tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 9, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
both partners should be thinking about how they are preventing pregnancy and how they're taking those precautions and the imagine many of the men in this room care about the women in their lives and care about them having access to the health care if they need. that is one step at a think we need to take the lead make this about broader health care and not be treated uniquely indifferently and singled up four different types of legislative action. [applause] >> there is so much abroad, books that women can use. that has been created by various courts that deal with equal protection. for example, of years ago the supreme court said that women had to be admitted to the virginia military institute.
and the reason, the major reason for that was that women denied that a mission to not have equal access to the power bases that were involved in virginia. so when you see is a record of the united states talking about access to power in a woman's ability to have access to power and create a supreme court precedent based on that, we can use that to leverage off more of what is going on. we need a bright, intelligent individuals who would rather work for those kinds of things that for hedge funds. or go to big law firms who are only going to help hedge funds in order to do it. we've really in the last 32 of 40 years in the united states have created great legal precedent. now we need to get somebody to start applying it. [applause]
>> good evening. i am a graduate of as a new law school. i have my professor. >> looking. >> i want to say that i am the american dream. back came more than 25 years ago to the united states of america. and did not have one ballot in my pocket. i had two kids with me in another one in my belly. i went to smu. i raised my. [indiscernible] and the same time. the first one graduated from as a new law school. the second from harvard law school. smu. the second from harvard. the third one from airports academy. this is the glory of united states of america. [applause]
also, i came from a communist romania. i leave half of my life in of free land, and i live half of my life under government control. what you presented today, it's not only dangerous for women because this last point to take care of them or four people, but it is dangerous for government control over our lives. it's more than any law presented to us before. to you know that according to those lost the government will have control on your account. so if you don't pay what you're supposed to pay, the government will take money from your account. to you know that the doctors will have a limited number of patients that they can see in a limited number of medication that they will provide.
this law does not provide prosperity and better health. only freedom and free market, which created this country, wonderful will have the possibility. believe me. i have seen the government is extending its power in my life in romania. if you allow the government to stop there is no way -- to start covering your life, there is no way you will. >> i don't mean to cut you off, but to you have a specific question you would like to adjust? >> to you know all of those things? i consider you a lot of things about the system. health care, what provide and what cannot provide an all the things that are so dangerous for our freedom, not only for religious freedom, but for our freedom as free people in the united states. >> thank you very much. >> thank you unfortunately i do
think you have the information that is not quite correct. so i would just encourage you to us to some letters are research on that. those consequences are actually not include in the affordable care act. okay. >> hello. this is more of a request for comment. i will attempt to keep it brief. while we're on the subject of teaching young girls about how they can exert their power in this system in which we currently live we have a political landscape that is moving progressively to the right. democrats are significantly to the right over republicans were in the 50's republicans to attack and democrats to retreat. will we talk about electoral politics i think perhaps that if you desire to vote and do so,
but energy is to be put into social movements which we demand on our own terms rather than putting faith in an elected official and crossing our fingers and hoping to do what we want. specifically for a contemporary example, the students into bed or on strikes for months because there was a proposed tuition hike that they said was completely unacceptable. it tried to make practice illegal. what has come of this? the tuition hike did not go through and the law forbidding process was repealed. i think -- >> would you please ask a specific question. >> i know. my question, i suppose, would be what do you see is the value of social movements for political change. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for that example. i think hopefully folks realize that actually the reason i was
asked to testify before rumors of congress was because of my work on such a social movement. there were students on our campus who organized collectively to address this concern with our insurance and who saw that georgetown was providing an subsidizing contraception on insurance for their employees but not for students, even as students were paying entirely for their own insurance. and so we were organizing to address that. eventually it came to an impasse on those efforts. we needed to turn more to the the legislative and regulatory process, but i think it is interesting that you described them as being too options that were separated from each other because i would integrate the more. i think it is unfortunate that frequently in this country we look at democracy as something that we do on a tuesday in november and not the rest of the time. [applause]
i could not agree more that we should not an elected official to office and sit back and think, okay, i voted the right way. they will take care of it. we have to hold our elected officials risk accountable for their actions. pay close attention to their actions. public displays when we are concerned are supported. any elected official will tell you that they pray that as well. it allows them to stand strong and to be sure that they're representing interests. [applause] >> my name is catherine mcgovern . 1969 and graduated from georgetown university law center .
most people will not remember that in 1969 we did not have any right to have contraception. that was the beginning of the women's rights movement. i was one of the once you work for it very hard. i am so happy to see that you are continuing the tradition of georgetown university law center. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for saying so. thank you for all the work you did. i hope that many of the young women in this form along with me recognize how lucky we are for the ways in which our mother's race to these. but i would like to -- have back i would like to make their request of the women of your generation and the men as well to talk to us, speak to the young people as you know about
what the circumstances were before contraception was required to be legalized constitutionally and what it looked like for women before they have a constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion. one of the commentators earlier was very concerned about women dying from vons if abortions. i could not share that concern more is that is what was occurring in our country prior to -- [applause] so i hope that you will share those experiences with the 1 million elena m. menino as well so that we understand what is a stake right now. >> i imagine your s in you. i want to thank the panel for sharing their insight. my question, would you be open to broadening the scope of your activism by collaborating with conservative women in the fight for liberation of breast feed
mills around the world who, for example, are sold as sex slaves were currently living under sharia law. >> i would not characterize it as burning because those are issues i have been addressing for years. i actually have worked on a host of legislative initiatives. i have worked hand-in-hand with many conservative women as well as liberal women on those issues. in terms of sharia law and women's rights, that is something i am very concerned about. i have engaged in advocacy in kenya and in a variety of contexts to address international women's rights. i don't want to project this on to you because your question was very appropriately frays. i am concerned that in the dialogue politically recently this has been set up as a choice of either or.
if you are addressing concerns of women in the u.s., that is somehow not addressing concerns of women internationally or that we should now work on problems here because things are worse in many respects in many countries. i see this as a spectrum to and these are connected issues. the problems of when facing this country are related to the problems that women face around the world. we all need to work arm in arm to address those issues. by see them as all connected. >> thank you. [applause] >> i wanted to refuse to inaccuracies. how could planned parenthood diagnose breast cancer? when you don't do mammograms women come and serve referrals, sometimes they're charged. i know this. >> i'm happy to answer that. >> and not finished.
>> let's go one at a time. how we diagnosed breast health exam. when women come and we provide rest of the exam, manuel exams, and we teach women who have never been taught before how to do self exams. like every other and ecology of just how many of you have your mammograms at your gynecology office versus a 30 elegy office across the hall was a mobile mammography? >> that is not diagnosed -- >> yes, it is actually. they send the results of us and we cover their medical provider, who provided the referral provides case management services, access of care and ongoing care, what the story the shared command and happy tech prefer utile center in show you how we do this. >> as of diagnosing.
>> it is a fact that the who, wh 2 who has classified the birth control pill as a crude one percentage and . >> i will leave the answer that question. >> this is my question. >> absolutely. >> how does planned parenthood which bills itself as the women's health organization aggressively provide, sell, and promote a carcinogen four yanomama's bodies, and you and i both know that most yen one of 13, 5218 have no idea they're putting a carcinogen in their bodies. >> i would go back to medical fact and science. according to evidence based medicine. >> this is the world health organization. >> birth control is safe, and it is 90 percent effective. in relation to talking to the 13 and 15 year-old, we believe that
is the role of a parent. what we do every single day is encourage parents to have conversations with their children. the vast majority of teenagers in texas want to hear from their parents about their bodies. planned parenthood de amelie teach your but the science. we hope you teach them about the immorality, your gun, and your views on science. again, we believe that all people have the right to scientifically based medically accurate information. [applause] >> hi. i'm laura. catholic wife of one, mother of two. i am here to give probably a different perspective about contraception and i hope to be a voice of a different option for all these beautiful men and women in the audience.
