>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." >> john micklethwait and adrian wooldridge are here. they are the "the economist" magazine's editor-in-chief and it's management editor. after their 2005 bestseller, "the right nation," we have

written a new book. it is called, "the fourth revolution: the global race to reinvent the state." the current crisis of governments in the west's they argue are part of larger changes to nation states around the world. i am pleased to have them at this table. welcome. what brought this book about? >> because of the job i do, you wander round the world seeing politicians similar to the things you do. you begin to detect something. there is the sort of contest going on to reinvent government. what is really interesting, throughout the west, you have this series of elections. huge amount of people are going to vote for people in anger and fury. in america you have the midterms that are similarly unpopular. there is apathy. everyone keeps thinking politics is never going to change. it is never going to work. that explains a lot of reasons

why congress is only 10% approval ratings. the tory party has gone from 3 million to 120,000. the message of our book is no, you should think about it. change is the most likely thing. if you look at history, government has gone through gigantic changes. three revolutions. we're predicting a fourth one. technology, you have to imagine the technology that has transformed the private sector will eventually affect the public sector. that is just beginning to happen. government is under more pressure. it is a global contest. our worry is that america is like sears roebuck. it thought it was a reward. beyond that, the worst kind of contest to be in is one you do not know you are in a contest.

they aren't aware of what is happening in asia. >> what are the choices for america? >> the choice for america's that it is in a contest. america has had a very easy time of it being the top nation for a long time. i think it has become a bit apathetic about government. the right things government is a bad thing. the state needs to be gotten rid of. the left seems to think government is a good thing, we should protect everything that is there. you need to go through a process of reinvention. it is hard to do. you have a political situation in washington whereby everything is an ideological battle. many solutions we talk about our pragmatic. >> do you think they're looking for new models? for example you look at stake , capitalism in china. that is a better model, that is

the thing about democracy. they can have elections in certain areas of the country. >> this contest matters not to the point of view of the general rule of history. he who governs best wins. until the 16th century, it was china. they invented the modern civil servants. then european nationstates began to take over. two more revolutions of in the reasons why we have been ahead. what is interesting about china, would begin with an example. they have a leadership academy. they scour the world looking for the best forms of government. it feels a bit like harvard, redesigned. there is a huge red desk in the middle. >> they are studying in china. the best governing models around the world. >> and they are not coming to washington. they're going to sweden.

they going to chile. if you go to that place, you have to think, this is the same as when you visited shanghai 20 years ago when they were starting manufacturing. they were trying to imitate the west. this they are to do with government. they are not impressed by bits of democracy. >> they are less impressed with our economic model after what happened 2008. -- what happened in 2008. they said so. >> that is true. some of that you have to discount. this book does not advocate the chinese system. there are lots of problems. >> i find admirable the notion of let's figure out what is really working. it is a bit like you would do in a business school. or what they do in the military in terms of trying to train future leaders. i'm told that early on, in america, they try to spot the best athletes in all kinds of sports and watch them grow.

in china, they try to spot the brightest and get them on a track towards government. >> meritocracy. chinese civil servants, these are the guys that are going to be ambassadors. they are pushing their way up. they have to get in by taking an exam. there is elements of competition at the top. everything is the leadership changes. ash every 10 years the leadership changes. there are all sorts of rubble missed, particularly at the bottom. but there is some sort of system there. >> tell me about the first three revolutions. >> the first revolution is a revolution based on security. the states really begin to exercise control over robber barons, religious wars, and the monarchs begin to say we're going to provide you with security.

at the beginning of that century, europe was a bloodsoaked battlefield. the future of the world looked as though it would be determined in china, in the ottoman empire, or in india. three cities in europe at a population more than 300,000 people. in china, the capital city alone had a population of 300,000 people. europe was a backwater. by putting through the security revolution, by providing internal security, it began to create a powerful civilization. people felt secure themselves. at the same time, there was competition between europe. european states are looking outwards. when china invents and patter,

