tv JFK and the Reagan Revolution CSPAN October 9, 2016 1:00am-1:55am EDT
book tv tapes hundreds of programs all year long. at the cato institute in washington d.c., the goldwater institute will weigh in on the differences between rights and privileges. then on wednesday, joad dolce will examine the history, science and economics of marijuana at the tattered covered bookstore in denver. friday we will be back in the nations capital at the center for american progress where john judas will provide a history of populist movements in the united
states. next saturday and sunday, we are live from the 28th annual annual southern festival of books in nashville with all day author programs. it features the likes of beth macy on the jim crow south, the carter presidency and history of the spanish civil war. that's a look at some of the author programs book tv is covering this week. many of these events are open to the public. look for them to air in the near future on book tv on c-span2. >> good evening everyone. my husband and i on the bookstore. i want to know if all of you can hear me. we have a new sound system. doesn't work? >> great, wonderful. we are obviously thrilled,
honored to be celebrating the publication of jfk and the reagan revolution. we have two co-authors with us, a man who needs no introduction and his co-author who is the associate professor and chair of the department of history of the sam houston state university and the two of them worked on the book together and they will be talking about it together and we are so thrilled and honored to have you both here. thank you for coming. i should mention also, larry lives across the street and he's a regular question entering customer here and has been for years. >> that makes it so much more special and personal. please join me in welcoming larry and brian. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. i appreciate it.
are we on both mics? we welcome c-span by the way, thank you for covering us. we appreciate it very much. yes it's true, i'm larry and i'm a local and actually when penguin random house started organizing this thing dash this microphone works, this one doesn't sound great but will make it work. >> they set a while back when we got this written and published, it's good to have a couple local bookstores. i said aha, how about across the street. he said terrific idea. were going going to do a bunch of these around the country. we've done tons and tons of media and people have been wonderful to us. the lovely op-ed piece of ours that is published in today's wall street journal. this is my co-author and great friend brian. brian by the way is the curator are the head. >> the senior associate and
longtime friend of mine. his prior book, iconoclasts was was all about classical supply-side revival that's going on and he is a harvard trained historian, as i've said before, it's really the glue that held this entire book together. what i want to do is just read a few excerpts from this thing you can get a feel for it and ryan will speak on whatever he wishes to speak about and then we will enjoy some wine, cheese, cheese, whatever is out there. i want to begin, the underscore, the under heading to today's op-ed piece that was published, returned to jfk's rising tide model, kennedy and reagan both spurred growth through bipartisan tax cut and that is
just what is needed now. if you take away anything, you may disagree with me, and i appreciate that, i love disagreements, i've been in that business for a long time, on tv and radio and so there will be a q and i q&a, i'm used used to that too. really, the very essence of this book is that first jfk, and then ronald reagan both used lower marginal tax rates as well as a sound dollar to revive economies. this is not something from the 18th century or the 15th century, this is something from recent times in the 20th century. our argument is, we have experienced a long dry spell, the 15 years, frankly under republicans and democrats,
president and congress of poor economic growth. that's one of the points we make you can draw whatever conclusions you want to draw, but our intent here was not to write a politicized book. we don't really mention the current election, but we just raise history. we can learn to rot a lot from history. one of the great things about history is when you forget history, you forget that jfk, who i would argue was the greatest democratic politician in the last 50 or 60 years, i speak as a former democrat, john f. kennedy was in fact the first monologue he was the pioneer. you have to go all the way back to the 1920s and that was a long time ago. kennedy was responding to very
poor economic growth economic growth during the eisenhower years. there were three recessions and kennedy felt having won by a cats whisker in 1960 that if he didn't produce growth, in fact he talked about 5% growth during the campaign that he would lose in 1964. so he was looking around for things that we get the economy out. there were three recessions during the eisenhower years and the unemployment rate was gradually increasing, up 7%. i would just read you a copy couple of experts and i hope you get a flavor for what were talking about. fortunately, we have a model to follow as we seek to return our nation to economic growth. it is the jfk ronald reagan model. it's the model of getting the government restrained and modest in its two areas of economic policy, fiscal and monetary policy. both kennedy and reagan identify substantially cutting income taxes, getting the dollar strong
and stable as the specific policy that would like the private sector which is to say the real economy thrive. we need that. most of us are well aware that reagan was a tax cutter. he's the guy who had to deal with the horrible high inflation of the 70s and 80s which came to end in the first years of his presidency. some of us are even aware that bill clinton used some of that model to foster prosperity in the decade and then there was a republican congress and by the way was a proponent of free trade which we think is part of the mix. however, what is generally not known or at least not remembered is what the subject of this book is about in the early 60s not only used but largely pioneered the exact same model.
