tv After Words with Don Watkins CSPAN May 22, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm EDT
and once they got elected they picked people inside washington to implement it and they said are you nuts? we cannot do this. we cannot shift power to the people. we will have to give all of this power. we have to have power in washington. that is the real issue. entitle reform is the topic of your book. >> c-span, brought to you by your local cable or satellite
we tell the story in the book, susan peterson had been a guest on the show shark tank, the ratio. she had a business making this stylish baby moccasins were kids to wear. she started with the talent because she didn't have any money. what she did as asked her brother who had a window business as she got follow him around the summer and keep the discarded window frame. she is bringing out the class and tuned in for $200 that's how she started her business and now it's successful. if the last that she any opportunities? just in the abstract, you would
think she doesn't have any money paid but because she set a goal and took the responsibility for achieving it, she was able to see some in there was an opportunity -- a potential opportunity to turn it into success or that's what you want to say full text presenting other people's opportunities and look around at the once open to you. the mac but the highlight, the reason you can't have the government promote one person's opportunities is the only way you can do it is that other people's expense. number one thing i would like to see is the government stop taking away people's opportunity which it does way too much a beard hopefully we will talk more about this. if you take things like minimum wage, they will hike up to $15 an hour over the next two years. occupation -- occupational licensing laws, an education system that leaves them in their kids, or americans that a good education. these are the things holding
back a bit of them that they haven't gotten big enough handouts. they got handicapped by government intervention. >> host: with these increases in the minimum wage, people cannot get any job at all. it is troubling us is spreading across the country. new york state to be the next in the name of getting rid of inequality. >> guest: so there is a big debate in the literature about one side says the minimum wage creates unemployment. the other sites as we look at the studies. we can think about this in a much more simple way, which is that i can't find somebody willing to offer me $15 billion an hour to work, the minimum wage that it's illegal for me to work. i have this book an issue for the perspective of philosophy. one of the things philosophy is concerned with is justice. even if it were true that 99% of the people get a higher wage of only 1% of the people get stopped from working by
something like the minimum wage, that is unjust. you can't prop up some people by obliterating the futures of other people who are unable to take that first step on the road to success. >> host: academic economists conclude that it's just the young and unskilled that are hurt by these increases in the minimum wage. it's really those we are preventing him from getting their foot on the first run of the career ladder. so it is very troubling that in california and perhaps new york teenagers aren't going to be able to get jobs. >> guest: no, it is really sad and really tragic and ignores the main thing that people need to succeed here this is really the story of american history as an open road. an open road to success. go back before we have a welfare state, before the government was doing anything to let things out. here is out.
here's a time when human beings only have economic progress for a relatively short amount of time. yet people were able to come here and build successful life for themselves because here as opposed to their home countries, nobody was kind of stop you from doing what you judge best for your life. the same thing is true here. the more that we open the road to project of the treatment and stop putting blockades and barriers in the way of that, that is what really will about everybody regardless to have the maximum opportunity to achieve success and happiness. >> host: yes, yes. you say in your book, quote, no one can exploit you with monetary trade. there are always charlatans who prey on the uninformed. look at the diesel cars, for example, without they were buying low emissions vehicles. is there a notable for the government such as the trade mission to make sure that what people are saying is true, or do you think there's any role for laws that say children under some age, such as 15 or 12
shouldn't be allowed to work to avoid exploitation? >> guest: so i think the essence of a moral society, when it comes down to it is that it is voluntary. we interact voluntarily. we reach a mutual agreement or we are free to go our separate ways. but nobody can do something to us without our consent. and so, the question is in cases where somebody sells to a product that is different than what they promise you, that is exactly where we need a government to step in and say that is not the person can send it to. when he had agreed to pay $20,000 for the car it would operate a certain way. i don't think you need regulatory bodies. you just need laws against fraud and so on. what regulatory bodies do was basically they don't prescribe criminal behavior. they prescribe in postcard project that behavior. they dictate how people produce and decide what kind of deal can we arrive? it is not regulation to tell
carmakers when he saw somebody something it better be what you told them it was. it is a regulation when they say your car has to get this kind of gas mileage and it has to have this many seat belts and has to do xyz rather than leaving that up to the mutual choice of buyers and sellers. as far as children they have a right or responsibility to the rights of children. i don't think that applies in so-called child labor laws, which i think are on the whole pretty damaging. i'm the one hand they are necessary when you are concerned. we are so rich now that parents are going to send their kids to a coal mine. the first thing they do and achieve a certain level of economic success of economic successes they send their kids to school and that is why you saw child labor going away before they were ever laws against child labor. he was on its way out because of economic progress. the laws make it much harder for