-- invents gunpowder, it is used for fireworks. when europeans invent gunpowder, they use it for galleons. the second revolution we talk about is the revolution with the rise of liberalism. that is obviously there in the french revolution and the american revolution. the example we look at and focus on is what happens in britain. the biggest, most powerful country in the world. the america of its day. britain is similar in that the states there in the 18th century become a parasite. the british liberals managed to restrict the state, get rid of lots of irrelevant offices. they cut public spending on government. taxation goes down from $80 million a year to 60 million a year. they do this by opening civil service to talent rather than patronage.

by putting liberty and efficiency of the heart of the states, you get this second revolution. people begin to worry the state is not doing in now. -- doing enough. you don't have a security system for old age. that lays the foundations of what we call the third revolution. the rise of the welfare state. it has dominated the 20th century. >> where do you put reagan and thatcher? >> the state has got too big. the state has running things you should be running. in the 1970's, everything the state touches from the vietnam war to the war on crime begins to fail. you get sharp reaction against this bloated welfare state. they do very important things. they get the state of things that it should be running. they control the trade unions,

which should become a problem in britain. we argue this is a half revolution. the growth of the state rapidly resumes in the 1990's. george bush expanded government even faster than lbj. now we have the bigger state and we had in the 1980's. what they did was important, but we still have a big problem. we think there is a fourth revolution needed in underway. -- and underway. >> you want to say something about the second revolution. >> this is, if i was a republican congress, my hero would be british liberals. if you look at people like john stuart mills, and reduce the size of the state. they increase services. the rebuilding schools, hospitals. they created a police force. they reduce the size of the state. they got rid of the cronyism. you can do the same today. look at $1.3 trillion worth of

tax breaks, very little they can afford. corporate cronyism. there is this inability to tackle it. there has to be something wrong with the state. the left should really look at this. >> is there a model on the planet which has a closer to the best working system that provides both a strong economic engine, at the same time a kind of social welfare system that makes sure that the most disadvantaged among us do not fall below a certain level. >> the place most people cite, new singapore. they have a much smaller

government. >> the man who fashioned it -- >> he's an authoritarian figure. look at sweden. sweden was a country which kept on getting bigger and bigger government. then it faced the prospect that it had to bring it down. it reduced itself. countries from the left did it by saying things like they like education, they don't care who provides education. milton friedman, who would ever have thought that? sweden is interesting. chile is interesting. look at crime. >> this is a great debate in the united states. how do you lower taxes, or raise taxes, and at the same time have

a hard look at entitlements, and raising revenue? >> that is is that what we need. the problem with america is you have something so ideologically polarizing, they don't trust each other. an interesting example is what happens in sweden. they hit this big government and they collectively decided they had to look for pragmatic solutions, taking ideas from the left and right, and putting a balanced budget at the heart of everything. fixing long-term entitlements. it is possible for democratic countries to do it. very hard given the state of washington. >> they said we have to deal with pensions problems. in america, they never prepared to back it. europe in some ways is worse. you're going to see complete catharsis when europe goes.

the most telling was from the prime minister of luxembourg. he said we all know what to do, we just don't know how we can get elected if we did it. >> are you going to say democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be? >> we remain strong believers in democracy. it got tatty. it is threadbare. it is running out of things. you look at what is happening in many parts of the world. redistricting is like the british robber barons. too much money in politics. >> it has no purpose other than remaining in power.

>> democracy, we always have the quote churchill, it's the worst evolving systems, except for all the rest. it works and having some degree of ability to change. what is happening is their fundamental debate behind the technocratic stuff. if the west forms this government, and liberal values, and democracy, and all the things we believe, they will do really well. >> and the more transportable? >> yes. there is a contest of power and economic dominance, whether the western system is the most powerful in the world, or the chinese one is the most powerful. there is even more powerful debate. which values should triumph?

liberalism or top-down autocracy? there isn't just a competition going on which is economic and political to see which power wins, whether it is united states or china. there is a fundamental ideological battle to see which set of values win. i think the west, for its value to triumph, needs to reform democracy. needs to make it less tatty. less self-indulgent. less dominated by special interest groups. by shrinking the state and making it more efficient, there is a chance of liberal democracy triumphing. >> do you agree? >> i do. but there are also challenges. it is easy when you say you want to shrink the state. which we think you do. that is the argument for liberty.