i have been married for 20 years . i embrace the gift of the catholic teaching about contraception. the last 16, and fanatical and condition that rendered pregnancy potentially life-threatening for me. in that context i wanted to let people know that natural family planning is a scientifically based research options and you can learn about the way your body functions and how to recognize changes in your body that signal different phases of fertility are not. in through using that you can determine whether on any given day to engage in intercourse seeking pregnancy or to refrain from it seeking to avoid pregnancy. this is something that can be a tremendous gift to relationships as well as teaching you tremendous amounts about your body in building europe and health regardless of your
spiritual beliefs. >> thank you for sharing. >> well, i would like to see what the panel would recommend about this command that would also like to let everyone know that i will be waiting by the door if anybody wants of information on my best to go to to educate themselves further about this. i just add one more comment. natural family planning can be used to 99 percent effectiveness , which is significantly greater than a lot of the contraceptives. >> thank you. >> have you looked at the population in south america recently? [laughter] >> no, let me answer this. i personally believe that a lot of what you said is valid. when i teach constitutional law in that deal with the issue of sodomy and the laws against sodomy in the united states, i ask my students, why was it
plans? and it is not just -- sodomy applies to both, sexual and heterosexual intercourse. i ask them why it was banned in all of the state's. and the reason was the belief, i dearly held belief and one which i share in which when people get together to express their love through sexuality it should be an expression of love and not just the need to have a physical release. it is then we are using another human being for our pleasure. i find that immoral. however, it is absolutely true that what you are talking about is not as effective form of birth control as what is a provided with your other scientific needs, and i cannot sit here and let you say that is valid. all the things i ever shown me not. i don't think people should have sex just have sex. on the other hand, that does not mean they should not protect
their family and their other children from having more pregnancies than they can support. when i look at the poverty in the world in africa and in asia and south america, i am appalled by the catholic church is response to this. [applause] >> excuse me. i would like that -- may i respond? i would like to a -- i would like to make one very quick point in response. >> we have to try and get in as many questions as we can. i understand have officials of these issues are, but it's not fair to the people behind you. >> but it's not fair to invoke science and then make brought comments that are not on the basis of science. i encourage a real deep look at the scientifically based studies about the effectiveness of natural family planning, and i want to encourage all the men and one in this audience. >> thank you very much. >> i just want to say that i
think it is appalling that the discourse in our society has devolved to say you are greeted with insults' instead of real dialogue which should never be the case. [applause] i would like to add that this panel could have been an opportunity to have more engagement in dialogue. i hope that going forward the women in gendered city's poor and human rights would work toward not necessarily a debate, but a panel with less unilateral view on a topic that is very contentious in our society. i do have one specific question. when both you and professor spoke of the bishops not accepting a compromise that was positioned, it does seem to me a bit of a distinction without a difference. if i -- either i pay for something myself that i oppose par pay for somebody who must
provide this thing that i oppose i wonder if you could just elaborate on why that seems a brilliant solution and what you think the bishops, why they continue to not see that. why i see that as not really much -- >> might taxes pay for an awful lot of things that i opposed. [applause] >> just to be clear, the position is that the institution's money does not go toward the care that they object to, so that is why i see it as an appropriate or a well intentioned and well functioning agreement. the money goes from women's pockets to the insurance that they are part of. while there may be other folks who are a part of the same insurance plans to disagree, that happens a lot of ways. i may disagree with someone else's health care choices. i'm sure there are folks on insurance plans to double even
blood transfusions, but part of being part of an insurance plan is that we are all putting your money in and we are trusting that it will be medical treatment that is prescribed by doctors for that person and that we recognize and honor each other's choices about our own health care decisions. >> the institution does not seem to get a choice. thank you. >> thank you. that is all that we really have time for this evening. i'm sorry. i know how, you know, emotional these issues are. we did have a lively discussion. i would like to thank our panelists for joining us this evening. [applause] and also, thanks to the women engendered studies for doing this program. >> i just wanted to make a
closing comment, if you will allow me. you don't have to sit down and everything. it is a quick comment. i know that some of the comments have raised contentious issues and that we are talking about was it difficult topic for some tonight, but i just want to thank all of you who engage in dialogue respectfully and even for those who ask questions or came here to make a point that they disagreed with me all with the rest of the panel. i want to say thank you for engaging in the process, for speaking out of something that was important to you, for making your voice is heard on these issues and being part of the conversation. i would much rather have someone here disagreeing with me than half pappus the rain. thank you all for coming tonight. [applause] >> thank you and good evening. [inaudible conversations]
>> we have more campaign 2012 coverage coming up later this afternoon. we will bring you a debate between candid it's to be west virginia's next governor. see that live starting a 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and 15 years ago today c-span radio was created by the cable-tv industry is another way to access our public affairs programming. you can listen to c-span radio on the washington baltimore area . ex-im satellite radio channel 119 or online at c-span radio dot or. the freak c-span radio app. >> look at what president obama did on the budget.
nothing except borrow and spend. as a result of the president's abdication of leader said, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in our country's history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion debt reduction plan over the next ten years. 4 trillion. already passed a trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen. these guys vote against everything. no. i really mean it. i only did not like norplant, okay. i get that. what's your plan? >> thursday congressman paul ryan and vice-president joe biden will face often their only debate. moderating from center college in danville, kentucky, and you can watch ending date to c-span with our live debate preview starting a 7:00 p.m. eastern follow the debate at ninth, and your reactions to mccall's, e-mails, and tweets at 1030. follow our live coverage on
c-span, c-span radio command online at c-span.org.ac >> i watched on c-span the various congressional hearings and congressional deliberations on public policy and also in affirmation that is put out by the various think tanks here in washington d.c. i like to watch them interviews by brian lamb. he hosts different authors and they have discussions. and that discussion about the buck that they have written, and so it is just an easy way to get information that are in the books without having to read the book. >> what is c-span on comcast. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. the american enterprise institute here in washington recently hosted a panel
discussion on whether google is violating antitrust laws. speakers include the university of chicago law school professor randall pecker, yale university economics and law professor george priest along with economics founder gregory sendak. participants could .. your report co-authored by setback entitled what is the chicago school teach about internet search and the antitrust treatment of google. john leibovitz has said that the ftc plans to make a decision on whether to take legal action against google. this is 90 minutes. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. we could bring this panel session to attention. i wanted thank you for joining us today. for discussion about internet
search and antitrust policy. i am make schulz, a fellow here at the american enterprise institute and also the editor of american dot com which is a flagship magazine. you know, something of an old home week. we are going to europe in a minute about a new paper. greg is the chairman of criterion economics here in washington d.c., and he is also the ronald cussed professor of law and economics at the tilburg law and economic center. tilburg university in the netherlands. in addition to being a distinguished author and scholar , he works for a long time dsk weyerhaeuser fellow airline economics year and beyond we directed the research a shift on telecommunications regulation. today greg will discuss a paper he has co-authored titled what does the chicago school teach about internet search and the
antitrust treatment of google. of course a leading figure in antitrust scholarships and in addition to having been solicitor general of the united states and acting attorney general, judge for the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia and a supreme court nominee he was also for many years a fellow here at the american enterprise institute. george priest will be joining us by conference call today. we will see his tender there. there is no george will but they're is a farm. george is a professor of law and economics. he also happens to be the chairman of our council of economic advisers. george was supposed to be coming down from laguardia. his plane got canceled. there were saying that there were technical difficulties as
they often do. the guy was a hotbed of deregulatory research in the 70's and 80's that led to airline deregulation. other side we have a lot of work resulted to. so it is good to have george, even if it is just over teleconference. it also jeff eisenach who served in senior positions of the federal trade commission and u.s. office of management and budget. ..
>> gregory sidak will have a little bit of time to respond to that. we want to have a little bit of time for q&a at the the end. if you listen to discussion, and as you ask and think of questions, there will be time for that at the end. with that, please join me in welcoming greg sidak. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be back here. great friends antennae. this talk is based on a paper by robert bork, my former colleague here at tran-eights. >> i would like to recognize my
friends. at the outset might like to recognize that this paper that this research was based upon, which will be available on aei's website. commissioned by google, views that are expressed and reached in the paper are solely those of judge bork and myself. the title of the paper questions the chicago school perspective on these questions of search and google. so i thought that before we dive in to the issues of internet searches, we have some common understanding of what the chicago school and offices. i associate the writings and
teachings of the chicago school with a broader am i model called the honorary chicago school, that may be granted phd's and other. the key people in the early days. dunleavy, ronald coates, george stiegler, a number of these people won the nobel prize in economics. george was a student at that time, later on, richard pozen are arrived in 1969 after spending a year at stanford from he had students including george priest and george easterbrook. on the west coast, where i grew up and went to school, one of
these honorary chicagoans, they had never taken a degree there but certainly discovered economics and was very much part of this same movement. of course, the writings of the chicago school started influencing things a great deal. in the 1980s, this intellectual cadre, many of them became judges themselves. some of the distinguished characteristics of the chicago school of antitrust analysis is respected towards conspiracy cartels. it has a very hard-line attitude. cartels are serious sources of injury to consumers and should be aggressively enforced against
unpunished. thirty years ago or so, i co-authored an article. it captures the flavor of the intensity of the chicago school. another person in this, who perceive this in the optimal force of law is his personal insight is that when behavior escapes detection with some significance, you have to ratchet up the penalty with the likelihood that the behavior will go undetected. the forms of behavior that are intentionally concealed, that argues for a very large multiple
that has been found. in other areas of economic behavior, where firms are cooperating with one another but did not restrict output in raising price, i think one of the key constitutions of the chicago school, when you see some form of business contracting with some sort of strategy or structure of organization and you don't understand it, you should not lead to the leap to the conclusion that there is in various purpose. i think that the myth that you look for some underlying justification before you go back to condemning the behavior. so now looking at the theme of the chicago school has imparted to a american antitrust
jurisprudence, complicated contractual relationships. and that merges a subcategory. finally, we get a single firm combat, the monopolization problem. here i think, the chicago school also carries over this presumption that you should not condemn the behavior of a dominant firm simply because it is big. there are efficiency justification that have the scale and scope of an enterprise, you want to be cautious but you don't end up deterring firms to accomplish this kind of ways of organizing. and along with that, over
dynamic context, you don't want to create incentives for firms to refrain from investing innovative -- investigating innovative activity. i think that's out of insight has been active in the hi issues that have been raised about google. let me share with you a few great quotes from the chicago school. first, here is one from frank easterbrook, the limits of antitrust, which came out in 1984. every successful competitive practice has guidelines. another one from judge bork, the
sherman act was kuwait presented good presented and debated as a consumer welfare prescription. something that judge poser wrote. there is a sense in which the exclusion of any competitor reduces competition, but it's not a sense of competition that is relevant to antitrust laws. the policy of competition is intended for the ultimate benefit of consumers rather than of individual competitors. a consumer has no interest in the preservation of a fixed number of competitors for is greater than the number required to assure being able to buy at that price. some of you may not know that judge pozen are, although he is frequently credited with having made major contributions, he was not a trained a -- a trained
economist at that time. he says that there is a special problem. there is a sense in the chicago school the competition is erased and every race has winners and losers. we don't elevate the welfare of the losers over the welfare of the beneficiaries of that competitive process for consumers. that is the big inside of the contribution of the chicago school. i guess i have come to think that this is self-evident. just this week i had an interesting conversation with an indian lawyer. she is the head of the delhi office, one of the most respected indian law firms. there is now quite a wave of
development and antitrust laws. i was talking to her about what was going to be presented and she said that the yes, antitrust laws are not intended to protect competitors. and i thought yeah, that is what we have been doing here in the united states. >> is not necessarily something that is immediately obvious when you go outside the united states. well, let me turn now to some of these questions regarding google. google provides a search engine and to provide them for free. how does google make any money giving something away for free? well, it is a two-sided part of the economy. you have people who want to engage in the search.