he came to office during a period in which growth was only a little bit better than today and his own presidency launched one of the longest economic booms in our nation's history using a mix of tax rates and a strong dollar. it was 5% economic economic growth. year between 1962 with over a real nod 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 slow growth to thousands. we would cap tax rates low and maintained a strong dollar. we would have traded stagnation for expansion just as we did in the 20th century and yet this history has been obscured. today's liberals and progressives act as tax rates are far write policies but there were never put it up practice
and could only work in the dreamworld but it was democrat kennedy who launched those policies. that by itself, i think is a great factoid from this book. let me read you just a couple of quotes. we were recording along radio interview with my great pal and he actually found a tape with kennedy's boston accent. it was a great famous speech that he made in december 1962. very famous speech that really was the breakthrough of his new policies. in short, it's a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues to low and the soundest ways to rip raise revenue in the long run is to cut rates now.
tax reductions can pave the way to that employment. the purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which can bring up budget surplus. that was jfk in 1962. okay, now, let me turn the clock forward in this history and ronald reagan comes into office. i greatly served as one of his deputies. in february 18, 1981, a month into his presidency, reagan gave a speech to the nation and he announced that he was seeking the ten, ten, ten tax rate cut. kennedys was roughly the same. we skip over two decades. now, here's here's reagan. back when calvin coolidge was,
it increase. the economic advisers were all tell him they would lose revenue but the government gained revenue. they made quite a sizable financial air. jack kennedy's line about about it was, a rising tide lifts all votes. this is what we believe the tax proposals that we have made are aimed at. that is reagan in almost the identical words of jfk. finally, last quote, can you tech cut taxes and cut inflation by doing this? i believe you can. let me read you some. our true choices not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large budget on the other. an economy stifled by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the body budget. they will never produce enough jobs or even enough profits. here's reagan quoting.
jfk said that back in 1962 when he was asking for a tax decrease. a cut in in tax rates across the board and he was proven right. before that is kennedy. i just want to say this, for the umpteenth time, kennedy the democrat, reagan the republican and that is the under heading in this morning's taper for us. they both spurred growth through bipartisan tax cuts. that is is just what we need now it's become something of a career among our critics who blame reagan, blame me and blame arthur or jack kemp, they blame a whole whole lot of people who contributed to this story.
i'm fine with that. go out and blame. i'm a big boy, i can take it, i'm very thin-skinned at this age, but for, but for heaven sake, get your facts right. if you want to blame, blame jfk. he started it. unfortunately he was tragically assassinated, but it went into place, x, reagan barnett, executed again and all i want to say is we have an election here in this book is not about the election. whoever, somebody needs to form a bipartisan coalition, reach across the aisle as kennedy did and reagan did. kennedy's top economic advisor was a republican. treasury secretary, we need to do the same thing. that's all i ask. stop yelling, stop cursing, stop snarking, stop being mean, just look at the facts and read some
history and you can see there is a way out of the slum that america finds themselves in. that's our message. i'm in the turn it over to my pal brian. [applause] >> larry and i had a great time writing this book. a lot of every here in new york city, across the street and a lot of events in this book happened in this neighborhood. the crash pad is right down the street, the carlyle hotel, that's where he got a couple of his economic reports that we discussed in this book. he turned his back on that. of course the economic club of new york is right down the canyons, not too far from here. one of the things we 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 crime or and not a supply sider, i never understood that given his tax cut was cutting marginal tax rates. we weren't sure why that argument had traction so we really wanted to identify the really important role that douglas dillon, his treasury secretary, played in 1962, 63 and 62, 63 and 64. what i would like to do is read you the presidential memo from the presidential secretary. usually these are dry as dust but in the context that were talking about when he turned on his advisors, this this memo turns out to be really important
they've all said you've got a increase government spending and get off the gold standard. if you're gonna have a tax cut, only temporary because we have to preserve the current tax structure for programs in the future. you've got to do that. meanwhile in 1962, every forecaster was saying there's going to be a recession. dylan writes this memo to jfk. he told him about the advice he was getting in europe. any significant adaptation of policy aimed at stimulating economic expansion should be presented in a clear-cut simple package with consensus on these points. one, if there is to be a tax-cut it should be oriented toward improved business incentives. it should be a permanent and reform character. reduction centered on lower bracket personal incomes would be regarded as fiscally loose although some companion action in this sector would be understandable. two, a deficit should be presented as the cost of essential tax reform. overall feelings on expenditure.
