tv Edward Alden Discusses Failure to Adjust CSPAN January 14, 2017 1:00pm-1:48pm EST
live coverage of the ninth annual tucson festival of books from the university of arizona. starting march 22nd through the 26th it is the virginia festival of the book in charlottesville, virginia. for more information about the book fairs and festivals booktv will be covering and to watch previous festival coverage click the book fairs tab on our website, booktv.org. ..
institution now for 10 years. >> almost 10. >> almost a decade. >> in some ways it actually expands a lot of with us but of as international relations or foreign policy. you might expect from the council on foreign relations. over the years have dealt with issues like immigration, infrastructure that and so forth.
the title is a bit of a poke at economists. they talked about the adjustment because of different sorts. and the us entry into a more competitive global economy. and that has been over our lifetime. in the last 50 years we didn't trade the month with anybody. i think because we didn't need to. >> so, i mean this is really a bit of a modern experience for the us. and there will be adjustment cost associated with that. and what that really means an economic language is people are going to lose jobs, they will
need to find new ones. they will need new skills to prosper. and some places will do things better than others. if you happen to be someone who is working in an industry say textiles and apparel, that is one of the industries that will lose in a more competitive global economy. what will happen to those people? how are we going to deal with those implications?we as a country really have done a poor job of that. even though you know we were where this was coming. this is a category four hurricane you can see it. yet we did not back down the hatches. we did not make the preparations we needed. >> all of the order i just had for conducting this conversation just got blown out the window so ãmainly because i won't remember to ask the question want to ask you now. if i park it. it was a category four hurricane, and the weatherman or woman was reporting it saying it is going to hit us in x amount of time, why didn't we ãbecause it's not as though it
was a surprise. >> you know i think a lot of this and i think this is a failure of american leadership, not just political but business leaders as well. at that we have a habit of mind that says, at the end of the day where the most competitive economy in the world. i mean you go back to the 1960s and the most enthusiastic interest groups was the labor union. look at the world and they say look, american workers are better than any other companies and we generally have low trade barriers. other countries have high trade barriers. if we do this it will be great for the us because it will open up ãthere was a failure of imagination on the part of the people whose livelihoods really got most disrupted by this. i think this was a general kind of societywide problem. this where i stopped the book off, -- >> coincidentally.
>> it was actually slightly unfortunate coincidence my book. but this is pretty amazing. written in 1971 called the united states and a changing world economy. a memo to president nixon that says ãbasically trying to take the president by the lapel and shaken. say we are moving into a different world. the germans are back, japanese are back other countries are coming. we are going to have to play the game differently than we have been accustomed to for the last quarter century. and if we don't there will be some severe ? >> well but this is how americans got left behind but the united states, we haven't done so badly. so even if, i don't mean to be harsh or ãbut even as individuals in some cases, got left behind. it is hard to make the united states collectively has got left behind. >> you know if there were truth in advertising the subtitle would have been house americans were many americans got left behind in the global economy. some have done very well.
if you look at the most competitive companies in the world you know, google and facebook and intel, microsoft ã we have got the lion's share of the world's most competitive companies. we haven't done bad as an economy, our growth rate is generally stronger than in europe. but there are significant parts of the country and we learned that in november. that really have been left behind. and hit very hard. and that was not a surprise. it should not have been a surprise. he economists a trade has broad benefits and the broad benefits have been good i am very much in favor of trade. >> now these are two separate issues. one trait has broad benefits and concentrated cost. there is american politics based on just that.some people call it intensity. the problem is benefits are widely felt but they are thin. and the cost narrowly located but with great intensity often
there is smaller numbers with greater intensity ãprevail in a society over larger numbers with preferences but not great intensity. is that the case here? >> i think that is not an unreasonable judgment. but i would not want to go from that to say well, because generally as americans you know we have done well. consumers right? families in the 1970s spent six percent on clothing now it is three percent. that's a great thing. you don't have to spend as much money on clothing. you have access to the global markets. companies have done very well. lots of benefit from trade. but there also are people particularly in companies that manufacture that got hit very hard. we lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in the 2000's. that's a big number. 6 million. you have to think with those worker people a lot were union jobs where people with modest levels of education could make
good solid middle-class salary. and when those jobs disappeared, there was nothing for them to fall back on. it was unemployment for social security, disability or jobs at walmart. so the impact on those individuals ãand more broadly on their communities. you know when you lose the factories, is not just the factory jobs that go it is the restaurant jobs in the bowling alley and the gas station and all that local service that don't compete internationally but are dependent on the paychecks that go to the men and women that work in those factories. so those effects are pretty significant. i don't want to minimize that. >> so to what extent was trade the culprit? to what extent were these jobs victims ãof trade or to what extent were these job losses much more the victim's of productivity increases that essentially eliminated jobs. rather than necessarily the cost of cheaper and ãacross the border.