they want to find things quickly and effortlessly through the internet. on the other side there are advertisers who are happy to purchase advertising from google and it will be presented to this consumers reveal themselves to be interested in looking for particular things. a restaurant or a kind of car or a book, what have you consumers do their part by lending their eyes. it is taken to a much higher value added level. you, the consumer, reveal
through your search what you are really looking for. advertisers are able to zero in on a potential audience of what they have to sell. the interest that google has been offering its search engine. and how the search engine operates, i'd like to address a few of the higher-level questions. a few that have come up and
whether it presents an antitrust problem with google. i am only going to focus on questions that originated in the u.s. and are analyzed. the first is google's ranking of specialized searches. i'll explain that in a moment. specialized search results, and my second question is does google comprise the necessary scale that is used to compete in the search. a related question that is
embedded in the first two questions is whether there is some kind of a central facility that google has to that competitors need to get active and competing effectively in the search market. again, the overriding question is does any of this have an impact on the welfare of consumers? it may be that certain competitors encounter this advantage. that is ultimately harm consumers. okay, take a look at these. all right, so, this particular slide gives you a screenshot.
if you are interested in making a smoothie or find out how to make a smoothie, when you typed in the search result in the search request, this gives you the result that would pop up. the bluish result are known as the general search results. the pink area are the specialized search result, which actually anticipates that the person doing the search might be interested in finding a place to go buy a smoothie. that information has been generated and prioritize on the page. so that the consumer can find it easily and there is a map that is generated for the particular vendors of smoothies and where they are located. a big question has been posed.
microsoft is going to focus on four key vertical areas, and it is this idea of providing some specialized result along with the general search result. and those are making a purchase decision, planning a trip, researching a health condition. at one point the judge bork has made in his opinions on the dc circuit in a well-known case from 1986, is that one some challenge -- okay, i think we might want to see what is causing that -- [laughter] >> okay, when there is some challenge the practice that is, in fact, adopted by all the competitors in the marketplace, that creates a presumption that
practice is, in fact, the results of competitive rivalry, it gets back to the view that you should not presume the practices that are harmful to competitors. all competitors in the market are doing something. the fact that the largest firm in the market says it is well, it is not that this is a practice that somehow creates a monopoly power. in the case of these specialized search rankings, google presumably would not do this unless it believed that the results were guided by consumers. google as a search engine becomes more viable with the
insertion of specialized results, along with general search results. because if it were something that consumers do not value, google would be reducing the potential audience size for its engine and people would switch over to a rival. i gloss over one question that i should have mentioned when i was laying out my questions. the first big picture question that comes up again and again is google the gateway to the internet? and what are the switching costs of moving from one search engine to another? there is quite a bit of research now being done on this question. it seems to suggest that the search costs are very low. you can switch during a single
session on your computer from google to something else, you can use the specialized vertical search engines like amazon. of course, you can also rely on non-internet based tools to try to find things as well. but the search costs are essentially zero. so you're starting with a product that is provided for free, if you don't let it come you can search for another product that is provided for free or the investment of maybe 10 or 15 seconds of navigating on the screen of the computer. so when you have this kind of immediate ability to shift from one supplier to the other, one company has a very large volume of search engines available --
we don't know whether that is injurious to consumers or not, consumers like way they put together the search results more than some alternative. this comes up as something known as the single monopoly profit in the chicago school, which was developed. so if you want to think of vertical searches like the specialized searches as being something from generalized searches, and google has market power in generalized searches, and somehow it is trying to monopolize specialized searches. we then bump up against the traditional chicago school critique, known as the single monopoly profits. and that is if you have vertically related services or products, there is only so much
monopoly profit in the firm can extract. and google if google already has a monopoly over a general search, we cannot extract any more profit by trying to monopolize a specialized search. again, bear in mind that consumers in this case are paying zero. so it is not clear how the monopolization scenario, if you thought it was credible, how would really play out. that's to be playing on side of the market. but the general contribution of the chicago school is the idea of extending a monopoly, having it makes sense because you already can extract all the monopoly profits in the first monopoly. i am taking a longer than i thought to get to my point. so i think what i'm going to do
is quickly talk about scale and essential facilities. the argument has been made that google, because it has have such a large share of generalized search results, it is divided competing search engine is the ability to achieve sufficient scale to compete. i think there are several chicago school reactions to that. the first is what is the value of scale? and if you did a little deeper into this critique of google, it is that the scale generates the ability to make enough profit to invest in having an interest in search engines so that you have a larger audience rise. so that you can offer to advertisers. the first problem with that, of course, is that you don't have to finance and embellish your search engine solely through internally generated capital.
that is a standard chicago critique. the basic idea of what is scale. george siegler had a great definition. the entry literature looked at whether scale of some kind was involved. and he said that it is something that an entrant has to pay for the incumbent did not. with the incumbent also had to incur the cost that the engine is complaining about, that is not very entry. because that entry was incurred as well by the first firm in the market. with respect to the critics who
claim that there is none of scale achieved to compete effectively against google, you have to dig a little deeper to see what it is they are talking about. it is not really a scale. it is similar to searches over time. it is kind of a key militant outfit idea. but the value of the search engine is enriched by the number of searches that have occurred that is more about another honorary chicagoans have called learning by doing. the famous paper looking at how the costs of doing something is affected. not just by how many times and how much of what you produce in a given. next time, but a key militant number of times you make something. also looking at the time of building airframes in world war ii and the number of airplanes that were built in the factories
in southern california show this phenomenal, mathematical key militant outfit over time. this is something that the critics of google are getting out when they talk about scale. it is not really economies of scale but a learning by doing phenomenon. so, is there a problem, is there an inability to engage in this kind of learning by doing? is there some inability to use the benefits that are derived from learning by doing this on a more robust kind of search engine? i think what you have to conclude is that it's not a very persuasive argument. because google itself was not the first search engine. it displays yahoo!. it was not the first to the market. so what we see is a second
entrance can require gmail of scale tesla not to displace the larger search engine. and although google may seem very big and -- very big and well situated today, people have said the same sort of thing about microsoft a decade ago and it that has had its own share of competitive rivalry in the meantime. so i have no reason to think that google won't continue to face lots of competitive rivalry from search technology. i will say a few words. the facilities doctrine is what judge bork ordered.
everyone thinks they have seen a specialist in the flesh for. the idea is that if there is some asset of facility that is hard to duplicate, it is very costly to duplicate, the owner of the facility is excluding competitors from using it and that this has a few other elements as well. well, in case of internet search, and google's business practice specifically, the central facility is on google's page. there is only a limited amount of space that can come up on a page. so it is not possible that every competitor that thinks it is essential to be on google's page
can be accommodated. so it's not clear how such a remedy would be feasible, even if you thought that it was necessary. necessary to do this in order to improve competition in way that would benefit consumers. in any event, the u.s. courts have been very reluctant to buy into the essential facilities and the theory that the supreme court has taken pains to say that it is very unlikely that an antitrust claim against google that sounded like facilities case would ever succeed in court. i think i better stop at this point. because i have used more of my allotted time. >> greg, thank you for an excellent presentation. in addition to airline
deregulation, we continue working on telephone deregulation. what i'm going to do is mix up your view here. we are going to try to get some insight in to get back together with you. >> and you, it is an honor for me to be here. i started working on deregulation measures at the american enterprise institute in june of 1979. it is great for me to be back after a long time. i think that the paper that greg and judge bork have done is very excellent. and i think greg has done a great job presenting the key ideas of what you just said. i would like to use my time to expand on three aspects.
all of these are aspects of the paper touches on 1 degree or another. i would like to drill down on three characteristics of high-tech markets and how they impact we might think about the whole issue. those are in the platform competition, secondly, the notion of multi-sidedness, which is great to talk about, and thirdly, dynamism. let's think about modularity and their platform competition. i think that the paper is correct about applying traditional high-tech markets. the question how useful it is to think of a google search competing against the antitrust market.
instead, i think it may be more useful to think of search is a consummate treat input into a much broader market in which internet platforms compete to produce complex arrays and services, which are consumed jointly by consumers. i'm talking about competition among platforms is among specific services or inputs to those platforms. it is the centerpiece. for apple, the marquee product is divisive. but it also does search. e-commerce and operating systems. ion storm five-point oh.
