Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  November 30, 2016 12:00am-3:01am EST

12:00 am
now -- yeah, i think nancy wins, i think she's already lost the base of her conference, right? so they are going to be more willing and apt, realize they sitting in districts where a lot of their friends have lost and people voted for want to get this country moving again. i think tax reform. it will be interesting to see how many of them will vote for repealing obamacare. once it's repealed why wouldn't they be willing to vote for replacement? you have no other options. are you going to play politics with it? reg reform. i think you'll find quite a few that are coming from rural america and others that watched the administration put in where they took out total industries. they watched their own constituents lose their jobs. i think you're going to find quite a few willing -- james: talk about governing, bigger picture. you have very good relationships with everyone in your conference. the house freedom caucus, there were 20 members or whatever the number was, you were -- mr. mccarthy: it's secret.
12:01 am
james: who wouldn't vote for anything even when it was a good deal that had been negotiated just because it was voting to raise the debt ceiling or it was -- mr. mccarthy: make it a little better. james: how are those folks -- you know them very well, going to respond when a deal gets cut to get to 60 or whatever -- 70% good. do you think now that there is unified republican control, those guys are going to come along? do you think you're still going to have a dozen, two dozen members who just are going to want perfect be the enemy of the good? mr. mccarthy: do you know our conference? we're a microcosm of society. members are all different. i think structure dictates behavior. there was a perfect structure where you had a different party in the presidency. you had a senate that was slower. you could do those things. and if you -- you utilized the
12:02 am
freedom caucus to do that. it made the house republicans weaker because you had to negotiate with nancy pelosi. if we stuck together, then we're always stronger. i think you're going to see us sticking together more. i think there is less ability nor the freedom caucus to do those types of things -- i'm sure those districts, donald trump did the best in. it would be hard for them to stand up if president-elect trump is asking for this fundamental change and they are saying no to it. i think that's harder. i think we're more united. james: because of the election? mr. mccarthy: speaker ryan has done a great job uniting the conference. james: the sequester, you have military resources in your district. obviously the sequester has been hard -- mr. mccarthy: the sequester part is difficult. because that came from the obama administration. and the challenge of it is we should do our own work to work
12:03 am
that out. if you want to do something investment in the military, that means you got to go do all this other stuff domestically that maybe might not need it or not where the investment s if we're able to be together, i think we solve all that. and we can be. james: can you see lifting the sequester or getting rid of it? mr. mccarthy: you're not going to lift cap. you can talk about where you make the investment. you got enough money, you invest, prioritize where you want to do it. in the sequester you're not being able to prioritize. i look at the fact that one of the rules if you get elected you should take the responsibility of where you should make the decision where to spend that money. i don't want to go in debt. i got only a certain amount of money, but i want to invest in the right place that. would solve some of the problems. james: talk about california. your home state. you are lucky to represent the most republican district.
12:04 am
mr. mccarthy: duncan hunter does. james: california is one of the very few states where hillary clinton did better than barack obama. why do you think that -- >> if you talk about this popular vote and electoral college vote. you cannot have an election where you determine the outcome one way and argue after the election you did better here. like if the game of baseball is, you have the most scores you win, but i got the most home runs, it doesn't work, right? but if the game is played, i would have played it differently. she beat donald trump by three million votes. so if you take california out, donald trump won the popular vote in 49 states. so there's other -- there's way that is can always make an argument one way or another. if we elect our president by electoral college, whoever got to 270 is going to become the president. you can't argue the other ones are out.
12:05 am
california, we did not lose one congressional race in the democrats played very hard. we came close to winning one against bera in sacramento with scott jones. that wasn't decided until last week. i still think california is a place that we could teach the rest of the nation how republicans can win. give you an example. the district next to mine is one that is 72% hispanic district. david valadao represents that district. david valadao won by 57% of the vote. in a year where hillary clinton did very well. so i think we have abilities to expand. i think we can teach the rest how to do it. james: on the popular vote question, following up on that. donald trump one of the things he tweeted on sunday was he said he would have won the popular vote o if not for millions of fraudulently cast ballots in california. you're from california.
12:06 am
any signs of fraudulent voting? mr. mccarthy: the election is over. i'm not into this recount. i'm not -- we have the campaign. i think everybody was ready for the campaign to be over. we made our decision. now govern. what's interesting is all the arguments that were prior would you respect the election or not, it's over. let's govern. let's move on. james: you didn't see any signs of fraud in your home state? mr. mccarthy: i say let's govern. we have elected officials that carry this. county by county is different. i could go through every aspect. do you allow an absentee ballot in one to go and one not. they can make any argument they want. you can put a fact based upon that argument. the election somplete the public wants us to govern now. the recount's not going to be any different as you go through. maybe a few votes one way or another.
12:07 am
but it's only counting the votes it has. james: i get what you're saying. the public does want to move forward. most people don't care about this. it's important for the legitimacy of the election that the american people believe that the votes were counted fairly. that there wasn't widespread fraudulent lens. mr. mccarthy: let's move on. james: was there? mr. mccarthy: i looked at the election. i saw the results come n i trust them just as i trusted them in the past. you can trust and verify. i don't have a problem. i think it's time to go. james: moving on. donald trump sort of the man the leader. you got behind him in may. you agreed to be a delegate for him at a time when a lot of republicans here around town were not willing to do so. you kind of helped in a lot -- mr. mccarthy: i was smart, wasn't i? james: now he's president. he's coming in. we talked a lot about the policy agenda. there is still -- there are some conservatives who are worried about some things about him.
12:08 am
kind of touching on a couple of the issues that have come up a lot the last few weeks. the potential conflicts of interest. the fact that he's not following the traditions that some other presidents have followed. does that -- worry you at all? mr. mccarthy: i don't feel that's fair. let me tell you why. i see this in a microlevel where there will be somebody who runs for congress who has never been elected before. has been a small business owner. and they are running because they want to change the country. they never think before they are going to run i'm going to have to change everything in my business because they don't know. they haven't had to do any of that, right? then when they get elected the ethics committee comes to them and says you have to do this or that. they tell to you do their certain thing and change their mind. they never thought of that. they want to serve. we set the rules up to really punish you if you have been in business. because we start with the idea that you do something corrupt.
12:09 am
i think the aspect that when he did don, he took this very seriously. most of you probably know him. no one's going to tell me he's not one of the most ethical attorneys he's seen. he knows the law well. i think by naming him one of the very first, he'll work all that out. it is not the role -- if i am going to run for president, it's laying out the -- worrying about what i'm going to do with my business. if i won, here the legal counsel. i did well in business. i'll let the legal counsel figure out what legal thing i'm supposed to do and not do. by appointing him solves that answer. james: could you envision house republicans doing oversight of the trump presidency if some of these lines did get blurred? mr. mccarthy: i would assume that -- take donald trump out of it. oversight committee is oversight no matter who.
12:10 am
you only to oversight -- the same thing for the appointment of the attorney general and others. the same reason why my office looks across the supreme court and there is a blindfold on. this country has got to come together. we got to stop being red and blue states. we got to stop being just because you are of one party. oversight is oversight. i want oversight to hold me accountable, too. it's not based upon is it donald, it's based upon what is the role of your jobs. carry out your jobs. and put blinders on it. james: you mentioned the party is more unified. people have gotten onboard. mr. mccarthy: winning helps do that. james: we have to wrap up in the next two or three minutes. taking a step back, you got the majority six years ago. if you could go back and talk to kevin mccarthy the end of november, 2010, what advice would you give yourself? mr. mccarthy: 2010? james: now that you have been in the majority for six years. you have been around the track a few times.
12:11 am
mr. mccarthy: i would have asked our members not to make expectations higher than you could actually achieve. i always believe surpass expectations. i think we told the american public certain things that we could do that we couldn't do. we should have brought the public along at each step of the way. but i'll give you this. the senate never would have been a republican majority had the house not become a republican majority. you would not have had cory gardner, you would not have had louisiana or others. you watched where this country has trended. if you watch where republicans were when barack obama took over, the number of governors, number the legislative seats and others, we have never been stronger. but we did not run to win a majority. we ran to change a contry.
12:12 am
so we should -- country. so we should not miss this window of opportunity. when you ask me about the number of days am i going to judge. i'm going to judge on getting the policy right. i'm going to judge on having an honest and fair government. it's not are you going to use your power to benefit one person or party? no. i've watched that. i didn't like all that that took place. why don't we believe a legacy that brings us back to three co-equal branches. that keeps people more honest and in check. the power rests with the people. for everything said about this election, i don't care what side you are on, you should feel good about the country. because the pundits were wrong and everybody else. what does that tell you? nobody controls this government but the people. if the people get frustrated, they can change direction. regardless what everybody -- experts telling them is going to happen. to me, that's exciting. i'm excited and i feel very honored to be able to walk into that building and be a small part of it.
12:13 am
let's let history write for this window, for this moment in time, did we achieved what we said to the public we would achieve. james: kevin mccarthy, house majority leader, thank you for your time. appreciate it. thank you to everyone who came. thank you to everyone in our television audience. watching online and on c-span. mr. mccarthy: i read this every morning. i read it all the way through. he puts a lot of my instagram picks up. james: follow him. mr. mccarthy: no one does my instagram but me. if you like it, give him credit. if not, tell me to improve. james: thank you again. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit]
12:14 am
♪ >> senator bob corker met with president-elect donald trump at the trump tower in new york city. the tennessee republican, who chairs the senate foreign relations committee, has been mentioned as a possible paper secretary of state in the trump administration. >> it has been an honor to have the kind of meeting that i had today. we had a wide ranging meeting, a couple meetings. his instincts on foreign policy are very, very good. he has the greatest opportunity
12:15 am
in modern times to really strengthen our nation, and security interests around the world and to help us, economically. again, i have enjoyed the opportunity to be here. it is an honor. there are a number of outstanding individuals he has been talking with. i am glad to be here and glad to see more fully what his views on the world are. i think he will make a tremendous difference for our nation and for the world as our next president. >> [inaudible] sen. corker: say that again. >> [inaudible] sen. corker: again, i am here, and there are discussions underway about other things. this is a decision he needs to
12:16 am
make. the state's role is so important, the need to choose someone that he is very comfortable with, that he knows there will be no daylight between him and them. the secretary of state needs to speak fully for the president. that is a decision he is going to to have to make. it is an honor to be here, i relish the role i have been able to play. i think that anybody who feels that they can further our country's national interests around the world would obviously want to talk about that, and be honored to serve. >> [inaudible] sen. corker: we did not talk about that. we put together a very good and rapid team, put rapidly together. i think he will make the decision when he is comfortable.
