. we don't mex the current election but to just raise history. we can learn a lot from history, and one of the great things about history is when you forget history, you forget that john f. kennedy, who i would argue was the greatest democratic politician in the last 50 or 60
years -- i speak myself as a form democrat and my long dark past. john f. kennedy was in fact the first supply side. first supply sider. a pioneer. you have to go back to 1920s, and that was a long time ago. but kennedy was responding to very poor economic growth during the eisenhower years where there were three recessions and kennedy felt, having won bay cat's whisker in 1960, that if he didn't produce growth, in fact he talked about five percent growth during the campaign -- he would lose. in 1964. and so he was looking around for things that would get the economy out of the doldrums. there were three recessions dug their eisenhower years and the unemployment rate was up to 7%.
ry just read a couple of ex-seniors. we have a model to follow as we seek return to our nation to economic growth. it is the john f. kennedy, ronald reagan model. a model of getting the government restrained and modest in its two areas of economic policy, fiscal and monetary policy. both kennedy and reagan identified substantially cutting income tax rates and getting the dollar strong and stable as the specific policy that would let the private sector, which is to say the real economy, thrive. we need that. we need that. most of us who well aware that reagan was pa tax cutter. he had to deal with the horrible stagflation, weak growth and eye high inflation of the '70s and '80s which came to an end the first years of his presidency. some of us are aware that bill clinton used some of that mod
toll foster prosperity in the decade after rig -- ronald reagan, where the pup pup congress clinton cut capital gains and was a proopinion independent of free trade. what generally not known or at least not remembered, the subject of this book, that president john f. kennedy in early '60s not only used but largely pioneered the exact same model. kennedy. he came to office during a period in which growth was only a little better than today, and his own presidency launched the u.s. on one of the greatest and longes economic booms in our nation's history, using the nix of tax rates and a strong dollar and it was five percent economic growth per year between 1962 and when it ran out of gas and policies changed in 1969. if americans had known this history, we probably would have
tried the jfk-reagan policy mix years ago in our 2000s. would have attend tax rates slow, traded stagnation for expansion in the 20th century, and yet this history has been obscured. today's liberals and progressive act as if tax rates at a meaningful dollar are shockingly far right policies. they were never put into practice in 1960s and failed in the '80s and could only work in a dream world. but it was democrat kennedy who launched those policies. that by itself i think is a great factoid from the book. let me read you just couple of quotes. we were recording a long radio interview with my great pal, john bachelor, who is going to be here at 11:00, and he actually found a tape with
kennedy's boston accent. a great famous speech kennedy made in december of 1962. very famous speech, which really was the breakthrough of his new policies. in short, it is a paradox of the truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now, the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget and tax reductions can pave the way to that employment. the purpose of cutting taxes now is not to enincur a bug deficit but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy check bring a budget surplus. that was jfk. in 1962. december. okay. now, let me turn the clock forward and ronald reagan comes into office. i greatly served as one of his
budget deputies, long time ago. on february 18, 1981, a month into this presidency, reagan gave a speech to the nation and he announced he was seeking the 10-10-10 tax rate cut. 30% across the board tax rate. kennedy's was roughly the same. 30% across the board. so we skip over two decades. now, here's reagan. back when calvin coolidge cut taxes close to board the government's revenues increased. when jack kennedy died it, his economic advisers were all telling him the government would lose revenue and the government gained revenue. it's the reality. so hey made quite a sizable financial error. jack kent's line was, quote, rising tide lifts all boats. end quote. and this is what we believe the tax proposals that we have made are aimed at. that is reagan in almost the identical wores of john f. kennedy and last quote from
reagan, can you cut taxes and fight inflation? by so doing this? i very much believe you can. let me just read you something. our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large budget deficits on the other. an economy stifled by restrictive tax rates will nephews revenue to balance budget just as it never produce enough jobs or profits and here's reagan quoting, quote, blue jackets said that back in 1962 when he was asking for a tax decrease, cut in tax rates across the board. and he was proven right. that is reagan. and before that it's kennedy. and i just want to say this for the umpteenth team. kennedy, the democrat, reagan in the republican and as the underheading in the paper this
morning, kennedy and reagan both spurred growth through bipartisan tax cuts. that's just walt we need now. so it's become a career to blame reagan to blame me to blame arthur laffer to blame jack kemp, a whole lot of people who contributed to this story. i'm fine with that. go on and blame me. i'm a big boy. can take it. i'm very thin-skinned but if you want to blame, blame john f. kennedy. he started it. in great fashion. and unfortunately he was tragically assassinated but went into place. it succeeded. reagan borrowed it. it succeeded again and ail want to say is we have an election here, this book is not about the
election, but whoever, somebody needs to form a bipartisan coalition, reach across the aisle, and as kennedy did and reagan did, and kennedy's top economic adviser was a republican, treasury secretary doug dill: on, we need to do the same thing. that's all i ask. stop yelling, stop cutting, stop snarking, toe stop being mean. just look at the facts and read some history and you can see there is a way out of this slump that america unfortunately finds itself in. that's our message and i'll turn it over to my pal, brian domitrovic. >> larry and i had a great time writing this book. a lot of it right here in new york city. across the street. and a lot of events in this book happened in this neighborhood.
