tv National Competitiveness Forum - Part 1 CSPAN December 28, 2017 1:25pm-2:51pm EST
senate hearing on modern slavery. jennifer garner on poverty and early childhood education. michael phelps on doping in sports. and after robert on his support for donald trump. >> all this week on the tv is on prime time on the two. tonight at 9:40 eastern former secretary condoleezza rice on her book democracy, looking at democracy around the world. friday night at 11:45 eastern, gretchen carlson talks about her book the fierce, stop harassment and take your power back. this week watched the tv in prime time on c-span2. >> the council on competitiveness held its annual competitiveness forum in washington dc recently with discussions on how to boost american productivity and innovation. first to hear from a group of corporate executives and the later university presidents. [applause] >> good morning.
welcome to the 2017 national competitiveness forum. i hope all of you that were with us last night had a lovely evening at the university club for our annual dinner. i know we were all absolutely blown away by the fantastic talk that was given on sustainability. thank you again for that wonderful poor divorce of the imperative for sustainability in our future. allow me to recognize and thank our sponsors for their support and commitment for the council of work and i want to recognize the company and lockheed martin are premier sponsors and want to recognize our national for pepsico, deloitte, our chairman sponsor asu, university of california san diego as well as the benefactors and patrons a ten tv and michigan state university, university of action, verizon, marquette university and whitecap
investment. we cannot do that for him and i thank you very much for that. we have a full day, very exciting talks, as well as the relief of some of the critical annual policy work of the council on competitiveness starting with our clarion call for competitiveness that we will release shortly. i want to frame that in a few overarching facts about the good and the bad of our economy right now. the good news is of course that gdp growth over the past two quarters has been very strong while productivity was slapped for most of the year it has rebounded recently and unemployment is low. in fact it's the lowest level since 2000. we know that consumers and investors are optimistic and inflation remains [inaudible]. forcing action on long-term priorities such as reducing the corporate tax rate and
implementing a territorial tax system to repatriate the offshore earnings of american corporations. the fed has recently raised its expectation for growth issue under this year and next year on the economy expecting us to be about 2.5%, not at the levels that tim clifton says we need to be at the .5 but nonetheless that is great news and of course unemployment is expected to continue to drop and we hope to see some gains in wages. of course, we know in competitiveness that there's not a single bullet and this is an ecosystem and there is still a myriad set of challenges within the country. as face a continually increasing growing deficit and ensuring the stability of our middle-class families and ensuring that the crown jewel of our higher
education system does not have an unfortunate impact coming out of this new tax legislation and very importantly we want to work very hard at this us investment in our r&d particularly our basic research continue to decline. at today's forum we are going to look at the issues of vital to long-term competitiveness and prosperity. you will hear from our board on the overall state of our economy in agenda as we release a clarion call. he will hear from jim clifton to look at the future. very excited that we will hear from the ceo and chairman of deloitte on the latest report of the council partnership with deloitte on exponential technologies and advanced manufacturing. we will have a discussion with the director of national science foundation and two of our university present on the work coming out of the exploring frontiers and initiative that is laying the groundwork for a new
commission on innovation frontier will release later today. we know of course that energy and manufacturing are inextricably linked and we will continue the work of art rate committee to look at our economy and bring to the forefront the skills and challenges of educating our workforce as we discussed energy and manufacturing throughout the day. i take all of you will love our selection talk by adam corey about human augmentation and that will be substantive and entertaining and this afternoon we will have a series of mini ted talks that look at some of the disruptive frontiers from big data and the cyber attacks and the future of medicine and the coin in black chain and the rise of the robot and what that means for american robe workers.
i want to thank you all for participating supporting the council on competitiveness and i want to thank our tremendous leadership our chairman and our vice chair in the global vice chair and michael crow as well as all the members of the executive committee and the staff of the competitiveness. with that i would like to invite the executive committee to come to the stage. thank you. [applause] loca♪
i think i'm the second-longest member of the council and i have to tell you in the 30 years i have been here the work on competitiveness probably cannot be more important. the challenges we are facing in almost every aspect of our leadership on the global basis is being tried it. we obviously have deborah and sam allen and mike crowe from the arizona state university and matt from pepsi. i want to start with the first category since when i woke up this morning at the hotel it seems to be on the cover or the front of every newspaper and also in my smart phone. maybe, sam, i'll start with you. maybe one of the biggest benefactors of the tax reform is the corporate tax going down to
21%. i guess the question is one how do you see that as a ceo and chairman is one of our major corporations in the globe and how will that help you and second how do you think it could hurt -- you know in our competitiveness and anyway and will it create more jobs or more innovation and competitiveness in our country? >> well that is the hundred dollar question right now. it is interesting this week that i've been out with our investors all over both coasts and that's one of the first questions everyone asks and we start out by saying the devils are in the details however they end up writing it. it's not from our perspective, our tax rate today is roughly 34% normally what we pay in about 55% of our earnings come
from the us and if the rate does go down to 21% our effective tax rate will go to 26 or 27% in total. people have a tendency to lose sight and it's not going to go down to 21% because the earnings come from the other part of the world but it certainly will -- what everyone is writing if it ends up being something similar to that and the analysis we've done first and foremost for our customers and our dealers will be very positive. that is even more important than it is for us, quite frankly, because if they do well will do well as well. there is no doubt it will be [inaudible]. i read all things from economists and people say it