12:17 am
my sense is, he has narrowed it down to a very small group of people. again, a distinguished group of people. he has a choice to make, we feel more comfortable with. who can best serve our nation in this capacity. >> senate judiciary committee chair chuck grassley met with senator jeff sessions, who is president-elect donald trump's pick to be attorney general. before the meeting, senator grassley says he expects confirmation hearings for senator sessions to be held before the inauguration. >> senator sessions, should
12:18 am
people lose their citizenship for burning the flag? sen. sessions: i have some things i'm going to talk to you about, i will start the conversation there. i am not going to do that in front of the cameras right now, but i do want to say that everybody on the judiciary committee knows senator sessions well. they know him to be an admirable man. they know him to be a man of integrity. and he knows the justice department well, not just from serving on the judiciary committee and having oversight and policy for that department as a senator, but he had a long relationship of the u.s. attorney in other positions within the department of justice. so, i think that knowing the department of justice and knowing senator sessions the way
12:19 am
i do, we know that he is going to be an evenhanded enforcer of the law as the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. senator feinstein previously said he would get a fair hearing. i expect that he will get a fair hearing. it will probably be a tough hearing, as well. everyone expects when you're putting somebody in an important position of attorney general, you want to make sure that all bases are covered. they'll be true both republican and democrats. the standard procedure is, for the committee, to send all of our nominees the standard questionnaire. we have sent that to senator sessions. you to return the as
12:20 am
quickly as you can. when that questionnaire is returned, that will be at a time that we set a date for our hearing. we expect that to be before the inauguration for the reason that that has been done in the past, for the first term of obama it was done. it was done for holder. it was done for ashcroft. there is clear precedent for our handling it that way. i believe that is all i have to say at this particular time. thank you for covering us, it is a very important position to be covering. you had a big turnout, thank you all for coming. we will start our meeting now. >> [indiscernible]
12:21 am
>> come on, we have to clear the room. >> president-elect trump has chosen georgia congressman tom price to head up the department of health and human services. last june, congressman price, who chairs the budget committee, talked about a republican plan for placing the affordable care -- replacing the affordable care act. >> we are proposing a patient-centered solution for patients and doctors and families to make decisions, not washington, d.c. the current path we are on has the majority of americans and -- unsettled if not outright , opposed to the path we are on. it is important for us to ask the question why. why is that the majority of americans do not like the path we are on as it relates to health care? it is because it violates all the principles all of us hold dear when it comes to health care. we want a system that is accessible and affordable for
12:22 am
everybody. we want a system of the highest quality, and a system that provides choices for the american people, for patients. the path we are are now violates those principles. what we put together is a patient-centered plan to respect those principles and allow everyone to have access to coverage, but access they want, not that the government forces them to buy. dissolve the insurance challenges of affordability and pre-existing. a few specific examples i would like to share with you. the individual small group market, those of you who recognize or in that arena, you appreciate it has been destroyed. we want to reconstitute the market and make it responsive to patients and allow them to purchase the kind of coverage they want, not that the government forces them to buy. second, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars. hundreds of billions of dollars, wasted, due to lawsuit abuse in this country. the practice of defensive medicine.
12:23 am
instead of putting a band-aid on it we propose a bold and robust solution that would allow physicians, through practice guidelines, to have a safe harbor. if your doctor does the right thing, for a given set of symptoms and diagnosis, they ought to be able to use that as an affirmative defense in a court of law. that is a proposal we put forward. third, a health care system that works for patients is one that must respect the physician-patient relationship. we incentivize the highest quality of care without bureaucratic intervention. this plan right here puts forward common sense, positive solutions for medicare, medicaid, and the larger health care arena, so that we respect the principles of accessibility, affordability, quality, and choices. i am so pleased to join my colleagues here to present this and i excited about the opportunity to move it forward. >> representative tom price, president-elect donald trump's
12:24 am
choice to be health and human services chair. he will talk about the federal budget process. live coverage get started at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. also watch it online at or listen to it online at the c-span radio app. >> new york times hosted a forum today which we will bring you next on c-span. we will start with commerce secretary pritzker and eric cantor. talking about the incoming trumpet administration. then ray kurzweil. then we will hear from author and new york times columnist thomas friedman. later, former vice president al gore on the environment. >> with donald trump elected as
12:25 am
the next u.s. president, melania trump becomes our next foreign burn first lady since medical exams. a look into the influence of every presidential spouse in american history. it is a companion to c-span's well-regarded biography tv series and features interviews with 54 of the nation leading first lady's historians, biographies of 45 first ladies, and archival photos from each of their lives. first ladies come up published by public affairs come is available wherever you buy book. now available in paperback. >> next,, secretary penny -- and eric former cantor talk about what they see happening in the trumpet administration and error such as trade come health care come and tax policy. this is part of a forum with is this leaders and innovators
12:26 am
hosted by the public best by the new york times. me in welcoming penny pritzker, and eric cantor, former house majority leader, and our washington bureau chief, to the stage. [applause] ♪ >> good morning everyone. it looks like a classroom here. i thank you all for coming, thank you to secretary pritzker or, they need no introduction, as you have heard. was the firstzker member of the administration to go to cuba as i recall, after the opening. a very interesting trip. eric cantor, former house
12:27 am
majority leader. start and then open up to questions after i asked a few. let me start about the business outlook, we do not know a great deal at this point. donald trump has told us, but we will try to find out for our experts. the first question i have is, before the election, most forecasters were predicting sluggish growth, including in the u.s.. but now everyone believes markets will pick up, given by the expectation that trump will reduce taxes, regulations, and increase infrastructure spending. so let me ask you, what do you think of that forecast, based on what you have heard from the president-elect so far? sec. pritzker: first of all, this morning we released a second estimate of gtb of 3.2%
12:28 am
for the third quarter. gdp is doing pretty well right now. let's hope we do not do anything that takes us backward, let's forget the private sectors create about 15.5 million jobs. during the obama administration we have unemployment up 4.9%. we have people who are uninsured . moment where there is a good foundation to build upon, which i think is good. is, we are not seeing the kind of investment that we need in the united states. if the tax deal can get done where that encourages investment , brings corporate rates down so isare more competitive, that a positive opportunity and creates an opportunity with maybe a one-time tax on the $2.5
12:29 am
trillion outside the united states. so we can fund infrastructure -- i do not think it can fund $1 trillion of infrastructure, but perhaps several hundred billion dollars, which we need to be competitive. the other thing we cannot forget, which i think is a big thing from this election, the a norma's of anxiety among our people. us amount of anxiety among our people. what does life look like with globalization, automatic -- autonomous vehicles, the internet of things, impact the future of work? that is grading a lot of anxiety. bill,y, having a tax something our administration has tried to get done and not get it
12:30 am
done with congress. hopefully those are positive things that help our economy. ms. bumiller: let me turn to you on the tax bill. reporters has an interesting story this morning about a reality check on that tax cuts and infrastructure spending and what is likely to happen in congress. taxpoints out that trump's cuts and spending policies would add over $5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years to read -- years. a $12 trillion difference. what is the reality to these tax cuts? think we are in a new reality now, if i can pick up where penny was going in terms of lacking confidence and the anxiety out there, i do think the context within this new administration comes to the table is one after an election that i think was largely
12:31 am
thatenced by the fact growth in this country has slowed over time. as we know, the country was used to, 470, almost 80 years post-world war, 3.2% growth. given the size of our economy, a size of our economy, a reduction in that to barely 2% annual growth is a lot of absolute dollars and has a lot of absolute impact on people's job opportunities and outlook. within ihe context think trump comes to the table. he has already said growth will be number one priority. elizabeth, you talk about the tax reform. i think regulatory reform, the president-elect authority said, he has tasked his transition team with the kind of executive toers that will be necessary send a signal that the regulatory burden will be
12:32 am
examined and lifted after a cost-benefit analysis, doing too much to aggravate the outlook for investment. as penny said, it has been suffering of late. in terms of tax plans, you do not know. the great majority of trump's plan has not been there. is to look at another plan put forward by the house republicans, and speaker paul ryan. they been working on that for a long time. the foundation of this tax reform plan was in place when i was there and before. this country has not seen tax reform since 1986, the likes of which we are looking to see happen. you have united washingtonyou hn january 2017. i believe that signals that things will get better. ms. bumiller: what happens on the hill? is mike pence going to be the
12:33 am
liaison, is he going to let the house -- is he going to let congress drive this? or will we have a white house push? mr. cantor: as we all know, the system designed by the framers of the constitution was one of checks and balances. they will be influenced by this process. obviously influenced by the congress and white house. house during the bush administration, when republicans ran the town. the influence of a strong white the capitalced gains tax reduction that produce the repatriation holiday that occurred in early 2003 or 2004. you do not know how it will all play out. but the strong figures in the house, working on tax reform for a long time. mike pence was there for 12
12:34 am
years, he was part of the discussion. listen, this is a town where our government works. .hen it is unified i thought in 2009 in 2010 when obama came in and the democrats controlled the town. obamacare, thet stimulus bill. so i think you will see a lot of activity in the next year. ms. bumiller: let me turn to trade. did advocates portray -- the public sentiment turned so strongly against trade, can anything be done to rebuild this incentive for global uneconomic it -- engagement around the world? sec. pritzker: let's think about trade. the united states is only 5% of the world market.
12:35 am
around theomers are united states. we have to trade with the rest of the world. think what has happened in the rhetoric is the conflation of trade and trade agreements with issues of globalization, the status of the individual and their ability to compete, automation, digitization. we need trade agreements. trade agreements are how you shape the rules of trade. and they are very important. wastrade agreement that negotiated, the transpacific partnership, tried to protect american labor by raising labor standards outside the united by raising environmental standards outside the united states, helping small businesses by clarifying their rules. making sure e-commerce could flow and data could flow easily. terroristsg 18,000
12:36 am
tariffs throughout the region. china has publicly announced it will do its own multilateral trade agreement. they will use their one vote, one road program to consolidate asia into an economic territory that does not include the united states. that is not good for american businesses. it is not good for global businesses. what the next administration does, beyond just say no, i do not know. it is not a path forward that is sustainable for job creation both here and in the united states, as well as economic growth here. ms. bumiller: your take on that? mr. cantor: i have been a free trader and someone who supports trade deals in the past. party, the party that has carried the free trade agenda
12:37 am
over the years, has now found itself in a new position, given the white house and a president-elect that had been very hostile to tpp in particular. but trump says he was to put jobs first. it will be much about trying to protect american employers, and boosting the business environment here at home so we can attract more jobs first. investment. some reports have indicated the will openelect bilateral negotiations between individual countries. a lot ofhe tpp, countries have been subject to its negotiations. clearly a lot more room to go in and bilaterally negotiated. the impact regionally may not be had the way tpp
12:38 am
prospect for u.s. influence in asia to manifest itself. so we will see. but the trump administration and american jobs first. back to the issue of tax reform, one of the underlying debates right now has to do with international tax reform. how do we go in and position the a destination for multinational corporations so we for thingsthe senate like that? is aboutdiscussion this border adjustment tax, how we will treat imports. i know many of the luxury brand if you have manufacturing facilities overseas and are now looking to see what will happen with imports in this country, that is a very important debate. the disadvantage we feel now could be rectified by an adjusted tax, does not mean good
12:39 am
things for retailers here. the borderer: adjusted tax will lead to retaliation. president-elect trump putting attacks on china and goods from that could lead to a fallen gdp by 4% to 5%, that will lose 7 million jobs. it will also increase unemployment is somewhere around 9.5%. that is not good for america, either. spoken -- the chinese were here last week. they basically said, do you think that will happen? you know what we will have to do? we will have to retaliate. it wasnot vitriolic, like, you will force us to take those positions.