just walked past the jack win kennedy onassis reservoir. the jfk favorite crash pad is down the street, the carlisle hotel. where he got a couple of his economic reports, including the report that said, don't you dare cut tax raise every. that was all samuelson and the economic club of new york is right down in the canyons, not too far from here. one of the thing wiz wanted to do in this book was kind of correct by means of evidence this impression that the tax cut of 1964 was keynesian, that kennedy was some kind of demand-side pump primer and not a supply-sider. his cut was a caught in marginal tax rates. we weren't sure why the argument had traction so we wanted to identify the really important role that douglas dylon, he this are treasury sect, played in
1962, '3 and '4. i'd like to read you a presidential enemy mow from the treasury secretary. usual lie this are dry as dust but when kennedy actually turned on his kensan advisers the memo turn touts be really important. so end listened to this advise from advice from his advisers, increase government spending, get off the gold standard. if you have a tax cut, only a temporary tax but because we have to preserve the current tax struck fewer for programs inch 1962 every forecaster saying there's going to be another recession, the five and 13 years and dylon write this memo to john f. kennedy. he told him about the advice he getting in europe, all believe, dylon wrote to the president, any significant adaptation of government policy aimed at stimulating economic expansion should be presented in a clearcut simple package with consensus on these points.
one, there is to be a tax cut, it should be oriented toward improveed business incentives, should be of a permanent and reform character, reduction centered on lower bracket personal cans would be regard as fiscally loose bread and circuses some come papillon action would -- companion action would be understand realliable. there that be tax reform. should the made out of current savings. number three, the government should declare it is willing to allow interest rates to rise if combined demands from the private sector and a large government deficit create pressures. and kennedy took every point of that advice. he said, yep, i'm not going to do the spending. i'm going stop the monetary looseness. stop trying to finesse the gold standard. we'll cut tax rates and the
rates that matter. the rates that have ipsen tide thing highest rates in the tax code and that's going to draw capital back to this country, bring big-time growth and save the gold standard because of the demand for the dollar. so if i might read one more passage. a lot of people had asked why was kennedy's policy in the 1960s-forsake '? why wasn't it the policy through the 19 odd. wide diwe have a stagflation in the 1970s in i think actually unfortunately one of ropes we had a stagflation the 1970s is the john f. kennedy opponent in the 1960 election became president in 1969, and nixon kind of studiously made sure he didn't do jfk's policy, and he kind of reversed policy mix of going awful the gold standard and raising the capital gains tax rate and regulation and
spending. so here's an interpretive passage we write about the 1960s and '70s. the assassination of november 1963 provided an enormous short-term boost to the cause of the tax cut passed in '64. it was fatal notice the long term. the assassination was so shocking that the opponents of kennedy's legislative agenda that to submit on at least one kennedy goal out of due respect for the slain leader. the obvious choice was the tax cut. once that was en, ad all leverage was lost on blocking civil rights, kennedy's other big legislative initiative in the long term, however, kennedy's absence after 1963 deprived the tax cut of its principle ex-opponent or particular later and enforcer. the cerebrotone, his commitment to thinking threw the real economic effects of a tax rate