>> for amazon, it is e-commerce, but they both do all the other things as well. and we could go on and talk about facebook and so forth and so on, on these computing platforms. now, these platforms compete with one another on multiple dimensions. it seems clear that each and all of them discipline the market conduct above all the others. it is open to question whether modern economics has the tools or the labor to assess their platform competition. but think we know enough to conclude that focusing on markets and market shares in the universal search isn't going to tell us very much about the competitive dynamics of how prices and qualities to determine for any of us. in antitrust, when you define marketed correctly, you tend to
get questionable results are worse. i will take one example. when the justice department effectively stopped google's proposed joint venture with yahoo, at least partly on the theory that the deal would freeze concentration, it was the actual effect to preserve constitution in the market. or was it to reduce competition in the market for online content and e-commerce platforms? questions for another day. the paper also quickly notes that the markets at issue, however we define him, i multi-sited, which is to say that one of their primary economic characteristics, the value proposition is to bring together publishers and consumers and so forth. as david evans pointed out, it
makes no sense in such markets to talk about separate markets for each customer group. to use his example, if we are talking about heterosexual dating services from the two compete for men and women customers. but it does not make any sense to talk about separate markets for men and women. we are all looking for a bargain. >> by the same token, it makes no sense to talk about separate markets for consumer search, search content, the reviews in cool places, and advertising. both the demand and the supply of these services are interrelated. both the demand and the supply. complementary on both sides. the cost side and the demand side and evaluation site. but the biggest implication for antitrust analysis is that there is no direct relationship between any empirical cost on one hand and the competitor price on the other. since market power and the
traditional antitrust analysis is defined as the ability, we define market power is the ability of the reason for the raise prices. this creates a very fundamental challenges, especially if one thinks that a demonstration of how to consumer welfare ought to be part of the antitrust liability in the monopolization case, which most people, and certainly the chicago school and got to be at least an element. finally, dynamism. i think the paper correctly emphasizes the importance of dynamism in these markets. my view is useful to think about dynamism in two senses, which are related that they are distinct. first, in the economic sense. dynamism the first markets in which firms compete to invest
and differentiate and profit. invest differentiate and profit. seeing these markets are firms making risk risks and sunk investments in new products, which are designed specifically for the purpose of creating a form of market power, i prefer to call it locational pricing power. which is the ability to earn margins in excess of cost and hence, the investment. create something new and different. by doing something, earning myself a little place where consumers will come to me and pay me a little more than the next guy because i'm different and, for the sum, i'm better. and having done that, be able to charge prices above that and if i do not, somebody will give me more money and maybe a few
again. the power that comes out of this investment and that innovation, it is the secret sauce. the secret sauce of the innovation of the economy. looks like such an innovation. product improvement it depreciates google's offerings. as some have pointed out, we should be cautious about discouraging precisely such innovation. it is more in the colloquial sense of the term. it is a little bit different, which is things change quickly. and those people think about dynamism and the antitrust
markets, thinking about the competition, those people are thinking about the changes well. and that is true. but the sims is also extremely -- i think, more significant in some ways. let's think about the cloak of funds. the riskier, and i think that greg does a great job of talking about the risks here, they are creating a de facto property right in the status quo. the rate for manufacturers prevent carmakers are moving on cassettes. it would discourage them from moving on price because there goes my market. and i have invested a mess on the notion that cars and churches will continue to be
made. and i will continue to be in demand. or for travel websites that have a de facto rate in a particular piece of real estate. on the google search page. something to the paper is absolutely right to call attention to the dangers of moving towards such a course in which we are inhibiting innovation and creating a de facto property right with the status quo. which could also harm innovation. now, let me close by saying that the cases like this one ultimately turn on the facts. it is not clear to me that all the facts are in. certainly more facts at some point will become apparent. but what i can say is that it is helped set the analytical standard by which the facts ultimately will and should be
judged, and to know that it is and ought to be a pretty high bar to antitrust liability. thank you. >> okay, thank you jeff. randy will bring you up and i understand you want to deliver from up here. while you were doing, i may try and put george back online. i know he is watching us now. serenity, the floor is yours. >> theme is great, a wonderful topic. thoughtful paper. the discussion of the chicago school certainly resonated with me. i held 3 degrees from the university, the econ department and the law school. my kids are also in the school. what i learned from jerry is
that you saw the situations with two premises, premise one is that people optimize subjects and comes to that market square. that is where you start. that is the core of economic analysis and the core of chicago school antitrust analysis. i have a bit of an indulged wife at the school on collective action. what i learned from ronald is that we have with the facts very carefully. ronald thought it was going to take us 100 years to do that. the study of transaction costs, he thought was a 100 year study. i think ronald hopes to complete that study. as you know, he is aging, but aging remarkably well. so like to talk about the issues. the issues that greg set forth. i want to start with how markets
exercise in media markets. the cost of a compared google to radio and tv. they would bring their powers to the lab. the data model of google, and that is one of the things i want to focus on, because they are in a transition on how they approach data, the data model with google is this idea that they were going to set up the google bots to look at the web's and return the search results. in the algorithm of that page
invented was a part of that. that is the data model that we ascribe to. it is what you hope companies will do. again, i agree with greg on this completely. they went out and built a great product. that's what we want to see people do. in the absolute best way to acquire market power in the weighted jeff talks about market power, which is exactly the right way to do it, the ability to set prices above cost, the best way to inspire that market power differentiate yourself from the competitors to have a sustainable quality between you and your competitors. that is what you do, you can have market power and the u.s. antitrust law says that that is great. right? the case is crystal clear on that and we encourage you to go out into the marketplace and win and succeed. as the song is you are doing that legitimately, you are fine. the urn there are no section two issues.
we encourage you and entitle you to set high prices and to earn the just reward for her. i want to talk about someone who has market power. this is a picture of lucille ball. in the early days of her television show. it is really hard to imagine, but she had a market share in 1961 of 67.2%. that is to say that two out of three television households each night when she was on, watching her show. competition is always an important thing. you had to click the dial on your television set.
you exercise market power to the intensity of advertising. it is how you make money in the volume of that is how you boost your income and how much money can make. it is easiest to start by thinking there is a lot of discussion about whether google has market power -- if they did have market power, political about exercising that. the answer is that they would chat more advertising. they would have more hats and because as a utility for consumers, consumers are not giving a conference for free, they are getting the contents by bearing the cost of that. i tried this the other day. i went to the forbes website. i went to the forbes website and the first thing that happened was they presented an application. now, they do that because that's how you make money.
the essence of media advertising is the integrated product. no one thinks that the best way to tell stories to build a tree great suspense and then stop. no one thinks that is the best way. they do it because that is the way they can monetize this. they are not interested in the quality of the product, but they are allowed to do in these circumstances, you have immediate power monopoly. lots of advertising. that way again, they say that is fine. what you are not allowed to do is to spend my market power. that's that is not what you are allowed to do and so i think that we need to look at the advertising prices that google is implicitly charging and that
is what i have spent the summer doing. so i learned how to do a little python programming. i studied at chicago. everyone searches on them and yelled as well, on this particular data set, that is 2310 searches, that is 370,000 links, this is a world of big data that we live in. that's when i have them with you. the question is what we see there. what we see there is interesting. so i cockily apprise in the number of advertising links divided by the number of organic ones, use that as a way of calibrating the advertising.
this is what i calculate. and it's interesting, interesting for a number of reasons. i think if you ask who is inflicting the highest intensity, it is interesting across different categories, they seem about the same, i will say something else about it as well. i think that is the path we need to go down. on we should think of it as a free product, we need to think of it as a media product where they are charging advertising prices. someone who has a quality advantage should be exploiting that quality and higher intensity prices. i spent the summer searching for references on hyde park.
and we have organically and we know it does look like. the organic links the ones that we don't see the competitive parts. it's not driven by money and hard wiring of something off. then we have competition with regard to advertising. competing in options right now. those things were very familiar. as you can see the top back on a hardwired link to google properties. that is the youtube link. then we get to hear, the evolution of search. i'm not sure that the fcc were focused on the existence of this, but what is clearly focused on is the link to the google reviews. the big red circle there.
how those links are put there, we don't really know. is it a hardwired link that we see? maybe. if we are going to bring back, i think there is a timing issue here as well. i think that is the question. google reviews links that show up here. they don't seem to attract the quality of the google review, how can i tell? well, you can count the number of reviews and to see what that seems to be influencing what is going on here. and then of course, they are going to be much more aggressive about it in that regard. here is something really interesting. you can take firefox and you can say, hello, i'm not i am not
going to be firefox today. i'm going to stick on internet explorer. and if you do that, as is what google gives you. i'm in the same search yesterday and got the same results. they actually give you a choice. and i think what google recognizes is that we are moving into a situation where socialists are going to be really important for search. in the peer-to-peer connections, obviously what facebook represents. that is not a space in which google has been strong. one is a richer structure that i suggested.
some only give you three links. and if you look for a hyde park air slunk him there is nothing at all. that is something we can exploit. my 770 searches, that is what i have done, and i have done what any person can do, i ran some regressions. and i don't want to sell these as being the be-all and end-all. i'm still understanding the analysis. i'm shocked about how much better this is, who knows for months now, there will be a better understanding. what we want to look for is that circle right there. with that red circle suggests is the situations where google has lots of its own links. the only way google has lots of it is that they embed those wings in the way that they are doing and in those situations, they seem to have less advertising. the exercising the market power, not to the advertising, which
would be legally legitimate, but they seem to be substituting out of that into the google site. i think google is doing some great things that are important and legitimate and figuring out how we allow products to evolve. i think that is an important question. that is what could be doing with regard to google plus. if you haven't seen the browser valid in the eu, this is what happens when you turn on any the windows seven machine come you get a choice of browsers. that was the resolution came out of a eu case against microsoft. there is some discussion that we can't share the top links.
after all, only one top link. i think we can share very much in a statistical sense. it can return it at every fine level of granularity. this will be searched with google reviews and yelp reviews. i think it is an interesting path, and i think there are possible remedies here. i don't know whether there is a profit here, but i think there is an interesting discussion we can have. >> okay, thank you. >> bear with me here. [inaudible question]
[inaudible] the fact that they're only 20 people, they have something to do with it. anyway. at any rate, i'm happy to be able to participate. ugo wanted me to state that some time ago. i served in a personal way as a consultant to google. various mechanisms available for competitors against google -- i
from the top of page 13. greg talked about this in his comments. antitrust intervention could be justified only if top placement on the google search page is an essential facility. goes on to say, none of the four conditions of the essential facility doctrine is met. it goes on in many pages to explain that. this is an excellent discussion of the essential facilities doctrine and of these various conditions. control of the facility, the competitors and ability to duplicate the facility, that use of the facility for competitors and so forth. feasibility of a remedy. each of the individual discussions is excellent, but it misses the larger point. this, i think, is central to this chicago school view of the world. that is, the concept of a central facility is incoherent.