12:40 am
we cannot act unilaterally and expect there will be no reaction. ms. bumiller: should the u.s. get into a trade confrontation with china at a time if it needs china to help with north korea? and it helps north korea slowdown. did you raise that with of the chinese? sec. pritzker: look, the challenge we have our rtwo -- different systems. china is controlled from the center, with state-owned enterprises, and industrial policy. in the united states we have a free-flowing policy and set of rules and regulations that allow much more flexibility. we're trying to mesh those two systems, the two largest economies to work and lead. difficult to come to
12:41 am
consensus when you come at the issue of the economy from such different positions. we have worked very hard, a strategic and economic dialogue, working through president obama on trying to address these economic issues. but it is a real challenge because of the difference in the way we approach how the economy functions, a very basic level. that has led to real challenges. take for example fielded dumping. we had to have a huge increase in and -- enforcement, with the chinese dumping steel. we have now seen a bottoming out of that and we are seeing job in price growth again in steel. but we have a significant
12:42 am
problem and the world is trying to say to china, you cannot do this. you cannot just dump it around the world because it is upsetting the global equilibrium. the other approaches with the new administration, i do not know. but it is a complicated balance. you have to think about what reactions we can tolerate. think what we have seen thus far from the campaign and the newly elected president-elect and his team is, a lot of the rhetoric, his twitter traffic, a lot of the language, that has an impact for sure. but when you look at what he is you look at the picks and the cabinet so far, like nikki haley for u.n. ambassador rice. this morning, tom price for secretary of health and human services. these are mainstream republican
12:43 am
conservative individuals that extreme less in the than perhaps some of the rhetoric surrounding donald trump has been. so we will have to watch to see. no question he has tried' in a , do we want to pick a fight with china right now given its importance with north korea, i am sure that if you ask, they do not want to engender some type or big conflict. . hasgain, his whole m.o been, i want to get a better deal for the american people. that means we will be strong again. we just do not know, there is not a lot of certainty. when you are looking at this, that adds to the risk right now. see, come the first
12:44 am
100 days, we will have a better idea. >> let me follow up on tom price. he would drastically change the affordable care act. there were be less people insured, i assume you would agree with that. it would be much reduced. some of the 20 million would lose health insurance. can you explain how that would work? how that would be good for business? i am not so sure you can assume that. obamacare was constructed in its design of a mandate from washington, and once washington require the purchase of health care insurance, there necessarily came the definition of what compliance was. that had driven up the cost, which then required a subsidy in order to pay for the subsidies for the imposition of all the obamacare taxes.
12:45 am
that is what will go away. what will come in place -- what you will see repealed are the exchanges, the mandate. is going to be a system that is much more focused on the private sector, and in fact, for those people who have obamacare insurance is going toa now, will a likely, if you look at the plans that are out there, whether it vehicle he has's worked on for six years, you will see a workaround in terms of getting affordable tax credits and ensuring that provisions like never denying anyone for pre-consist -- pre-existing conditions is entirely valid. in fact, the way you "pay for extended coverage in existence now, the way you pay for it in the new regime without byandate is you pay for it
12:46 am
limiting and capping employer exclusion of health care benefits. >> have you reduce? what does it mean for change? florida last week talking to big trump supporters, saying they really liked the affordable care act and did not want to take it away. i think even trump himself said there are provisions in obamacare, i am never denying anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions, or allowing 26-year-olds to stay on their parents plans. is going to be a very complicated discussion. mccarthy, myin
12:47 am
successor as majority leader just say on the news this morning, that obamacare repeal will be first up in this new congress. so you repeal obamacare, what happens to 20 million people on obamacare? mr. cantor: the details have yet to be realized. because, when is the effective date? and what is the requirement to replace it? that is a debate that is ongoing. place -- thato can only happen if the senate has the reconciliation process to benefit from, thereby reducing the voting threshold. we have to see what congress does. predictions that people will lose health care, this will be a different kind of health care.
12:48 am
i think that obamacare on the results of this have never lived that was promise given. we can see a congress that will unite around replacing it any meaningful way. ms. bumiller: let me ask one more question about iran. if the u.s. walks away from the iran deal, which trump has threatened to do, what other signatory would do? would they ignore that? what they make any imposition of u.s. sanctions meaningless? and what would be the global economic consequences? all, iitzker: first of do not know how the rest of the world reacts. but it seems to me that one of the most important players is israel.
12:49 am
positions come to a that there is definitely benefits from the deal, that is one thing to keep in mind. i have no idea how this plays out. is not an our portfolio of things we focus on. seen.ains to be back and look at this notion of disengagement around the world, we have to think about, what are the long-term implications of the united states taking positions that are interpreted as either protectionism orabout disengage? and is that good for the u.s., in terms of the worker, our , and ourur economy national security? ms. bumiller: any response to that? sec. pritzker: i was in the
12:50 am
middle east last week, both in israel and the gulf. i can tell you, there was a lot of discomfort with this administration in terms of its iran policy. allies as well as israel. they were taken aback by what this administration did with the regime in iran. there was trust toward the team in tehran. if you talk to the prime minister in israel or government and other areas of the gulf. when trump comes in and says he will rebut the agreement, i am reminded of the peter teel quote from the republican national convention in cleveland when he to think aboutnt not taking trump literally, but taking them seriously. --hink this arid of that is, i think the spirit of it. there will be a lot of pressure
12:51 am
from american business. i am sure any of you in the room are based here. if you saw the house last week, when around passing the iran sanctions act. diminution ofny the force, forcing iran to abide by its commitment to get rid of its nuclear capabilities. there is enough in the agreement in terms of enforcement consequences that i think trump arrive at a de facto ripping up of the to expose that iran has not been in compliance. we will see if he is using that or a frontal attack on the agreement. ms. bumiller: and with that, any questions from the audience? here, and if you can
12:52 am
identify yourself and wait for the microphone, thank you. >> i live in london, but i am french. policy will stop inflation? that would have consequences on the heavy debt around the world. we are not really seeing inflation right now, growing dramatically. is, you can paint a scenario where you can see inflation growing. but with the dollar becoming stronger, it is putting a check on inflation here in the united states. because it makes imports more and is having a
12:53 am
challenge for u.s. competitiveness. you could imagine if we go and believe in our deficits and overcommit, in terms of expenditures, that you could have an inflationary environment. i think that is why you see the fed looking to become more active. but it is something to think is beingthe policy formed as to how inflationary it will be. ms. bumiller: anyone else? here in the second row. >> i have a question to mr. cantor. i do not live in this country -- but over the last few years, america has lost its power in the world and ability to influence. part, trump said he
12:54 am
would tear up trade treaties, the iran treaty, walk away from everything which engages the united states to the rest of the world. do think that will increase american power or reduce it? mr. cantor: i go back to my maxim, watch what he does, do not necessarily listen to what he says. i believe it goes back to trying to get a better deal for the people of this country. i am not so sure that you can take at face value the statement that he will rip it up. he will focus inward. these deals give him an opportunity to demonstrate that he is a negotiator. written -- i am not so the luxury ofave turning his back.
12:55 am
what i have heard from businesses and governments around the world is, over the last several years, there have been questions about america's commitment. when you have something like sequestration in place that limits the defense expenditures and you talk to government and citizens in asia who keep reading and hearing about the u.s. pivot to asia, how do you reckon -- reconcile those two? defense,t increasing but we will be a counterbalance to the aggressive posture of china -- how does that reconcile? to say not be so quick that you can dismiss america's role, or say that we would put domestic issues forward. because we are global now. --live in an internet
12:56 am
interconnected world. arthur, hello. >> thank you both for being here, i appreciate that very much. mr. cantor, a question for you. a few months ago, in february or march i was at an event that arthur brooks held. if you recall, the spirit, there is a feeling there was no way that donald trump would become president. now, the press got this wrong, we have owned that. we clearly were out of touch with what happened. but so the republican party, in a major way. i was hoping you might help us understand that a bit. i have gone this
12:57 am
wrong all year, two years. push --chair for jet jeb bush. i thought he would be the candidate and win the election. i was wrong, as well. had anonal story, i unscheduled departure from chapel hill and was defeated in the primary by an unknown. and frankly, that unknown was -- supported by the democratic party. one third of my primary election was by crossover votes because that day there was no democratic primary. virginia allows for the crossover vote. i was as surprised as any. beginning ofs the
12:58 am
what we saw manifest itself in this election. huge was and still is a swath of people in this country that feel anxiety and are fed up. they are fed up in a variety of ways. i know you have heard about the mainstream media and people always being told they are wrong. but i think it goes back to the economics, and the lack of opportunity. my party did not get that, either. i have always said, we have had difficulty trying to connect the policies of a free trade, the policies of the new 21st century, digital economy. how does that benefit a lot of people out there who just do not have the skills necessary to meet the demands of the economy?
12:59 am
mom do we say to the single in eastern kentucky when she does not have good job prospects? partiesty says -- both said, we will impose trade adjustments and pass the free trade agreement, and here is a little money. that does not cut it. we did not have the answers for those people. the democratic party did not have the answers. this will be the biggest challenge for the country, going forward. mr. trump has presented himself as that leader that reflects this demographic and a large part of the country. so we will see. sec. pritzker: i have one comment. first of all, we need to double down on things that do work for people. it is about people. one of the biggest challenges we have is, americans are unhappy.
1:00 am
angryhe electorate was and half was scared. i think we are going through a massive change, you can see it in your own industry, we are going for a massive change in our society, affected by globalization and optimization -- automation and digitization. our people feel there is a confidence in their ability to gain opportunity, support their some modestd have aspect of the american dream. right now people do not feel that and we do not have a system that is coordinated in a way to be able to put that together. we do have programs that do positive things that we should double down on. whether that is apprenticeships or advanced manufacturing.
1:01 am
we need to paint a picture, what are we doing in various communities? that is world communities, or communities like the southside of chicago where there should be job prospects. i do not think either party answer that question. that will be elated the feet of the next administration. i want to see a congress that works. i am tired of everybody bickering and nothing getting done. ms. bumiller: thank you both, thank you to the audience. [applause] up next, the trends in technology and how they will affect business and consumers. >> talking about interconnectedness. such at speaker has
1:02 am
complicated and unique cv that i am just going to read it to you. he is one of the leading inventors. character recognition, print-to-speech reading machine for the line. music synthesizer. commercially marketed large for cap guillory speech recognition software. he has received a technical grammy award. national medal of technology. doctorates and has written five best-selling books. he is the director of engineering at google heading up team developing machine intelligence and national -- natural language recognition. he is a record of accurate prediction. please join me in welcoming ray
1:03 am
kurzweil and anthony ron perkins to the stage. >> thank you. it is a treat for me to get a chance to spend time with ray. this is something -- someone who is not just an author and inventor but someone who thinks of things in ways i cannot even possibly comprehend. i want to start the conversation here. you talk about the idea of physical immortality and you state it is going to be possible by 2045. 40 years off. tracks i will never be able to
1:04 am
come on the stage and say i have done it. never, forever. but i talk about three bridges extension. >> bridge one is what you can do right now. >> the old-fashioned way so we can get to bridge two. a key idea is information technology increases wasnentially and much enabled by the genome project. a few thousand dollars per john him. it is not just collecting the objects of life progressing toonentially but our ability understand it, model and come understand it, and most importantly to reprogram it is growing exponentially and we are now giving clinical operations. you can fixate roca in, not just from romance but in virtual reality.