cut, while unken come bur third intellectual paradigms of university economics, flawed as they were. this supreme associating standing he indiana come economy douglas dillon, and the the ambition estimated the reason and credibility when the administration's commitment to seeing the tax cut through. with kennedy gone, the mechanism of the tax cut that kept the logic keen and motive was gong, too. no matter the phenomenal quality of the prosperity it unleashed. so,. >> didn't take johnson long to undo the best damn policy he was associated with and for a lot of different reasons relating to the war and politics and whatnot, he raised tax rates. might have put the original rate
back to 78% and began to unhinge the dollar and as i said, this is a bipartisan, nonbipartisan book, so the next president, richard nixon, who i have met many times and this family is dear friend of mine but nixon once said to me when he was out of moves office you don't think much of my economics. said, no, sir, i really don't. so, nixon raised taxes. and nixon unleashed the dollar, unhooked it from any gold or any other monetary discipline and imposed a massive regulations on the economy, including wage and price controls. so, again, in a bipartisan way, democrat and republican got it right and we had a democrat and republican who got it wrong, and now that the question is, how is the balance going to wind up tipping? i can't answer that question. crystal ball is no better than yours.
it's important. the other point that brian read, which i love, really, doug dillon, a very wealthy banker, his father, clarence dillon, founded the old dillon reed which was among the widest of the wide shoe of investment bangs in new york. doug dillon had just about as much money as joe kennedy and john f. kennedy, and traveled in very high social circles. in fact even higher than the kennedys. and so kennedy could not stare him down help had to listen when dillon spoke, after all, kennedy put him in office as the treasury secretary. sometime you have to be able to make people listen to you, and in this indicate was money and social standing. me, i'd take it any way i can get it and good policy is good policy but the paint point here, again -- the main point here, this is not a bipartisan book. just want america to copy a phrase to get moving again.
we have to turn less than two percent growth over a couple of decade now back to three, to four percent growth, which i what we do historically. and to get there, we'll have to take strong remedial actions, particularly on business tax cuts, to grow the economy as five or six percent for several years, in order to get us back on track. kennedy and reagan showed prove. it can be done. it can be done. now. since i love america, believe in democracy, believe we can get it done. we'll see. that's really our story. >> i never associated kennedy with the economic policy -- >> i was recently listening to an interview with scholar, has a
book out about the decline of people participating in the work force, particularly men, working age who are not even looking for jobs, just out of the labor force. i'm wondering if this development that he argues is very significant, whether that would limit the effectiveness of a new policy -- of going to another round of these sorts of tax cuts -- >> goes the other way. as nick -- he argues in his piece, they're probably two key issues here. one is a lack of economic growth. want to create jobs? grow. you want to lower budget deficits? grow. you want to help solve poverty? grow. want to employ more people? grow. there are other issues that nick raised. federal policies, regarding small entitlements and other regulations, have been a disincentive to work.
that's too bad because we want to get everybody able bodied to work, and i had the same argument. lay off brennan of the federal reserve board. made a similar argument how low the employment is which is the backbone over the economy. the 25 to 54, their par tis rate has gone down, know why? we're not growing, not creating jobs. want to look at gigantic back this brown unemployment rateness this country? we're not growing. you want to see the reason why people are cranky? and unhappy and pointing fingers at everybody? we're not growing. we're not growing. i know we need rules and immigration and so forth but a lot of this is about growth. nobody complained much in the '60s and and '80s and '90s about the subjectses when we stop growing they complain. yes, ma'am. >> this is tangential.