will add to gdp 15, 25 points and other say 50 basis points plus and i'm in the camp that it will add 50 basis points plus two gdp but it will be feathered and over probably just it won't happen the first year because there are some other parts provisions to it that in your first year are negative from a company standpoint, company like ours and immediately if the tax rate goes down you got to go in and your provisions for your tax losses you got to restate those and they were at 37% and now you have to write them back down to 21% so there are some sites into this that will have an impact but in my opinion if this does go through it will be very stimulative and it will be
stimulative of our longer period of time and yes, it will help with competitiveness. the stimulus part to the economy is even more important then the competitiveness part that may help a company like ours. >> trying to get to the 500 pages but they just delivered it yesterday to everyone. one of the areas that doesn't look so promising, mike, is higher education and the way that the tax form seems to be looking at some of the restrictions. thoughts from you and your colleagues on that? >> well at first tax form is positive and needs to be constructive and if you think about the entire productivity of the country but at the same time what happens is many members of congress have become frustrated with universities for lots of different reasons so in my view they are eking out punishment that -- no doubt, the proposed
is now off the table and the taxation of tuition benefit and graduate students taxation of concern endowments and the overall status of the viewing the universities is problematic is all a sign of the fact that i think there are two things going on. one there is concern about the responsiveness of the university to the bigger advancement ages of the united states of the self and some are concerned for not doing what we need to be doing. others that unfortunately are using tax policies to send signals about basically their view of the culture wars that are going on and you take those two things together it is not well thought out text design is related to helping universities to do with the country needs most witches to contribute to the most majestic human capital production that the world has
ever seen. like i talked about last night, as well as knowledge capital, investment and production universities need to start rethinking the way they are communicating what they are doing is protecting what we're doing getting to the general population about the impact of what the university is all about working toward or for going to have this continuing ongoing argument for tax policy, student loan policy, regulatory policy, structural policy, they will all be shaped by politicians are unhappy. right now we need that business community to also speak out that the universities should be doing in the tax status of the university being largely tax entities has been a critical success variable in them being able to achieve the levels of success we've achieved. all of a sudden the universities become a tax entity that's a completely different kind of thing and we are moving in the direction we need to be careful
about that. >> i couldn't agree more. you know, last year in the council we did a long-term study on productivity and in a moment i'd like to ask you to look at where we might be headed in the direction of productivity in the united states and because the conflicts seems a long-term decline and where do you think that will end in what are the sort of lovers need to look at to get productivity being in the right direction? >> as we talked last year and productivity as you say has been declining since 2008, 2007, for several years -- excuse me, now, there is some encouraging data and that is the last quarter we've seen for the first time an increase in productivity.
however, the question is that a blip or can it be sustained? the reality of it is is that overall the trends as you pointed out have been -- >> what is probably doing about their productivity? >> look, for doing what all other large corporations are doing. were looking at the most efficient way of the point capital and using our labor force and what isn't generally discussed as much as it should be his with productivity and automation and everything else that we are doing it is improving the output of her industries were not replacing those drops with new jobs. and so i think more importantly for my mind and not just productivity is what type of jobs have i touched on this last
night are we going to create and invest behind and educate people in order to have a workforce that is engaged in the biggest worry over the next decades to come is this mismatch between the jobs we are creating and the skill set of the workforce that is available. that gap is widening. >> this is the central issue so productivity in certain sectors are accelerating at the fastest rate ever and the actual people who are working, creating, developing and so forth and then there are people being displaced unable to enter the workplace because the nature of their employment skills is insufficient to be engaged in this is a process that is accelerating and creating part of the political response to the universities themselves because he has not adjusted to look at this problem on a different scale. >> but if i could just build on one point. as an employer people ask me
what keeps you up at night? i will tell you. the average age of an american with the training in science and energetic hearing and mathematics working in any industry in this country is now over the age of 50. for the next decade half of the course, the entire country workforce will anticipate retiring. there is nowhere near enough students that fulfill that pipeline that are coming out of institutions like mine that we can fire and so the time. it is taking to fill a position actually if i look back over the last ten years at pepsico is getting longer and longer. productivity cannot continue if we cannot fill that workforce and so we have not only a mismatch but we have a diminishing pipeline of talent and in particular, feel to take
a long time to train people. you can't train a scientist or engineer or mathematician in any of these fields overnight. somehow this discussion is going on and it's got to take in account what are we going to invest behind institutions -- i don't train scientists or train engineers or mathematicians. the universities do but i picked them up from there and apply their skills. we've got a mismatch and sometimes we have to fill it. we used to fill it from the outside of the united states but that is trying for lots of reasons. what will we do? >> will carry that thread and i'll go to you, debra. the council has been about many things but science and technology disruption and computing have been topics of interest and impact productivity, education, everything and we are also seeing in my opinion the
recapitalization of the economy where you've got five companies basically four and half trillion dollars, apple, google, facebook and wondering where is our leadership right now in science and technology and where does it need to go and we are seeing all these words like artificial intelligence, machine learning, which, by the way, mit had the lab start in 1981 so, you know, maybe you could give a frame about that and the rest of the panel, sam i know you just bought quite a large ai company and how you see that from a competitive business point of view and in general science and technical education and productivity and as we move into