[inaudible] it's also important that they be financed out of current savings as opposed to federal reserve looseleaf. the government should declare that it is willing to let interest rates rise if demands in the private sector create upward rate pressures. kennedy took every point in that advice. he said yup, i'm not going to do the spending, i'm going to stop the monetary looseness and trying to finesse the gold standard. were going to cut tax rates and the rates that matter, the rates that have incentives, the highest rates in an tax code and that will drive back to this country, bring growth and save the gold standard because of the demand for the dollar. if i might read one more passes, a lot of people have asked, why was kennedy's policy mix forsaken and why wasn't the
policy all the way through the 1980s, why did reagan have to resurrection resurrected? i think actually, unfortunately one of the reasons was the jfk opponent in the election become president in 1969 and nixon studiously made sure he didn't do jfk policy. he refers to the policy of going off the gold standard and then regulation and spending. so here's an interpretive passage that we write about the 1960s and 70s. the assassination of november november 1963 have provided an enormous short-term boost for the cause of the tax cut in 1964. it was it was fatal to it in the long term. the assassination was so shocking that the opponents of the legislative agenda had to submit on at least one goal out of due respect for the swing leader. the obvious choice for tax-cut.
once that was enacted, all leverage was lost on blocking civil rights, the other big legislative initiative. in the long term, however kennedy's absence after 1963 deprived the tax-cut of its principal exponent articulator and enforcer. the cerebral tone that kennedy brought to the question of the tax-cut you just heard about, kennedy's commitment to thinking through the real economic effects of a tax rate cut with the intellectual paradigms, flawed as they were. the supreme social standing that he had in common with douglas dylan alone and the native ambition that he possessed compels me to solve the economic growth problem of the day had constituted the reasoning credibility behind the commitment to seeing the tax cut through.
with kennedy gone, the mechanism of the tax cut that had kept the logic clean and the motive for strong was gone gone too. no matter the phenomenal quality of the prosperity it unleashed. >> it didn't take johnson long to undo the best damn policy he was associated with. for a lot of different reasons relating to the war and politics and whatnot, he raised taxes and put the individual rate back to 78% and then began to unhinge the dollar and as i said, the next president richard nixon who i've met many times and his family's our dear friends of mine but as nixon once said, when he was out of office in downtown, you don't think much about economics, do you. i said no, sir, i don't. nixon raised taxes and unleash
the dollar and imposed massive regulations on the economy including wage control. again, in a bipartisan way we have democrat and republican who got it right and who got it wrong. now the question is how will the balance and up tipping. it's important. the other part that brian read, that i love, doug dylan was a very wealthy banker. his father founded the old dylan read which for many years was among the whitest of the white banks. he had just about as much many as joe kennedy and john kennedy kennedy and traveled in high social circles.
kennedy did not steer him down. he had to listen when he spoke. i thought that was pretty good. sometimes you've got to be able to make people listen to you, whatever it takes. in this case it was money and social standing. me, i would take it anyway i can get it and good policy is good policy. the main point here, again, this, this is not a partisan book, i just want america to get moving again. we've got to turn less than 2% growth over a couple of decades now back to three or 4% growth which is what we do historically. to get there, we have to take strong remedial actions, particularly on business tax cuts to grow the economy for several years in order to get us back on track. kennedy and reagan showed proof, historically that it can be done
i love america and i believe we can get it done. that's our story. we are happy to take your questions. even your criticism. >> thank you. [inaudible] i was listening to an interview with a scholar who has a book out about the decline of the people participating in the workforce, particularly men who are not even looking for jobs out of the labor force. i'm wondering if this development would in any way limit the effectiveness of going through another round of these types of tax cuts.
