tv Bush Center Leadership Forum - Global Economy CSPAN May 7, 2018 2:14pm-3:01pm EDT
9:00 eastern on c-span and join the conversation. the #landmarkcases and follow us at c-span and we have resources on our web site for background on each case, the landmark cases companioning book, and a link to constitution centers and the landmarks cases podcast. >> economy e economists who worked in the george w. bush during the crisis, discuss he current global and economic situation. we hear from henry paulson, former federal reserve chair. ben bernanke and few ircouncil of economic adviser chair, edward lazear. this hays minutes. thanks to think president bush bush and laura bush to be here
today. we heard from the -- the lunch with the women was just amaze, and daniel's story -- second to none, my fellow chicagoan. this and then we heard from dr. chan. i mean, it's just the compassion is off the charts. so keeping with that theme, i think that a good wall street panel and the compassion we have is exactly what we need do right now. wouldn't you agree, henry. >> it's not funny. >> anyway, i want to thank obviously president and mrs. bush very much for have us here today. we're going to talk about a couple of different things, and talk about the economy and it affects everything, i think, from top to bottom, what everybody else is speaking about here at the bush institute, but because the economy has an affect on everything. so no different than
501(c)(3)s and things of that nature. let's get started. let's talk about the global economy and let's -- how would you sum it up. i'll start with mr. chairman and then i can't call him mr. secretary so, i have to call hill hank, and then we'll talk about the global economy. do you think it's on a sustainable trajectory from sneer the global economy. >> we're in a good phase. we have the most synchronized growth since the financial crisis. the united states is in a strong phase. we're nine years almost into this recovery, you europe has pd up. japan has picked up. china had good first quarter and some pretty steady emerging market. until now there's been a bind of a -- some on some off kind of phenomenon but now it's more synchronized. over the longer team, some great questions, whether trade and globalization can be sustained and further integration what about technical change, tremendous changes, big social
impact as well. demographics are an issue in in the united states and even in emerging markets, china. so, it's going to take some new innovations, some further trade and development, some new processes and products to get the -- keep the economies growing. right now, right now this global economy is in a pretty good state. >> hank? >> i don't want to repeat what ben said. i think he nailed it. he got it right. i think the only thing i would add is i spend a lot of time with business, and when i talk with ceos of global companies, i've had a number of them say they can think back over anytime over the last 10-15 years, when they're seen anything as attractive as what they're looking at right now, because all parts of -- most parts steae firing on all all cylinders, and
so it's a terrifically positive environment. but the sorts ofs i worry about that ben didn't mention, are not just rising protectionism, but higher levels of government debt around the world, and and if win there's -- when there's a downturn, because there will be a downturn think policymakers won't have as much macroeconomic flexibility in terms of lowering interest ray rates or fiscal stimulus. there's plenty of potential challenges, but right now it looks pretty darn good. >> how but your take on the global economy and sustainability. >> i agreer in a good place. one thing i would say is what we're looking at right now is what we'll see in the future. there will be change. so if we think but the economies right now in the world that are growing most rapidly, obviously
china continues to grow even though its growth rate has fallen off from where it was india is still greg at a high rate. those -- growing at a high rate. those economies represent the largest populations in the world, will slow down. at the same time other economies are going to pick up. for example, if we look at parts of the world we think of as not having grown very rapidly in the passion like africa, are seeing significant growth. egg -- we are looking at world that will look different one or two decades out from today. the one thing hank issued some caution, one thing we know at least from people who have studied growth and looked at what are the components that feed into higher growing rated around the world, to end to be a number of factors, throw of
which are most important, education high levels of educationing, increasing levels of education, rule of law and individual freedom would be the second, and then the third would be having an open economy and in take an interest in attention to marks in general. those are essentially political issues in terms of whether we can count on those things being sustained in the future. president bush always said i wasn't allowed to talk about politics so i won't give you a prediction on that. think those are the facts we need to be thinking but for the future. >> well, hank, you talked about protectionism so that will kind of lead me into this topic here. we see a lot of nationalism and pop jim manifesting in different ways around the world, whether it's the brexit situation, elections, united states or abroad, there's seems to be a very pop populist viewpoint.