not that a lot of literature from the chicago school on essential facility. craig, you have an excellent article on the subject. the best writing, scalia, but the chicago school. basically is that if a facility has become essential in this to be said of google, i think. because it succeeded on its merits, is central facility, but if it is becoming essential it is because the 60's on merits. the context of a single firm to succeed on the merits is will we want from competition. indeed it is contradictory to the ambition of competition to attempt to regulate success on the merits of that nature. it is different where there is a government grant and the market power derives from political party and that is true of the
essential facility cases, stadiums approval and the like. but if the facility has become essential through market processes, which is surely the case with google, it represents excess, and then that firm is entitled to all the rewards is contained. now, gregg and bob to a terrific job of showing why the google experience is not fit any of the scraps of raw the unessential facilities, and i think it should go further, denying there is any merit to the concept at all. i think it is true of other parts of the paper as i alluded to earlier. much of the paper is empirical, and i blame a lot. a lot of detail. i learned a lot. but those responses and that empirical detail is basically making the point that criticism by competitors of the google
practices are just wrong on the facts. but i think that is not all. especially in representing the chicago school. the failings of the arguments by google competitors are deeper. this is the essential chicago school point. there analytically unsupportable now, gregg has made this point, and he made both in the paper in his remarks this morning, but i think it deserves -- this point deserves further emphasis, and it seems to be the central point. there are two principal facts, i think, this positive for evaluating the google position and that google practice first, the search services are given free to consumers. so where is the consumer arm? the search service is given free
, and the second and a related point is that a google search services, whether a general search for specialized search are in competition with many other search engines but the general and specialized level, which are also given free to consumers. no, these points seemed to meet this positive of the evaluation of google command at think essential to the chicago school evaluation. all of the detail in the paper highly interesting and relevant. important to read. i have learned a lot, but i think it is a simple case. these points are dispositive. years ago i made -- a decade ago and made the same argument with regard to microsoft internet explorer which was given away free. we differ somewhat on that, and i have not seen a foot note indicating a reconciliation or whether he is james's mind are whether there is some difference here, but i think that would be useful because bob bork's
criticism of microsoft was very important in the ultimate resolution of the case. but i think that the evaluation of google, these two facts and -- should end from the chicago school view the discussion. cowell's large market share is the result of superior -- of a superior product that they have created. that has been revealed by the market through the share of advertisers and also of consumers that google has and that should be the end of the story. that is the dominance of google, and it is a fragile dominance. as greg pointed out, a simple to work of the mouse puts you on a
different search page, but the sec market share defined that google has is gained on the merits and deservedly so. that i think is the chicago -- the ultimate jakarta's cool conclusion. thank you. i'm sorry i am not there. i enjoyed watching it on tv. >> thank you very much. um so, i want to read have time for questions. what give you a couple of minutes if you want to respond to anything that jeff fort george or randy said, and then be will open it up for questions. >> i will be very brief. i thought that jeff's comments were helpful in terms of putting in sharper focus particularly the points on the dynamic aspects of the market. i appreciate that. randy's research sounds fascinating, and i look forward
to seeing the paper when it's ready. >> that will be all. [laughter] >> and i appreciate the comments about attacking the ideas at -- i'll call it the level of terry. and also, it is a real rarity when i don't feel that i on a panel to make everybody else some reasonable. i think you for that. beyond that, though, i will take up more time. i imagine there are questions in the audience. >> we are at question time. if you would raise your hands. a couple of ground rules. we have some microphones that were coming around. when you're called upon pleased with the microphone. identify yourself and also please make your question in the form of a question. we have one right down here.
>> thank you. i am with the business rights center, and to the question i have is actually for randy. you gave the example -- the cs me, of both television broadcasting where the advertising really detract from the product. based on that you said that is the price the consumer is paying. but when i run a global search the one box, the advertising, everything on that page except maybe you could say the bar at the top is geared toward meeting the need have expressed by my search query. so i would ask you, why do you approach the advertising in that context as being a price rather than as being a different kind of service to the consumer. >> a couple of things on that. we know that the answer is there
not because they are the ads that the consumer must wants to see. that is i pay to get on the page. i would not pay to get on the page if i was getting there organically. it is a change in the competition, but those links are less valuable. so -- and then the question is what limits -- if you think there is there disutility associated with that they ought to have page after page of that. maybe that is what they have, but i don't think that is the common experience of the ad or the common experience of advertising generally. i agree it is interesting. i think that changes the analysis. i agree with that. >> we have a question right here. >> questions of greg. you mention zero switching costs if i went from google to bang.
my understanding is that this order formation about the past searches to help get a better search. if i use the term washington and live here it guess is i am looking for d.c., not the state of washington. look for lots of wine, it customizes the search taking into account the knowledge it has. wouldn't that be somewhat of a switching costs? >> that would get into -- and fairly empirical analysis of how quickly the volume of the individual services reveal the interest and preferences sufficiently to replicate the precision of search that you had before. my own casual experience,
though, is that when i switched from google to a bang, for example, paying seems to get to it pretty quickly, what it is i'm looking for. so i've -- i agree it is something that you could try to measure. it seems like the sort of thing that would probably require a computer scientist more than the congress, though. [applause] >> another question over here. this gentleman. please wait for a microphone and identify yourself. >> my name is david falls. the question is for randy. he turned to your comment on the last slide about remedy, i am wondering about what exact remedy you are suggesting. it might be possible when you
first start your operating system in europe to go and choose between four options, you know. just a lot more difficult from a practical perspective when you're talking about what gets placed at the top of a search inquiry? >> i think the answer to that is no. so, what google does daily, all the time, constantly engaging in what they call a be testing. they are constantly saying, welcome if we do this search response this will it happens? if we do this search responses by what happens? and so the possibility of approaching this not as a onetime situation but as a statistical anomaly in seeing and observing responses, if we put it here, does that change the behavior? observing that over a lot of searches, that is actually, it seems to me, a rich space.
i have questions about the browser valid approach. and so when you ask the you for dated they say no. and that is going to be a live legal issue given the problems microsoft has recently at. i have questions about that. but what i guess i see a response, this instinctive response with said there is only one top slot. statistically over many searches that is not true. the question is how we exploit that. >> if i could ask a question on top of that. howdy pick the top four? aren't you doing precisely -- are you entering precisely into the problem? you can only pick them on the basis of some empirical measure about who is entitled. >> right. >> so you define an entitlement to property rights. the case in the first green. microsoft. in this case on the google screen. >> you're absolutely right.
and the browser ballot case they have 13 browsers. >> i did know that there were 14. >> i have three or four on my computer. you're right to say that it seems to me what you're going to have to do is involve that remedy as you see effectively people competing to be in those slots. i don't think you want to entrench that. but there are other spots for competition. that was your point. i don't disagree with that, and that think you're going to draw upon that competition with regard to have to populate the slots. not necessarily pushing that, but that's my forecast. >> the concern is, can you design that algorithm? i mean, if you are on the list you have an advantage. >> i am with break. the algorithm finders to argue that this ruling out the law professors and economists.
>> okay. thanks. >> okay. do we have other questions? don't be bashful. i'll take a moderate is imperative and as the question. based upon something that jeff indicated which is there are facts that could conceivably come out that could change one's perception of whether or not there are any trust problems. as you were doing your research and going through this, where the things that you said, well, it would be useful to know so that i could know if that was going to be a problem? can you envision things, whether it be antitrust law?
>> i think the best way into your question is with the issues that i thought that the judge and i thought were most important, the ones that we outlined in the paper. so beyond those it is hard for us to anticipate technological issues or, you know, issues relating to the design of software and the like. friday think that maybe to bring it back down to the law of economics, i think that the question of remedies is one where it is possible to ask, are there additional packs that might bear on the feasibility or the invisibility of certain kinds of remedies working in
all? i am particularly concerned about the design of a remedy that in patients some allocation for google or the next google to provide some kind of service for which there is no consumer demand simply because the regulators stop that that is what was necessary to compel the company to do. and there was certainly that problem with some of the you remedies with respect to microsoft and the bridge to nowhere. >> if you have never seen the numbers, as you may know on the east side where there was a case about the windows media player and a requirement as of today she two versions of windows, one without the northwest, is amazing the number of decimal points you need to go out before you see any market traction on
the lawn without. a completely failed. where we are in the browser ballot is to my knowledge not public. >> great. to we have a hand raised back here? could you just wait? the microphone should be coming around in a minute. >> thank you. i wanted to of pick up on a theme that jeff announced for us about dynamism and ask why it is that we don't see new entrants. one answer to that question might be because there is market power. there might be other answers. perhaps just discussion of platform composition as part of that answer. but i wonder why we cannot have awareness of these 14 browsers and searches and these different platforms. seems that there are two or three, but no new entrants.
>> greg or jeff. >> well, i will go first. weigh in on the last question briefly. but, you know, in markets like the markets we're talking about here, almost invariably you have a dominant form. and i'm believe johnson metro has done some really interesting research in europe over the past couple of years which i direct people to in looking at a concept called equilibrium and how that applies in markets like this, but the essence of it is when you have the economy on the scale of network affects the amount of variety you will have in the market in any given time is a function of an drugs and 80 on the production site in the consumption side. so we have had persistently to operating system, significant
operating system providers in the u.s. for 20 years. apple and microsoft. market share, apple is rising a little bit. remarkably stable. why didn't we go to one? we didn't go to one because apple was able to distinguish itself sufficiently. for some subset of consumers it was sufficiently superior. even though it did not enjoy all the network affects the or enjoyed by microsoft in terms of size and applications and so forth and economies of scale it was never the less able to persist because the value proposition of some specialized abilities to music editing being one of the parties have used. distinguishing characteristics. you know, why don't you see more entry? quite an ec more changes in market? but there i would refer you, but the essence of it, i think, is
that it turns out that market leaders to innovate rapidly. they have something of great value. they realize they have something of great value and they're under a lot of pressure to continue innovating. when they fail to do so they do go down. but once you get on top -- once you get on top of the mountain it is easier to stay there. back up again briefly talk about this other question. so i came down of a different sight. i'm not sure where everybody came down on the microsoft case. if you want to at least in vision and a different set of facts, go back and read judge jackson's decision on the facts in the microsoft case. and what you will find you can agree or disagree, but what you will find, what he concluded is that there was a range of behavior well beyond, range of behavior, all of which fits
squarely into the pattern of conduct which generated no value for consumers, had no legitimate business purpose and was explicitly based upon the inside documents of microsoft, designed to harm competitors to microsoft on had a chance of knocking him off the mountain. so maybe that is enough for an antitrust violation are not. judge jackson concluded that it was, but it is what this point. none of those facts or evidence in this case. i would agree, you can go back. kind of a pile of facts. a lot of vested not get over that pump very easily, but when you read that filofax at some point i thought that kim compelling. >> do you want to? >> and number of things. that was also interesting. i will start with one. some direct market entry. i don't know how important it is. my paper talks about it. getting millions of searches, and they are playing very different strategy, interestingly different strategy.
when they're is a paper you can read that, but it is worth looking at. to, i think where the truth of the matter is where we see the interesting entry they're really matters typically not directly in the market but on a related, adjacent market. the you fear that microsoft lever's its monopoly over windows into a media planner monopoly which is what it took the steps they did. we know how that plays out. we use windows media player and carry around. we know what happened. able to enter into an adjacent microsoft position on the best pop to the matter some much. the adjacent market in rate is a critical point for antitrust persisted because it is so hard to attack directly in the market that is why what jeff was saying about the microsoft case is so interesting. go back and read bill gates internet tidal wave memo. i teach that each year. gates understood that there was
this powerful entry in this adjacent market that put them at risk, and they responded to. that is what judge jackson found. the parallel, if there is one, is the idea, yes, searches will evolve. that is what greg describes. that is what we think is going on. the same time the adjacent markets pot of entry is on the social side. that is the spot where google has not been very strong and the parallel is the will is trying to take its traditional position and move it into this adjacent market, very much arguably like what we saw with regard to engines explore. >> i just wanted, there is an incredibly disruptive competitor the fact as firms like apple or google had an additional
functionality to their platform that previously was provided on a stand-alone basis by some other manufactured. and so look what happened to the recording music industry. and it is important not to lose sight of how that can be a significant kind of innovation unto itself, not just some new technology, but the inside of combining something like a self on with music. suddenly you have this device that generates tremendous consumer value that did not exist before. we have shifted from the desktop to the handset. >> we are out of time, so i want to thank you for joining us today. i know that we make copies of the paper available to people, but if they want to find it will have a link to it. the event web page, and you can find it at criterion economics.
gutted that website. thank you for joining us today and join me in thanking our discussants. [applause] >> more campaign 2012 coverage coming up later this afternoon. we will bring you a debate between kendis to be less rigid is next governor, democratic incumbent up against republican bill maloney. see that live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and 15 years ago today c-span rodeo was created by the cable-tv industry is another way to access our public affairs programming. you can listen to c-span radio in the washington baltimore area . ex-im satellite radio channel 119 or online. and you can now listen on your smart phones along with our audio. the free c-span radio app.