1:05 am
reconnection. half of all heart attack survivors can be fixed by reprogramming. we are regrowing organs successfully, successfully reinstalling them. we could talk all day about these examples. what is now a trickle will be a flood in 10 years. that is bridge too. then we will get to bridge three. robots that are computerized. the finish the job of immune system. we have intelligence devices to keep us healthy. thew years ago was not in inference -- interest for us to live too long so they do not recognize cancer. we can finish the job with these medical designs.
1:06 am
there are medical designs of how to go off to every of these diseases. that is the third bridge. ultimately, we're going to merge with artificial intelligence. we'll talk about that, the singularity. we will talk about that, what the future actually looks like. >> in your mind at least, it is something called the singularity. >> extending our mental capacity with ai. we have already done that. >> you are not enhanced at the moment but most people believe without the cell phone there and complete. so they are not yet inside our bodies. but it will be routine in the 2030's. another medical now to connect our neo cortex with the outer layer of the brain, where we do our thinking, with the clouds.
1:07 am
not too many years ago we had these large for heads. additional neo cortex and what we did with that is we put it at the top of the neo cortex. as you got the hierarchy, issues become more complex. that was the enabling factor for humans -- human or its to advance. no other species does that but that is a one-shot deal. continuing to expand or childbirth would've been impossible. do doesthe things you not take place on the phone, they connect to the cloud. your connection to information technology doubling power as we see. connect ton stimulated neo cortex in the cloud like we did 2 million years ago. to our neocortical heritage.
1:08 am
this time it will not he a one-shot deal. ofwill be a hybrid biological thinking and nonbiological thinking which i inieve has already started places outside our body and we will become smarter. by 2045, we will expand our ability and it will be a singular change in human history. >> how does this change creativity? there are people in this audience in creative fields. whether it is a product or marketing a product. in singularity, the augmentation of technology, how can that change the way we think? >> first of all it transforms the world. my father was a musician. late-night conversations on the phone.
1:09 am
owntarted to hear his compositions. now kids in their own rooms can do that on a keyboard with a notebook computer. everybody in the fashion industry and other with designs are using that to expand our creativity. creativity in the art and design and music is exactly what happens at the top of the neocortical hierarchy. primates who have almost as big a brain but not near with the cortex did not do any of these things. they do not really have language, art, music. every human culture has music. we will add more to the neocortical hierarchy with artificial neo cortex, and ai and we will become more creative, funnier. >> dare i ask, does the computer
1:10 am
ever become more creative than us? there is interesting stuff going on in london right now, a newuter with ai drawing a picture every week. newspaper.e it captures the sentiment of the way people are feeling and draws a different picture. the pictures are ok right now. i assume they're going to get better. our dystopian future, it will be the ai versus ofans for the control humanity, we are already very mixed up. we do not have one or two ai's in the world, we have several billion. ai's we create to
1:11 am
extend our reach. we have machines that leverage our is a call ability. a kid in africa who can change things with a few keystrokes. we are literally going to connect our neo cortex, expanded. that is where we do design new fashions and other creative work. we are going to be mixed up with it. that does not mean commerce will go -- conflict will go away. artificial intelligence and machinery, that will continue but we are basically going to expand our creative reach and we are doing not already. host: when you think about the future of the economy in an ai-augmented world that uses disruptive, there are some people that think this is going to be great for society and others that inc. we're not going
1:12 am
to have a job. kurzweil: well first of all jobs are an economic system that we use to meet our needs. penny pritzker mentioned 3.2% economic growth. this economic growth completely anores the increased value of dollar. i spent a few hundred dollars for this device on my belt and it counts as a few hundred dollars of economic activity aspite the fact that it is billion dollar 1980 are a trillion dollars in 1985 of communication. millions of dollars of connectivity. as a teenager i saved up thousands of dollars to buy encyclopedia or tannic up. i now have a much better when the cost nothing. we could say ok, this is the true of the strange world of devices. you can't eat it, you cannot
1:13 am
wear, you cannot live in it. all of that will change. we will be able to print out clothing on 3d printers in the 2020's. of -- we at the rate will get there by 2020. post: drill down on that. we will be able to print every product? for pennies on the dollar? ray kurzweil: as technology gets more sophisticated, increasing varieties of products will become a righty. host: what about the flying car? ray kurzweil: we're going to be ofe to increase the types products, including the types of materials we use. clothing already is a lot less expensive than it was 100 years ago. wasears ago, a movement formed that we had new technology that could automate the making of clothing.
1:14 am
now the common man who once every wardrobe, just once a shirt, this will revolutionize manufacturing. you will have open source versions of products and proprietary versions. so let's take it as several have been of already been transformed from physical connect. if i wanted to send you a book or a music album, a few years ago i would send you a fedex package. then an email. there are millions of high-quality documents, books, movies, songs, and you could have a very good time. but people still send money to read harry potter, blockbusters, music from their favorite artists. markets.ce and what has happened to the revenues. they have gone up. and can be distributed
1:15 am
marketed in can tell you, you're going to like this movie the consolidates what we have noticed your preferences are. and the same thing will happen in the fashion industry. there will be cool designs by the latest designers we can spend money for. manufacturing is going to be transformed but if you look at the impact on employment, the perception is entirely the so if i wereeality in 1900 i would say, 100 years it will be 2%, that is what happened. 25% of you work in factories, i think that will be 8.7%. they would take a moment that will be out of work. you are going to get designs jobs on the web, creating websites, designs for devices. nobody would have any idea what i am talking about. and facts, when i would say is, g, we're going to create new
1:16 am
jobs to replace those. people and say, oh really? what new jobs? my answer would be, i don't know. we have not invented them yet. we have clinical answers but it is reality. you could say, that has really changed now. it is different this time. look at the effects of economic just now. just five years ago. people with mobile devices, websites, applications. fromurzweil, we have gone 31% to 34%. wages of those
1:17 am
jobs? they have gone up row or 11 fold over the last 100 euros. people say, has it really happened over the last five years? answers yes. is asked now that d not exist before. host: do you think we're going to be living in some kind of leisure class? ray kurzweil: 100 years ago you were happy if you had a job and food on the table. today, not everyone but increasing percentage of the population get their definition and identity and ratification and self-oculus in from their careers. -- and self-accu was actualization -- and self-actualization from their careers. the idea of having the same job for 20, 30 years before you retire has already gone away. the perception is different. there is a poll of 24 thousand
1:18 am
people and 26 countries recently about property. as property go up or down and by how much? 87% thought incorrectly that property had gotten worse. only 1% correctly identified it had gone down by 50% or more. this is similar disparity between the perception and reality in every other economic area. part of the reason is that people now could see the writing on the wall of you are driving a truck you hear about these autonomous vehicles and makes you nervous. people do not have that level of information. people think things are getting worse. our information about what is wrong with the world is getting exponentially better. i like to point out the better angels by nature. this is the most influential time in american history. he was i, are you kidding? the incident last year, last week, something happens halfway
1:19 am
across the world and fallujah and we not only hear about it, we experience it. 100 years ago you would not even care about it. in every area, democratization, you can doubt the numbers of democracies on one-handed number of years ago. you can count the number on the fingers of one finger to engineers ago. not every century is a perfect democracy but in all of these democratization, human freedom, peace, economic activity, this is the most beneficial time in human history. netid not have any social until social security. host: "think and 20 or 30 years we will have to have some kind of universal income because so many people will be out of work? willurzweil: i think redefine the nature of work. i will give you an example. 52,000 college students in 1970.
1:20 am
we have 20 million today and another 5-10,000,000 teachers and staff. so that is 30 million people, population, 20% the workforce and what are they doing? poetry, studying history, mathematics. that is a useful thing to do. so we are going to redefine the nature of work. mobilee people creating apps, devices, i could give you a list of 100 activities that did not exist 5-10 years ago. host: does that create more or less customers? what happens tonight quality locally? ray kurzweil: we are becoming healthier. onot of activities gratification in terms of creativity. if you look at the statistics of the luxury fashion market, it has gone up. it used to be a very small
1:21 am
percentage of the population. now something of universal interest. we're going to be very wealthy will stop >> everyone is going to be very wealthy? >> people say when i point out the exponential growth of the value of information products, people say well, as i said before you can't eat this information product, he can't live in it, you can't wear it. we will not only be great clothing but food very agriculturey using intelligence, food production at a very low cost. there is already a demonstration of snapping together modules on bricks.inter like lego very low cost, put together a three-story office building in three days. that will be the nature structures, houses, buildings in the 2020's. the physical things we need
1:22 am
ultimately will be provided through a controlled 3-d renting at very low cost. we will have the is resources to provide a very low -- high-level standard of living for everybody in the world. last 55in asia over the years has been cut by 90% according to the world bank and south american and africa are not only somewhat behind that but are moving in the right direction. but oure wealthier perception of what is wrong with the world is increasing because there's a lot more information and thatnomic security is i think a lot of the lease on the election. people are actually better off but their perception of their is infusedferiority with more knowledge of change in the world. we actually adapt very quickly. once these new things happen we think it has always been that
1:23 am
way. host: that is the rosie picture. let me give you a less rosy version. artificial intelligence. your friends in one must and bill gates a artificial intelligence represents "our greatest existential threat." kurzweil: i started writing about this in the 1990's, and i wrote my 1999 book about the versusntertwined promise artificial intelligence, biotechnology, don't know of people remember but there was a big cover stubborn and light -- a big cover story in life magazine about a dystopian teacher which he got from my book. i talk about three phases people go through when they look seriously at the potential of these new technologies. one is inspiration.
1:24 am
these technologies have the intentional to overcome h-old problems like poverty and disease. short lifespans. at the potential dangers of these technologies. finally, a balanced view that yes, these existential things ofst but we have means overcoming them. i will give you an example where we have done a good job. we don't yet have existential dangers from artificial nanotechnology but the same technology we're -- cano reject knowledge also be used to preground eight b nine virus like a cold or flu virus into something that is deadly, communicable, and stealthy.
1:25 am
that was recognized 30 years ago and they had a conference to talk about the promise versus peril. how can you get the promise and do away with the parol. they talked about guidelines and these have been refined over years and much of it is baked into the law. we are now getting the first applications in clinical practice that will become a flood of the next decade. the number of people that have been hurt by abuse either so fartal or intelligent has been zero. you cannot say you can cross it off, we took away that one. before we came on here, we have to update these guidelines but it is the first example blueprint for how to deal with these types of technologies.
1:26 am
there are ways we can create ethical standards and guidelines to keep these technologies say. it is a complicated discussion. -- not fullu's proof. host: when do we get the designer babies? editing with a gene will on the cusp of this. do you think that is realistic? ray kurzweil: a guess. certainly there are genetic diseases we would want to eradicate. part --xponential progress in understanding the genetic codes that you were told you could edit out of your child's general you would want to do that. genome you would want to do that. i think that is more important than altering through artificial intelligence.