do these developments pose serious threats to the global economy? >> well, of course they do, and the -- as i look at it more broadly, i sigh the global economy, the world changing faster than our ability to govern it, and then when i look at individual economies, i think the modern economies pose challenges that are policies aren't really responding to. and so the key is how you develop policies that work in today's mod modern world. this is ultimate lay political decision. so it's -- ultimately a political decision, and a decision that authoritarian goes are dealing with, china and so on. their present policies aren't going to really work in the future. they need to keep changing them, and our western democracies have
these problems. so we have big groups of people that feel disaffected by the pace of change. they've been left behind. and so we have -- this is where populism comes from, nativism, nationalism, and so the challenge really is a political challenge. it's a chicken or an egg. the political situation is created by unhappy, differ affected -- disaffected people, and then of course that creates a political systemses that make up hard to respond with the right policy response. so, it's -- many ways political issues are economic issues and vice versa. and so those are the enemies, and that is -- i think that's one of the biggest risk, particularly facing the west. >> mr. chairman. >> so, the integration only the
global economy, expansion of trade, expansion of human movement, immigration, is not going to be reversed. this is pretty much their stay. on the margin it can be affected with political resistance and poppivity and nativist policies. so, that can be costly, can slow growth, it can disrupt rust markets. we have seen ourmark haze responded to discussions of trade wears, example. i agree with hank. at the premise is if you want people accept change, accept the tremendous dynamism that a global economy has, you have to help them adapt to change, make it a little less scary, and i think there is a case for helping people adapt, whether it's through allowing them to get their skills they need or helping them to move from one year and another, where the jobs are. i think from -- it's from a
self-preservation perspective. you want to pry serve dynamism of the global economy you have to get people able and willing to accept the dynamism. >> do you think that education and training would help as it relates to these populist trends. >> i'm always in favor of education and training since that's what i sell. but going back to the points that were made by ben and hank, i think those are right on, and there's no doubt that education and training help, but education and training, remember, is a long-run kind of investment. not a short-run investment. the reason is that if you start -- even if we were to reform all of our schools along the lines of what dr. chan was talking about in the last session and we're tremendously success. you're still talking about that happening a generation later because it takes time to move
into the economy. so, one thing we can be thinking about and this sounds counter to some hoff the current rhetoric, is that we can start bringing more people in who have the skills and education and the kinds of training that we need. one of the things that shows up in the research on immigration and 0 entrepreneurship is that immigrants tend to be very entrepreneurial and we know that. they're almost twice as tropical is a the native born population. so there are things we can do that will at least facilitate these transitions in the short run. again, those are political kinds of considerations, and it's easier said than done, but certainly things we should be thinking about. >> i would add that some of the things you can do have a short-run payoff if the happen with transitions, help retrain, help people move, have apprentice shipships, technical training, some packages you can
accommodate clearly you want to try to address the long-run issues of appropriate skills for the work force and so on. >> absolutely. >> you know, hank, you talk about china, you mentioned when you talk -- let's talk about china. you initiated the u.s.-china strategic economic dialogue that was an early effort by the u.s. to persuade chinese government to reduce their role in the chinese economy and more fully embrace global markets. how do you think that's going, for starters and then i'll follow up with two more. >> well, i think the dialogue is -- how i think the dialogue is going or china is going? >> both. >> i want to make one point i think most people in this room understand, but that when we look at this century, that i believe more than anything else, how the u.s. figures out to deal with a rising china, and how china in and the u.s. deal with
each other is going to be the factor that more than anything else shapes the geopolitical landscape we have in the 21st 21st century, and when we deal with china, we have to remember we're not dealing today with the same china we dealt with even four or five years ago. we're dealing with a china that is much more assertive. we're dealing with a china that is a -- in many ways a strategic come pet -- competitor, an economic competitor. we don't have to shy away from aid mitting that or staying that. it's china with the capacity and the reach to advance its owns? long-standing spheres of united states influence. so, that is the perspective in which we need to look at china, and i think that the most important thing that we need to