>> the councils of government. we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. >> why was that speech so important? >> if one is the military-industrial complex, which has become a cliche. people did not pay much attention, but they sure have since then. i have spent -- i spent much of his presidency making sure the military did not get out of hand. he kept military spending steady. that was hard to do in the 1950's. tremendous pressure. creating a nuclear arsenal. rockets. gutted his own service, the army. really cut it in order to have the money to buy missiles of was not an easy thing to do. military spending was 70 percent of the federal budget. today it is about 25 percent. >> evan thomas on ikes bluff.
new york city mayor michael bloomberg and news corporation executive rupert murdoch recently traveled to boston to give advice to the romney campaign about immigration policy. mayor bloomberg has a more of an earlier that day in chicago to advise the obama campaign. up next, the boston event with the two cochairs of the group partnership for a new american economy which supports immigration change as an economic issue. wall street journal executive jarosite moderates the discussion. you will hear from boston mayor thomas bonino. this is about an hour. [applause] >> so the council, needless to say, is very pleased to host a very special discussion on one of the most vexing issues of public policy facing our nation. how to develop and implement
there, sensible, and forcible immigration policy. it is a topic that often is addressed with more heat than like. the partnership for a new american economy is working to change that tendency and to promote serious, intelligent, rational, and respectful engagement of that complex issue . we are especially honored to have with us to prominent leaders of the partnership for the new american economy. michael bloomberg, news corporation chairman rupert murdoch. they are joining us here tonight as the partnership releases a new report on the increasingly important role of arrogance and starting new businesses of all sizes and in all sectors, copies of which will be made available as you leave here this evening.
well, mayor bloomberg after an enormously successful business career has gone on to an enormously successful career in public service. and we newfoundlander's claim him as one of our own. the city gift to the big apple, and as one of mr. murdoch's headline writers my say, local boy makes good. [applause] mr. murdoch, as you all know, took a newspaper business from down under up and over the competition to make news corporation a truly global business. for him the headline might be media mogul routes rivals.
well, his international perspective on the intersection of business and immigration will be fascinating to hear. to moderate the discussion we are pleased to welcome. the assistant managing editor and executive washington editor of the "wall street journal", also writes a column in the "wall street journal" a couple of times a week. capital journal. terrific, terrific, terrific reading. people often say to me, how do you know what you know? and i say, i've read gerry. that is the reason. so to get things going i am pleased to introduce another talented and accomplished chief executive who is also a member of the partnership for new american economy. our good friend, well-known to all, the mayor of this great city, the hon. tom bonino. [applause]
>> you want to -- >> this is the mayor city. he is asking to said. said. >> thank you. i mean, my guess, standing around. and earlier quotes about the middle of summer, we in the public sector, work five days a week. you guys in the private sector can do anything you want to do. nobody ever watches you. so sunday when i get into the private sector. >> 504 days. who's counting. don't have to worry about all that nonsense.
in fact, the council for hosting this evening's conversation. i am proud to be a member of the partnership for a new american economy. i want to thank my friend, mayor blumberg, for keeping the immigration issue at the forefront. really leading the way so that our country can have an important discussion on the issue. i know tonight's conversation is about immigration. i also want to recognize the mayor for his lead on the illegal. together we started as bears against illegal gun six years ago and now we have over 700 mayors as part of the coalition. we recently launched a demand a planned campaign to press our leaders in washington to offer a detailed plan to reduce the
daily toll of gun violence across the country. i am proud to stand with him on this fight. i thank him before his almost on a daily basis. [applause] i also want to think rupert murdoch for being here and sharing his views. sometimes the headlines, rupert, i have to talk to you about those headlines. thank you for being with us. it just gives a diversity of opinion. today am pleased to offer some brief remarks about a vitally important topic to our nation's future. boston has a proud history of
immigration. a gateway for immigrants says just about the start of our country. tens of thousands of immigrants came to us through east boston's immigration station in the early 1900's. today boston welcome people from many different cultures and countries. emigration has made boston a better city. generations after generations of the irish to my tie-ins, greeks, today's immigrants from africa, asia, latin america. immigrants have helped to reinvent boston. they make is old city new again and again. hal our arrogance making boston better? that me tell you about three ways they are. number one, emigrants are
strengthening our economy. all you have to do his sharpen one of art ever had businesses. visit a hospital, attend one of our colleges. yet one of our restaurants and see how immigrants contribute to this economy. the drive to succeed often knows no one race, color, or creed. let me give you some numbers to back up the statements. 8800 emigrants own small businesses in boston, generating almost $4 billion in annual sales and employ over 18,000 people. newcomers in boston also spends just over $4 billion annually. this spending generates over $1 billion in state, federal
taxes and helps support over to a half thousand jobs in our local economy. number two, immigrants are growing our city. for the first time since 1970 boston's population stands at over 600,000 people. for us more people means more challenged, more ideas, and more innovation. a lot of that growth, population growth has come from emigrants. one in four of estonians were born outside the united states. you know what we call immigrants here? mom and dad. you know what we call people from another country looking to fill a dream? brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles. welcome them all with open arms. here to help along the way.
connect the immigrants with opportunities. resources and so much more. you're going to walk through and here 100 different languages, celebrate countless cultures, and sample food around the world . listen to the facts. in 1980 close to 70 percent of boston's was white. today less than half the city is why. that diversity is one of boston's great strengths. a real competitive advantage in today's global world. so bostons and france, a strong position that they said the start of our century.
strength in our economy, growing our population, and making our city more diverse. it is no wonder that some of our east coast counterparts have looked at boston to see what they can do to attract newcomers the, the same positive results that we have seen in this city of boston over the last several years. immigrants are making huge contributions in boston. this is what immigrants can do even more across our country. they come together, get the job done, the national level. this is not a democratic issue or republican issue. it is an american issue. it goes to the heart of what we want our country to be. open end forward looking. as this debate moves forward, let's not forget our past, the
factors that we all are immigrants. almost all of us come from someplace else. that is a shared experience that should guide our national conversation. we as a city and country can go together. i want to thank the council for giving this opportunity. these are one of those issues that we debate nationally and locally we are thrilled that you
and collect them. with that, again, thank you for joining us. a turn the program over. >> thank you. >> i am at great peril tonight, and i need your help. i have agreed to moderate discussion involving the man whose eyes my paycheck and a guy who started one of our principal competitors. i have to be careful. i'm counting on you to ask the hardball questions. let's talk for a while. let me start with you. you said their is a consensus, nearly a consensus on the subject you're talking about tonight. something ought to be done. is there is a consensus why doesn't anything ever happen?
>> let me say understating their contribution to the mayor's against illegal guns. he was the guy that started it, and this thing, having said that, i am better looking than he is. i think the question -- emigration is two different things. there is consensus on one of them. hope the our economy put americans back to work and make sure the industries of the future created here. a group of people commemoration means what i call family reunification. that is britney over their relatives. i think it is true that both sides have tried to hold the
other side hostage to get their own side. there is consensus on the economic side. enough pressure on republicans and democrats in congress from the hometown farmer who can't pick his crops and the more because he can't get to seasonal workers or the businesses that cannot get the engineers and doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs that they need. the problem is that our country and congress and washington has become so polarized they cannot be seen working together. they may agree on something, but certainly before the election there not going to run what i call the looter lesson. if you look like your rational the orthodoxy of your party is going to throw you out whether it is from the right of the left yes, i think their is a consensus, but, no, i don't think there is -- how they come together. the chief executive, the next chief executive, whether it is obama or mitt romney can pull
technology, engineering, or math . in china it is 31% to. we have a demand just with our presence, crippling alone. in the next five years. 800,000 graduates. and it there will only be 500,000. the desperate need for 300,000. i think that is probably a great understatement. there should not be any nonsense about that. the scandal. the mayor said it first. that each one be visa. they should not have them. they get a graduation certificate. they should have a green card.
in this argument. i think their is a lot more huge economic acts, but we have taken a step after step. for instance, an arrogant is more likely to test status small business than non immigrant. why is that? well, there were ambitious. pretty desperate. they want to drain the american dream. a lot more than economics. the nature of the country, the culture, the history which has always been an open country to welcome the oppressed to much of the men, and form the character of this country which we must not let go. and we all talk about the
parties. i don't know that -- i mean, it is true, a flood of illegal immigrants from california or some of these other places. a native this group. want to send them all back. but really it would not take much courage for the republican candidate or a deputy to ignore them. run right over them. so what the hell. to it. and an overwhelming case economically an urgent case and in a broader sense i think that in the allegedly. >> education is the key. america is falling further and further behind the world. in new york city we made enormous progress in the school
system. 65 percent of our minority kids graduate as cool. thirty of percentage chicago. 65 percent in new york, and we are still falling behind what is needed in industry and falling behind what is the rest of the world is doing. the one part of education that we on is higher education except we are deliberately trying to kill it. taking the best and the brightest. they get their ph.d. your masters and resend them overseas. they can't teach here, do research. they go and build industries overseas and start making the overseas universities better. you're not going to reverse that easily. it is a tipping point. i don't know what. but something like 3 million until jobs in this country that possesses just cannot find qualified people. and it is not incidentally just educated. alabama and places like that, lot of their crops this year just rotted in the field.