the next five-ten years. >> thank you, larry. the council was formed 30 years ago and the whole issue surround technological leadership was one of the driving forces for the creation of this organization and we have always made the case that our nation has to invest in the forefront of knowledge creation and deploy the technologies of the future in our companies that can be globally. so we have been very concerned and this is effective in the clarion call with this long-term decline in our federal investment in basic research and research and development as a percentage of gdp it continues to decline in other nations are surpassing us, japan, korea, others as a percentage of gdp but we still as a country perform about a third of all global research but china is on its track to surpass us on that. the investment matters in the investment matters because
through the national science foundation through the department of energy and through the department of defense are universities and national labs companies come together in the strategic partnership and that's one of our real core advantages for the rest of the world. others continue to come and want to understand how we can have that ecosystem that moves so quickly. the companies you mentioned that are the top of the s&p they were enabled by huge investments since for two in electronics, in the microprocessor, and all the things that enable the facebook's and google's and amazon's to create the value of the house. looking to the future, which of course is what our chief technology officer still, we are really working as a council and the country to focus on how these frontiers come together in
multidisciplinary ways. i think we were here when we release our report on next potential technology that this is the greatest time in the world with the digital, innotek, cognitive revolutions all coming together and colliding. i think that these will be the drivers of productivity in our standard of living. back to our earlier conversation we have to invest in people without the people the drive will be the ones who have the core initial research but other countries in the world will capitalize and create the drops and while for their countries. this is a big challenge and a great opportunity for our country. >> sam? >> i guess i've been on the council long enough -- [laughter] but i put it in a couple different categories. from our standpoint the next five-ten years, the next five
years, some of the innovations are phenomenal and whether it be an artificial intelligence, online learning, whatever you want to call it, there will be tremendous productivity improvements. i agree with everyone that the issue we have today and everyone has today is attracting the human talent and it will only get worse. as a company you will find a way to attract the talent and work on whatever you are working on to drive the value for your company. free market enterprise will allow that to. the one that you don't do is fund the basic research and that is the concerning part from my perspective. companies will find a way to get the people they need to do what they are doing basic research
that creates a platform upon which all of us build our businesses on that is where the funding to again, the investment is, so that the country itself can stay very, very competitive. you know, you only have so much water in a bucket and you got to say how you're going to divide the water between companies and free market price universities and in basic research. i would be putting a lot of that water in the basic research category whether it is a university in other areas like the labs because that is the platform that lets all of us then grow up on it. we will find a way to get what we need but we don't develop
that platform and that platform will keep getting better and better and as this world now is changing as debra pointed out with digitalization and everything else -- platform we've invested in in the past is no longer the platform you need for the future. that would be the area that i would really think we ought to try to focus on the clarion call talks about that as well. these are very exciting times and i will reinforce what others have said. from our standpoint i can tell you just as an example we have autonomous vehicles 20 years ago but they weren't cost-effective. we will inside of five years have autonomous vehicles that are cost-effective and the critical beyond the technology in terms of sensors, vision and
et cetera is a big difference now in you will also have the ai capability that helps you that vehicle determine that when you're going down the field for example it learns that that is the go i keep going and that's the farmers dog and i stopped. that poor gofer. that difference is. [laughter] >> i heard that gophers are an endangered species. >> they will be more and more. [laughter] anyway, that type of change is coming and coming very quickly. >> absolutely. i would add that were in this really feared moment of cognitive dissonance of some sort, unemployment for people with college degrees is under the present even during the
recession was never higher than 5%. we hear from industry leaders all over the country produce for and better and faster and faster and then we deal with political leadership and they say listen, you people are just a bunch of commies over there at the universities and were going to start cutting back and will be you into the ground and somehow get you under control and we are like well, that's really not true and we are told by industry that we need more ideas, more people, better people, faster, more technology, more option in tools and so forth so there's this weird thing going on that the universities are being battered from several directions with demands be made from them. it's creating tension in society that is very, very significant. the universities in the united states and the research universities are unique institutions globally. i traveled all over the world
and looked at research universities and there are very few institutions that meet the lower tier levels of activity in american research universities so we have this high-performing entity which can do a lot more but there's this distance going on and even in the industry people are saying that we don't need college graduates there's too much of an emphasis on this or that and everyone does not need to go to college but everyone does going forward we know this that of the net new jobs added in this economy going forward 80% of them require beyond a high school diploma. 80%. there is not a general political consensus or policy level consensus of that reality. we've taken steps at asu where we had 8000 university students and we have 21020 meters now. 4000 online through some really fantastic online engineering degrees first accredited and
17000 students with us. unbelievable does diversity et cetera et cetera 8000 employers coming to hire some of people, science meters, off the charts so it's not the case that there aren't kids from the united states they want to do these things or want to move in these areas. there are many, many. the universities have changed some of what they're doing have this bigger political discourse problem that somehow the universities are marginal asset to the country and are not, they are essential. that is no longer perceived to be the case. i think we have shifted a bit and we need to work our way into a new understanding of the universities and then there's this [inaudible] that's going on. i come from a white working-class family but if you look at all my other relatives they are mostly angry at the outcomes of their life and why are they angry? they're not prepared to deal