kids instead of playing nintendo or whatever the video game system is, they would love to have a job or they can earn money come again responsibility. you know who suffers most from those laws? the poor kids. one of my best friends he was basically thrown into the foster care system at a pretty young age. the main thing that he didn't have was his own money so that he could actually be himself so that he could gain a foothold in their building a resume and achieving success and this is one of the barriers. and so you had some arbitrary team by the government, you are about to go and waste your life or hang out on the street corner or do any kind of unproductive thing you want. the one thing you can't do is be there. i think that is unfair to young people. >> host: don't you think there should be a law saying children under a certain age have to be in school? what if i know that it's not very common, but what if there were parents who would say look,
i am going to send my children out to wash cars all day because our family needs the money or something like that. should not be prohibited? >> guest: i think you need to have the government define what you consider actual abuse of children. it has to be up to the parents judgment. that brings you down a dangerous road but the basic one is not the government gets to decide what qualifies as an education. i think that is one of the worst things you can do. we are so worried about putting the government charge of health care decisions, which i read as a scary thing. putting them in charge of the ideas and ideas that children are taught, we've taken for granted for 100 plus years. the biggest risk is not that a handful of parents will send their kids to school. the biggest risk is that schools are taken over by bureaucracy rather than open up or choice, for parents be free to decide what ideas their children should be taught in our innovators to come in and find exciting ways
to educate children. particularly those who are not in the poorest areas. >> one of the topics on those peoples radars the presidential election. it's been really interesting to see how much support bernie sanders has with his talk of inequality and it has really driven his numbers much higher than they would have been otherwise. can you talk about why that is? >> guest: yeah, back it as to what is going on in today's debate. isn't that bernie sanders has tons of charisma and sex appeal or is it that he has ideas that have a lot of power. it really is the power of the idea and it really comes from two things. is he standing up for a moral ideal, the ideal of economic equality. this second he has on his side
what you can call it a moral narrative that tells us when you abide by my ideal, you flourish and when you abandon the ideal, you find her. you have no doubt heard the idea that america really reached the zenith, its golden age in the postwar era when the government supposedly thought income inequality and we all did better. what happened in the 70s, which is usually blaming reagan. what happened is we abandon that a deal. 1% took over, started rigging the game. they got all the games and we all stagnated to providing a quality things are great. and then inequality things are bad. >> host: it's been getting a lot of traction. they should go up 80%, 90% of
college students poker hand. they feel the bern. >> guest: when you have a reality on your side and when you appear to have a moral ideal that is inspiring to young people. >> they think is coming from his heart. they see them as authentic. how do we site.message? >> guest: i think what is going on as two aspects. one he has this moral ideal. all he's going to help out people, but it also appeals to greed for the unearned. the message that a lot of these kids take away is also maybe i'll get out of this college loans. when you combine greed for the unearned ideal, people will crusade for some pain and the only way to oppose that his challenge the ideal so long as you grant that free college makes you a good person, then they can come out and take a
strong stand for it. if all they do this cannot unfair want a bailout for a handout, you will not see that crusading spirit. the thing that is tragic about the whole discussion is that the critics of the critics of inequality, people who don't want to see the government expanding how much wealth it takes for people, the people support free enterprise. there's not much to say in this issue. when we start writing our book, you know how many books do left had put out? probably four or five a year. they inequality put out at that time. and all of the issues there's been two books. monday canadian professor not too many people have heard of unfortunately, even though his book was quite good and another by thomas seoul, which was had some good elements that would
only address the small subcomponent of the debate. it didn't address the whole thing. it focuses on challenging statistics we agree we should minimize inequality, but if your member ram paul during the presidential debates, republicans will reduce inequality better than democrats. the trouble is both of those conceived economical quality is an ideal armor problem is that economic equality as an ideal, we are in trouble because economic freedom is immoral. we talk about my wife a free market leads to nothing resembling economic inequality. that leads to progress for everybody, but very different progress. we have a lot of work to do. we have to challenge there a deal, their narrative was an account right an account great deal and narrative enough so we do in the book. >> host: yes, yes. i suddenly buried -- certainly