>> you know this will be short. first if you had to add this upcoming technology is obviously the bigger culprit. maybe 75 percent, maybe 65 percent. the majority technology. don't forget also changing consumer preferences. we don't buy as much as we used to. and consume more services you know. so that is one. my second point is, i sometimes think it is bit of a false economy. you know if you are a us textile company. personally facing cheap imports from mexico or somewhere else. you have two options. one, you can't meet the competition as a guide business and your employees lose jobs. the second possibility is you have to be more productive. how'd you do that? investing technology, machinery, some employees lose their jobs but that is better than all of them. but is that a job lost to technology or trade? it is a bit of both.
the third responses for the people affected, it doesn't really matter. and it shouldn't matter. you know we shouldn't have a trade adjustment assistance program of people ãand adjustment assistance program for people that dislocated for a variety of reasons.>> but even if it doesn't matter for individuals, we will come back to what was traditionally trade adjustment assistance and ãit matters for us as a country carrying out a foreign policy. the extent you have the attribution defined as mostly trade when you are ãit is more technology. our public policy is inconsistent with your conclusion. >> and i would not argue with that is one of the reasons we are talking about this because trade is a lot more than just an economic issue. it has been a critical part of us foreign policy for decades now. it is obviously been a good thing for an awful lot of the world. if you love tom more people have been brought out of poverty worldwide in the last two decades and any other
comparable time of human history. citrate has benefits for the united states. but again getting back to where i started, the hurricane coming. people who were writing about this in the 70s and 80s and 90s said look, if we don't get on top of this problem people are going to blame trade. you know even if trade is only a part of the story. people look for something to blame. and they also look for things they can control. it is hard to control technology right? and do we want to stop making better things? probably not. but people in trade could say well, we could stop ãso that is one way the government can help. so it is not surprising even though it is not the main culprit. >> in your same trait is to some extent being scapegoated. >> no question. >> to what extent are some of the problems self-inflicted? if not that others are better introducing certain technology. it is not necessarily that others have lower wage ãit is not necessarily fair trade practices that we have
extraordinarily high healthcare costs. and have made is uncompetitive in certain areas of manufacturing. >> i would say is both. i mean my book is kind of half about the rules. and i think there have been problems with the rules. i think china in particular, was an enormous shock in the global system because it ã because of the size and it is just structured differently. global trade rules were built largely for economies where the bulk of production was in private hands. you know we have a private sector. while in china, that is in state hands and a lot of the companies are heavily subsidized. and in china's entry into the world trade system, against all of the benefits it brought china and by and large it was inevitable that china would come in. it was very distorting for the world economy. it was being pushed back very hard. let the currency stuff go on for too long. i mean we are having this
bizarre debate about currency manipulation now at a time when the chinese are trying to prop up their currency. but 10 years ago it was a real issue. you know the chinese were artificially devaluing and gaining competitive advantage. there were rules against that sort of thing and we did very little. so there are issues on that side. but that said, and going back to the memo, he says the biggest part of this challenges at home.it is about investing in research and development. infrastructure, education, i don't think you mentioned healthcare but we can certainly say today healthcare cost is a component. it is about making sure we are set up to be the most competitive investment location we can be. we now have the highest rate among the ? >> maybe not ? >> a lot a self-inflicted stuff. >> you know mentioned several times adjustment assistance. and i can remember back when we did some work here on it ãmy memory is probably ãat one point we had like 17 separate adjustment assistance programs
state and federal. >> i think it was more than that. >> okay whatever it is, it is a lot. we are throwing tens of billions of dollars a year at it. are we not getting a return on investment? to be clear on the number, we don't actually go that much money out. if you look at the category called active labor market program. those are programs that essentially help people train for new careers. if the job is ãthey will not get reemployed. they spend .1 percent comedy everything europe is five times that much. in denmark it is two percent. enormous. not number we will ever reach. but we do not spend very much on that. and technically i don't think we spend it very well. there been some improvements in recent years. i mean it should be done very close coordination with companies that are trading jobs, have a demand for certain skills. we have this bizarre situation where despite the loss of 6 million manufacturing jobs in all of the workers presumably