with the economy they are confronted so they are angry and so the economy is shifting and they blame the universities for creating this new economy and for creating what they perceived to be elite individual were not part of this core culture that they come from and using their potable statements in the last few years and so this churning in the universities need to figure out how to start mitigating to everyone rather than to some and to communicate to everyone in ways where they can see the future economic opportunities for themselves by enhanced learning opportunities. in our case, we decided to move forward and find ways to educate across the entire spectrum and in addition to those that come and live with us for four or five or six years and have an enhanced learning experience. >> i'd like your thoughts on this conversation but also i'd like to add, mike had said the responsibility of the university system about innovation, science, technology, editing and learning and what is the responsibility of corporations to innovation into science and
technology in learning. i know pepsi spends a lot of money on research but i just want to add that to after you address the general -- >> i will reiterate what has already been said but i have no doubt in my mind that the creation of knowledge within the academic institutions of this country is second to none as long as we keep nurturing it. i would like to broaden that not to just the universities but the entire ecosystem that the us is created since world war ii essentially and over the last six or seven decades is second to none. what is visible -- while you said the googles and the facebook they are a technically byproduct of that engine and they are commercial base of that
engine and told that leads to your second question which in my mind i've always -- when i teach this essay there is invention and innovation. innovation doesn't happen without invention but invention is a by default innovation. it is the application. innovation in my mind and relevant to your question is the ability to solve societies and individual problems. you leverage technology and elaborate inventions often several inventions to bring them together. i think it will what industry does well is the ability to configure an aggregate several disparity inventions and come up with a method to solve a solution whether it's an autonomous vehicle or a new way of processing food, new agriculture. we are communicating and accessing information and those are all innovation but the core of them is the aggregation that is what the industry is
responsible he is. can understand consumer insights we look at consumer problems and say how do we now bring these in the most efficient way possible. we optimize and optimize and optimize until a new s-curve comes because someone has created a completely new way of doing things in the earlier adopter pick it up and say forget this, this is the new way. the us has done that better than any other society on the planet. two. ... >> everybody has access and the good thing is everybody
has access to an increase in knowledge, information, to increased capability, productivity down to the poor farmer in africa.now, how do we connect all of this in a favorable manner sowe can actually now increase productivity . this can be leveraged in a positive way but we have to create the matrix first. that's the challenge and if we figure that out, business and entrepreneurs will figure out how to workwithin that matrix. >> i'd like to have a quick candy before i set up the lightning round . final questions, but deborah and sam, i couldn'tlet the conversation go without a comment about trade . and the current administrations view, i can only say looks likehyper protectionism to me .
that said, where does trade play in our competitiveness in the next few years? >> from my perspective this is the most poignant part of what's going on now in the administration and you know, the problem we have is for so long, we will talk about the disadvantages of trade and they will politicize it and use it as a point and all of a sudden that same group will come back later and say free trade is good and a lot of people in the general public don't know what to believe. the reality is free trade is great for this country to get it's great for the world. yes, there are people that
guess get dislocated as a result of that and we have to figure out ways to prop it up but in terms of helping the globe prosper, there's nothing that can befree trade in that respect . where we are going right now, some people say that nafta, it's a negotiation and that is not going to spiral out but the risk is there that it will. you are seeing that now even in europe from president macron in france, they are trying to set up barriers within the eu to protect their slice of the pie and when everybody does that, it brings this global economy down.
it makes it less prosperous. it does not open it up to bringing those up in other areas of the world so this is an area where you know, it's amazing to me that people -- that we have people that believe that exceptionalism is going to help the globe and as i indicated, this is an area that i'm very, very personally out of touch with the direction certain people are trying to take this. and somehow we've got to get it, get the public educated again about the benefits that everyone has received as a result of global fleet free trade and how that has further turbocharged the
global economy which has been good for everybody. so i guess enough said. it's a very alarming area right now but we're living with it and hopefully calm her hands will prevail in the long run. >> any thoughts to add deborah? >> i would add the successive american companies in the global marketplace was cord to the creation of competitiveness and we know one of the data points, two thirds of all revenue produced by us firms is outside the country so these are our markets. these are our customers and we have to be engaged not just in selling what we make and produce what also in a leadership role in terms of helping set the environment for trade and the impact it has on raising the standard of living of people around the world.
having said that, there's no question that in some of the multilateral trade agreements as well as some of the bilateral, there are provisions that could be improved that would be in the benefit of all. for instance, intellectual property protection. continues to be a huge issue. i serve on this commission on success of american intellectual property and if china implemented their existing ip laws on the books, our economy would be about $1.4 trillion more. that's a impact but that doesn't mean we should turn our back on trade as we try to improve some of these things and of course another area that's very important is the whole digitization of information and i'm very concerned that in the eu with their provisions on privacy now and data, how is that going to impact the technological frontiers we are talking about. the bottom line is the us has
been a leader and supporter and really, the evangelist for trade for many years with a huge impact on our economy and standard of living and we can't give that up and it would be a very important part of our work going forward. >> thank you debra.and the rest of the panel, ifyou have . if you were forced to boil down to what you're most optimistic about.right now. in the country from a competitive point of view, and what your most on excited about, that you see as a big risk, what comes to mind? >> top in mind from my optimism point of view is despite everything we've said, you have tremendous a vibrant ecosystem.