1:27 am
it will make is vastly more intelligent far before what we could engineer. host: the final question then to the audience. news you can use. ray happens to take 94 different pills per day because he plans to stay alive for a very long time. walk us through your regiment. ray kurzweil: people say you take all these supplements. maybe you can live hundreds of years. the answer is no. that is bridged two, not our way according to my models. 10-15 years from now we will be adding more than one year every year to your remaining life expectancy. a physicalancy is phenomenon. host: how will you now? ray kurzweil: people as that. i am 68. host: tell us what you take. -- ray kurzweil: that would take all day.
1:28 am
i will give you an example. we have done for years that all of the people that take metformin and there are millions popularit is a much diabetes medicine. they have a very lower cancer rate. it kills cancer stem cells which are the real cause of cancer. people don't take it optimally, you need to take 500 grams every four hours to maintain a level that will keep. host: the seller to do? yes.urzweil: but even people take one every 24 hours have some protection. dramatically lower cancer rate. caloricso through restrictions and terms of the same changes that eating less causes. -- recommendmit everyone over 50 take that.
1:29 am
to call al want doctor and go to walgreens immediately. tell us what else is on the list. you can buy one at whole foods. 90% of yourself membrane is that substance. that lipid. when you are 10 years old it is 90,uced by the time you are that causes the organs to work less well. that is where your skin get less supple. that is way babies skin is so soft and smooth. taking reverse that by supplements of that substance. so, there are a lot of different stores. healthwritten several books about this. host: ray, thank you. let's open it up or questions. go ahead. >> high.
1:30 am
alexandra trower. you talked about so many interesting things i have not heard much about humanity and intelligentional involved as other parts of the world evolved. old we still have that brain. basic motivations. the neocortex which surrounds the old rain is really the great sublimate her. i may have an ancient motivation supervision and complex conquest, my neocortex will sublimate that but no other species does that kind of things. the neocortex is organized hierarchically. top.aight line at the i can tell when something is
1:31 am
funny, i run it, when someone is added additional levels to the hierarchy when we got these big four heads and that was the enabling factor for us to develop for example, music. no other species, other primates, it does music. has music. that exists at the top of the neocortical hierarchy. there is a 16-year-old roll having surgery and the surgeons wanted to talk to her and get her reactions and they could do that because there's no pain receptor in the brain. touched particular parts of her neocortex, she would laugh. quickly they realize they had the humor part of the neocortex, she found everything hilarious when they stimulated those points. and those things were not funny. surgery. doing brain
1:32 am
and they found points on her neocortex that discovered humor. we're going to add additional levels to the higher cardtronics when we can expand. we will become funnier. we will be better, more interesting. those types of emotions we will as existing at the top of the neocortical hierarchy and we are going to enhance those as we increase our brain capacity. >> let's get a question right here. get a microphone around. >> the idea of radical life extension is exciting been on a planet where the population is growing increasingly exponentially, talk about a little bit about resource
1:33 am
utilization and sustainability and how we will solve this issues. ray kurzweil: right. as you know the first thing that happens when nations get wealthier, the population rate goes negative. more resources we need. take energy. we have exponential growth for example in solar energy. larry page and i just before he study ongoogle did a energy technologies, we selected solar because it has been growing exponentially for money five years, doubling every two years. at that point it was half a percent of the worlds energy. in icing today but as a fringe layer in ignoring the exponential growth, now it is
1:34 am
2%. still growing, doubling every two years. tom has a graph in his book that chose that progression. six doublings only to 100 percent. 5% to the prime minister of israel who was in my class and sloan school the 1970's said, ray do we have enough sunlight to do this? and i suggest. one year could feed all of our energy needs from solar. we will be using one part in 10,000 of the sunlight. that is just some of the geothermal energy, title energy, and wind. i mentioned vertical agriculture. that will provide food at very low cost for the entire population. theill be able to print out other physical things we need. ultimately, advanced ai control is for manufacturing technology in the 2020 puzzle.
1:35 am
we will be able to meet the material needs of the population. i talked together about snapping together homes from lego modules. we are all crying together. crowded together. because we created city so we could work and play together. now with virtual reality is not yet part of real reality but is becoming so. we're spreading out. my workgroup is all of it the world. we communicate just fine. it will become more realistic as virtual reality and augmented reality become more realistic. tried taking a train trip anywhere in the world and juicy 98% of the land is not ring used. 40% of it for horizontal agriculture which will replace vertical -- horizontal agriculture. so we have plenty of room. even when we are medically cut we will onlyes,
1:36 am
die off every 15 years so the power of these doubles every one year, that is the exponential law of excel rating returns. thank you very very much. [applause] >> more now from the global business leaders and innovators forum hosted by the new york times. up next, for us affairs -- foreign affairs thomas friedman talks about how humans can adapt to changes. tom: thank you. great to be here this morning. what a treat to follow ray. i'm going to try to in 20 minutes summarize the book you have next to you. my latest book came out called
1:37 am
"thank you for being late: an optimist's guide to thriving in the age of acceleration." first question people have is where from the title, "thank you for being late?" the title actually comes from in washington, d.c., over years for breakfast. i don't like to waste breakfast eating alone when i can learn from someone. once in a while someone will show up, tom, i'm sorry, i was 20 minutes late. weather, traffic, subway, dog ate the homework. one morning i spontaneously said to one of them, ray, thank you for being late. because you were late i have actually been eavesdropping on their conversations. fascinating. i have been people watching in the lobby. fantastic. most importantly i just connected two ideas he been struggling for months. thank you for being late. ling f. so thank you for being late. people started to get into it. they say, well, you're welcome. as they understood i was giving them permission to pause, to slow down, to reflect. one of my favorite quotes in the
1:38 am
first chapter of the book is from my friend who says, when you press the pause button on a computer, it stops. but when you press the pause button on the human being, it starts. it starts to reflect. rethink, and re-imagine. i think we have a lot of that to do right now. now, the book was actually inspired because i paused to engage with someone who i normally wouldn't have. i live in bethesda, maryland. i take the subway to work. about once a week. about three years ago i did that. i drive to the bethesda hiatt, park in the public parking garage, and i take the red line into d.c. i did that three years ago. i spent the day, worked, got my car, time stamped my ticket, got to the booth and the ticket, he looks at it and looks at me and says i know who you are. great. he said i read your column. i said great.
1:39 am
he said i don't always agree. , i thought, get me out of here. but i said, well, that means you have to check. and i drove off. a week later, to my weekly trip into d.c., back, car, time stamp ticket. cashier's booth. the same guy is there. this time he says, mr. friedman, i have my own blog. would you read my blog? i thought, oh, my god. the parking guy is now my competitor. what just happened? i said write it down for me. he wrote it down. it was on a piece of receipt paper. i went home. he was ethiopian. wrote about ethiopian politics. i thought about him for a couple days and decided this is a sign , from god. i should actually pause and interact with this guy. but i didn't have his email. the only way i could do it was park in the parking garage every day. i did that for four days.
1:40 am
we finally overlapped again in the morning. i stopped my car in the gate. i said i have your email. i had his name. he happily gave it to me. that night i sent him an email. i repeat all the emails exchange in the front of the book. they are quite funny. i said i have a proposition for you. i will teach you how to write a column if you will tell me your life story. and he basically said, i see you are proposing a deal. i like this deal. so he asked that we meet at peet's coffeehouse in bethesda near his office. and we did that two weeks later. i presented him with a six-page memo on how to write a column. first time i put it all together in this way. he told me his life story. i'll leave his story aside. you can read it in the book. what i explained in my memo is that a news story is meant to inform. it can do so better or worse. like a news story about this event.
1:41 am
a column is meant to provoke. i'm either in the heating business or the lighting business. that's what i do. i either do heating or lighting. either stoking up an emotion or illuminating something for you. ideally if do i both together, i will produce one of several reactions that tell me i produce either stoking up anheat or li. you will read my column and say i didn't know that, i never looked at it that way, i never connected those things. that is my favorite, i live for this you said exactly what i , felt but did not know what to say. god bless you. i want to kill you dead, you and all your off spring. any of those will tell me that i produced heat or light. but to do that requires actually a chemical reaction. you have to combine three compounds. the first is what is your value set? what is the world view you are trying to promote? communist, capitalist, neocon, neoliberal keynesian, , libertarian? second, how do you think the machine works?
1:42 am
the machine is my short-hand, but what are the biggest forces shaping more things and more places in more ways and more days? i'm always carrying around in my head a working hypothesis of how the machine works. once i call the lexus neurology. this book is about the latest iteration. what i'm trying to do as a columnist is take my value set and push that machine. if i don't know how it works or -- i won't push it or push it in the wrong direction. lastly, ray alluded to this, what have you learned about the people and culture? there is no column without people. how the machine affect people and culture and how the people in culture affects the machine or vice versa. mix those together. stir, let it rise for 45 minutes and bake. if you do it right you'll , produce a column that produces emotions. i had three sessions at the coffeehouse explaining this to him three years ago. by the end i started to say to my wife and myself, what's my value set?
1:43 am
i'm not really republican or democrat. i'm very eclectic in my views. where did it come from? how do i think the machine works today, and what have i learned about people? i decided that was the book i wanted to write. that's the book you have next to you. so let me just focus on one aspect of it. how i think the machine works because that's the fly wheel that's driving everything. i think that what's shaping more things in more places in more ways on more days is we're currently in the middle of three, three nonlinear accelerations, all at the same time, with the three largest forces on the planet which i call the market, mother nature, and moore's law. moore's law, microchips will double every 24 months. now it's closer to 30. never mind. that's an exponential that has actually held up for over 50 years. if you put it on a graph, looks like a hockey stick.
1:44 am
mother nature for me is climate change, biodiversity, population, put it on a graph, looks like a hockey stick. the market is digital globalization. not your grandfather's globalization. not containers on ships, that's going down. but what is exploding is the fact that everything is now being digitized and globalized through twitter, facebook, pay pal, instagram. put it on a graph it looks like a hockey stick. we're in the middle of three hockey stick accelerations all at the same time in the three largest forces on the planet and they are interacting with one another. more moore's law drives globalization which drives climate change and solutions. the argument of the book is these accelerations and their interactions are not just changing your world it's , fundamentally reshaping it. it is receiving five rounds politics, your politics, ethics,
1:45 am
, the workplace, and community. first part of the book is about the accelerations. the second part is about the reshaping. let me just talk quickly about this flywheel, the one ray alluded to, in technology. my chapter on this is called, what the hell happened in 2007? 2007. that's an innocuous year. what is this guy talking about? here's what happened in 2007. in 2007 at the moscone he center in san francisco, steve jobs introduced the iphone. he set us on a path putting a internet-enabled computer in the hand of every person on the planet. that's not all that happened in 2007. 2007, facebook came out of high schools and universities and made available to anyone with an email address. it went global. late, 2006. in 2007, a company called twitter, which was founded in
1:46 am
2006, went global. 2007, the most important software you've never heard of called hadu, which basically has formed the basis for big data, enabling a million computers to work as one computer, opened its doors and launched its software. in 2007, the second most important company you never heard of, bithub opened its doors. now the world's largest repository of open source software and growing at incredible clip. in 2007, google, put out a new operating system called android. 2007, google bought a company called youtube. in 2007, jeff bezos came out with something called the kindle. in 2007, i.b.m. started a cognitive computer called watson. in 2005, michael dell retired. he had enough. in 2007, he came back to work.