they could not give people to pick the crop. if this were politically easy would not be having this conversation. he has to make people feel better. my family, make my family feel better. my son is a physics major. you let in a lot of foreign science technology engineering. are you diluting his job market? my sister lives in amarillo, texas. there were. what are you going to tell? >> number one, no one is coming across the border. we spent a fortune on technology if you want to come to america illegally the wasted time going across the border in through the desert. it's dangerous. get an airplane, here, overstate your visa. we have no ability to check who you are and get you back. the total number of undocumented has been going down for a long time. we solve the problem by having
our economy crater. people don't come here to put their feet up and collect welfare. they come here to work. if there are no jobs that don't come here. if their year and can't find a job they go back, because america is not a good place to sit around and think this it will support you. the case of your son somebody has to create the business that he is going to go to work for. of the numbers show immigrants, and it is because it is a self selecting thing. it cannot be easy to leave australia, come to the other side of the world, give up all your friends and family and everything. everything you know and start out from scratch. and that is what people are willing to do. of course immigrants are going to be more aggressive, more risktakers. that is why they come here. your son will want to go to work in a place where there are other engineering companies. that is the duty of the boston area which has a big high-tech
industry. new york, which we are creating one. austin, texas. silicon valley. they want to be where this -- there are other people doing the same thing because the way business works is the split off, start your own. you go back and forth. cut each other, work together, buy from, sell to, four partnerships. your son is not going to have a job. >> silicon valley.
>> i had breakfast with a united states senator. what to they want to talk about? emigration. so, you're right. the question i have for you, the feeling is that strong in the business community. why are more people marching down to washington where i live and making something happen? what is the business community need to do? >> that is what mayor bloomberg is trying to organize, trying to get a movement going. the business community, to make the politicians. >> i would argue that the one thing that seems to drive most elected officials, not all. tom is not one of them. their business is a job. might also want to make a difference. the thing that drives them the most is whether they can keep their jobs which means getting reelected or elected in the first case and keeping the party
in power because that makes it easier to continue to give reelected. and so if you want them to do something you have to convince them that voting with you for your interest is more in their interest. we will enhance their ability to stay in office. and if the other side has a bigger threat to them, to side with them they will go in the other direction. the perfect example is the nra. a textbook case of how you go and influence congress. you either vote with the nra or you don't. they have never taken any prisoners. there are explicit. they don't consider any of your other views. our problem is as rational people we will allow an elected official, we might not like this one thing, but they are okay on the other thing. so the gamble is they will go with the nra and published elected positions on lots of other stuff whereas if they don't there is no question that there will go after them.
the lobby say to the officials, you either do something to help this country and get the people in here we need a we will vote for your opponent and raise money for your opponent. unless you're willing to do that you are just sitting in the wind >> education. spend the next few minutes. but recede, the mayor has had a tremendous tenure, 11 years. pretty tense. he has made a lot of progress. you can bet, and do all that. and it is a tremendous.
francis, they managed to get themselves in a position. true across america. all the teachers have a pension and hourly they can retire. when the authority concerned comes to go over the books, very little money. so what did they get? they get the lowest. you draw from the lowest 20% of the university graduates. other countries, you have to drop from the top 30%. you know, it's all sort of self perpetuating, and it is a very, very serious thing. there has to be a showdown sooner later on this matter because they then charge their
members huge queues and throw money at every politician. >> reform will unravel. >> well, i hope not. what we have to do is to instill in the public the understanding that they can have schools that improve which include all the students. if you think about it, rudy guiliani was my predecessor. as always thought, his contribution to new york was not bring down crime. he did, but it was convincing the public that you could have low crime and could race relations and that any mayor that came after him would not be able to allow crime to go back up. since then we brought crime down another 355%. we will have the lowest number of murders in this city's history. life expectancy, partly because of low murders in new york city
is now three years > the average in america, but i could not let crime go up. i would get beaten in the press every single day if i did. and that is not the reason i brought cramdown. that is not the reason break kelly is the best police commissioner the city has ever had, but the public would not tolerate it. we have to do in education is try to create an expectation in the public that they will not tolerate the reform's going away because i think rupert is right. the teachers union will certainly put a lot of pressure on the candid it in the democratic. in new york there is no republican. the democratic primary is everything. so they will put an awful lot of pressure on offering their support in return for -- and then may not want to roll back everything, but a lot of the stuff that would want to rollback, particularly evaluations that are specific. if you take a look at the
country, one of the real differences is how much you really want to measure people based on new merricks. some as touchy-feely, some as real numbers. certainly would agree that you want to measure outcomes and in the private sector if you don't do a good job you lose your job. if your industry is in trouble because of the economy or competitors, you still have to do a good job. in government it does not work that way. if it is not easy to do its job the teachers would say, well, family structure does not today provided the background that it used to before. and therefore we can't do a good job. you know, that is not an excuse in the private sector. >> nor is it true. i know from some charter schools, complete -- 60 percent of them from single mothers. they turn out in incredible
are getting reelected and those tend to be people who organize, which tends to be -- >> that's not the only group, the business trips to the same. >> groupware can be started down this path and immigration. the presidential candidate. but what you like that from me to do and immigration marches and immigration? what would you like rock obama to do or say on immigration? >> either one. i would love them to say they are going to change the whole system. at least in the beginning, get rid of this hyp thing, absolutely. as for the so-called illegal mexicans, give them all learned english, give them a path to citizenship. they'll pay taxes, they are hard-working people, everything appeared by mitt romney doesn't do it, i have no idea because
they are natural republicans. [laughter] their catholics, >> minority groups seem to be in the democratic party, but they tend to be much more conservative and have republican social values on choice, on rice, public schools are not sort of thing. and republicans backing away from the latino community is divided down the strategy is any political party is ever a doubt it. >> i couldn't agree more. >> the skins in his own party were drowned them out. >> i don't believe they would. he's going to go to the convention. >> the were so do is if he will stay at home. >> can you receive the public convention no matter what he
says on immigration? what is the downside? in terms of the general election, the people opposed to immigration are to vote for barack obama anyways. there's just no downside. the same thing is true for barack obama. both guys have 45% of the vote. they do. so you really arguing 10% or 15% last. and those people aren't ideologues. they have freelancers and they listen and that is what all of the attention should be. and i think a lot of people, all these packs, and spending, most of these people are wasting their money. there's so many ads in the swing states, everybody tunes out. you just can't pay attention. and it's spoken after slogan and eventually you're mine doles to the whole thing. >> on this hispanic group, they're very sensitive people.
on saturday, they're crying for joy about winning the gold medal at the so. it was a big deal. does any candidate have enough sense to occur to a? now. but i think, you know, it's not a difficult thing to do. maybe a little courage, a little bit of overrating advisors that can be done. >> here's a few of the red sheets. just do it. >> in this new report, which is fascinating reading, the downside -- the good news from immigration point of view is that business is starting that immigrants are going up. the flipside of that i want to ask both of you is that business started by nativeborn americans are going down. what is going on there?
what is the problem? why are there entrepreneurs among native born americans? >> too many of them have been too lazy to go to college and spent three years being subsidized to bloody media studies or some ravish. last night and it easier to go to college and take some soft course. that is one thing. and we have 23 million people in this country today who are out of work, who don't wear. a lot of them have given up looking for work. they're getting so much benefits and everything. i don't know. and i think you have a big
problem. this is getting very political, but i think you have so much doubt about what's going to happen if taxes are my regulation and everything else that people are trying to start a business with certainty about the future, which case people the confidence to do something. >> the hunger, immigrants and it shows every time in every ethnic group, and endurance here are so selection process of coming here, those that are here, some do and some don't. and the other thing is having them go out and actually be creative and try new things. it is fascinating. i said this morning i was in chicago giving a speech in the two presidential candidates are unwilling to say where they stand on immigration, on the fact that 48,000 americans will
be killed in the next four years. we've caught this witching hour is sequestering in the bush era tax cuts and the deficit ceiling staring us in the face. and yet the good news for the country is we at least have two vice presidential candidates that seem to have some courage and they say what they want to say. now whether the people who would pick them to run when it's our happy about it, i don't know. but she can't say that either ryan or biden are shrinking violet spirit good for them. but you agree or not, least you know where they stand. >> are you on not click >> i agree entirely. one of the big problems we have in this country, there'll be sold industrial cities that have been hollowed out. not true because you're the big
big stem group appear and it's got a history and there's a race to beat your chicago or new york and other cities, but then their cities that have left and half the city's big day, house of flying down, no traffic on the wrist. it got too many classrooms, not too few as we do. the caution is, what can you do about it? i was asked about it and i picked detroit as an example. with the federal government could do right away and wouldn't cost anything and remember we don't have the money to do everything. here's the solution to the problem. all the federal government's got to do is say we are going to welcome here in this country first-come first-served, families that families that they're willing to come under the following terms. we will assign your city. you've got to agree to not be arrested or taken a federal state or city money. and if you survive seven years, will make you and your family full text defense. but what they do?
they go there, buy these houses, fix them up from a sense the to school. they make a big fuss and demand the schools get better. immigrants have a very low crime rate so you certainly don't have to worry about that. they create businesses. they had to drive back and drive back at night they do it. it's still, no matter how many 's the one current needs.a.ople it costs us nothing but his phenomenally valuable overseas. and you'd get people people to come here and they would sell those cities with the vibrancy and the people who are unemployed in the cities would all of a sudden have companies that can go to work with. they get jobs helping fix up houses. they been the schools, driving the buses, starting businesses of their own because they see how other people do it. other than that, it's immigrants that create the jobs the river was talking about the really are in need. >> i think that's a pretty art price to pay.