the state has got to intrusive. both left and right have kept on asking for more. you look at the way the state has grown, one thing that has been the constant of every single american throughout, the state has kept on growing for an entire period. the left wants to have schools and hospitals. the rights wants to have prisons and a bigger army. they create rules. if you want to become a hairdresser, good to study for two years. whenever wildest dreams people have, it wasn't to stop people having clashing color schemes. the state has got far too big. i think the state should be the regulation of choice. do you want it to work out can cut your hair or not? there is no need for this.

we have the drowning frogs. it is taken more and more. -- taking more and more. as i point this out, many others haven't, and actually what we think is that a smaller state, which did things better, would be much more focused. there's a lot of things the state doesn't do that it is set up to do. why isn't america spending more, giving mortgage tax people the top two percent? there is no way that is a sensible housing policy. >> does the chinese system, does it in any way inhibit creativity, it inhibit innovation, inhibit freedom of thought that might lead to innovation, which might lead to scientific advancement? >> the worst thing to do is to

underestimate your opponent. it would be foolish to underestimate china. but they have achieved is incredible. they are continuing to achieve an amazing amount. basically, what they have been doing is catch-up growth. they have been looking at the best countries in the world, and imitating them. ultimately, you can't have a creative economy if you don't have freedom of thought and debate. they are worried about it. there is an inherent contradiction what they do. what they would like to do, there was a sign saying, be more creative. they want top-down innovation. but it can't work. >> there is always this conflict. at the new the day it is about power. people do what they want to do to maintain power. if they think clamping down, whether it is turkey or china, or any other place on any other

continent, if remaining in power or having access to power demands that you do things that you might not think our otherwise appropriate, you will do it. >> it is not a traditional autocracy, china. the leadership gives itself 10 years in power. it keeps rotating every 10 years. they keep getting younger. traditionally they have been getting older. >> it used to be this question was raised, look at india. the largest democracy in the world. look at china. they both had double-digit growth rates. who is going to come off better in the end? who is going to, better in the short-term? >> we have to be honest and say that if you were poor chinese, you have done better. india has had far more, has been less efficient improving the basics of life. i do think the indian system,

there is some kind of ability to change things. democracy does give you that flexibility. for all the nice things we said about china, you have to remember basic things. the levels of inequality. we had been pointing out the wealth of the top 50 people in congress, $1.6 billion. the wealth of the top 50 people in china is $98 billion. that doesn't include the wealth close to the leadership. the level of inequality is gigantic. it is cronyism. there is a vast amount of it. it is not a perfect system. it is taking on the west. >> it has always been my impression, not based on a study, that one of the things that mostly to revolution and protest, whether it is in the

arab world or in asia, or latin , america, it is the sense that the system is not fair. the fact that there is an inequality in the system is the most likely thing to cause people to march. >> i think it is a big deal throughout society. in china it is a huge deal. there you see a middle-class emerging who are, look at the welfare system. hospitals, things, it is a problem there. inequality, the first problem is the economy. the second problem is some version of fairness. >> i hear this as i travel around the world. a sense that somehow, everybody was too quick to write about the decline of america. somehow, these forces are at work that are essential to change they give america a capacity to do much better than

the 21st century than expected. >> people often say that you should be so worried about china because if you look at japan in the 1970's, everybody was worried about japan. everyone was in japan was going to take over. it never took on. i think there is an important point to remember. one reason why america stayed on top was that it looked to japan and it learned from japan's success. it looked at leed manufacturing. it looked from the productive system. it realize there was a threat there. >> even the auto industry. >> we had to do exactly the same. we have to look at what it is doing well and learn from some of the things it is doing well. that matters. what they have them with their infrastructure is important. america does face a big problem. we need, as john said, we are engaged in a competition. we need to understand how we are doing and what weakness in our

own system is. america is incredibly successful system. it only remains that way if it is not self-indulgent. >> if it is no longer self-indulgent. who is the one leader you have seen in these travels that represents grasping the essential questions you're raising? >> one interesting anecdote, when i went to see -- my meeting was delayed because the new leader of china came out to see him before -- four days after. that was part of the way in which the chinese respect him. they see him as the person who set up an alternative system.