very much enjoyed reading it. it is worth everyone picking up and adding it today. what seems to concern many americans isn't inequality per se, but mobility. we talk about people who start off slow and just want to get interop and that seems to be more important than economic inequality. what do you say about that? >> guest: i definitely think that is true. a lot of our concern comes to fairness is not that gap. are people able to rise by merit? are they able to rise by their own efforts even if they start out without a lot of wild, without all of the things that people on them would have. i think there's a couple things that are important to keep in mind about mobility. first of all, mobility is not declined here to mold -- even as
economic inequality has probably been rising, we do have a mobility problem. the danger is thinking about ability in purely financial terms to a lot of times you will see these charts. how many people move up from the bottom and tile into the top quintile or until the middle. i think that is the wrong way to think about it. the goal of life is not to move up to a particular quintile. it is to find a career you are happy at and build for yourself a really fulfilling life. i mention my friend, jeremiah. here's a guy who starts at the bottom and is now a teacher. i don't know how much money he makes, but i imagine most don't make enough to get into the top 10% or top 20% of earners. but is not a full success? should we regret he didn't he come an investment banker because that might have gotten him to the top.
>> there's people to say we need to pay teachers more and the level they are given back to society doesn't really square with the amount that we are paying them, that we should be paying teachers more. they have proposals that teachers would get paid more in exchange for giving up tenure. >> guest: that's funny. that is quite revealing of the union. now, teachers should be paid as much economic value as they can generate on the market. the problem is we don't have a market for education today and it's not clear what teachers should be paid the sense of how much economic value are they really adding. but the basic question is then how should we think about mobility if we shouldn't think about it by looking at these mobility tables. the way you think about it is hard their barriers preventing a person from rising?
i think what that really comes down to at the end of the day is government intervening in the economy and the way that prevents a person from rising by his achievement, from rising by productive merit. >> host: there are so many. pre-occupational licensing which you discuss in your book. >> guest: let me give one example. there are millions of examples and maybe some not particularly annoy you. here is one that annoys me. let's say you can't find anybody to employ me and so i'm going to go out on my own and teacher perform hair-raising because it is a skill i'm really good at. let's say i know a bunch of people who want to pay me to do it. many states can't do that. it's illegal until i get a license from the state. i'm sure we could do it. but as a job, as a trade i have to go and spend hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars
getting thousands of dollars. who are the people most likely to become hair braiders and who are the people least likely to be able to afford to go through a process like that? it is precisely the poorest people who need every ounce of freedom to really get that up on the road to success. that is just one of many, many examples. >> host: they were even closing down children's lemonade stands. >> guest: absolutely. a lot of the lemonade stands about teaching the lessons of lunch premiership. that teaches them a month and today, which is that you need permission from the government to do almost anything. it really is outrageous. they're out barriers with the minimum wage. here's one more area. everything the government does that drives up cost for the things we buy is a huge bear in opera to shun. i have to work that much harder
to make a living. when the government funds unaffordable housing per se, a lot of what it is doing is driving up the cost of housing and more people are demanding housing. a lot of the restrictions that we see by the epa on energy production, such as all ethanol scandal such as that is, they dress up the cost of energy. who are the people most affected by that? do people that don't have that big a budget and can't afford the energy cost. >> host: the bottom 25% on energy and gasoline and motor oil in the top than 4%. >> guest: a fourth of a tight budget has a really big deal. there are all these subtle ways in which rising is becoming harder. so if we are really concerned with people's ability to rise by merit, your first obligation is to stop making it harder for them. poster would you say to people who say we need more renewable energy, solar and wind, even
though it drives up the cost of energy because that helps the planet. don't join. don't you want to help the planet? >> guest: this is a big question that i would say what i want to do is help human beings. i want to help you minimize. the way you do that fundamentally does leave people free to use the best energy for their own lives. but then decide whether it is oil, natural gas, nuclear. >> host: natural gas is achieved. other people will come and say this is polluting. this is increasing greenhouse gas emissions. this is causing global warming or climate change. would you say to that? >> guest: had we summed that up if you send this? if we actually look at the big picture, pluses and minuses of the use of fossil fuels, it is without question are not hugely beneficial to human beings. if we want to understand how
human beings went from 30 until a.d., it's precisely because we've had cheap affordable abundant energy. i don't think the arguments we aheargainst fossil fuels actually a hold of. i don't think the idea we run out of bed i would need the government to get us hooked on something else is true. i think they can certainly cause pollution and that's why you need laws to protect us from pollution. you don't need to outlaw the fuel that more than 80% of the time is making possible industrial civilization. climate change is a more complex issue. i don't think there is evidence we are headed for a climate catastrophe. the planet has been warming and i think on that, what fossil fuels do is give us the ability to cope with any climate. to circle and connect this to the whole inequality debate, one of the major things we are told is that we need to expand the