looking for new ones, we have a skill shortage in manufacturing. there are a lot of jobs ã mullions of jobs that cannot be filled because we do not have employees who have the right set of skills. so that is a major fail. i think part of that involves much closer were between government and private sector. a lot of which should be at the state level, not federal. because they don't do programs that will.some of it is actually a money issue. >> what else would help? you mentioned infrastructure yet we have not talked about immigration. so besides spending more and spending and more wisely for adjustment assistance, what would be essentially in your cookbook, your recipes for making ãfor making this a less acute situation? what other kinds of things? >> i would argue that we should compete more aggressively for investments. that's why i was on entirely sorry to see the whole carrier
thing with donald trump. with him saying that we care about jobs here in the us and we will fight for that and you even if we have to do this. in fact all countries are doing this. i mean this is a worldwide game. so the united states needs to compete. i would actually like us to try to negotiate rules that can strain the competition within reasonable bounds. so our governments aren't bankrupt trying to do this. i think we should be competing. well he started doing this on the national level about 10 years ago.and it was very inadequate. obviously infrastructure is hugely important. and it is depressing we are still talking about it right? we have been talking about this for a decade or more. how the us is falling behind. and it is a competitiveness issue. deepening the ports, improving the rail system so we can get products to market efficiently. i do think the corporate tax system is a real problem on the investment side.
i think again, and overhaul is desperate overdue. on the trade policy front desk and i could keep going on the big list but i would like to see much closer coordination between state and local economic development officials. and the national trade policy. we have this weird situation when trade policies are ãthey level washington this basically comes from the corporate lobbyists. but if you actually look at what are the entities in this country that are busy trying to attract investment or trade jobs? it is state local economic development agencies. they have no voice in washington. take an example, if you're trying to build the solar industry's local officials say we have no prospect here. if the chinese are dumping solar panels far below cost so there's no chance for an american industry to get on the level playing ground that's what we have to do in washington. so i talked about really to give local and state authorities a bigger voice in this trade policy. those are the some of the things that talk about.
>> would you actually have states allowed to make more of a trade policy? or is that something left better to the federal? >> i would have states writing rules you can't do that. you would have to do that the federal level. we can even do and congress under the constitution. have a delegate ãyou have to have a single rule in place. but in terms of investment promotion, 11 states do that. i think it is a good thing and we should do more. >> this is not, a lot of what we are talking about is not unique to this country. given brexit and what we are seeing in other countries in europe. because you mentioned before some european countries spend much more an adjustment persistence per capita ãbut other things that you are seeing elsewhere, that either are better than what we are doing or are you seeing a pattern where others are doing much better on it than we are? >> i think some other places are doing better.
i think germans are clearly doing better and a lot of respect. canadians do better. >> but germans often care about their apprentice program is that we mean? >> i think it works well for them. i don't know that we can emulate that exactly. i do think there is a commonality in getting outside of the us experience. i think what's going on in europe is more of a reaction to immigration and it is a reaction to trade competition. that is what is a little different. look at european complaints they have to do with regulations. you know we don't want to eat american chicken because they are bathed in chlorine. [laughter] it is a very light wash to be clear. kills a lot of bacteria. >> it is really good by the way with a touch of vinegar. it's really good. [laughter] >> i apologize to the american poultry association. there is less concern over the wage and economic impact and trained by it you have seen some things on immigration, i think it is a commonality here. is the rapid basic change.