do is to not be afraid of competition, to recognize that despite the competition, china and the u.s. have many shared interests. we're not going to solve the major global problem wed have, everything from nuclear proliferation and climate change and on and on. unless we find common ground with china. we immediate to figure out how to find common ground and compete. number two, i think we need to work with our allies. i'll talk about something that is here and dear to my heart, -- near and near and dear to my heart which is china open umping. for the last ten years china has been very slow to open up and have not provided a level playing field for u.s. companies to compete, and that's -- it's not right and it's creating a lot of problems. we'll be much
more successful in our efforts if we worked with our allies. we worked with our allies in japan and europe and robbed the world. we had an assertive alleged in asia and t -- join the tpp so we would have a positive agenda in asia. think the third thing i would say is the onus is on to us raise own game to fix our economic problems as home to be strong economically, militarily and diplomatically because i think the chinese, like any other people, respect strength. so, again, the think that makes me most uncomfortable is so many people today, as they look at china, what they see is they see an entrenched communist party and they see a more statued economic statement. a -- economic system and a more
assertive china and they don't like it. i don't like it as an american but it exists and we need to figure out how to deal with it. and so many people have gone from saying, gee, china is not moving to become a democracy like us. and i never expected them to become a liberal democracy at home or western liberals abroad, but they -- we certainly don't need to view them as an enemy because we can't afford another cold war. >> you know, going allege off script. i have a little experience of investing there and seems like a lot of american companies have inwest virginiad into china through the years and we have to because they dang al population carrot that makes people's teeth rattle but at the same time i don't know anybody who has been very successful there economically as a u.s. company. >> i would disagree with you
there. there are many global -- >> we lost money. >> many global companies that are making a lot of money in china. they're making a lot of now china. so -- but you're right in saying, we haven't seen the structural reforms we need to level the playing field. so, it's become harder to do business there rather than easier to do business in china. and that is what the world is crying for. you're starting to hear but reciprocity from u.s. and europe. the biggest problem is europeans, people in -- obviously americans are going to say, why should we keep our markets open for china if -- for chinese companies if they're not going open their markets for us? and where that would lead us would be leading to us have big parts of the global economy closed, cut off from detroit and
investment, which would be -- from trade and investment which we be a bad thing for both countries. again, that is a risk i see. i think it's very, very important we push china to open its markets. >> do you see them becoming more responsible as a global power, economic power? >> i want to also say, but we cannot lose saying of the fight that the fact that the economic relationship between u.s. and china, possibly benefits us even in america today. anymore their wallets and homes and businesses, but die see them become -- do i see them become -- what was your question. >> become more globally responsible, economically. to the rest of us. so becoming more responsible in the economic global marketplace. >> listen, i think the proof is going to be in the pudding. you have a leader right now in
xi jinping who consolidated great power. has his team in place some he's got a very strong economic team. so, the positive is a potential that he now has the power to get things done and pursue reforms in all of our interests. so we're going to see right now whether they open up. in china the reformers -- the pseudo reformers want to open up to private sector companies in china, to compete with the state-owned enterprisers. the real reforms want to open it up to foreign competition and we'll learn a lot over the next couple of years. but the reformer can get the job done easier if they're pushed ask that's more effective on a multilateral basis rather than a bipartisan lateral pace. >> let be go back to -- address
to you and then the second and mr. chairman i'll follow up. when we talk about the global economy you gave earlier comments, but when you look at the u.s. economy, just as a stand-alone economy, everything so intertwined today globally, you heard what the secretary just said but china and somewhere we are -- is our economy going to be sustainable after these levels? we're looking at record high equities and regard low rates and -- record low rates and is there something that's going to give here? >> i guess i would focus on a couple of points there. first of all, right now we're in a productivity slowdown, major problem and has to be reversed them kauai why -- the question why we're in a slowdown we haven't answeredout. one is human capital, prompts there.