1:47 am
he realized what had happened around him. ever seen a graph of the cost of sequencing a human genome? sorry, go back one. there it is. here's a graph of the -- starts at $100 million in 2001. the sequence one human genome. you notice a waterfall there? in 2007, the price begins to collapse and take us toward basically $1,200. from $100 million. 2007 was the pivotal year. 2007 the growth of solar power begins. 2007 also we saw the first emergence of a process called fracking.
1:48 am
and the combination of gps and big data. this is the cost of generating megabit of data anti-speed with and the speed with which we can transmit it. this is the foundation of social networking. notice when the lines cross. right around 2008. the price collapse and the speed took off right around this is 2008. moore's law. this is called computing. let's see, when did cog computing start? well, the first time we detect is in 2008. in other words, it started in 2007. what happened in 2007, friends, i think will be understood in times as the inflection point since the printing press and we completely missed it because of 2008. what happened in 2007 is our physical technologies just took off like we were on a moving
1:49 am
sidewalk in an airport that suddenly went from 5-miles-an-hour to 50,000 miles an hour. we literally felt the ground moving from our feet and 2008 happened and all the social technologies we needed to go along with the learning, the adaptive mechanisms, the management systems, the regulation and deregulation all froze and we've been living in that area. this is one who runs google x just did on the back of an
1:50 am
i.b.m. sticky for me, and it describes in brief where we are. the blue line is the average rate in which societies and human beings adapt to human change over time. it has a positive slope but it's gradual. the white line is technology. let's call that moore's law. if you lived in the 11th century or 12th century, life really didn't change. but then we got galileo and copernicus and said we are here. we are at a point where technology is evolving faster than the average human being and society can adapt. our challenge? this is what politics is going to be about, is that dotted line. how do we learn faster and govern smarter in order to get more people at the rate of change of technology to be able to adapt? what actually happened between 2007 was this -- around the year 2000 there was a massive price collapse in the price of connectivity. it happened to do with the dot-com boom and bust.
1:51 am
we accidentally made connectivity basically free. because we collapsed the price of fiber-optic cable. and i came along at that point and wrote a book about it. it's called "the world is flat"" i said, wow, i can now touch people i never touched before and i can be touched by people who never touched me before. what happened in 2007 was another price collapse. it was in the price of compute and storage, by being able to link all these computers together to be able to operate as one. and what that did is made complexity. think about what it was to get a taxi five years ago and what is today on your cell phone. with one touch you can get a taxi, pay the taxi, direct the taxi and rate the taxi. all that complexity has been basically abstracted away and reduced to touch. that's happening everywhere in the economy.
1:52 am
we are putting grease into everything by making complexity free and by making everything lighter and everything to move. now, when you make connectivity fast, free and easy to use and you make complexity fast, free, easy for you and invisible and you put them two together, you have the cloud. but i never use the term cloud in my book. don't like that word because it sounds so soft, so cuddly, so fluffy. sounds like a joanie mitchell song. cloudsk at sides ♪h this ain't no cloud, folks. this is a supernova. it's the largest force of nature. it's the explosion of a star, only this is an ever-accelerating supernova and
1:53 am
it's the energy source driving everything. where did you want to build your town in the middle ages? you wanted to build them on the river. why? because that river gave you power, transportation, food and ideas. you wanted to build your town on the amazon. where do you want to build your town today? on you want to build it on this cloud which is now the energy source for all of these things. and what this energy source has done in a very rapid succession has changed four kinds of power. it changed the power of one while what one person can do now, make things or break things. we have a president-elect that sits in his penthouse and on his cell phone communicates with literally billions of people at any second he feels like it. it's changed the power of machines. machines can now think. they're basically all five senses. it's changing the power of ideas. ideas now flow at a rate we've never seen before. five years ago barack obama said marriage was between a man and a woman. today barack obama said marriage is between any two human beings who loves one another and he's
1:54 am
following ireland in that position. ideas now flow and melt away at a rate we've never seen before. and lastly it's changed the power of many. we as a collective are now a force of and in nature. in fact, we have a geophysical era being named after us, the anthropcy. the argument of my book is this is not just reshaping things, it's not changing things, it's reshaping things. it's reshaping these five realms. let me talk briefly about two of them. my chapter on the workplace, how it's being reshaped, because i know it's central to all of you is called how we turn a.i. into i.a. how do we take artificial intelligence and turn it into intelligent assistance, a-n-c-e, intelligent assistant, a-n-t.
1:55 am
so my example of intelligent assistance is i profile the human resources department at at&t. at&t, 360,000 employees. they live next to the supernova. they feel its heat every day. their human resources department pretty good chance what they're doing is going to come to a company near you. here's what they do. randall stevenson, their c.e.o., begins with a speech transparent how he sees the world, what businesses they will be in and what skills at&t employees are going to need. then they put every at&t employee on their own in-house linked in system. and they look at it and they say, tom, can you -- you got 10 -- seven of the 10 skills you need to thrive here at at&t but you're missing three. then they partner with sebastian from wadacity to create in an owe degrees for all 10 of those skills and they say we'll give
1:56 am
you up to $8500 to take the classes for the skill sets you're missing with one condition. you have to take them on your own time. our bargain with you is if you take those courses when these jobs open you'll get the first crack at them. we won't go outside. if you're not interested, if you climbed up one too many telephone poles, we have a wonderful severance package for you but you won't be working at at&t. their social contract with their employees, which i think is the social contract coming to a neighborhood near you, is you can be a life-long employee at at&t but only if you're a life-long learner and that is the new social contract. alluding to what the secretary of commerce said, this is hard for people. now will now be more on. now will now be on you and that's why self-motivation, grit will be so much more important. intelligent assistant, qualcomm,
1:57 am
another company, they made a cell phone. qualcomm has a campus in san diego. they have 64 buildings. two years ago they wired, they put sensors on every building, every door, window, hvac system, computer, sink, faucet. they have sensors on everything. they beam all that data up to the cloud and they beam it down on a dashboard to their janitors who now walk around with an intelligent assistant. they know if you left your computer on, they know if they left your door open, they know if you set the temperature too high. swipe down is where the maintenance can be found and the whole repair manual. their janitors now give tours to foreign visitors. they are maintenance technologists with an intelligent assistant, they've been able to live above the line. intelligent algorithm, that's the partnership between the college board and conn academy. so you all look roughly my age. i'm 63. some older, some younger.
1:58 am
11th grade, psat exam and then the sat. you went out and hired a tutor because you were not sure your kid could get into college and at $200 a crack you had to pay some knuckle head to help your kid in algebra and calculus and writing. if you are from a disadvantaged family or neighborhood you are computely behind the 8-ball. so two years ago, the college board partnered to develop a program for free s.a.t. prep. works like this. in 11th grade you get the psat. they say, tom, you're really good. you did good. but you have a problem with fractions and right angles. then it takes me directly to an academy site devoted just to the fractions and right angle problems i missed.
1:59 am
if i do well it takes me another site that suggests maybe i can do a.p. math in 12th grade. if do i well it takes me to another site that offers 200 scholarships. last year 200 million kids availed themselves of free s.a.t. prep of this intelligent algorithm and this is going on in so many other ways throughout the work force today. so that's just an example of how people are dealing with it in the workplace. let me close and be able to take one or two questions by talking about how ethics are being reshaped by these accelerations which i think not only is much more important issue than you think, but in this election we hit an ethical tipping point.
2:00 am
so the chapters is called "is god in cyberspace"? it comes from the best question, 1999, i'm selling, man stands up in the balcony and says, i have a question. is god in cyberspace? i thought, ah, i don't know. and i felt like a complete idiot. so i went home and i called my rabbi, my spiritual teacher. he's living in amsterdam. i got to know him at the hartman institute when i was a correspondent in jerusalem. he's a dutch priest. i called him in amsterdam and said, steve, i have a question i never answered before. is god in cyberspace? what should i have said? he said, well, tom, in our faith tradition we have two concepts of the almighty one is he's almighty. we have a postbiblical concept. it's almighty is almighty. he smites evil and shows god. cyberspace has gambling, pornography, misleading fake news.
2:01 am
but he said we have a postbibilical view of god and the postbiblical view of god and that is god manifests himself how we behave. if you want god to be in cyberspace, we have to bring him there by how we behave there. well, i took his answer and i put it into the paper book edition of the book and i completely forgot about it for 20 years. started working on this book and i found myself telling that story over and over. i finally sat myself down and said, why are you retelling that story? and it quickly became obvious. it's because everything is now moving to cyberspace where we learn, where we reach our readers, where we find a partner for life, where we do our business, where we communicate. everything is moving into a realm where we're all connected but no one's in charge.
2:02 am
so the first phase of this was kind of cool. look at me. i'm my own publisher. look at me. i'm my own journalist. look at me, i'm my own political fundraiser. it all felt really cool and new. and then in this election, we hit a critical mass. look at me, i can make up the news. what was the word of the year by the oxnard english dictionary that came out last week? post-truth. all our lives are now moving into a realm where we're all connected but no one's in charge. oh, mark zuckerberg's got an answer. the algorithm will do it. really? i tell the story in the book of how youtube was running miller
2:03 am
beer ads on isis videos. and you know who is doing that? the algorithm was doing that. we are turning over to the algorithm value decisions that only belong to human beings. zuckerberg, he wants our advertisers. he wants our readers. this is one thing he doesn't want to pay for, our editors. he's going to let the algorithm do that.
2:04 am
well, we saw in this election what happens when this reaches scale. so what is this chapter about? it's about the fact we've just reached a moral intersection we have never stood at before as a human species. in 1945, we entered a world where one country could kill all of us. it had to be one country. i'm glad it was mine. post-hiroshima. i believe we are entering a world where one person can kill all of us and all of us could fix everything. we've actually never stood at this intersection where one of us could kill all of us and all of us is if we put our minds to it with these amazingly amplified technologies, we can feed, house, clothe, educate every person on the planet. therefore, what? therefore, we've actually never been more god-like as a species. and if we're going to be god-like, we better have the golden rule. and the golden rule better scale to everyone. i gave the commencement address this year at olin college of engineering in massachusetts and this was the theme of my talk. at this point i said to the parents in the audience. i know what you're thinking. you paid 200 grand so your kid could get the engineering degree
2:05 am
and there is a knucklehead up there telling you what's really important is, did they learn the golden rule? is there anything more naive? and my answer is, in the age of naivete is the new realism. naivete is the new realism. i will tell you what's really naive. thinking in the world of this much amplified power we're going to be ok if everyone doesn't get the golden rule. where does the golden rule come from? it comes from strong families and healthy communities. don't know much about -- i'm not an expert on strong families but i happened to grow up in a healthy community. and the last part of my book and that's where my values came from and that's the small town/suburb in minnesota where i grew up and
2:06 am
my argument is it's the healthy community that's going to be the political building block of the 21th century. not the single family, too weak. especially too many single parents. it's going to be the healthy community. so let me just conclude by saying my book has a theme song. i thought about buying it. so you'd open the book, it would play this song like a hallmark card plays "happy birthday." it's by one of my favorite singers, brandi carlile. it's called " the eye." e-y-e. i wrapped your love around me like a chain but i was never afraid it would die. you can dance in a hurricane but only if you're standing in the eye. i believe these three accelerations are like a hurricane. donald trump was selling a wall. i'm selling an eye. i think the eye is the healthy community that can move with the storm, draw energy from it but provide a platform of dynamic stability within it where people can feel connected, protected and respected. i believe politics in the next four years is going to be a
2:07 am
gigantic clash between the wall people and the eye people. thank you very much. [applause] thank you, thank you. i guess i have time for two questions. yes, please. >> hi. i'm jose. i run a tech business. [inaudible] and i absolutely -- mind-blowing and really an eye opener and i couldn't agree more. what strikes me is was written learning faster and governing smarter. we never had as much access to information as we have today.