when he looks of the west, he calls it being the all-you-can-eat buffet. it gives people a license to keep on eating. you become what the boy in the charlie in the chocolate factory. you asked for more and more. he understood that earlier. >> i have probably done more interviews with him than anyone else. one of the stories he told me is who did he admire most, and he said deng xiaoping. >> his method of government won't would like to follow. i think that was key. that mixture between efficiency and growth. >> it is also politics.

politics demand leadership of a special kind. that is essential. >> absolutely. without being rude, we given -- we have been lacking that. politicians have not been, they feel like they can't do the right thing and get reelected if they do the right thing. at some point you have to really just put short-term considerations behind and say our entitlement system is going broke. we can fix it, but it is going in the wrong direction. infrastructure is falling apart. we need to take government seriously. one of the problems with america is that the right things government is a bad thing. the left thinks government is a good thing. we want to protect it as it is. it needs to be reinvented. that doesn't mean getting rid of it. it means bringing it into the 21st century.

>> you asked me which later. -- which leader is impressive. possibly the most impressive later on the global stage, chancellor merkel. here is this woman with the most power in europe. all the other leaders deferred to her on the main issues. she is a better politician anywhere else the moment. the same way clinton was better. when we come back and john sure in 20 years time we may say here was this woman who had enormous power and she didn't force europe to change. she was the one who analyze the problem perfectly. she said, why does your only account for 20% of its prosperity, nearly half its

welfare spending. sometimes you do need a thatcher. the end, legacy matters. >> you can stay in power by doing the right thing. you can change your system. it's meant challenging the basic assumptions of how welfare works. they did it and they got huge rewards.

all of the revolutions in the end did go through. >> voters response to leadership. what they believe his conviction. >> cameron could go yet down that road. his welfare reforms aren't quite established. people like tim at the beginning. you had to make the judgment today about barack obama, tell me how you would write the first paragraph. of enormousd be one promise and hope.

i think he governed too much from the left, which inflamed people. our real capacity to take on , and heestic issues didn't really do that. >> i have interviewed him twice. but he has proved disappointment. the stuff he has got through has been terribly muddled. it abroad, it is a big failure. i create covers in order to help your show.

that was a real thing. japanese, to israel, and these are all people who rely on america. america abandoned that presumption. by the end of his presidency, you would expect he would've boss in the emerging powers, but he has nota, put enough effort into it. >> the question i have, and i don't have the answer, i think they believe that the country is not that concerned about foreign policy in these great battles that are going on around the world. they think they don't have popular support. part of that is two wars that

have sapped humans and treasury. >> it is absolutely true. there is a huge appetite for focusing on domestic reform. there was an appetite for centrism, ringing together the left and the right. he contracted far too much of the detail of decision-making to the congress and the liberals within the congress. he didn't appeal above the heads of interest groups. i think he missed a real opportunity to be a centrist. this entitlement issue, the entitlement problems are not insoluble. they are not dramatically huge. if he had looked at those, looked at retirement ages, he could have carved a position as a very far-reaching, farseeing figure. far too much he is shifted to

the left, or listened to until -- to intensely to interest groups within his own party. >> thank you. great to see you. good to see you. the book is "the fourth revolution." back in a moment. ♪

>> stephen dubner and stephen levitt are here. their book freakonomics form a franchise encompassing radio and a documentary film. their new book offers advice on how to think more productively and creatively. it is called "think like a freak." i am pleased to have him at this table. i may begin with a quote from a review. in one of the many wonderful moments, they asked the question, who is the most foolish? the answer is always kids. instead of accepting as a fact, they said, the magician,

somewhat in the business of fooling people, and asked what he thinks. his answer, adults. it is the way you guys think. it is unconventional thinking. let's test what hypothesis we have. >> you are right. go seek data. have fun doing it. >> that is a good life. >> we are lucky. >> then make it into a documentary. what does it mean? to think like a freak. >> the only good answer is that it took us so long to say it we had to write a book about it. it is not complicated. there are a number of steps. the biggest things, get rid of preconceptions. let me go back to the magic thing. and learned so much about the