power of government in order to equalize people economically and to expand the power of government to prevent us from destroying the planet for fossil fuels. the matter what it is, it is always take away freedom and wealth from individuals and give more power to the government and these have really become the two major arguments. the environmental and inequality for expanding government today. we are tackling inequality argument here. i should just add a close friend of mine wrote a book tackling environmental moral case for fossil fuels. let's see. i would say we've got the problem solved. two books, one on each issue. that is the hard part. >> host: yeah. a lot of people talk about scandinavia as the ideal and say we should be more like scandinavia because scandinavia is more equal. would he say about that? >> guest: this is one of the funny things.
i knew little about but not a lot. one of the surprising things i found was actually if you look at the history of sweden, what you find is that it's important to the complete opposite conclusion of what we are actually taught. a lot of what we hear this comparison between sweden and america today. those comparisons are dangerous for many reasons. is a bunch different than our political policy. number two, it is easy to cherry pick local policies you want to characterize sweden versus america. we're often told sweden is a socialist country and america as a crazy catalyst country. in fact, we're pretty much comparable in the amount of controlled areas in the economy. it's just different. much higher taxes, much more wealth redistribution, but much less damaging regulatory sphere in many ways and america.
so they are not comparable in that sense. this is what is really fascinating. the history of sweden -- sweden started off as one of the most poor countries in europe if you go back a few hundred years ago. one of the poorest countries in europe. it then quickly became one of the richest countries in europe and it was because it became one of the most free-market countries. you can probably make an argument that in many ways there was more free-market for many years and the united states. it became very rich, very unequal. in the 1960s companies start to get sweden as we hear it talked about today, where it moved in the direction of dramatically increasing taxes, dramatically increasing welfare distribution. it was a pretty -- it went very far in the direction of a social democratic redistributed state. the result was the economy basically flat bind.
things got really bad. you didn't see the economic growth. you didn't see the entrepreneurial in sweden at that point. you were getting a ton of new companies at that time. what happened in economic inequality, it shrank. it got the lowest it's ever gotten. eventually the swedes said this is not working and in more recent years started liberating their economy and they seemed really good economic outcomes. it started to grow again. i think if you look from the perspective of their own history, you see at least a testament to the kind of case we are making that if you're concerned about economic progress, what you want is not economic redistribution but economic. >> host: we do want some redistribution. for example, we need armies. we need streetlights. we need certain things so that the government can pay for.
together that we need to have taxes. >> guest: debate to pay the government does that protect all of our freedom on a holiday redistribution. redistribution is the government instead of raising funds in order to protect everybody's freedom and property, basically takes some people's property and give it to other people. there i think there's never a justification for that. >> host: there shouldn't be any government social safety net, no food stamps, no unemployment insurance, no housing vouchers, no medicaid? >> guest: no forcing one member to work without pay so other people can get paid without working. >> host: they don't work without pay. they get paid third portion goes to the social safety net that they don't get in trouble and they have the social safety net
to fall back on. >> guest: no. i call that working without pay. what it really amounts to is i went to work and somebody wants to pay me in return for my services. i don't get to decide what to do with that money. that goes to some other cause that i may not agree with. they may not want a do not amount. i'm not against a safety net if you want to call it that. bad things can happen in life and you have to be prepared for them. that things can happen to the people you care about and you want to do something about it. all that can be taken care of voluntarily. my previous pokémon was about care focused before and after the state. one of the things happening in america before the creation of the welfare state really starting in 1935 as the social security act, was that there were these challenges involved in industrialization were said he had to figure out what happens if that is the job for now that we are living longer, what do i do in retirement to take care of myself and my family and what was happening as
people were starting to find private voluntary solutions to these. first of all, they would save a much more significant amount of money than we do today. but there is also rising insurance in terms of unemployment insurance, although that was often illegal for some bizarre reason in the state, the private unemployment insurance. there was a phenomenon called mutual aid societies, which were in effect insurance agencies, where i could join one of these folks lodges or moose lodges, pay an amount that i agreed to inhabit contractual right to say health care benefits or in some cases, a place to stay if i was elderly and couldn't support myself. and of course there was abundant private charity. why should we make a social safety net if you want to call that voluntary rather than coercive? different people have different values. my dad tonight -- >> what about the great depression?