>> no it's the other way. >> as he argues in this piece, there are probably two key issues here. one is the lack of economic growth. if you want to create jobs, growth. if you want to lower budget deficits, grow. if you you want to help solve poverty and employ more people, grow. there's other issues, federal policies regarding entitlements and other regulations that have been a disincentive to work. that's too bad because we want to get everybody able body to work. i saw the same argument today, the federal reserve board made a similar argument, how how low the participation rate is in the backbone of the economy which is the 25 - 54. their participation has gone down. you know why? were not growing. were not creating jobs.
you want to look at gigantic black and brown unemployment rates in this country, were not growing. you want to see the reason people are cranky and unhappy and pointing fingers at everybody, were not growing. i know we need roles and immigration and so forth, but a lot of this is about growth. nobody complaints munch. in the 60s and 80s and 90s about these subjects. >> i always believe in alan greenspan and how to control a recession. than a couple years ago came out the fact that what he did was wrong. if it was working, all the sudden he declared it to be invalid. he's a personal friend of mine.
>> we have a little caption about alan greenspan in our book. he gave an interesting talk in 2002 in which he said, with foley surpluses we've been running, we can envision a future where there isn't enough government debt to continue our operation. the cascade downward was getting that fast. i'm ready to believe, actually that some of the economic stagnation in the mid- 2000's was a survival mechanism on the part of some of these governmental institutions. i certainly remember visiting the ims in 2008, early that spring and everyone was scared to death because nobody wanted their business. there was so much cash sloshing around the world that nobody was begging for money.
serna the crisis came and they have another lease on life. i think one of the other benefits of big time constant 5% growth is you clear out some of the non- entities, the feds, the ins, they might shovel into nonexistence. >> i think he's a superb federal reserve chairman. he has served four terms, i think,. i don't think anybody else has done that. it was a statement about the free markets to function properly at all times. a lot of people blame the financial meltdown of 2008 on what's called ultra easy, ultralow ultralow interest rates that alan was partly responsible for.
i think he made mistakes, but i think he's losing his nerve and testified and said the markets didn't work the way we thought they would. i think he is now gaining his legs more and realize that government regulation played a huge role. i don't want to go deeper than that because it's not our place. through 40 years of economic policy influence in service was a free market guy. he was also a sound money guy. maybe people in high office shouldn't serve four terms. maybe one or two is enough. >> tpp, pacific trade is a good idea but it's not been done properly. i'm a free trader.
i will remain so. i think the geopolitics of it are very good bringing our allies, india and japan closer to the fall and serving as a buffer or a warning to china, depending on how you want to put it. it will lower trade barriers among these countries which is good for growth. there are also problems where a couple of international boards that will not reflect the american electorate, that will be used to decide issues and conflicts, i'm sick of international boards. i want an american board. really. i don't want us to be governed by the world courts or distant institutions like the imf and the world bank. i'm sure they're good for employment of phd's but as far as i'm concerned you.
you've had economists who have done more harm than good in my opinion and i love british exit. i was so much in favor of that. [applause] gives the british people a wonderful legacy. i love britain and i love what they just did. parliament, they represented democracy, freedom equals growth. that's the way i see it. i am for free trade but i want free trade to be governed properly with american interest in democracy. >> what you think of the uk leaving the european union.
>> i'm in favor of it. >> i came to work on wall street under the. [inaudible] would you contrast the era of martin and the public posturing and public statements in comparison with this latter-day show of the fed and board of governors as the way they conduct themselves in this day and age. there is a difference. >> do you want to take a whack at it. >> sure. >> i'll say something about wild bill barton. the federal reserve chairman from 1951 to 1959.
it was clear he was trying to do good job. in. in the 50s he really had trouble. that's because we had 91 marginal tax rates and progressive brackets going up. they had to be extra vigilant. in that context. the u.s. is losing $2 billion of its gold every year because they were just quitting on the economy. martin was ready to raise interest rates in the context of economic growth that was inspired by tax cuts. i have listened to some telephone conversations that the fed has of martin and lbj and i've noticed how obsequious that he got toward lbj. he really kind of folded when lbj asked him for anything. the federal reserve chair was
trying to be obliging toward the president that he served and that's why he was under his best under kennedy. >> when i was a child i worked with the federal reserve and i actually worked under paul poker i was a secretary clerk or whatever they call it. he was chairman and wouldn't put up with it. he would tell everyone to keep quiet. he didn't want anyone to know what he was doing. the good news is, he did it right. the bad news is it might not always have been so. it depends on who the president is. carter wouldn't let volker do his job and reagan did.