i always believed in alan greenspan and his theories how to control recessions, and then came out with the fact what he did was wrong. he declared it to be invalid. >> want to answer that one? >> he's a personal friend of mine. >> we had a little caption about alan greenspan in our book help gave an interesting talk in 2002, believe it was, to a bond convention, in which he said with us a these surpluses we have been running now, fourth straight years of surpluses in the late '90s wen envision a future in which there's not enough government debt for neds to continue its open market operations. the cascade downward of the
plate gdp was getting that fast. i'm ready to believe, actually, that some of the economic stagnation that arose in the mid-how to 2000's was -- on the part of governmental institution. remember visiting the imf in 2008, early that spring, and everybody was scared to death because nobody wanted their business. there was so much cash sloshing around the world, nobody was begging the imf for money, and a crisis came in and he imf has another 50, year lease on life. i think one of the other benefits of big-time, constant five percent economic growth is you clear out the nonreal intents the feds, imfs. they might go into nonexistence in the mid of hap mass prosperity. >> i think alan -- he is a friend of mine and i think he was a superb federal reserve chairman.
he served four terms, i think. don't think nibblings has done that. when he made his statement, a statement about the able of markets, free martials to function probably at all times, and a lot of people blame the financial meltdown of 2008 on what is called ultra easy, ultra low interest rates that alan was partly responsible for. i think he made mistakes, but i think he us lose losing his anybody and said, my god the markets didn't work the way we thought they would i think is now gaining his legs mow and realized that government regulation played a huge role. government overregulation. don't want to go deeper on that because it's not our subject, but greenspan, through 40 years of economic policy influence and service, was a free market guy.
and also was the sound money guy. and maybe people in high office shouldn't serve four terms. maybe one or two is enough. yes, ma'am. >> oh due you feel about tpp? >> well, look. tpp, pacific trade, is a good idea. a good idea. but it's not been done up properly. but a good idea. i'm a free trader. and will remain so. i think the geopolitics are very good, brigging our allies, india and japan, closer to the fold, australia and serve as either a buffer or warning to china, depending on how you want to put it. and it will lower trade barriers. among these countries. which we need. which is good for growth. there are some problems in there where a couple of international boards that will not reflect the
american electorate or so forththat will be used to decide issues and conflicts. i'm sick of international boards. i'm sick of them. i want an american board. and i really -- i don't want it to be governed by world courts. don't want it to be governed by distant institutions like the imf and world bank. i'm sure they're good for employment as ph.ds but as far as i'm concerned they don't do any good. i'm sick of a thousand economyis at the federal reserve board who have done more harm than good. i'm sick of the crowd that has done more hard and i love brexit. so much in favor of brexit. pull out of the european union. i call it magna carta 2.0. get the british people, which has a wonderful legacy, i'm glad -- i love britain. love what they just did. magna carta, parliament.
representative democracy, freedom, equals growth. that's the way i see it and the eu i put them right in there with he imf and world bank and all that other. you can have them. i'm for free trade but i want free trade to be governed properly in accord with american interests and democracy. yes, ma'am. >> what do you think of the uk leaving the european union and -- >> that's brexit. i'm in favor of it. i think you were, too. >> yes, sir. >> okay couple work at wall street under the aegis of the chesney martin who replaced truman's poodle, and i think that's fair description. >> fdr's -- poodle. >> would you care to contrast the era of ma chesney martin and the public posturing and public
statements in comparison to this latter day minstrel show of thed to board of governors and the way they conduct themselves in this day a age. there is a difference, isn't there? >> want to take a whack at that? , i have a thought but i want my part at the -- >> i'll say something about wild bill martin. the federal reserve chairman from 1951 to 1969. it's clear that bill martin was trying to do a good job. in the '50s he had trouble. when the famous comment out of the fed 0 that era, the economy had 91% marginal tax rates and tax rates going up. the fed had to be extra vigilant and in that context the united states was losing $2 billion of its gold every year bows foreigners were just quitting on the u.s. economy. so when kennedy re-appointed martin, martin was ready to raise interest rates in the
context of economic growth that was inspired by incentive-laden tax cuts i have listen to some television conversations the fed had with martin and lbj and noticed out -- he kind of fold when lbj asked him for anything. can you transfer balance which is illegal. sure thing, mr. president. i'd be happy. to the federal reserve chair was trying to be obliging towards the presidents he served and that is why he was at his best under kennedy. >> and reagan. carter appointed volcker. >> this constant showboat ago an daily basis built the individual governors. i don't recall that in any youth years. >> i hate that eye. written about that. call the fed yacking. douse more harm than good when i was a child i worked for the federal reserve and actually word are worked under paul voelker. one of this secretary's clerk i
deed some speeches and dihis correspondents, anyway, vole at the as chairman wouldn't put up with and told everybody to keep quiet. vole at the as chairman didn't -- volcker as chairman didn't want nobody know what he was doing. the good news is he did it right. this bad news is might not have always been so. so, it depend's won the president is. carter wouldn't let volcker do his job even though appointed him. reagan did. reagan said do whatever it takes to get rid of inflation, and volcker do. right now there's a debate about that. i don't agree with one of the candidates who believes that the whole fed is politicized. i don't agree with that. the fed makes a lot of mistakes because they have lousy models and they see the world often in the wrong way, but i don't know. brian is right. you cut tax rates, open the doors to trade, a lot of things get easier and better. in the back?