these probably work for some people some of the time, but we've all seen photographs of people stand in line for soup at the soup kitchen during the great depression. are you singing that not having food stamps is an advantage? >> guest: would you be shocked if i said yes that was actually the ideal. >> host: it's just interesting to answer. >> guest: the fact is that oppression, there's no question that this was fundamentally made possible by government control over the economy and particularly actions of the federal reserve. when people are left free, you don't get widespread depression. >> host: that is definitely agreed on. one can say on one hand that there should be less regulation the government should have a consistent monetary policy applied to the taylor rule without at the same time saying there shouldn't be any social
safety net. they don't both have to go together. >> guest: my only point is this. if you recognize both redistribution is immoral and to start it, the question is do we need it? i'm saying history actually shows we don't need it and the great depression is far from being an example of what would happen -- what would happen if we didn't have one, really doesn't count as an example because the great depression is precisely about the fact we did have all these government interventions in the economy. if you keep the government out of thing so it doesn't create widespread depression, private: terry charity has always been war then abundant. of course we are so much richer now. this is way less of a concern, the fact that there's way more money you can use to buy insurance to help people you care about and the causes you care about. i don't see that as a problem. what i do see as a society that treats people not as individuals that we all respect for their
freedom and property to, that would divide society into resources into burdens. burdens when when you can ask of our resources to be exploited by society when we've achieved some thing. i don't think it's a way of world society treats people. the way people deserve to be treated as independent beings who have a right to be left alone to pursue their own happiness and success. >> host: if they do fall on hard times, if they are sick, if they fall down the street of a heart attack, we don't have any obligation to help them get on their feet? we don't have any obligation to give them medical care? we don't have any obligation to give them food. >> guest: you are saying we. >> host: society as a whole. >> guest: there is no society as a whole. there's only individuals. which individuals have rich responsibilities. if it is my friend or event somebody i know around the neighborhood and i see that their house burned down, i have a certain obligation. it is part of having integrity.
the people i care about, when the chips are down i will be there and assist them. >> host: say there is someone whose nasty and perhaps a republican doesn't have any friends at all. there is no friend bail them out. are you saying that there is no government entity? that has a moral obligation to bail them out. >> guest: no, that is one reason you shouldn't be a. if you want people to help you and people to be nice to you come you actually have to be a traitor. you have to repay the favor. i'm against the idea that one person's need is an entitlement. when we think about the question, we often think about ourselves as the one doing the helping. i want to help people. i would hate seeing somebody's starving in front of my eyes. so it died. that's not the issue. historically we've seen people do. put yourself in the shoes. how would you think about the issue? somebody owes me and i don't
care if they're struggling to send their kid to school. i don't care if they're trying to build their business. i'm going to demand that he paid for my operation. ifas thousands of people that question. i have yet to one person is dead that's how i would act. the way we would act is to ask and understand that if they said no, i will go ask somewhere else. i think that same kind of civilized moral attitude should be reflected in government aid. this isn't about helping people. this is your sheer need entitlement. i never heard an argument for why it's an entitlement. >> host: so you need something to take the sake of argument, her surgery and you go to your friend and say i need heart surgery. would you give me the money for her surgery? your friend i want to give you the money but may not be able to
afford the magnitude of the operation of that surgery. if we pulled the race, so to speak, by taking a few pennies from everybody, depending on their income so when you need your heart surgery, there would he pennies for many, many people to help you with the heart surgery and there would be a fun, a risk or so you wouldn't have to depend on one friend and you would have to have a rich friend who would have to help you with the her surgery. these are questions whether a vast economies of scale and where you might say the government has a role to play in enabling these things to happen. >> guest: this is the reason why such an innovation. we get them voluntarily. this is why it so important. we can decide if it's worth it to us. health care is a complex situation because it is so controlled by government that we
take for granted that things to be as expensive as they are, that insurance would be as expensive as it is. we have a whole section of the book where we talk about some of the ways government intervention is really made health care in america a combination of really, really good, a lot of innovation in a lot of progress in really bad. one way it is bad as it's driven up costs enormously or what hasn't left the market. >> host: that is true. we have very severe problems in the delivery of our health care system just because of the lack of competition and the lack of the ability to get bare-bones health-insurance. it doesn't mean it always works to everybody and i would contend with we need some sort of safety net has if someone doesn't have any friends, they are starving or dying of an early death, it is very troubling to me that you don't see the need.