and i think what people are saying, and i hope it won't be in an overly destructive way. long governments to slow this down a little bit. not in a little more sense of control. >> slow it down? i'm sorry. >> slow down the pace of change. we live in the area very rapid change. rapid technological change, rapid integration of global economy, high levels of immigration. all of these are kind of dislocating forces there there very positive and lots of ways. in terms of growth, diversity obviously has a lot of benefits. but people feel dislocated as a result. and i think what they're saying is we want a level of government control over this. we realize government can't stop the world. make us get up but they can control the pace of change to a greater sense.i think that is commonality between what's going on here and in europe. >> at what point does slowing the pace of change become protectionism. at what point does it basically move, it's almost like a
spectrum between being opened and closed. with immigration issues, how do you ãhow does one if you will, get the goldilocks position on the right ãit seems to me it is a challenge setting up for yourself. >> the goldilocks position of policy right? you know you read edmund burke, he says you know politics is how we go about demands of society. if you look at the trade stuff, right ãyou go back to the tokyo world round agreement 1979. this was 395 in favor and four against. overwhelmingly the american people and their representatives are in favor of liberalizing trade.by the time he gets an act is 200 and -- the majority of democrats vote against him. then people say we not so sure about this anymore. by the time you get to the central american free trade agreement, and the fast track
authority needed ãthe republicans have to hold the vote open for an hour. then it is ãbig guys go around intimidating the republican members to get on board. i talked to one of them afterwards. from florida one said it was the scariest thing of his life. in order to get the single vote they need to get the fast track to the house to allow them to do this agreement. someone paying attention to politics with a look, we do not have broad societal support for full speed pedal to the metal liberalization. maybe we should slow things down a little bit. >> i was in a meeting the other day and somebody said the problem isn't trade, it is trade agreements. because trade agreements you actually have to put through the political process. and that is just too hard these days to win a debate. what about essentially structuring trade so the deals and arrangements are below the level that we would have to introduce them and subject them to the political process? >> i don't know. i think if it is seen as an end
run around the political process you are going to be in trouble. and i mean, i do think some of the debate over trade agreements is misleading. a lot of it's going to happen anyway. it is container shipping, the internet, air travel, i mean a lot of these are far above politics.but you know us trade representative said you know, american people won't vote on any of that. you know that vote on container shipping, internet, air travel but you do get to vote on trade agreements. a lot of the anxiety over trade and globalization gets focused on those agreements. and that is just the reality i think. >> okay. as you can see you have someone who is as well-versed in this as you get. complex issue, important issue. it is a ãis there anything that you think can be done. there is a frustration i tend to be one of those actually things balance trade is better
and helps more people. i think you would agree. is this a debate that is lost? or is this a debate that could be, if certain things were done over time that this is a debate that could ultimately be, how do you put it? that the eyes can once again happen to. >> i do actually. i don't think this is a debate that is lost. but it will need to be engaged and recalibrated. if we are honest here in the united states, we never had a real debate over trade. you know i split my time as a young man between the united states and canada. canada in the middle of 1980s, as a result of the free trade agreement linking canada to the economy 10 times its size ã what a national election over the issue. it was a big issue, it was debated, the conservative party one. the canadians, they give them an overwhelming mandate. and they never really looked back.
they continue to be a pro, free-trade country. they had a debate over this and we have never done that in the united states. the closest we came was a 92 with nafta and the run for the republican nomination with ross perot challenge and then we never really had a debate. so we will have to debate that. i think one of the things that you will see happen, you talk about those who are affected. we have heard a lot over the last several decades from those heard by more open trade. because the prevailing policies openness and we have heard from the losers. if we actually have the president to slap tariffs on imports and ãwe will start to hear from the millions of folks in the united states whose jobs are dependent on trade. and i think you can see a very different debate start to play out. so no, i don't think ãquest that would be one of the ironies of this. [laughter] >> wait a second. people would wait for the microphone and just quickly identify themselves and keep questions to the point.