>> so if we got back to five and six percent growth, that would be the old normal and today's normal is 25 fed funds and we're debating today whether we go in september or december, move it up to 50. but if we have five to six percent growth, wouldn't we be going back to old normal and be talking about 350? so higher arrests impact that outlook and how do you see that playing out? one is going to work against you if you cut the rates. >> no, no, no. if we slash tax rates again, and i think that the big issue today is business tax rates, which is the greatest obstacle we face. then interest rates will good up normally without any manipulation. the economy rises, real interest rates will good up, and all the fed has to do is let that happen. follow the market. that's what i've always wanted
the fed to do. the '80s and '90s when he had great prosperity, average interest rates, let's take the ten year, is six percent. now, one and a half or something, 160. the reason rates are low today is because the economy is terrible. in fact there's no -- the greater deflation and secondly stagnation -- those are the biggest reasons why we have life rates particularly at -- the fed done control the rates. all these jockeys, god love them all want to come on msnbc, just don't understand that. the federals doesn't control rates. the market control the rates. a healthy economy would have a five or six percent interest rate. be a good thing. got to cut taxes first. i come back and very happy with -- she is a conservative -- a liberal, democrat but i agree with what she said.
let's not jump the gun here. o'point is wait until you cut tax rates and then let interest rate goes up normally. and it will be great. everybody i would be happy. investors, savers will be happy. america will be happy. i want america to be happy and america is not happy now. that's part of the reason we putted this book -- america is cranky. i hate that. i just hate that. want americans to be in a good mood. i mean it. and part of that has to -- look, if you didn't have any wage hikes for 15 years. i get that d-you's get in bad mood, too. the top one percent ain't done so great either. seriously. the manhattan institute has done a lot of work on it. the top one percent today, all in market income,er is right where it was about the year 2000, 2005. it goss smashed during the downturn, lost 50% at the top one percent and got back only 35%.
i don't want to dwell on that but just saying one of the reason wes need tax cuts and sound money and new dose of kennedy, reagan, religion, is it will make people happier. it will. and you'll have less crime, and more job opportunities. and we can afford civil rights laws and we can figure out a way to do immigration without killing people. you follow me? i get very interest this because i think that in many ways the whole political debate today is putting the cart before the horse. put thing horse before the cart. the horse is the growth rate that will pull everything out. this is not small potatoes. real lives are at stake. i don't know what i -- my friend, arthur laffer, says he is a kennedy democrat and reagan republican. 'll buy that. >> peter. >> from an economic 101 standpoint can you talk more about goals and how this relates
to this and also king dollar. >> you. >> i'm guilty of king dollar, been saying it 25 years and keep on saying it. don't know if we have to good back to gold reference point anymore. would personally prefer that why friends wayne angel and manly johnson did. heller from san francisco. i think it -- bob heller from san francisco, and greenspan. use a market basket of commodities and that's judging the value of the dollar. that tells you you have to do something, have to tighten up the dollar. if it's falling that tells you probably should loosen up. that's what i would use. i dino -- i am an old gold guy. just thing nowdays probably have to make the basket at larger and
we'll never have balance of payment transfers in gold. the fed -- i worked at the fed, open market operations, and volcker. theyad to literally move gold from one train to another to sell down the payment accounts. they don't do that anymore. so, robert fin '. >> trying to make you both happy and give you each a magic wand and three picks. you only get three -- you dope have to agree, slows flight policy picks you would implement right now, whether it's immigration, regulatory, individual taxes, capital gains whacker would be the three things you would rich for. >> go. >> the reagan -- arthur laffer, we talking about the five pillars of reaganomics.