way kids thing versus how adults think. we had alex stone, this magician come in. to see how this work and hersen. the magician will say i want you to look at this handkerchief. what you do, what adults do, we pay attention. it means focus everything on the one thing that we are encouraged to. we are vulnerable to mr.. that is what a magician is doing. if there is a politician that wants to misdirect you, you will take the bait. the kids meanwhile, some are saying, why you're putting your hand in your pocket? think like a child means to pay attention to what excites you, to not worry if you are not necessarily in flow with everyone, to not worry about sounding sophisticated.

to come with ways to let curiosity take you. we have the fortune to grow up and get older without losing a child like or childish thing. it is always good, but sometimes it is. >> it is the secret of my success. >> you get to answer any question you want. >> the perfect question, what is wrong with this? people love to try to answer your questions because they feel flattered you would ask about anything. >> i remember when i started in journalism. it felt like the biggest racket. all i need is a notebook, i can walk up to anybody and ask them questions you would never get away with asking them in normal circumstances. on top of that, they answer you. it is nice work if you can get it. >> one of the things i learned as an academic, trying to find data, if you show the slightest interest in anyone, they will

give you whatever data you want. it is amazing. you can't understand how they think it is in your best interest. you are the first person to engage them. they will do whatever they can. >> he is very smart. i'm ok, too. he doesn't have to prove it. what i find is that truly smart people, in my view, the smartest people, are the ones who can explain what is going on in their thought process. we are surrounded by people who are really smart and they have ideas. you asked them to tease and out. if you ask the smart people, they can walk you through and explain the theory, show data, tell the stories. >> i can think of two people who are good at that. warren buffett. the other is nathan mearball.

>> clinton is good. >> he has the genius of being able to say there is a sense of respect for whoever differs with him. he will say, if you believe, i understand. if you think the world is around -- is around, as i do. what else do you need to think like a free? >> one of the most important things, being able to say i don't know. to not go in thinking you have all the answers. as an academic, my premise is i don't know anything. you spend six months on a project because you don't have the answer. in the world of punditry and business, it is a horrible failure to admit you don't know the answer. that gets in the way of learning.

>> the questions have power. they really have power. if he asked the wrong question, you're not going to get the right answer. if you asked the right question, you're almost halfway there. >> we ridicule kids, but we chuckle at the crazy questions kids ask. we get conditioned out of asking the most outlandish questions. most of us. especially in a public setting. no one wants to be the person who says, i know you think we should, but have we ever thought about zagging? they are not produced by consensus. it is a guy or two in the garage who are willing to ask questions. this is the story over and over again. >> frequently, the question is why not? >> why not. we write about incentives.

the why not, it is more attractive to protect your reputational as a safe, intelligent person. we tell the story about penalty kicks in soccer. the data show that 75% of all penalty kicks at the elite level are successful. that is a higher rate. -- a high rate. if you want to improve, what can i do? all most every kicker in all circumstances, they kick to the corner where the goalie has to jump because the keeper has to jump. if you look at the data, you see that he jumps to the kicker strong side 62% of the time. to the right, about 40% the time. two percent of the time it is dead in the middle. it turns out that a kicker, you're a percentage points more likely to score if you kick it in the center.

we said, why don't people do it? if you kick to the center and he stops it, you look like a fool. it is a metaphor. you can take the risk of your personal reputation even though the gain is greater, or you can do the accepted thing and it might not work so well, but if you fail no one is quintess say you are stupid. >> something interesting i have noticed. why do people not say why not? i have a company, and we meet with scientists, undergrads. they will say something incredibly brilliant. the client will ignore them. >> because it comes with them. -- from them. >> and then i see the same thing. then oh my gosh, brilliant. being experts gives us the

ability to say stuff that is not that smart and treated like it is smart. it is hard if you are a middle manager in a company to say things that are unusual because people don't start with the premise of this guy is saying something brilliant. it is interesting. we lose sight of that. people are so nice all the time. nicer than they should be. >> people sitting at home watching this program, and they are saying this is so basic fundamental common sense. these guys have made millions of dollars by telling me something i should have already known. >> totally. >> for us, it was embarrassing. we thought about maybe there was some magic. the more he thought about it, finally, we said we have to make it clear to people on page one there is a magic here.