reagan said do whatever it takes to get rid of inflation. 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 the wrong way. brian's right, utah cut tax rate and open the doors to trade in a lot of things get easier and better. >> if we get back to five or 6% growth, without be the old normal? today's normal is 255 fed funds and were debating today whether we go in september and moved up to 50. if we met five or 6% growth, wouldn't we going back to the old normal and talking about 350? higher rates are going to input that outlook and how do you see that playing out?
will it work against you to cut those rates? >> no. if we/tax rates again, i think the big issue is business tax rates which is the biggest obstacle we face, then interest rates will go up normally without manipulation. when the economy rises, real interest rates will go up and they will let that happen, follow the market. in the 80s and 90s, when we had great prosperity, average interest rates is about 6%. now one and a half or so. the reason rates are low today is because the economy is terrible. there is greater deflation and stagnation. those of the biggest reasons why we have low rates, particularly,
all these jockeys, god love them all, they come on cnbc and they just don't understand how to control rates. markets control rates by controlling one or two rates at the bottom. a healthy economy will have a five or 6% interest rate. that would be a good thing. i was happy today and i agree with what she said. it's not jump the gun. my point is, wait wait till you cut tax rates. then the interest rates go up normally and don't be great. everybody will be happy. i want america to be happy. america is not happy now. it's part of the reason we wrote this book. america is cranky. i hate that. i just hate that. i want america to be in a good mood. i mean it.
if you didn't have any wage hikes for 15 years, you'd you'd be in a bad mood too. if you look at the statistics, the the top 1% hasn't done that great either. they've done a lot of work on this. the top 1% today in market income is right where was around the year 2000, 2005. we got smashed at the downturn in lost about 50% and we came back about 35%. one of the one of the reasons we need tax cuts, a new dose of kennedy, reagan is it will make people happier. it will. you'll have less crime and more job opportunities and we can enforce civil rights laws and figure out a way to do immigration without killing people. you follow me? i get very into this because i think in many ways, the point of
the debate today is putting the cart before the horse. put the 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. my friend says he's a kennedy democrat and a reagan republican. i'll buy that. >> from economics 101 standpoint, can you talk about goals and how this relates to this and also king dollar. >> i'm guilty of king dollar. i've been saying it for about 25 years. i don't know if we have to go back to the gold reference point anymore. i would personally prefer what my friends did. also heller from san francisco. and greenspan.
you could use a market basket of commodities, 25 commodities and that's judging the value of the dollar. inflation is rising but the market rally and it tells you you have to do something. if it's falling, that tells you probably should loosen up. that's what i would use. i don't know that i would use, i'm i'm an old gold guy. i just think nowadays you probably have to make the basket a little larger. were never to have balance transfers and gold. the fed, i worked at the fed open market operations. they literally move gold from one country to another. they don't do that anymore. >> trying to make you both happy and give you each magic wand and
three specific policy actions, you only get three though, and you don't have to agree, but three policy pics that you would implement right now whether it's immigration, regulatory, capital gain, whatever. what would be the three things you would wish for. >> we've talked about the five pillars of reagan economics. [laughter] i'm an essay can eliminate one of the five. you don't have to worry about spending. spending will naturally fall if you cut tax rates and get the dollar strong and have real regulatory rollback. if you had those three things, the demand for private sector will be so great people which is jump off welfare, they would get out of obamacare, they would go
into the real economy. if you have low tax rate, investments that would come, getting the regulation of the way, spending would start to come up like it did in the 1990s. >> each plant growth, real growth is worth close to $3 trillion, but you know all this. i would say my view is, the single most important thing to do is to/business tax rates for big and small companies. 15% is a very good number. i would abolish the corporate attack whatsoever. you won't get it, but it's a good start. work on on it and you might get 20. i think also, obamacare must repealed and rewritten.