huge startups and in fact, what i've seen changing the last several years is the traditional silo of private-sector startup gigs, academia and academic research, those barriers and silos are starting to break down. so is getting more and more seamless in the partnerships. i know my team assigned about 50 partnerships from the last decade between these institutions who are traditionally over there and now there are emerging. so you are seeing this conductivity. despite everything else and i think that is going to be a great engine and i'm already seeing. i happened to sit on the board of some of those startups and just the pace at which things are moving, that's what's exciting. these and the ideation and account activity between our institutions. i think what is scary is what i just said which i said
earlier which is if we cannot continue to get the pipeline and nurture the investment is going to take to generate this new ideation and keep that pipeline coming, we will lose the lead. and as we take the lead, it's not bad that others should be playing. the more the better but that doesn't mean we should concede our leadership position and forgo all the investment we've done. >> for me, i most optimistic about the millennial's. i live in a community of 100,000 learners deeply immersed with us, unbelievable energy, creativity, unbelievable desire for some sort of meaning. they're open-minded, their adaptive, they are high-speed and we draw energy from them. for those of you that read
these negative things in the media about millennial's, these people must not live with them. they live with us, 15,000 of them live on our campus. and i most optimistic about what they represent. their desire for successful outcomes, their desire for successful country. it's really quite overpowering and it makes me worry a little bit less about the future than some of the common everyday rhetoric. the thing i worry the most about, i've been hearing more from full song the technology side that we're going to build all these autonomous vehicles, always systems, all these people are going to be forced out of work and what we need is a solution like universal income. that's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard everyone ever talk about. we need to basically assume there will be a group of people who will no longer be employable. going to have to tax all of those technologies to be able to find money for them to be able to live off them. if we do that within 20 years or less there will be
pitchforks and tar and feather the doors of everyone that built theserobots wanting to take them down . why did you ruin our lives? why is this not about your job only, it's about your purpose. it's about what you're doing, every human being is going to need to have an opportunity so we're going to have to move away from the idea of a universal income and move to the idea of a universal learner. that's something we haven't conceptualized yet. how are we going to have everyone universally have access to learning through their life that they can adjust to the new way the economy and our society works. >> i haven't decided if alexa is making me more stupid or smart. the alexis in my office are fun to talk to go. >> i ordered paper towels for the first time and it worked. sam, what are you optimistic about and what are you not so optimistic? >>.
>> you can, it's just still stupid. i'll be a little more near-term with my thoughts. we looked to 18 for the first time in a number of years. almost every country around the globe is forecasting positive gdp growth. and all of these things is if you're seeing gdp growth everywhere, that creates a sense of optimism. that fuels the number of these engines and there is a rising time. and so i'm very, there is a chance here for the first time that's probably the 08, 09 crisis that you could give back to a level of optimism about economic growth, about the world which is good for everybody, good for all of us.
and that, i get to travel a lot everywhere. and you're seeing it. and the economies that have been had negative gdp growth the last few years, it's amazing the change in public perception almostovernight . almost a four year forecasting that it will get better so that's why i'm very optimistic about this. and on the flipside of that, the biggest thing that could track from that is some type of conflict. and the risk of conflict today is higher than in many years. and that would be and there doesn't appear to be the recognition that there should be of that that risk is higher and what do we do to
mitigate that risk and bring it down again. so those are the two that i would say why i'm most optimistic and my biggest concern this weighs a little less onyour opinion and more on the clariion call . >> thank you, well the clariion call has been our country great, i don't know if you've all had a chance to look at the grade. you don't have an aide this year on anything. you have a number of. >> asu would allow us to graduate with those grades. >> but if you look whether it's talents, we've got a d and taxing meaning something is going to happen, we hope. see, technology ac. research a d. regulation ab and infrastructure add. from the councils perspective,building on what everyone said , we have to do everything we can to keep this growth going but at the
same time we have to work very hard across the spectrum of competitiveness so how are the top, one of the things we will talk about later this morning that come out of our work on exploring innovation frontiers is how do we bring the new demographic to our country into theinnovation space . here in the cusp of this world of abundance through all this capability and yet a very large percentage of our nation is not participating. that's what worries me tremendously and it's something we're going to put a lot of attention on. and if we could get our tax and regulatory needs and conditions in a good place, let's build on that so that we have a much more robust and inclusive standard of living. for our citizens and that's really what we are all about. >> last question. we had it interesting you're speaking of grades. we had an interesting year in every respect, but one area
that is close to me is media and how the media is represented in the things that are happening. and i wonder from our panel what grade you would give the media the last 12 months. and in covering what seems to be one of the most interesting moments in american history. opera? >> i would give them a d. and the reason is i think that it's not completely, but most cases, the leaders of our media are not expecting and larry, you should comment on this because you are a leader in media. they are really in a disruptive state and the country is no longer accepting elites to tell them what they need to think and do and that they really have to recognize that. and it sort of get with the program in the sense of not
putting their personalviews into reporting the news . >> sam? >> what ever grade, it wouldn't be a great grade . but i put it into categories. i don't know that, it's an opportunity lost. it's not so much what they've done, it's what they could have done if they'd done it a little differently than they had viewed it. whether it's a d or ab i don't know but to me, there was an opportunity here, at least mainstream media, an opportunity that they could have taken a higher ground and helped than of also being part of this aggression. and that part, they certainly missed their opportunity.