and essentially more market, based policies. we have over the past decade moved away from market, based policies. think the world has shown those are the most successful for growing the economy. i want to. 0 back to one thing that hank said, though, which is at the very beginning he said one thing we have to worry about at the world level is the debt. there's no doubt that if i were going focus on the big policy issue that is going to face us over the next 20 years, it definitely has to be the debtment the reason -- i'm talking but the united states right now. the around this. if you look at cbo, congressional bug office's numbers -- budget office's numbers and project out two decade, you're talking about running a deficit of 10% per year. we to close the gap we have to increase taxes across the board by 50%. if we were continue crease taxes by 5%, that would have absolute -- by 50% that would
have absolutely devastating economic of economic growth and activities. so those are the problems. there are some going things -- good things we have going for us and let me end on a somewhat more optimistic note. the united states has outgrown our g-7 neighbors for a long period of time and we've done so for three reasons. the first is we work hard so if you look at the average hours of work among americans versus our g-7 friends and competitors, we work, for example, we work 1100 hours per person in the working age population inch italy it's less than 800 hours and that's true across the board. we're at the top. the second thing we do is we we actually have low tax. they're quite low compared to the postal service companied. for france, it's 45% forks us it's 25% and the third, we do a
very good job of interesting integrating our immigrants and while they sound backwards given the current rhetoric ex-if you look in the unemployment rates off immigrants versus native born population in every g-7 country except the united states, the unemployment rate for immigrants is higher inch germany it's almost double. in u.s. the immigrants have lower unemployment rates than the native born population. i gives you an indication that our immigrants here to work and actually successful at getting jobs. >> thank you, hank. want to add to that? >> i've got nothing to add. very good. >> the beauty of being up here with all these smart guys. >> i will add one thing, despite all that i would say this. i don't think our democracy is going to work. don't think our political system
is going to work unless we figure out how to have growing be more inclusive. we can't leave so many people behind. we have still big numbers of working age people not working. given the opioid problem, given high level of incarceration and given income disparity, i don't think that we are going to be able to continue to grow, fix our political system, unless we figure out how to deal with that. again to me, that is is part and parcel with the debt. we'll have to deal with the debt. i also would be a little more optimistic. think the debt is a huge problem but i don't think we need fix it just with taxes. you can use things like means testing and other things to deal with some of our biggest problems in terms of health care and social security.
>> thank you. mr. chairman, we'll get into our world at bit more, talk about markets for a second. you look all the recent volatility which is something that i deal with each and every day but the fluctuations we're seeing in the global markets today, do you see this path continue thing volatility because of low rate, high evaluation in stocks and things of that nate tower. >> shank i and eddy remember 2008. we are not impressed by the amount of volatility we're getting here. it actually is not much different from normal right now. so, he equity markets markets at prices have gone quite a bit. three reasons for that. up with earnings have been very strong the economy has being growing a long time earnings very solid. capital income share has been rising, tax rates have been cut
all that is generating more profits for forms and that's positive fork equities. second reason is interest rates are low and that's not a fed thing. the 30 year bond yield is 3%. this marks think that low interest rates are here for a long time and we can debate why that's so but very low interest rates, means the future dividends, future properties are down it at a lower rate and give yourself higher present value. and this is that changes dale will be a support. and the third one is ricket premiums. risk premiums are relatively low, historically on the low side, meaning that the last few years people have been increasingly willing to take risk and press for yield in this environment. indeed in 2017 when the risk premiums were exceptionally low, it was puzzling because does
spieth the fact we an uncertain world, the political situation, it seemed that markets were kind of complacent. what we have seen in the last few months is more i think acknowledgment that there's uncertainty about the -- where this recovery is going, uncertainty but international trade and uncertainty but geopolitical situation, north korea and iran, and that's not surprising to see volatility a little more cautioned on the part of investors. really it's quite moderate. hank and i are just totally blase but the level of volume actuality in the last few months. >> let's talk to about -- you talk but valuations and asset prices which it's hard to refute that because that's the fact of the market bet lawsuit say -- but let's say that happened.