the new york times said it's costing jobs and i think that's probably right. i don't want to lose the free trade act. >> i understand. >> deals must be deals, but free trade is a good thing, not a bad thing. it helps both sides and i've always believed, robert and i worked together for many years, americans should have the freedom to purchase the best quality goods at the lowest available products anywhere around the world. i believe that and i still believe that will never give up on that. chinese bout cheat and steal and i get that in some action has to be taken but as far as the generic., i'm not going to move
on that. >> yes sir. >> do you believe that inequality inhibits growth or doesn't run rapid. >> i go the other way. i let growth run rampant. it only happens when the economy is sour. it's a resentment. i don't like that. first of all, in america, it's a free country that represents the markman drink democracy. we must all start at the same line. we must all be treated equal
under the law under the same starting line. we must all have equal opportunity. in a free economy in a free country, we don't all and at the same place at the finish line. some will do better than others. that's a good thing, not a bad thing. i have note chuck with the redistributionist. you may disagree, but i don't see any real evidence of inequality. first i think it's vastly exaggerated when we look at studies. the case that inequality causes slow growth is unproven. in fact, some of the northern european countries have shaken that often they are cutting taxes and deep regulating labor. inequality exists. i don't think, i don't result you because you're a for starting a social media corporation and wearing dark goods over your heads. i may hate it from a fashion
standpoint. he discovered this terrific social media, as did others, he gets rich and by the way the 30,000 people who work for him get rich because they own stock options. i'm fine with that. have no problem with that. just give the rest of us a chance and that's why i'm open to free market and capitalism. >> could you talk a little bit about the coolidge tax cut and was that effective? second, are you aware of any situation, either in the u.s. of the foreign countries in which you felt the tax cuts were not effective in sparring growth? is there any contrary. >> about the coolidge tax cuts in the 1920s, tax rates went
up 11 fold during world war one from 77%. by 1920, his great book the great and depression, by the 1920 there was an investment strike in this country. there was no investment that could be measured in housing, railroad track maintenance among many other categories. many bonds were selling like crazy because they were exempt from taxation. there was this big portfolio shift of the nations capital out of the economy and into the public purse. harding and coolidge, who was reading the memo of the three predecessors, they said we've created them monster. you have to cut taxes. then there was the series of rate cuts that took the income
tax from 73 down to 25. they say we want to do that because it gave us the great depression of the 1930s. tax cuts that don't work, there is a case of foreign countries that are really tossed by their exchange rate to the dollar. if the dollar goes like this, all the time. they have a currency ward and they're trying to make a great monetary policy and really neutralize the effect of good fiscal policy. there are examples, japan japan might be one. they have their low flat flat tax rate systems or did at one time. investment just doesn't move in the right direction because there's no guidance from the leader of monetary policy, the united states. >> walter gave a speech about this year and a half ago or so and said we have to move back to
a rules -based monetary policy. we also must have international currency cooperation. we just had a g20 meeting and there was no headline coming out of the g20 meeting. more progress to solve global warning. i don't want to get into that. but, the issue was currency. we were having currency wars with currency manipulations. we are guilty more so than anybody. that's what volker is referring to. in the old days, they they would sit down and hammer out agreements. one of those agreements lasted half a century. we need to do that.
>> i think the only way and we will know if the economy is capable of creating jobs as if we have low tax rates and strong currency with little regulation. until we get the circumstances we should not look for other causes of our problem. i fully expect abundance of jobs when we get tax cuts. >> there's an argument floating around about this, i just don't like it. the basic argument is,. [inaudible] here's a case where they should
look back at history. every time we've had tax issues in this country and after the civil war with the railroads. they were full of technology breakthroughs. the 1950s about break through, intel was starting and most famous were the 80s and 90s. employment exploded. at the turn of the last century, [inaudible] on the other hand they created tens of millions of jobs for products that which been out for tens of millions of people. think about that. >> they lost out.
we moved the whole country from the farms to the industry in the cities. we did great. microsoft apple, they are huge companies. people forget that. just like the only people getting rich was steve jobs. nonsense. when you go to seattle washington, i used to travel that route, now it probably has more millionaires. capita than any place in the world. why? to to high-tech companies did very well. robots are not going to take over the world. >> give us economics for you and great things will happen. >> economic freedom produces great things.
so does political freedom. one more question. >> you are very kind to join up. [applause] >> here's a look at some of the current best-selling books according to the boston globe. topping the list, he recalls growing up in a moving from the appellation region. fox news, look at the end of world war ii in the defeat of japan in killing the rising sun. up next is the hidden life of trees, followed by candace my large account of young winston churchill during the world war in hero of the empire. a look of the best-selling books
continues with the profile of kayak.com cofounder and entrepreneur paul english in a truck full of money. winner of last year's national book book award looks at the current state of black america in between the world to me. next in the year of voting dangerously, maureen dowd considered the lives of presidential campaigns of donald trump and hillary clinton. when breath becomes air come the late narrow surgeon. that's look at the ninth current bestsellers. many of these authors have appeared or will be appearing on book tv. you can watch them on booktv.org after the cotton trade is bloated, the u.s. exported half