so first, we operate a large journalism school call the walter cronkite school of journalism. it's a massive enterprise of 1500 students so i communicate my concerns about the unbelievably poor intellectual basis on which most broadcast journalism's is advancing at the moment and what are we going to do about this? the notion of facts, the notion of fair reporting, the notion of reporting what's going on on different sides of a really complex issue. the notion of holding people responsible. the notion ofnot pursuing just how many people can i get to advertise on my news show and i'm running on a 24 hour cycle to jack up my ratings . the fundamental issues we are facing in this era of technological enhancement and all kinds of other things going on. we're at a moment where i'm getting a poor grade because
the industry is able to adjust and learn and keep track of their responsibilities. we are sort of lost at the moment so i probably give it a warning to the student. you are falling below a c. you are moving into the d range. i'm going to give you an incomplete because you are not working hard enough. you need to do some fundamental changes in the way you think of them going to read your paper again because it's not very good right now. >> i have for the sake of time i want to repeat i agree with what we said. i think the media in general is actually contributing to the divisiveness of our society. >> not just the politicians. i can read the same on the same issues, different parts of our society are now exceeding their information from various segregated parts of the media. they are not crossing over. and that is harder and harder and so if you are a certain
segment of society, geography, whatever. there's a certain part of the media and they played to that what's happening as a consequence of what we've said is not only personal information , sometimes sort of inaccurate information but extremely biased to the targeted audience they want. and that is now resulting in this channel for this part of society, this channel for this part of society and we recognize that. >> that's what worries me the worst because it's become accepted. as i travel around the world, on the same issue i can be in europe listening to the bbc, then come to the us. you think i was hearing a different story. even the facts don't add up. >> surely that isn't all by accident. that worries me. >> i can talk about this topic all day. i only add my optimism is the
forces appear to validation and there is a way that a lot of mainstream journalism and news will be in a higher validated way. i encourage everyone to read the clariion call please. we don't put these out just for the fun of it so everybodyplease spend some time with it. i want to thank our panel . sam and debra, for your great thoughts today. andeverybody have a great day, thanks . [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, they provide us with insights from gala global analytics into major trends that shape us and global economies in 2018 and beyond. these welcome after jim within, chairman and ceo of gala .
[applause] >> deborah, thank you for all you do. sam, you mentioned something at dinner last night. i'm talking to my wife about larry with the panel you are doing. it's so hard to find information you can trust. and you mentioned how michael, you mentioned walter cronkite. you wonder if trust in media died somewhere with walter or maybe somewhere all the way in tim russert. but larry, if you were to ask the american public what their page would be in media, it's an f. they give it the
lowest trust have since gallup started measuring this decades ago. i'm just saying that because what a great organization where it's one place you can go, one of the few us places you can go. i read the new york times, we all know about that. you can read the wall street journal but every line i read, i go to the are trying to put it off.earlier in my life i never did that but one of the reasons my firm takes so much pride in being part of this organization, all the data and having sort of a non-special interest high integrity look at what this is doing but thank you or all of that. i'm going to cover some material here. that i haven't covered before and i'm not real good at it. >> that's a hell of an opening. there's a big question that comes up about why do we keep getting surprised with big
changes in the world? let's just do aspirin. how come nobody saw that coming? i heard jim clapper say something and i really regardless of what everybody said, i admire him. but he said, he referred to it as being kicked in the stomach. president obama said we spent 100 billion year in intelligence and nobody can see the era spring coming? we don't have any answers at all. and we're going to propose something to you before i show you slides and then maybe we will we will have some questions. what we do is we just keep working economic data. we work economic data over and over again. gdp is pretty much single metric that we used for human allotment.
we say, how are things going in egypt, how are things going in bahrain. let's look at gdp. even use gdp per capita, use that one.and we just work it over and over again. that's why economics works and economics is a real important metric for intelligence. we start working on this 12 years ago. we said what is it we need to know? i did a lot of the initial stakeholder reviews myself and every time i was with some kind of world leader i'd say if you could ask the whole world one question, all 5 billion adults, so you could do your job better, you would say changes that change the world, what would you ask them? they were sort of the best leaders at the time.
they always came back with something simple. they didn't have anything that would blow me out of my chair. they said i wish i knew what they wanted out of life. i also wish i knew how they were doing. because economics doesn't give you any of those. we've got a pretty good breakthrough and we said what do you want out of life? 5 billion adults, 3 billion of those people if you said what's the gold ring, they said i wish i had a good job. it's hardly even written down what is a good job? if you said i'm going to try to get michael the very highest level of driving i can. doesn't matter if he lives in argentina or whatever. let's say 22, 25 years old, somewhere in there. you go to work on developing as an individual. right now, we don't have metrics for that. you say i don't know what to
do to him. here's what we found. it starts with him having a good job but it's changing a little bit because when baby boomers were his age, we just wanted to have a family. there's been an enormous sociological shift. he says he just needs work. a client of ours, we have partnerships and everything else but a lot of it is informal so if he's selling flowers in traffic, we've got as employed. he's still suffering. you only have three categories, think of suffering, struggling and thriving. you want to get him to thriving. there's one level above that that's having a full-time job. are you hours a week with a paycheck for an organization. if you can get three people 3 billion people there it changes the world. the problem with that, most of them are low-paying jobs. so now if you want to go up one more, this is the new massive hierarchy. get him a job that gives him a living wage so he can have a family.totally different. is there anything about that, living wage.
you ask him if he has a boss that cares about his development. to work and talk about what he could become. this sounds pretty soft but you just said it, you say can we take him even higher? you take it one step higher as a 25-year-old and talk to him about what his purpose is in his life. and then he's very different. good question would be how many people in the world are at that level, thriving and feeling really good and how many are at suffering? can't you tell that my gdp? we are going to look. we built consistent standpoint frames across 160 countries. we found some questions. and you try this yourself. on 0 to 10, with zero being the worst possible life you can have and 10 being the best possible life you could have, where are you today?