2:08 am
google's topnd -- mistaken,, if i'm not "what ise.u." and brexit?". we are living in the world where people learn fast and governments to govern smarter. it seems to me that what happened is that intersection you have there, human beings do what we all do when we have -- when we don't understand something, when we fear something, we regress. thomas: yes. >> so my question is, how can we go back and, you know, [inaudible] how can we all in this room help in that journey? because we need an effort from all of us. thomas: thank you. it's a very important question. i will tell you i don't have a simple answer.
2:09 am
book harder on this than i've ever worked on any other book. this book took me longer. my publisher let me go to one column a week. i couldn't have done it otherwise. i had some really unusual experiences writing the book. the first was an experience i never had before. i felt like i had a butterfly net and i was chasing a butterfly and every time i got close to write that chapter it moved. so i had to call brian krzanich, the c.e.o. of intel, three times in the writing of the book to just make sure that what he told me six months ago still applied. doug cutting, the founder of hadoop, i talked to him at least six times during the writing of the book. right until the last week i sent his chapter. make sure it's up to date. so part of the answer is, i don't know what donald trump's been doing over the last few years or hillary clinton. i didn't tell you about the environmental part or globalization part. resilience institute at stockholm. i spent three years trying to
2:10 am
connect these dots, this really hard work. the world is a big data set for me and this book is my algorithm, basically to explain it and you have to be constantly refreshing it. so it really puts such a premium on leadership that can -- i'm doing life-long learning. i'm a columnist at the "times." if i am not a lifelong lerner, -- learner, my readers will go somewhere else. this book was one giant survival to me. everybody's got to do that. and then to help people navigate it and what happened around brexit is we saw the anti-brexit just like hillary clinton used fear, you know, rather than explaining to people what world we're in, what the connections are, here's the upside and here's the downside. now, again, ray alluded to this. i profile in the book so i grew
2:11 am
up in a freaky suburb, town of minneapolis called st. louis park where i went -- lived in the same neighborhood with the peggy, alers, franken, alan wiseman. we all went to the same high school and hebrew school. it was not a neighborhood in the upper west side. it was a little side in minnesota. the movie "the serious man" by about ourbrothers was neighborhood. what was going on there? basically what happened in minnesota was that in the 1940's, all the jews lived in the north side of minneapolis with the african-american community. it was a ghetto in mid 1950's,
2:12 am
the world opened up to the jews and they all move in a space of three years to one neighborhood. the only one that didn't have red lining, st. louis park. that's how we all ended up. so overnight a suburb that was 100% protestant catholic, scandinavian, became 20% jewish, protestant. if finland and israel had a baby it would be st. louis park, ok, and it produces this incredible and of jewish neuroses scandinavian pluralism and decency and really launched a lot of us into the world and shaped all our fathers who are actual communitarians in our own way. i have a congressman from minnesota and this is partly an introduction to that, who said know, growing up in minnesota in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's if you're average white male with an average college degree, in the 1960's in 1970's, in minnesota you needed a plan to fail. you actually had to have a plan
2:13 am
to fail because there was so much wind at our back, so many blue-collar jobs that allowed you to have high wages for middle skills. my uncle who only had a high school degree worked at a bank. that you needed to have a plan to fail. all of that changes today. today you need a plan to succeed. and you need to update that plan every six months. big fan of hoffman's book "startup of you" because it's all about how now more is on you. and that is the scariest thing for so many people. the government can't do it for you. you know, you got to do it yourself. and telling people that fundamental truth, well, nobody did it in this campaign. donald trump blamed somebody. hillary clinton blamed somebody. but more will be on you to be that life-long learner and to take ownership of that responsibility. ownership is the most important word in the english language. when a student owns their own education, when a teacher owns their classroom, when citizens feel they own their country, you
2:14 am
get self-sustaining, self-propulsion. when they don't, when they're waiting for somebody else, you get hammered. when the world is this fast -- i'll just end with my favorite quote in the book. it's from john kelly who ran the watson project and i spent a lot of time with their team. john said, you know -- said to me one day, you know, tom, when you buy a new car, it always comes with a sticker on the rear-view mirror that says object in your rear view may be closer than they appear. that actually belongs on the front. it's what's coming at us that is actually closer than it appears. and therefore the premium on learning and relearning and for the premium on leaders, business leaders or political leaders who can navigate for us is higher and higher than ever. last quote, second favorite quote in the book from our surgeon general. indian american married to a
2:15 am
chinese american, only in america. i asked him and said what's the most prevalent disease in america? is it cancer or heart disease or diabetes? he said, none of those. isolation. single most prevalent disease in america is isolation. well, think about that. we live in the most connected age and the surgeon general says the biggest disease crisis in this country is people feeling disconnected. the aren't connected and >> more from the new york times leadership forum. coming up will hear from a former russian political prisoner.
2:16 am
2:17 am
-- maybe i can start. you have observed this curious friendship between donald trump and vladimir putin. what is this friendship about. is it about power? money? testosterone? what is this about? how dangerous is it for the world? experienced being friendly with billionaires. non-russian.and
2:18 am
i am curious what he finds in common. >> putin is a billionaire himself. >> he denies this. a former kgb agent and a billionaire. i don't know, it is possible. to speak seriously, putin is a person by virtue of his profession knows how to create relationships with people. he orients himself very precisely to a person.
2:19 am
if he wants you to like him, you will like him. -- many people have that weakness. how dangerous might this relationship be? we have seen putin's -- dictating the in game by military means, something were told was not possible to do. there lots of danger signals.
2:20 am
putin is in ank simple position right now. things are not going that well inside the country . everything that is going bad is because of america. putin this stakes on hillary winning. >> i thought he backed donald trump. in fact he interfered.
2:21 am
>> yet he was counting on hillary winning. >> how did you know? what is important is in the situation everything is quite simple for him, we have the enemy. >> you think he is quietly unhappy about donald trump's victory? >> his inner circle is happy about it. when chopped one -- one trump one, the state of zuma gave a standing ovation. but i don't think putin is happy with the results because now he still needs to make america into
2:22 am
the enemy but it is going to be more difficult. >> internally the russian economic situation is very bad to be in a position of sections. >> i would not say because of the sanctions. that is 10% of the answer. 50% of the answer is the drop in oil prices. the rest is poor management of the country. it would not be a good idea for the president to tell the people are standard of living has been falling for the past two years because i am an ineffective manager. >> that is not putin's style is it?
2:23 am
>> he was asked if you have any regrets. he said no, i have done anything just fine. >> let me be blunt. i'm sure the audience will like to know the answer. we have the question yesterday about how dangerous is the proximity of president-elect's desk president-elect trump's -- we got the long answer which in of stagesere are lots that have to be gone through before you can press that button. conflict in the next four years, for example president and putin do in estonia what he has done in ukraine? act.would be obliged to are you worried about some, if
2:24 am
not global, some major war breaking out? i don't even want to joke about that topic. putin is used to being the only unpredictable player on the playing field. now there is a second one and in terms of his opportunity, what he is capable of -- he is the number one player. >> you are worried? yes.
2:25 am
i am very afraid that if putin continues to play the way he has been playing -- we will be closer to such a conflict. >> where do you think that conflict could erupt? >> something that is the most unpredictable. say a flyover over an american frigate. it has been said don't do this and yet they still keep doing it. >> you are the founder of open russia. you want to change russia and get away from this nationalism/imperialism of president putin.
2:26 am
ascendant. is a little while ago, president obama called russia a regional power and now because of a major military power. we have seen over the last few years putin really moving center aage after apo of -- after period of strategic decline. you feel you're losing? what can you build upon in terms a more accountable, transparent, and craddick russia -- and democratic russia that is closer to the west? this is the difference between the picture on the wall in the room in which you actually live.
2:27 am
i think most russians would say they would like to see better roads, better health care and better education in the country. rather than some kind of achievements. most regrettably, putin is asking the russian people to pay for this from the wall at a time when they in a very real way
2:28 am
don't have enough money. >> he is very popular. >> your russian colleagues do their jobs very well. >> that job is very different from mine. [laughter] seriously, he has muzzled tv. he has thrown out pretty much a lot of ngos. whathas been crumbling so are your building blocks. a lot of the resistance outside of russia is not even in a country. are you some kind of quixotic dreamer.
2:29 am
-- quixotic dreamer? my colleagues and i have the experience of the past 150 years behind us. it showed the authoritarian regimes in the 20th century will already not viable. we could say they lived for a while and then he died. we see that in 20 years of rule, putin has pretty much destroyed institutions of state. what we are very concerned about is once he does go, the
2:30 am
situation needs to improve very quickly, not slowly. moderator: once he does go, you actually envision that? guest: [speaking russian] translator: i do assume putin will leave before 2024. moderator: 2024? that's eight years from now. translator: he is a legalist. he has given himself to six-year -- given himself does go guess given himself -- given himself two six-year terms. i think he takes that seriously. moderator: can he come up with another medvedev type stand-in? guest: [speaking russian] translator: as of today, he has closed off such an opportunity.
2:31 am
of course, he can change everything. but he can't change the country. that means everything will end for him and for the country that much worse. he really has no nice way out right now. after 2011, when he finished his back and forth with medvedev. moderator: don't you feel a corner century ago at the end of the cold war, many assumed the victory of liberal democracy -- some people even pronounced the end of history. what we seem to be seeing right now is the rise of food to autocratic models.
2:32 am
we have a president elect they feel the american constitutional system and they are actually going away right now where the national front is a serious contender throughout the world -- this paradox of increasing interconnectedness and nationalism emerging from growing anger. don't you feel historical drift? is it away from your convictions? guest: [speaking russian] translator: i have my view of this problem. i think we have gotten too fixated on building institutions that reflect public opinion. you cannot follow society
2:33 am
blindly. you need to take society's opinion into account but you should not just be parroting it blindly. people have begun to feel they are lacking political leadership. and because the traditional parties have stopped offering this political leadership, they have started looking for political leadership where it has always been -- out on the fringes. society has a demand for political leadership and the traditional parties have stopped supplying it. moderator: let me ask you a personal question. what does 10 years in prison due
2:34 am
somebody?y -- do to how have you changed? guest: [speaking russian] translator: 10 years is a long time. i change in this time because i i got -- because i got 10 years older. i began to better understand never even i had associated with before. this is important because i understand the russian power better today because of that. the psychology of the people in power in russia is very similar to the psychology of the people i spent 10 years with. i spent all my life working in business, but 10 years in jail
2:35 am
beat any interest in business out of me. i continue to believe this is an important aspect of human life. but i discovered human life consists of a lot of other things as well. which i managed to forget about. moderator: a cynic might say you can afford to not being in business any longer. guest: [speaking russian] translator: this is one of the advantages i have, yes. moderator: did your values change? guest: [speaking russian] translator: i think they started changing somewhat before that.