cities, and cities go and there's great new cities being built, been added in other cities decline. actually if you look at michigan, detroit is a disaster area. but she got 10 miles around and there's pitiful suburbs everywhere. and it's not that bad. it's just change. and i will come back. i agree with that. you will probably get coming in now, i have a theory that within three or four years you will see huge chinese investment in land and development in this country because they're going to put their money somewhere. >> that's a good segue, rupert. the first question from the audience. thank you, appreciated. an interesting one, something i wanted to touch on. what can we learn from other
countries in the way they think about immigration? other countries other than united states. what should we be learning from them? >> well, we learn anything we can if they are successful. i think what looks successful at airports not a great example. they pay a lot of money to get the very, very -- as a result they have to higher gdp per person. it's terrific. but if you look at australia, new zealand, places with better policies. i wouldn't say australia is ideal. it's a huge debate at the moment. it's illegal when coming down and personally i wouldn't let most of them in. and actually, it's interesting,
they've had different places that has led to time. and when crime has then left alone, the communities taken over baytown on the outside of sydney, all vietnamese, all lebanese. it's not long, maybe takes half a generation. they work it out. there are paths to rebels in gangs, but that's normal. look what we've had in this country. so that film in new york, was fantastic. the battles between the italians and the irish. i think we've had that. now we are much more sophisticated country, a much bigger country and we cannot people people spread out much
more. they don't all come in a flood with the humidity. >> another rant there is think about most most of our visas for family reunification. you take a country like canada, most of their visas are given out for helping the economy. there's a lot of countries around the world that will pay you to come there and start a business. they have a pro-business policy. these immigrants as a stimulus to their economy and we don't have that might fit. canada lucinda. >> a lot of the west coast big i.t. companies have offices in vancouver because they can't get the engineers in the united states, but they can get into vancouver and it's a boat ride across the south. >> it is a great manufacturing center for drugs, which come across the border. something like 10 or $15 billion of bad drugs coming from british
columbia. i'm not just seen what she can do is about it, but it's a fact of life. >> there's a question here about something president obama did, which is a stopgap policy, which was essentially to say, my administration is not going to enforce deportation of laws as they pertain to younger immigrants who were born here, a legal immigrant parents commit them to school, have you got in trouble. were not going to deport them. is that a good idea? >> it's absolutely a great idea. politically he was brilliant. romney said of changing his policy are now bidding him. it's a policy that matters. >> the obama administration has
supported more undocumented and probably the last five administrations put together. and you would not expect that from a democratic administration. i'm not quite sure why they've been so forceful, but they have been. the people that rupert is talking about is they would carry to age three months in this country and their parents arms. did they break the law? i don't know how it's written, but technically they had no right to come across the border. they did, but in terms of culpability, i mean, come on. these are people were self-selected group. they want to go to work, what a serving the military, want to do everything we want. were desperately trying to get a group like that to push them up, doesn't make any sense. >> i agree totally. let me ask this question. i read it as it's written because i think it captures the political angst within the subject. how do you counter the rhetoric out there that immigrants are
taking jobs and changes that immigrants create jobs? also, what about people's fears that immigrants may be terrorists? >> most of the terrorists here come a lot of time outlooks tend to be born here, educated here. they all have mental problems and that sort of thing. it is true there a terrorist overseas going to do? not let anybody in? the tourist is likely to be a terrorist is someone who comes to work. i just don't think that's a legitimate thing to worry about. in terms of creating jobs. the numbers are in the study and sure, but if you do seasonal worker, they create jobs and higher economic levels once the crops are picked what happens to those win at the engineering level, they create jobs below a lesser skilled things so you want to work in both directions. but the terrorist thing, we have to be vigilant. we have to be in charge of our own borders. we have to make sure that we
have intelligent policies. for example, if you get a visa to come here. we don't track when you leave, so we have no idea how many people are here. we are not doing the things we should do and that is why the 9/11 memorial is so apportioned to teach people to action, but that is not a reason to not have people come here because the terrorists want to take away our economy, take away our rights. and if you don't let immigrants and, they are going to win. >> rupert coming to worry about a connection? >> yes, i think we do. we are sure the federal authorities in the yard are very wary. i know that is the case in britain, does she look and they are all fine people. but she went to have a look at the mask and what they're being told. most of them are just fine. there are a few who are bubble
ross or send brainwashers. they come back. i think your friend certainly in britain and other doing this. they are watching kids who have just come out of school, come back to their so-called family trip for a year or two years, keep them under surveillance for a while. because they are british citizens, just as american citizens here. i think we're watching it pretty well, but i do think we want to look at what's going on in terms of this crisis. >> and how does the perception, if you want to change the perception politically that immigrants take away jobs to immigrants create jobs, how did that happen? >> i don't think it's true. i think it's only the immigrant works harder. we have it in person because of
the common market, people can move around and hundreds of thousands of poles, mechanics and plumbers and so on and effectively built the olympic stadium. i was at last week. and they built it a year early. i guaranteed the british and building a. [laughter] would've been over in the last week and triple times. and yet they were pretty popular. they behave very well. they were great. now pullen is doing better. they've all gone back to poland. but they just work better. >> as a set of correlation between how good a suit studies turn in america, those with high immigrant populations have better credit ratings, better economy has come a better average education, lower crime
and that sort of thing. i think if somebody wants to demagogue, there's people who believe slogans because they want to believe them and there's no to rationalize. >> i think the situation, which has grown in europe, where politicians have been given their money and bartering and so on and we have an entitlement state. we get hundreds of letters a week from people working really hard in the north of england, getting 15, 16,000 pounds a year. and finally they find it pretty hard. imac story they've got people getting 20,000 because they've got six kids and they get every possible entitlement. that is pretty spread through europe and that is why europe is now having to sort it out.
i don't know what kind of message will be, but she can write it off for any economic growth for the next 10 years. >> if you think about economic environment in this country. >> we don't want to let that happen here. >> to make a case you're trying to make him he picked a terrible time to do it. unemployment is 8.3%. how can you make this argument about immigration? >> how can you win in this environment? that's what i mask them. >> it's like how can you make an investment when times are tough? new york city walked away from his future back in the 70s. they did make an investment in infrastructure maintenance or anything because the economy was bad. i missed it decades to work their way out of it. if you go look at history in america when great things were done, the central park on the empire state building, things that start at the bottom of the
recession. there is a guy, barnett, not barnett. he asked out by p. larry barnett -- gary barnett. everyone thinks he's crazy. he's been building for the low prices another cinemas demand. he just sold the top two floors and $90 million apiece and he stopped selling them because he can't keep up with the demand. it's got to wait until prices go up. we've got brilliant comic and see people make investments when times are tough and leaders bring along other people and the president of the united states, this one couple over the next one is, they've got to bring along congress. it is their responsibility to make your question, to explain to the public and make sure we do it or we won't have a future. >> we have a great economy. unemployment will go down. and to get a good economy companies graduate more and
better migraines. >> one last question. i'm not going to have you. two years from now, with immigration system has been changed or will it be the same one and have the same conversation? >> i think it will have changed. i think about how to change. >> i agree. i think the pressure eventually will guide to every one and all of these things were rupert and i say the president and the governor aren't addressing the issue. they're unwilling to say anything. that still is a pressure that's going to be there after the election. and then because the president fundamentally has a two-year, not before your job, the president has a tv show because midterm elections are very important to his ability or her ability to continue on a government. they've got a very short window. they have to address this right
after the beginning and it will come down as a bargain with everything else. the lodges overnight everything. you've given here, here, and then they'll have two years to the constituencies back together. if they don't do that, then you have an enormous problem and also will have marks as it would have been in europe how they kicked the can down the road. some parts can take it down the road, some parts they have to face the chuckle in italy found that trouble and greece just as mean to be a solution. i merkel has good political problems at home. but they have to do it. and you see a show or china's economy is going down. that's not good for america. that's not good for europe. all of these economies are interdependent. i keep defending the chinese people who say they don't do this, do that, whatever.
manufacturing united states has done very well. people do understand how good manufacturing has been in the last or in america. but it's not done is it's not created jobs. it's using technology. but when you market to sell the things the manufacture in china is the biggest market in the world for us. so we want their economy to be good. they also incidentally so the stores with things people want to buy at low prices. the consumer one of these is the way to the day i want them to keep sending stuff here. without them i couldn't afford it. >> and i just had one very hopeful thing. in the last two years, we've had enormous discoveries of natural gas in this country. we have an energy policy for six or seven years, we will be totally independent of importing any oil or gas in the gas will go into the agent, give out half the carbon pocola does. we want to worry about bloody
windfarms and hideous other things. >> i'm glad to see the plans, thank you. >> we've got the gas now. except in new york say you got a governor who's very slow to allow it to be brought out of the ground. just over pennsylvania, they're making money out of it. >> so we've got to close on an optimistic note. i love that. thank you for making my life easier. [applause] i would like to thank our two very distinguished speakers for the eloquent than a very difficult issue and what they are asking all buses when we meet the federal candidate, incumbents or challengers as well as candidates, many of my friends here from new hampshire
meet the presidential candidates just about every other day. i think it's important we elevate the discussion and it's up to all of us to elevate it. outages struck at mr. murdoch as well as the science technology, engineering and math is wonderful, creative, innovative young men and women to get these masters and phd's here. many new england. after all, swirl the finest colleges are. and i think it's a shame that we send them back to their country. for the most part if you want to stay here, they go back and create all these wonderful products that they sell to us because of the knowledge they received here. so we can't agree even more understand visa. and since we have two international speakers here, and i might add at the previous event, there's only the mayor.
says an awful lot about austin, new england, that they would choose most of them to come here. a token of appreciation would like to get to the distinguished speakers since the international speakers, the mayor alluded to manufacturing. you bet. it's back here in new england. we have this magnificent chelsea clock that is made here, a few miles to the north. the mayor knows about because the mayor's father grew up in chelsea. so he knows chelsea very, very well. so sticklike as a company that manufactures magnificent clocks here in new england comics are in the united states, made in u.s.a. i hope you enjoyed your visit here. we thank you for your presence aramark summit ford to work in the those of you. [applause]