if you are a seven or better, that tells you something. so sam is a 795. he has a better life but you can't quite tell yes, he's thriving because if i say to sam where's your life going to be in five years and he says it's going to be a four, he's not writing. it was actually danny conaway, a nobel prize winner figure this out he was the one who helped with this piece in. i'm a five. usage and is not doing well. i'm so sorry. but then you say jim, where will you be in five years. i say i like the intent and i graduated, i'm going to do this and i got a degree from the journalism school, i'm going to get there, now i'm back to thriving. you've got to be in a place where you can get a good look at the screen. people say how could it be,
is this like that? >> that's what we use you guys, right there. it's the first question, how can we not see breakfast. >> that's a near-perfect linear increase in gdp. so that lead up i did was thriving to -- that's the brexit vote. everything is fine. why in the world did people vote that way? the problem with that line is it judges what people are making and spending. it's just a transaction of life. all those stakeholders that made the remark, i like to know how they're feeling. they like to ask all 5 million people how are you doing.
how is your life going? are you leading a life is worth living and doesn't have meaning or anything else. that's the thriving in england. can you tell there? i think it's the biggest drop we've ever seen. thriving in england right before brexit, 15 points. it was absolutely seeable. just as clear as across the perry. that's a lesson for leaders, we're missing a piece of data. it's not either/or of those but when you light up the transactions of life, you also have to ask how are they doing? let's try another one. there you go. here's the air and spring. >> sorry i'm not more familiar. look at that. that's not blended, that's the gdp growth right there.
i know tunisia is not coming up but this is how wrong we are as leaders. the world economic forum tunisia marks for being as perfectly managed and their trend line is exactly this. there's the uprising. it was started by that guy, the food cart vendor in tunisia who set himself on fire. it wasn't up to america, it was just i want to work. and we took his heart away. look at this one, isn't it amazing? look where thriving is. down a few percent. if you try to predict it, you just watched the transactions of life, you can't see it because you can't see how well we are developing as humans and the accumulation of all of us as individuals but if you ask him, let's see what this one is.okay.
here's ukraine, there's the made on revolution right there. there the gdp is a little, you guys, this is unbelievable. and what you really want is it's not as much the location of the statistic. that's why you got to watch out for statistics when you look at location. you see some kind of thing, you don't have any idea what you have until you see the direction and speed. you can be a let's see, what's in russia? they just expect to have worse lives. suffering is very russian. i thought that would be funnier than it was. but in england or the united states, what you're watching for is who is tanking.
here we go. we've got that slow climb, there's your gdp. there's the us presidential election. how many times you get asked what happened, don't you do this all the time. here's one answer. that's odd. there we go. united states does pretty darn well. see where we are with thriving, on the question of where you have optimism. we stay pretty pumped up here. until we don't. can you imagine, let's just call it a 10 point drop, and you imagine if something like gdp dropped 10 points?
we don't have emphasis on emotional condition . in a society, we don't have mass to it. sometime will be in my lifetime, sometime gala will put these things out and people will do when they see them. this means war is coming. it means massive changes coming. or in the case of the united states, virtually nobody. i've got a couple friends who say i told you so but it was based on nothing. i can't even comments. it should be wrong for a good reason. >> now that's interesting, that was funnier than i wanted it to be. >> so you might ask sam, somebody's selling a lot of tractors and construction equipment. how are things going in china. look at that.
okay. okay. one of the things you've got to think about china is who president g, world leadership and, he's got 80 percent of his population that's not doing real well. there's a hell of a long way to go. and there's that open optimism that we have and i'm not giving the american picture but i'm thinking of the difference there for what's probably our biggest competitor. there's a long way to go. okay, here we go. here are the russians. so they are just really flat. i know this is going to say, i just get a kick out of this. what do you think that spike is? these guys are going along with it. they don't have pride in anything except their president. highest approval ratings in the world, there like 80 percent.who said that?
yes. >> yes, he wins. michael wins a ride on the bus. charge it to the council. but you know, there's other data on this. when the city wins the super bowl, it actually goes up and it makes a difference. boiling that trend downward though. if you're going tostart wondering about , they don't often go into the street in a meaningful way but what a consistent trend down.>> oh, anybody been to el salvador in the last decade? it's awful. they've got to pick you up in armored cars and you have two things in front of you. it's machine guns and all that. watch this.