are you comfort the fed has the tools and resources to respond to future downturns in the market and how do you look at that? what's your -- the people that succeed you today. >> so the fed -- what are you talking about in center the fedes note business of propping up stock prices. >> i agree. >> the fed is in the business of trying to maintain a stable economy and that means in the first instance trying to make sure the financial system broadly remands stable, which is what we tried to do in response to the crisis of 2008. but under more normal circumstances that means trying to keep unemployment and inflation close to the fed's targets, and right those things are as close to target that have been in many year. inflation is about 2% which is the fed's inflation, target, and unemployment is 4%. for the moment the federal is on target. now, the concern is what happens the next time there's an
economic downturn. for whatever reason. i think there is a bit of concern there because the debt deficit are high, the flexibility of fiscal policy to responsibility to a downturn is less. that puts a lot 0 burden on the fed to respond. the fessed analysis worlds where even when interest rates are close to neutral, -- the fed things the short-term interest rate will be 3%. onces are back to normal balance situation. and that doesn't give the fed much room to cut. the next time there's a slowdown so that's an issue. the fed has other tools. it can use what is called forward guidance, make promises it will keep rates low for a long time. it used asset purchases properly known as quantitative easing success film. seems to be unwinding now without too much difficulty. so there are some additional tools, and moreover in the fed
can look at other a strategies like changing the way it targets inflation that could have some impact on its able to respond to a slowdown, but i think that is an issue. think it is an issue, and it's not clear that if we had a deep recession, that monetary and fiscal policy would be as effective in responding as might have been the case in the past. >> so that brings me to another question. a guy who runs a public company, one that investors can't stain it you give guidance and miss it. they will punish you. appears the fred gift a lot of guidance and didn't follow through. one thing the market hates is uncertainty and hates uncertainty when the government gives guidance and doesn't follow through. what do you say to people when you give people comfort, you're almost giving guidance and doesn't -- you kept interest rates at historic lows because you could and got employment numbers down, we tighten rates
but didn't happen the market kind of seemed like it was getting frustraterred with the fed. >> i don't agree with any of that. i. >> i wouldn't expect you to. >> two gaineds of -- guidance, one is saying this what think will happen, best guest, forecast. this is not like s&p 500 firms and know what the profit will be and can maneuver it around. we're talk about real forecast of the economy. when the fed makes a forecast it says this is what we think will happen but of course forecast is a forecast. it can be wrong. so everybody understands that and sometimes the market disagrees and we don't agree with you. that's what happens. the other thing that can happen which we saw in the last few years was the fed can sometimes say we promise to do this, promise. not forecast. and we did that for example when we said way would not raise interest rates at least until unemployment got down to 6-1/2
percent, for example. would not raise ininterest rates at least until we got to the year 2014, and when the fed made promises like that, it's always met the promises so you have to distinguish between a forecast that says this is our best guest but who knows. versus this is what we promise to do, and only rarely does the fed make an unconditional promise. when it does it's auld followed through -- always followed through. >> the fed is so scrutinized because every word means potentially something different. it was domestic do the job. >> the fed used to at the -- 25 years ago, the fed wouldn't even tell people when they'd change interest rates so they were totally opaque and mysterious. so now the fed is much pore more open. sometimes that means they make forecasts that don't come true, hayes, ready to respond -- iant
to defend you better than you can. i want -- >> take it. >> hard for you say because this country, from the third quarter of 2009, grew -- started growing at better than 2% while we deleverred and the courage it took -- the really unusual, extraordinary macroeconomic policy is -- just look at where the united states of america is. so i couldn't agree more with ben in saying, i think the fed said they were going to do something, a lot of people criticized them and said there's all these risks, you shouldn't be doing this extraordinary monetary policy, look at the risk, and now look at where we are. and let me tell you hurricane was right. so i just think that this is a -- he did a superb -- the fed did a superb job of sharing they would do something, doing it and being right. [applause]