low taxes -- >> you have to page. >> i'm going to say you can eliminate one of in five. you don't need to worry about spending. spending will naturally fall if you cut tax rates, get the dollar strong and stable again and have real regular regulatory rollback. if you had to the three things the demand for to live in cementeddor would be to great, people would upall of welfare and get out of obamacare and go into the real economy if you had low tax rates, investment from king dollar and getting this regulation out of the way. spending would plummet. >> i like that. i've always believed that, as least a share of gdp, taxes come down when you grow. each point of growth above the two percent baseline is worth close to $3 trillion in lower deficit. i would say my view is, the
single most important thing to do is to slash business tax rates for large and small companies. just slash them. 15% is a very good number. i would abolish the corporate tax all together. 15% is a good start. you won't get it. it's a good start. work on it and you might get it. single best thing to do. and i think also, bone obama card mutt be repealed and rewritten. it is -- the new york fed says it's costing jobs and i think that's probably right. and i don't want to lose the free trade path. understand deals must be enforce it, absolutely, and we have been lax on that. but free trade is a good thing, not a bad thing. it helps both sides and i've always believed -- you know this, robert and i worked together for many years,
day-to-day and talking and so forth. american should have the freedom to purchase the best quality goods as the lowest are deat the lowe's available prices anywhere around the world. believe that and i'm still going to believe that and i'm never going to give up on that. some actions happen to be taken. buttner generic point, it's not going to move me on that. not, kenny was -- kennedy was a big free trader. flush. >> yes? >> yes, sir. >> you believe that inequality operates as barrier at all to growth or do you believe that inequality run rampant? >> i put it the other way. i'd let growth run rampant and i think that up are inequality
only happen weather then economy is sour. it's resentment. i don't like that. first of all, in america, a free country, representing a democracy, we all must start at the same line. we must all be treated equal under the law at the same starting line. all have equal opportunity. but in a free economy, a free country, we don't all end at the same place. ... the the
>> can you talk a little bit about the coolidge tax cuts and if that was effective? was that a precedent kennedy used? and second, are you aware of any situations in the u.s. or foreign countries you felt tax cuts were not effective in spurring growth? is there any contrary precedent? >> about the coolidge tax cuts in the 1920's yeah, income tax rates went up 11-fold during world war one to 77%. by 1920, james grant wrote about this in his book the forgotten depression. but by 1920 there was a strike in the country and no investment could be measured in housing, railroad track and station maintenance among many other
categories while municipal bonds were increasing. there is a big shift out of the economy into the public purse. so harding and coolidge under the guidance of the treasury sectary, andrew melon, who was reading the memoes of his predecessor. this was when the democrats were beholden to be tax cutters. kennedy referred to that. they said we don't want do to that because that gave us the great depression of the 1930s. tax cuts that don't work. there is the case of foreign countries that are really tossed by their exchange rate to the dollar. if the dollar goes like this all of the time and they have a
currency board you can neutralize the fact of policy. there are examples, japan might be one, that have low tax systems but investment does nulliwant move in the right direction because there is no guidance from the monetary of the united states. >> walter gave a speech about this a year and year and half ago and said we have to move back to a rules paced monetary policy and international currency cooperation is very important. we have neither. there was no headline coming out and more progress to solve global warming.
we are having currency wars breaking out and currency manipulations and we are as guilty as anybody. they lasted half a century ago and we need to do that. right now it is war out there. yes, sir? >> what is your thought on artificial intelligence and increasing productivity and how that will affect middle class jobs? the only way we will know is if we have strong tax rates. until we get that we should not look for other causes for our
unemployment problems. i fully expect it there to be an abundance of jobs when we get the tax cuts. >> there is an argument floating around about this and i don't like it. here is a case where they should look back at history. every time you had tax breaks in this country. we had one after the civil war and the 1920s were full of breakthroughs and electricity radio and so forth. the 1960s we have example in the book of breakthroughs. intel was started in the '60 and the most famous is '80s and '90s.