>> guest: history shows there is any need for that. the scenario you are talking about is not a realistic scenario. when they feel benevolent way towards one another, there is somebody out there that will not have any friends, family, neighbors, no private charities help them out. the idea that is really the scenario doesn't make a lot of sense. i want to separate two things. it would be great if today we were debating should the government have any role the safety net. that is a good debate to have. i think it's very different debating economic inequality. economic inequality not on what happens to the one in a million person or maybe less who just can't help themselves. we need to equalize and the core of that it's not about solving columns of poor people.
thomas pkt as the capital of the 21st century is a cheap proposal for fighting in the quality are marginal tax rates upwards of 80% and a global wealth tax of upwards of 10% and also an inheritance tax upwards of 80%. he says it's with a b. this is not about raising money to help the poor because, he argues, these high taxes never raise that much in revenue. this is about ending big fortune. i submit that is very different in a completely morally different category and a different kind of debate in the debate over what do we do about that very exceptional case of a person in need having trouble finding support. even if a person disagrees and says we need some kind of safety net, they can see their son a morally corrupt if your view is leading you to destroy fortune in itself, even though by your
own admission it will not help the poor person. >> host: right. a very, very practical because it's very difficult to calculate wealth changes every minute with markets change in and values changing, so implementing it is extraordinarily difficult, which is why governments rely on in contact. but there has been a lot of animosity as you say towards some people and a lot of money such as ceos and governments trying to rein in ceo pay him different areas. interestingly enough there's been a lot less animosity toward our rock stars that shows madonna and maybe god to and also leading sports players, the animosity of the progressive seems to be ceos rather than artists and sports players who have earned the money they get. can you comment on that? >> guest: part of the reason
is that it's very easy to see the value of what lebron james does. you can see is a spectacular player people love watching basketball. one of the debates as we are taught to have strong opinions about how much a ceo should get paid, but if you ask most people what a ceo does, i have yet to get a decent answer for most people. >> host: they manage companies. >> guest: people don't know what that means or why it's in. obviously the people we know who are experts in study this stuff have some idea of it. it is not well known and yet we are supposed to have a view of how much they get paid. the fortune 500, biggest companies in america between two and $200 billion in revenue. the average pay for the tel as $10.5 million. that's a lot of money. nothing to scoff at.
i would be happy to take a percent of that. nevertheless when you compare it to the scale of the companies they are running, or what lebron james mates, he made something like 20 x million dollars last year as his basketball salary. it does not seem particularly outrageous as ceo companies from making that amount of money, particularly when you're not look at how important our job is and how hard it is. everything around us and the tv cameras, the fact we got here in a car cover the fact that i got to the side of the country on an airplane, all of that was made by entrepreneurs, managers, businesses and all those businesses were headed by ceos. as we've seen an obvious case, with and without steve jobs. it is clear a ceo can make a huge difference there. >> host: yeah, that is true. you think people understand basketball and madonna they just don't understand ceos.