>> i don't think ill i will be inviteed back years next year. these guys are getting mad at me. i'm glad aim out of office. don't hammer at me. told you i'd get a rise out of them. mr. secretary, since you told me to call you hank, you were the first to call attention to the increasing gap between the richest and the poorest in the united states. how do you believe that gap is contributed to the state of partisan politics, if at all? >> i think, terry, this group is probably answering that. even when i was still at goldman sachs i was fascinated and disturbed by income disparity, not just in the u.s. but all over the world. really do believe that for our political system to work, longer
term, there has to be -- it is doing work with that level of disparity. so obviously it's a significant issue. it's one that predated the financial crisis. there are all kinds've structure issued that -- structure issues that causing it. i think out mission and technology are having a major impact, and i'm not going to argue against that, and it is technology is doing wonderful job of helping a lot of people rise out of poverty. it's got great potential. but i firmly believe in the united states offer america right now it's killing more jobs than it's creating, and automation is really putting pressure on wages, and i think this poses a huge challenge. i would just want to say one other thing.
i actually wish i'd said at the beginning how honored and privileged i was to work for president bush. this best boss i ever had. to me, ben mentioned the financial crisis, the leadership and the support hi has shown, particularly then, is something i am really grateful for. one thing i was very grateful for when i came to treasury, he encouraged know build relations with democrats and republicans, and to really take a bipartisan approach, and he was very supportive. i remember when i made that speech and talk about income disparity, fuel people -- the white house staff didn't like it and the president loved it. he understood that the recall problem exists there. >> one of my favorite lines from my dear friend, speaker boehner, he said as peeker in -- as a leader there was never a pratt
that did not get up every morning with the intention only to do what is in the best interests of the american people and that's saying lot and that's the way it should be and i hope our current administration would take a little close are look at the way president bush conducted himself for the american people. again, off script. sorry, ken. jed, real quick. you have done a lot of work with the labor market and work toast development. what are your thoughts on the idea of the skills gap and leave something workers behind. >> that is quite closely related to the discussion you just having about income inequality. one thing we know is if we look at the earnings distribution in the united states, and if we look at the educational system as it relates to the earnings distribution, one thing that we see is that education here does pretty well for the top third of our earner. it does reasonably well nor next six, but actually the bottom
half -- we're knock talk us -- not talking about the poor, when we talk about income inequality we talk about the lowe's 30% but in united states it's just the half, the bottom half that hadn't done very well, and the question is why. say maybe we don't have it quite right in terms of training. one that that president bush pushed when we were all in the government, was better system for vocational training, perhaps through the community colleges. and there's there's some evidene might be some payoff to that. compare the united states to germany, one thing you find is that our high school graduates earn 70% of the average wage in the population, whereas in germany, the vocational grad wads earn 90%. so we know those systems, while they're not right for everybody, seem to do a lot better for certain parts of our population.
know, again, dr. chan was talking about schools in east palo alto. where i live in silicon valley what he was schools that are bifur indicated and have half the kits on the academic track and then the other half who are not. and those kids who are not on the academic track are getting something that is essentially watered down economics. so instead of taking ap courses she was talking about, getting calculus in your second year of high school, they're hoping to get these kids to algebra by the final year but most skills won't be useful to them in the labor force, and unfortunately we haven't focused enough on training people do something that its actually productive in the labor force and by the way, most jobs we're talking bit, even in the german system are service jobs. not manufacturing or -- just
being proper muck tariff. >> our time is getting short here, they told me i had 45 minutes, he toll them it takes me that minute time to clear my throat. i stole that from chris dodd. we want to get your thought beyond we go from here. i speak to a lot of students at universities, one thing i really enjoy doing and a very releaked atmosphere, talk to kids, but real life example. grew up on the streets so i feel i have the credibility to do this. i have twin teenage boys so i'm right in -- 59, my kids are a. the mag doesn't work way so we can he see how that has gone. married 26 years, same woman. children are our disputer it appears that there will be inheriting a lot of different issues from our generations and others. i'm curious on what your thoughts are for the next generation of leaders and kids today and when you talk to them.