we will get in many and as we can. >> i am stephen and here's a question about an adjustment. over the years whether it was new england moving south, the guys in new york ãadjustment has worked. more or less people found jobs. for the first time this election, we begin to see a war of people who are not moving. who are aging in place with their kids with them. what are you going to do about this, this group, these groups of people who seem to be left outside of the chance of adjusting ? >> i think is a real challenge. so i mean i think one of the things we want to do is break down the barriers to mobility. i think we need to talk about things like you know, we had an international symposium. this was on record. oh it was not on the records are one mention names. >> speak for yourself. >> i won't mention names but we
had a conversation about the issue of creating jobs. and what are the big job engines? it is the city. while cities are incredibly sensitive for people you have restricted policies they drive up prices. so people cannot get to these jobs. you need to start talking about that. a lot of people got locked into houses because they could not move. and there are a lot of things in the us to have slowed down labor mobility. people move, they moved to follow the jobs. so that is really slowing down. >> in the same conversation someone who shall remain nameless. i was stunned by the licensing requirements for jobs that we thought were below a licensing ãyou want to move from state x to state why you have to go through an entire expensive and time-consuming procedure. >> yes, we know that for teachers. but it is true with cosmetologists. blue jamaica.
they are usually an extensive, expensive state licensing. so we need to get rid of some of those. there are people who want to stay in place. i would argue, and you know our colleague bob has made this ã the generous program of wage insurance. people moving from high wage jobs to low-wage jobs. look at the research of this trio who really revolutionized thinking that trade impact. communities have really been hit hard. a surprising number of these middle aged manufacturing workers and up on social security and disability. they basically gone to well lifetime welfare. why not put them back into the wager market, if they have to get paid $10 an hour, this is cheaper for us as a country, it keeps people in the labor force. it allows them to stay if they don't want to move. i think we need to think about
creative solutions like that to a large extent. >> wait for the microphone. rex susan from miami. glad i am in town. couldn't you argue or if you make an argument that what donald trump is proposing, is a strategic effort to end up setting the groundwork for a more welcoming attitude towards free-trade. in the sense that from his people's point of view, the united states is not that competitive. we have got ãwhat we have immigration which drives down the wages. you can make the o'gara argument whether you agree with that or not of the people who have ãthe multitude of those who are just possessed. you have a tax structure that does not at this point, does not make our economy very attractive for investment thereby making us able to
generate fewer jobs than usual. and you have a horrendous regulatory increase over the last decade or two. which really makes it very difficult for a business to prosper to tell you the truth. some worse than others. so, maybe it is possible to positively and what he is trying to do.make america ãi don't know first but make a ã make america more competitive and then we can say all right, now we can participate in more trade agreements because were able to finally compete.we got rid of our dysfunctional policies. >> i would disagree on immigration. there are factors where do you see a wage lowering impact. but more broadly within disagree with you. and last weekend they made the same argument. don attempted to move from this ãto think about national competitiveness that would be a good thing. and not is including the tax side, regulatory side, includes
thinking about inputs which i haven't heard much from him yet. we have this work was that we need to be attractive? and i'm not even sorry.i mean i can see the danger in it. and i will be candid that you know that my colleagues are probably disagreeing with me on this. but to shop across about carrier, it didn't bother me that much. because you know there used to be, american companies had a pretty strong sense of their obligations to the united states. what they meant for the communities they were in. what the broader social obligations were apart from just returns to the shareholders. and i think we've lost that to some extent. and i would argue, even i have made this argument talking to companies that invest a lot in china. if you are concerning about expanding in china and taking advantage of that big market then fine. but when you run into problems, when you run into difficulties with the chinese stealing your technology will regulatory discrimination or investment discriminations ãwho has your