2:36 am
we had a split on values. his values are main the same in -- his values remain the same and mine have changed. moderator: what do you do with your anger? guest: [speaking russian] translator: i didn't have any. moderator: you are jailed on totally trumped up charges -- sorry to use that word. [laughter] guest: [speaking russian] translator: that's an interesting question. -- sorry, that was an interesting experience.
2:37 am
it's a part of my life. i can't say i fell in love with putin. i'm not saying i have forgotten nor will forget 10 years of mine -- 10 years of my and my family's life. i don't think about that. in fact, i don't think about putin all that much until i come to america. in america, people ask me about putin a lot for some reason. [laughter] moderator: i'm going to throw this open in a minute. so be ready with your questions. do you fear for the united
2:38 am
states of america right now -- moderator: do you fear for the united states of america right now? guest: [speaking russian] translator: i would say i'm finding it interesting. moderator: along with the rest of us. [laughter] guest: [speaking russian] translator: i had a meeting with some specialists in the political area here and they said they wish they had as much faith in the american political system as i do. moderator: what do you think of the economic or business opportunities in russia right now? a lot of these people come from the luxury businesses. if you were investing in russia
2:39 am
today and in the past, you have proved a wily investor, what would you invest in? guest: [speaking russian] translator: there is a big risk. a big possible profit, though. i would probably invest in retail. moderator: online retail? guest: [speaking russian] translator: any field that doesn't require a big capital investment. because i know there are no institutional guarantees.
2:40 am
there's no guarantee of property ownership. you need to dive in, play your game and dive out. moderator: only take a couple of questions. yes, sir. if you could grab a microphone, please. >> [inaudible] guest: [speaking russian] translator: if something were to happen to him today, the next leader of the country would be there today.
2:41 am
i would hope putin would have the brains and the courage to hold a constituent assembly to write a new constitutional order. after this, a transition would be required. 24 months, approximately. during which local reform would -- during which political reform would need to take place and grounds for free and fair elections. after that, after the free and fair elections, the person who would be elected would be
2:42 am
somebody who in your terminology would be a left social democrat. moderator: your hand was up. the microphone, please. >> if putin hangs around for another eight years, what is the role for russia politically and economically? guest: [speaking russian] translator: i think russia has very great potential irrespective of putin. like it or not, it is the biggest country in europe. both in territory and in population. at any rate, russia is going to play a big role on the european continent.
2:43 am
as for the economic side of it, we come learn from the experience after world war ii that any crisis take several decades to resolve. moderator: thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> a look at u.s. china economic relations. we'll hear from the managing director in my share of the jpmorgan asia-pacific division. ♪ moderator: i'm joined now by a senior executive from j.p. morgan chase based in hong kong dealing with the asia-pacific region, responsible for the
2:44 am
investment of trillions of dollars across the region, known as the unofficial voice of china. grew up in china, educated at harvard and stanford. let me start with the election of donald trump. what impact do you think this election is going to have on u.s.-china relations, the most important relationship in the world today. he has said some pretty menacing things. he has a lot of things. how worried are you about a sharp decline in the quality of u.s.-chinese relationship? guest: good morning and thank you for your introduction. in terms of u.s.-china relations, there will be a lot
2:45 am
of uncertainty. on the campaign trail, he said he would brand china a currency manipulator on day one. he also said he would impose a 45% tariff on chinese exports. let's look at the fundamental factors. brandand a country -- two a country a currency manipulator, there needs to be three conditions. number one, the country needs to run a large surplus, in excessive 3% of gdp. number two, the country needs to have a large, bilateral trade surplus with the united states. number three, the country would have to engage in constant, one-sided foreign-exchange intervention with a view to do
2:46 am
-- to devalue the currency. on all three measures, china only fills one, which is a large trade surplus with the united states. on the other two measures, china does not really meet the requirement. based on that, china should not be named a currency manipulator. >> do you think donald trump cares? hopefully, he will behave in a more responsible way than talking about on the campaign trail. we know there has been a lot of rhetoric on the campaign trail, but we also need to remember a bilateral relationship between china and the united states is the single most important bilateral relationship in the world. china holds 1.1 trillion u.s. dollars of treasuries. it is quite interesting. china is a relatively poor
2:47 am
country and the united states is the wealthiest nation in the world. the united states has come to rely on the poor country, china to finance its investments. -- finance its deficits. if china were named a currency manipulator, 45% tariffs were , chinachinese exports could retaliate in a very big way. roger: one person spoke to the chinese delegation who said we have no choice but to retaliate, not enthusiastically, but that's the way of the world. jing: it would not be productive for the world economy if two of the largest nations in the world -- it would be very negative and china has adopted a policy of wait and respond. it has not done anything. mr. trump hasn't done anything, but we muster number china has a -- we must remember china has a
2:48 am
lot of power in its toolkit. notthink about the tpp which has collapsed. that has been replaced by a china regional trade pact. some 50 countries that will sign on. roger: who has stepped into the vacuum created by the collapse of tpp? china. as far from weakening -- hasn't it strengthened china considerably in the region? jing: china is the largest trading nation in the world, so tpp in its initial format 12 -- initial form had 12 countries, not including china. it seems strange to the chinese that the transpacific trade partnership excluded the largest trading nation in the world. roger: because it was strategic to offset china. jing: the u.s. and china are economic partners the strategic
2:49 am
-- economic partners but strategic competitors. countries in the region which have been under the u.s. security umbrella had to rethink whether they can come to the same level of reassurance in terms of strategic alliances. roger: that must be creating a lot of anxiety. jing: there has been anxiety. they have two rebalance their relationship with china and the u.s. roger: in the global supply chain, couldn't china in effect stop reduction of the iphone tomorrow? jing: it could. it would hurt apple first and foremost. it would hurt consumers around
2:50 am
the world. you can imagine what that would do to inflation in the united states. so many have invested tens of billions of dollars in china and their supply chain would be hurt first and foremost. roger: so you say china and the united states are like chinese economic twins? jing: it is a symbiotic relationship. china has exported huge quantities of goods and china recycled all the earnings into u.s. treasuries. so americans can buy more chinese goods.
2:51 am
i suppose it is a virtuous circle in a way, but these imbalances cannot get too large because we remember during the financial crisis, some of the imbalances were so large, but it is interesting as i travel around the world, they are telling me that china in the near term is not a threat to global growth. in fact, a big departure from a year ago when china was suffering from a major collapse after the currency devaluation last year. everyone at that time one year ago cited china as a near-term threat for global growth and people were looking possibly for a china implosion. these days, if you look at gdp growth, the leadership at the beginning of the year has a gdp growth target between 6.5% and 7%. as you are these days -- guess where we are these days it? 6.7% in the first quarter, 6.7%
2:52 am
in the second quarter, 6.7% in the third quarter was so remarkably stable. the economy has stabilized because of the fiscal and monetary stimulus. we also had an amazing recovery in the housing market. the service industry is driving the economy. these days, the service sector accounts for 51.6% of gdp. in the past, it was much larger. the manufacturing sector is much less important while the service economy is powering ahead. that speaks positively to the rising middle class and the luxury goods industry. compared to five years ago were -- five years ago or 10 years ago, the trajectory has been
2:53 am
positive. roger: don't china's leaders know that they need some growth and if china ever went 3% or 4% growth, that the one party system could look more fragile? jing: that gdp target has been a moving target. it used to be 10%. it came down to 8% and is now at 7%. it now faces more demographic challenge as the economic space -- economic base gets larger, i would say the growth rate is low. put this in a global context -- 11 trillion u.s. dollars. u.s. gdp is $17 billion. china is growing at 6.5%. roger: three. 3.2%.
2:54 am
jing: as mr. trump says, hopefully 4%. we have china adding about 700 billion u.s. dollars of global growth. how big is that? that's as big as the dutch economy. every year, china is adding 700 billion. roger: adding one netherlands. i hope there is no one dutch in the audience. jing: that is basically 35% of global growth. in the u.s., it's a bigger economy but it is growing the percent. 3%.rowing it is adding about half of that. roger: talk about luxury for a moment. there have been warnings that of very rapidiod growth. there's concern about the future of the luxury and fashion china.ies in how do you see the possibilities
2:55 am
today and the outlook and where do you think the greatest potential lies? jing: the chinese consumer has developed a love affair with everything luxury that started 15 years ago. roger: is that a cultural thing? jing: i think it is a cultural thing. when i left china in the 1980's to go to private college, everyone wore black, blue or gray and everything was unisex. men and women, there were no cosmetics sold. in the last 15 years, the chinese consumer, we don't just talk about mainland china, we talk about traveling in country and outside. the account for 30% of the
2:56 am
global industry, around 250 billion euros. the chinese consumer now accounts for 30% of the market. americans are the second largest, 24%, followed by the europeans at 18%. roger: china is almost double the european. jing: we all have to remember the chinese consumer travels so much. in 2016, about 150 million chinese people will travel overseas compared to 16 million japanese people traveled overseas in the peak year. if you think about the numbers,
2:57 am
china's population is larger than that of japan. the chinese consumer, everywhere they go, whether it is paris, london or new york, they spend more than any other visitor to these places. industry is rapidly shifting. if you look at this decade, i would divide the decade in the first five years, we had rapid, tremendous growth. some of the companies were growing 35% a year and then we had the campaign in china and now we have what we call the new normal with growth rates much lower. in fact, consultancies say between two dozen 17 and 2020, the growth rate of the industry would be between 2% and 3% rather than 20% and 30%. the millennials in china are just like millennials everywhere
2:58 am
else, they are tech savvy, sophisticated. they have discerning tastes. they travel. they are engaged with social media. all of these are changing the landscape of the luxury industry in china and the chinese consumer as they travel -- as a travel is changing the luxury industry. moderator: is it changing the campaign to where some rolex or a chanel outfit. that is a little too inconspicuous. call china the bling dynasty. the bling is gone. reality has set in. people have a more subtle taste and what represents their new social status. cool?tor: what is
2:59 am
the olden days, people used to where the labels. these to cut it out so everybody could see they are wearing -- these days, people are becoming much more sophisticated in their taste. they want to where they make to order suit. they do want anyone to know what they are wearing. hasink the chinese consumer gone from conspicuous consumption to self reward. they always used to buy for gifting to government officials. that is all gone. the market has undergone a rapid shift, away from gifting to self consumption. the pricing points that people are willing to pay have come down. in the past, people would equate quality.rice with
3:00 am
the more expensive, the better. these days, people say, i don't have to pay this much for a watch or handbag. they are using their own money to purchase these goods. the other shift just profits, or profitability of the industry has peaked, maybe two years ago. we have had a dramatic shift in terms of which brands are popular these days among consumers. we have also had margins coming down. although the industry is still making huge sums of money there to any other industry. the industry is still very well-positioned. markets are still very high, looking at net margins. but they are no longer what they were back in 2012 or 2013. >>


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on