>> i'm very optimistic. i view it as a real privilege to teach at stanford. the students i have are just unbelieve by tall henned people it and was true at the university of chicago and these are elite schools, but i'm not quite as pessimistic about the young generation. think while there may be something wrong with kids today, there may be something wrong with us as well, in terms of the way we treat them. so, i guess i would still push opportunities. think that one thing that we see is that our students are moving in directions where the opportunities are available and us a long as we create an environment such that those opportunities are going to continue to exist, we'll have the students doing the right thing. that said, i would issue one caution, and i do think that we've become a little bit more closed-minded in academia than
in the past and that's probably not the students. students are always think they have the truth. look at the three of us, we're all bald, which means we went to school during the vietnam war times and there was no -- you're a little younger, ben, sorry. but -- >> don't get him mad. >> class of '68. >> no more tumultuous time than. that while we thought we knew earth, people pushed back and that was true among the faculty and media and intelligentsia, and i think right now the one thing i would say we have to worry about is those other three groups are not pushing back perhaps as hard as they should. >> thank you. mr. secretary, and then mr. chairman. >> well, i think the -- if we're optimistic, it's got to come from the young people, because all the issues we talk about today were about whether it's
the national debt or the political system or some of the issues we didn't talk about, like climate exchange environmentalists. these are generational equity, and the thing that concerns me the most but our country is older people involved in the political system and they're being very selfish because we're not investing in the young. if you run a company, which you do, is you're always looking for young talent and you're investing in young people. we as a nation are underinvesting in our young people, and i'm valley real impressed by the young people i see on the campuses. if i had a discussion it this same one ed raised. he think i see so much political correctness so much talking about people's safe spaces, worrying but hurting someone's feelings, and i also see a lot of patriotism because it
really -- if we're going to -- if we're going to meet the challenges we need to make, it's going to take i think a greater sense of patriotism from young people. but again, the energy, the ability you see from young people, is tremendous, and that's really our future. >> mr. chairman. >> i think there's an awful lot of noise which comes from to political statement and although that's very important but an awful lot going on underanything, which is a very strong country, very diverse country. example, what is happened in the -- this is texas. what is happening in energy. we were -- 040 yours ago worried about running out of oil. now north america is self-sufficient. so, there's a lot of ability to adapt, a lot of ability to make progress. i do think there is a challenge which is putting aside all the social issues which are very
important, i think the progress on artificial intelligence, which could make huge changes in our economy very quickly, at some opinion, is going preaver challenge to the political and social structure because some people are probably going to find themes redundant. how will day department and others will have tremendous opportunities based on the new technology. their technology is begin fog become relevant to the economy, it's going to create some very big social and economic challenges in the next 25 years jam. >> i want to take -- we ran through or five mints long here, ken,i know i have to write a check now to the bush institute for below penalized he for the length of time. how about a nice round of applause for ben, hank, and eddie. [applause]
>> u.s. senate about to goodfellow in returning from a week-long sees, considering the nomination of a judge for the fifth certificate court in new orleans, covering louisiana, mississippi and texasment more judicial nominations are expected to be taken up this week in the senate, and also just in the last units president trump tweeting, quote, ill will by announcing my decision ton the iran deal tomorrow from the white house at 2:00 p.m. live coverage on the c-span networks we may hear floor speeches about that. live senate coverage here on c-span.