back? it is the us government. it is the representative of the american people. and suggest your own long-term self-interest, you should be thinking about always looking for opportunities and invest in the united states, state in the united states to make sure you have the american people behind you. it is in your corporate interest. japanese figure that out. we were back in the 1980s. what did they do? they started opening car factories in ohio and kentucky in california. completely change the whole politics.some need to be thinking about you know what is our stake here in the united states? i was not sorry when donald trump knocked him on the head a little bit. >> bill ãyou made a point about local changes. could be state were more local to the city. in the 1950s, the community around boston realize they were exporting all of their low-wage
shoe and other manufacturing jobs overseas. they responded by a very thoughtful program. cusick intellectual capital, the built infrastructure, created the venture-capital business and that has created a really thriving economy that is blooming in an amazing way today. why did it happen there and not in many other places? it did happen in a few other places, chapel hill, the bay area ãvery few but it did happen. so why was it restricted? >> that is a good question. there is probably another book in that. i can suggest one, this is a fascinating story by my friend bob davis in the wall street journal i think yesterday. i think places hit really hard by manufacturing competition and what happened afterwards. and the economist broke down, they discovered a pretty striking thing. many ãmanufacturing
communities did far better because it was an intellectual center around that it was possible to attract more businesses and spin off other positive things for the community. in places without a college or university really got whacked. the ones with universities tended to recover well. imagine those places, you know the bay area, boston, raleigh-durham. places with really good and strong universities. and often this was an inheritance. not something easy to create from scratch. but i think it does say that the intellectual capital is probably the most important aspects. in any way that you can nurture that is going to pay dividends. i wish i had a broader answer but ? >> right behind you. >> first of all, let me just congratulate you i read your book. and counsel sent this to me. it was a terrific book by the
way ãi picked it up on the floor someone else was getting it so i took it from them. >> you have to keep the business afloat here. [laughter] >> the check is in the mail. so, my question is, it really is two parts with trade deals. the whole idea of all of these trade agreements we have had. in each, one thing about this it comes to imparting above there is asymmetry in trade deals. the people who make them are corporate lobbyists but their interests aren't just the united states. they have plans all over the world. so they are figuring out what is in their, and by the way they should, but ãwhat is in their corporate interest as opposed to just who is sitting on the side there in terms of the consumer. and what we are, you keep on
making the statement, walmart you know they're getting something cheaper. but the reality is we are not. there are big pockets of people have paid a big price and adjust walmart costs ãis not b it is not as valid as we think it is. so the first part is ãtrade deals and how they are done. meaning, who the lobbyists are, with the corporations are, what happens. second part of trade deals, tariffs. meaning coming from what's happening, there's a 25 percent tariff on everything we send to china in terms of cars. our tariffs are two and half percent i think. so there is asymmetry in all of these deals that he is done. how do you reconcile that? >> i would argue that's a bit
of an overstatement. just for the record we have a 25 percent tariff on all of the trucks that we use left over from the trade war with europe in the 1960s. so there places where the united states has pretty high tariffs two. i mean i understand from a corporate perspective right, their responsibility quite understandably they are interested in doing business globally. they want these deals to make it possible for them to do business globally. i'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing. in the world of global supply, companies sourced from all over the world. and that is the way things operate now.i really think we get back to what we do as a country to make sure that we have a reasonable share in that. -- i'm not saying that's one of the ironies as a result of what we are seeing on the partnership, one of the better ones we've ever know glaciated. i mean in particular our digital industries where the us
is really a world leader. we create a lot of good jobs in the united states. so i mean i don't want to be ã i think too much focus is put on this. i think partly because we are a nation of lawyers. we think the rules can solve everything right? but if we just write the right rules, everything will work out. i am much more critical of the failure to enforce the rules and the failure to think about what do we need to do as a nation to make sure we prosper within the rules that we have created. not to say that the rules are perfect but i think that is far from the biggest problem. >> a lot of people ãyou've been patient. >> thank you richard, thank you ted. great discussion. one group of dislocated workers that are being retrained are those in the military. there's been a lot of effort in the last two years focused on working with the private sector to bring the training into the military environment.