we put this in here because you can turn around societies. you've got to work on the right thing but if you were to redo maslow's hierarchy, the most important one is security. so you have to be in a state of mind to say, it's the most torturous of all is to be afraid. we've taken a deep look into this. they're doing a reallygood job of blocking the place down. america is helping it , too. there's hope for virtually all countries. things are a little rocky but
notice the percent. i think it's about nine or 10, i can see it but it's a good drop for what's probably the second or third most advanced country in the world. oh, this one. that's probably the most troubling of all. something is really wrong in india. down to about two percent. the thriving, of everything we found in the last few years i'd say that's probably a simple macro behavioral economics finding. it is probably the most serious one. here's the example of --
that's about half my time and i'm just going to stop. do you have any comments or questions? [applause] jim? [inaudible] >> excellent presentation and it revealed a whole lot. i want to ask a question about manufacturing because we are in this colossal supercycle of innovation. thank you very much. somewhere in this colossal supercycle of innovation right now with companies and we see it's incredibly exciting and i go back to my hotel room and see my corian tv and everything else is made somewhere else in the united states and i was wondering with all your research and things you do, i'm incredibly concerned that the us is competitive in innovation and ideation and invention but in manufacturing, especially in these things like what you would call maybe the science
manufacturing with all these things were talking about in ai and the technology and so forth, for instance where i am in arkansas, we created $100 million nano institute of engineering and we lost five companies, one of which is mine and the other four have already moved to china. all four. i'm the only one left. >> along were they there? >> they were there three or four years and got snapped up in china and it's everywhere i go pretty much. ukraine, russia, wherever. we are constantly, we have russia, china running capital and there's nothing in the us in terms of government were like that. not that we want to be a state state-sponsored company but it looks like in manufacturing, the us what we talked about three or four
years ago it's getting worse. we are creating all the ideas. we have these incredible universities like doctor rose with incredible innovation on the practitioner side with professors or wherever or where it's commercialization or whether it's being able to put it in the hands of entrepreneurs and capitalize, the us is just -- when you look at what's happening in china in terms of what's being billed and other companies, i'm worried the us is losing, continuing to lose its and especially in the science manufacturing. not just ordinary everyday stuff where were bending up steel and putting out products with motors and stuff but deep science, it's going to make a difference that's going to create the next generation of gdp. you have any concerns with that? >> i have a concern jim, that's a little deeper than that. and that is that millennial's don't start companies at all. you almost have to start there. you get all the innovation and i say the same thing over and over again but innovation
doesn't have any value on its own until a customer is standing next to it. americans are quite clear on that. but when we get the invention and then you get an entrepreneur or builder next to it, you get some investors, that's kind of the moment of conception. nothing is more important to america than that moment. we've got to get those. but then you just try to hold the thing as long as you can. that's my theory. two or three years isn't very long but if we can inventthem and start them and maybe they go out to the rest of the world and obviously sam , there is no other side to it and free trade. americans have to have free trade because we have to punch so far about their our weight class, there's only three or 4 billion of us. we have to kick the world in trade or we can have this
great stuff and everything that we have. unless we do that. i don't think we can ever give up. we've got to start companies. nano tech is a good idea, i don't know what's going to happen if the non-combustion engine. there must be things we can do in healthcare and distaste and everything else. but the future might be that the cycles are getting shorter and shorter and then we spin them off for us to invent more and start more companies is a good future for us, that's one thing. if this was poker, and we were playing china, but had their holding compared to ours is horribleyou want these cards, not those . i don't know why you don't read much about it anymore but that one boy decision they made, man is that coming in right now. the problem with the one boy, you can't fix that. you can't go back. they even tried to bust girls in from indonesia. good luck. you've got 100 million of them, you can't even do that.
they totally destroyed their environment. every single river, every single lake, that's such a massive project and the bubble, i don't know what to think about that. who knows. we have our own growing debt but the last one, this is kind of my own opinion. the corruption in mine is still so bad. and it's very difficult to build a great economy in the presence of that kind of corruption. it's a lot of places so -- we've got to make sure we have our premises right on what conception is to create a great economy. if we do, i don't think we should worry. that could be our new business model. what were you going to say? >> can you hold your questionsfor one second ? i think they can't hear back
here. >> thank you, this is sort of off kim but the research you presented, could you do that by category? could you then know if in industries not driving at some point it's either going to be disrupted or disappear? >> not with that particular -- not with that particular methodology. that would only be for a society. i have to think about it more and we are down to six minutes. but i'm going to give you and i don't know. but i'll think about it. there's got to be some way, sandy? >> jen, awesome data. obviously you chose global trends.
the world is losing confidence. either in themselves or in society at large. hugely dangerous for society as a whole, what are they looking for? what potentially are the common reasons for this drop in confidence and driving and what are the potential remedies in our society to get out of it. >>. >> the most, what you're looking for is a statement that describes the most events. i'm going to make a statement that describes, it's like somebody says are you sure smoking kills you because i have an aunt that lived the 95 and she's a chain smoker. we will, good luck with that theory. i'm going to tell you what describes the most events. it's that if sam and i are both, we are both
20-year-olds in cosgrove, both of us areout of work . let's start with that. because we are not in good shape. especially in the middle east. you know this stuff but if we don't have work we can't get married. that's out. that means you can't have a family. you also can't have sex. you got all those kind of things. everything is working against you. your life is crashing. then the young males get really bad ideas when they are out of work. they don't have young males out of work, young females just want to run in and fix a country. you better run in and fix the young males. that describes most events so you say are you, one of you going to get a job and he goes yeah, i'm fine. hand says i'm going to get a good job and i'm being trained.
michael's training me and he's going to hire me. these actually completely fixed because you know what, you just found hope. he has hope. that's what takes it. and you say to jim, what about you. are you going to be able to get a job. i'm 20. totally screwed right now but he's not. we look the same and of course all of economics access to the same thing. you can't say no. jim, i say i think i never will. because the question that you're asking with that common thing i told you about is you think the best part, ask yourself or your friends or anybody. you think the best part of your life isahead or behind you. that's the net of the question we asked . so when i at least 20 years old and i say what we're asking is you think the best part of your life is ahead of you, he just said ahead of him. he's got hope and he's fine but me at 20, i say i'm never going to get hired, i've got
nothing. 20 the best part of my life is behind me, not ahead of me. and you can fix any society. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> good morning everyone. it's great to be back with the council again. so i only have half a voice i'm afraid. i left the other half in stockholm a couple days ago. i was very privileged to get to attend the nobel prize ceremony with the national science foundation as supported with the three physicists that won the prize for the discovery of gravitational waves . for 40 years. and i think that's a good place to start. [applause].