employment exploded. at the turn of the last century, doug and they created products that were cheap enough that hundreds of millions could buy cars. they lost out but there are adaptables. we moved the countries from the farms to the industries in the cities and did great. microsoft, apple, they are huge companies. the only person getting rich was steve jobs but non-sense. when you go to seattle, washington, and i don't want to be offensive but i used to travel that route, you had nothing and now it probably has
more millionaires per capita than any place in the world. why? technology did well. silicone valley is the same way. you may go through passes of this but robots are not going to take over the world. jobs will -- as francis said give us economic freedom and great things will happen. i bet on it. one more question. you filled the job up. i never thought that would be happening. we are very grateful. here is a look at the finalists for this years's national book award for non fiction.
retired army colonel andrew identifies the events he believed led to america's increased presence in the middle east in america's war for the greater middle east. in the fire brand and the first lady, patricia bell scott recalls the relationship between murray and roosevelt. and a history of racism in america in stamped from the beginning. and "time" magazine senior writer adam cohen looks at the eug eugenic movement. other finalists include arlie russell on her report on the alienation many felt on the political right in strangers on their own land. in nothing ever days, weighing in on the vietnam war.
and weapons of mass destruction argues big data and commuter models can be used to discriminate against people. it continues with a look at it enslavement of native americans in the other slavery. american mystery professor documents the influence of the haitian revolution on abolition in the slaves cos. and heather ann thompson reports on the 1971 uprising at new york's attica correctional center. many of these authors have appeared or will be appearing on booktv. >> science is the great equalizer as i said a moment ago. it is the one thing that stands
between say two brothers with as much power as these two brothers have, charles and david coke, and two brothers that have as much as these two, my nephews in chicago. in theory, these two sets of brothers in the united states should have the same access to justice, the same access to potentially to education or to employment at least to voting. and science is the one equalizer that neutralizes the fast size of the mega phone of the brothers on the left side of the screen and provides an opportunity to the brothers on the right. this is based in core ideas that really date back to the very, very founding of the united states. thomas jefferson said wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government.
there is the crux of the problem we are running into it. if you have been to the library of congress you would see thomas jefferson's library that has been created which contained virtu virtually the entir entirety of america's history. that was a possible idea back then; the well-informed voter. what happened a quarter later when science advances and there is not a fraction of people knowing what there is to know. how do we have people able to govern themselves in a democracy in the age dominated by complex technology. that is the rug we are bumping
up against. in order to come up with this idea for democracy, to convince other enlightenment nation to not intercede in the revolutionary war jefferson reached for the greatest thinking of what he called his trinity of three greatest men to come up with an argument to come up with an argument to stay ut. the thinking of isaac newton. this is part of the trouble today. if you take out your cellphone and turn it over and unscrew the screws on the back -- wait a minute there is no screws on the back. it is hard to have know-how and understand things that are true when science and technology have become so complex that it is difficult for the average person to make them down. a generation ago you could sit down at your kitchen table, buy
a kit and make a radio. that is no longer true with cell phones. at the moment that cell phones, which like flying brooms are made by people wearing long robes and muttering strange comments, at the moment science isn't distinguishable between magic, science by its nature must become a function of belief and it is what do you believe in? scientists believe in journals and the peer review process. even those are vulnerable as we have seen from certain journals for hire. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. here is a look at authors recently featured on booktv afterwards.
new york times president and ceo mark thompson on how political speeches changed over time. former attorney general, alberto gonzalez recalls his time with the gorge bush administration. and georgetown law professor brooks expands the role of the u.s. military around the world. face the nation moderator john dickerson about important moments in american presidential campaigns and mary thompson jones talks about her investigation of thousands of leaked state department cables. also coming up, temple university professor sarah rob describes possible solutions to rising college tuition costs. and david brat on his time in congress and the economic challenges facing the country. >> if you have your eye on becoming leadership or chairman there is nothing wrong with that. but these days the money is just