it is not to think they have animosity toward business? >> guest: it is both. if the lack of knowledge, but we are taught to be suspicious of business in general. i was going to boil down to what her book is really about at the end of the day. it's a celebration of productive achievement here one of the biggest disgrace says i'm the worst in in history superlative businessman -- what is the most famous term associated in the 19th century? robber baron. the idea that they robbed people. what transformed this country from a country that was basically a swamp back water into by 1914 the richest country in the world. it was some large part the actions my people by carnegie and rockefeller. it was the people who created these new industries, the new modes of organization and far
from robbing people, if you look at the price of steel or the price of oil as rockefeller and carnegie are getting richer, the cost of what they produce is down, down, down as they supply a nation with kerosene and later gasoline and a nati with steel. today in our runtime, we have seen a real hearing of any businessman who is successful. even steve jobs, who i think is also seen as an artist, so there's a more positive response. within weeks of his death, you started hearing people going to give a lot to charity. >> host: that is true. i remember that. >> guest: this is a person who made millions of people live better, that had really also help lift the standards of other companies have started thinking about the user experience at a better level and yet because he didn't give away the money he earned, he was bill anaïs. very unfair. postcode exactly, yes.
what you want people to take from your book? >> guest: the main messages the debate about inequality is what is happening to the american dream and how do we revive it. one side in this debate has really focused on blaming it on the rich, which really means the most productive americans and it means cdma solution as penalizing an illinois team the rich,, the most successful americans. the kosovar -- the kosovar problem if you want to boil down to our solution in the center it is the way to move us in a better direction is to liberate québec is the ability and celebrate achievement. >> host: what are your main recommendations for doing so and have a more economic growth.
we growth. would he think a presidential candidate should be saying right now in terms of how to get us out. >> guest: a couple of things, some controversial -- first of all, let and all this corporate welfare. but businesses compete in a free market. no subsidies, no bailouts, the special loans. but businesses prove themselves in an actual free enterprise situation. i would say also what stop putting barriers in the way of people rising, particularly people starting at the bottom. let's get rid of the minimum wage. plus get rid of the family unnecessary occupation licensing situation such as the hair braided and we talked about. let's stop the government making things so expenses through unnecessary things such as
ethanol. let's make it as easy as possible of the road is open as possible for people to start praising. in terms of education i would like us to see us move in the direction. what is happening in nevada where parents are giving more control and more choices with regard to education is a good sign. i would like to see more of that and i would like to see a bunch of innovators in the educational sphere run into nevada so we can really see education become cheaper and more effective for all americans. >> host: did you see what happened in the louisiana when the governorship changed, children were not allowed to opt-out of the schools anymore. they could only opt-out of the dns schools before they been allowed to opt-out. when the democratic governor came in place, they can opt-out of the sea school because it was okay. >> guest: that the egalitarian
creed. it is not concerned with the making concerned with you making the most of your life. it is concerned with everybody making the same of their lives. for instance, i take this to me personally. i do okay. my family does pretty well. every 3-year-old daughter and a 1-year-old son. the view of the inequality critics is when i try to give them more opportunities, i am doing something wrong. their pursuit of happiness is less important than somebody who's born into a poor family. that is outrageous. each individual's life matters to him and the people he loves and cares about them or should each be free to make the most of it. the idea of holding some people down, even allegedly justified by lifting people up, the least you can say is that has nothing to do with the american ideal of unlimited opportunity. >> host: is there some country that does better than united states? here you've outlined a program.
is there some country that's had more economic growth? >> guest: overall we have been the most part a is and the greatest and the most free nation overall. certainly there's things in other countries that are better. in certain ways there's more economic freedom in hong kong today than america. as a mention with the regulatory side of things, there's more economic freedom in some ways in scandinavia than there is in america. i still think overall this is a country that has the greatest wealth, the greatest amount of pent-up opportunity and at the root and love of opportunity. it is not easy because you weren't in title ii anything. you do have to take responsibility. you are guaranteed a job for life so you always have to be learning and trying and going out there and giving it your all to make something of your life. a lot of people in this world -- a lot of people in this country
but actually not a majority, they don't want that. they want to be taken care of. they want security. that kind of security on the comes at the expense of other people. if we want a society where everybody has some limited opportunity to make the most of their last, here's a place to fight for it because here is where you have that kind of sense of life, emotional, cultural commitment to the idea of the self made man in the independent individual whose rising by an errant inability. we can learn a lot from the other countries, but at the end of the day there is something special about america that we should be funding to build on. >> guest: well, i certainly agree with that. everybody should read "equal is unfair." thank you so much. >> guest: it has been a