so as you're getting ready for your new career before you leave your military career. that would be something, maybe some advice on how to maximize that kind of program which has very strong bipartisan ? >> you know i'm not sure that my knowledge is enough. it is always a challenge in everything we do, when you get down to a certain level i feel like sometimes you know you have to talk to someone who really understands how to do trading programs on the frontline really effectively. but my general recommendation would be to work very closely with the private sector. right? talk to the folks who are creating jobs in the communities where they are creating jobs. and find out what they need. structure the program and close discussion with them. and you know if you look at volkswagen in tennessee, the state set up a whole series of training programs around volkswagen and tennessee. the company basically said anyone who comes to the
program, we will hire them because we need these folks. so i think anyway that you can get that kind of very close relationship between the companies that are hiring in the community college or other training programs. i think you will be a step ahead of the game. as opposed to trying to look at labor market forecasts and saying we think there will be a next number of these jobs. because often that is not ? >> yes ma'am. >> how do you feel about guaranteed income? >> you know i am still wrestling with this is my honest answer. stern, part of the former employees service union. ãargument for universal basic income. i ãat that level i think it is the wrong way to go. i think it is extremely expensive for one. now if you cut a whole bunch of other programs you might be able to do in some reasonable budgetary fashion but i also just think is not an essential part of what makes us tick as
human beings. i think it is the way that ãif i were going to spend my money, i would rather spend it on something like wage insurance. where you are talking about people in the market, working, continuing to acquire skills. they are trying to advance their charisma just cannot make enough money to make ends meet. you know a tax credit i think was one of the best programs created in the last two decades. where you are working but you get rebates from the government for working. i would rather see us expand programs like that and go for universal basic ãacross the board. but like you said i am still wrestling with and open to persuasion.>> so you are saying your preference is for programs that are related to work. as opposed to instead work. >> instead of everyone gets $10,000 a year from the government. so if they can't find work. >> --
>> surprisingly high. >> yes sir. one or two more people. >> eric stein ãi read your book. i bought it on amazon. [laughter] >> you have two questions. >> first question is, how much of a difference, the economy is going ãhow much difference can manufacturing goods based trade deals and enforcing those roles actually do. and the second question and you mentioned this in your opening remarks. consumers, multinational companies, workers in emerging markets, under the trump administration tariffs are up, how do all those other things respond?
>> let me take the second question. i worry very much about some of the things that donald trump talks about in the campaign. the peterson institute had a big study looking at the economic impact if donald trump did his ãit was hugely negative. and it would hurt a lot of people that would think that they would benefit. it will hurt employees. so that is definitely, that is definitely not the way to go. i think ãi'm sorry what was your first question again? >>. [inaudible] >> you know i have seen a popping out of the traded part of the economy. the service is obvious they are growing faster. i don't think we will see that reverse but i actually think manufacturing remains extremely important in the economy. a lot of the innovation that drives our economy continues to take place in the manufacturing sector. and a lot of what we think the services, high-end services, support in various ways for manufacturing industries.
you know you look at the work out of harvard business school. i'm really believer of the importance of manufacturing. obviously will not be the bulk of employment in the economy. you know the numbers probably continue to decline but i think, is it as a society we are not successful in those traded sectors. i think will not be as prosperous as we would be otherwise.>> you can't have a book called "failure to adjust: how americans got left behind in the global ecomomy" and that we confuse matters by having a failure to end on time. i've been thinking about that for minutes. [laughter] so i am going to shut it down here. i want to do three things.one is i want to ãyour reward right away as there will be a reception. then there are books being sold here and what i want to do is congratulate you, you have got a glimpse and a taste of just how fluent he is and convergent he is and this set of issues that has really come to the fore. and the economic consequences but also has future consequences and i think in
increasingly social consequences for this and other countries. i would like to congratulate you on what you have done. [applause] this is booktv on c-span2. television for serious readers. here is our prime time lineup. starting tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern, david by dennis discusses why albert einstein was disregarded by many of his colleagues later in his life. at 7:30 p.m. eastern a panel on race in america, moderated by author and white house correspondent april ryan. and at 9:15 pm eastern, the manhattan institute's beth akers argues that the student loan crisis is overblown. on booktv's afterwards program at 10:00 p.m. eastern, new york magazines jonathan chase examines president obama's legacy and a conversation with
cnn's jim acosta. and we wrap up our saturday prime time lineup at 11:00 p.m. with john's thoughts on the evolution of language. that all happens tonight on c-span.org's booktv. >> [background sounds] [applause] >> good evening everybody thank you all so much for coming out tonight.what a great crowd. my name is lissa muscatine i am the co-owner of politics and prose. my husband and co-owner is right he appeared on behalf of our grace that we welcome you all want to thank all of our friean