what is amazing is it is so hard even for us to follow a common sense course. >> the capacity for individuals to delude themselves, and do things because you don't want to be embarrassed. >> i find that people who really do break through, they don't give a damn. >> i know you like me talking you up, but one thing that has made levitt valuable, and i try to learn from him, if you can learn your way to not caring, is that a great thing. it is the corollary of one people teach you to not be scared of the unknown. if you can pull that off, that is a huge benefit. it is opportunity cost. all the energy that goes into caring.

those are brain cells that going to doing something for real. >> what about bias? >> it is in all of us and everywhere. the smartest people tend to have the most of it. that is what the research seems to show. the cultural cognition project, whose worth is worth looking at, if you look at climate change and nuclear power, the most educated, well read people tend to hold the most extreme views on one side or the other. the mechanism being the smart people seem to be pretty good at confirmatory evidence. >> it is true also that people listen to talk radio, it is a reflection of what they already believe. they do listen to somebody who is apart from who they are.

they want to hear somebody say exactly what they believe. >> you don't like to read terrible reviews of the thing that you love. >> does all that you know, the core of the way you live your life? >> absolutely. i think being an economist, i think the book completely describes it. it is what we do. >> i'm a hybrid. >> how do you work together? >> terribly. >> it is actually really easy. from the beginning of every book we spend time in person brainstorming and throwing out many ideas. then he is in chicago and i'm in new york. e-mails are the way to go. my proudest moment as a parent

came this morning. my son is 13 years old. he became a huge soccer fan. he follows the leagues all over the world. when we were in europe you bought the jersey. he came up to me and he said, ever since i bought that jersey, he has been going crazy scoring goals. then i said to him, obviously you buying the jersey. he said correlation does not equal causality. [laughter] it may be too late for me, but for the next generation. it was a happy day. >> what has been the impact in the way you think about things? or what might it be? this extraordinary onslaught of data that we have.

it affects everything that people do. they can have sensors that can tell you exponentially more than you have ever known. >> of my belief, every important problem in the history of mankind that we solve has been solved through technology. big data is an opportunity to solve a lot of problems. i have to say i'm a big data skeptic. what you are describing is different. when i think of the big data that is out there, i think it would be hard to figure out what to do with it. people will give you examples of how they will be able to tell you you're driving by some place you've been wanting to do dry-cleaning, and they will tell you to remember. i think a lot of it is that that is what is missing. the kind of ideas and questions, and talent to pick the data and turn it into something. data is a scarce resource.

now the count understand it is a scarce resource. >> what makes you think we are just not there yet? if the field is relatively new, it is like anything. it will be here in five years. >> eventually, yes. i think the idea, and we were with companies that all the answers are right there. here are the numbers. they do they are. but in the near-term, the logistical time of trying to handle. it becomes an obstruction rather than a benefit. >> when people come to you and say i'm happy about the data that you have and how you analyze the data, and you can look at the numbers and tell me things that they can he seemed everything in a different light, however i constantly have found that my intuition is often right, and that what might have seemed the right course for me

through some other process was a better course. is that a contradiction? >> my view intuition and data, they inform what you should do. >> there is a place for intuition. >> absolutely. what intuition is is telling you where to look. in a world where you have so much data, you can't look at it all. you can look at every possible. the impressive creative, artistic side, with their ability is to find where to look. >> i just don't understand how you have people constantly talk about it. first of all, it is relevant in terms of if you believe in passion and things that are factors. a lot of that is so people can overcome the norm because they

bring to bear -- tell me if i am wrong. >> the challenge is -- people declare for political parties or sides of the aisle, they declare in one of my faith in data in a rational way of thinking, or one of my faith in an intuitive, natural way of thinking. either of them are independently are wrong. you see in the political debate now, from the outside, any of us can look at what politics are operating now. we given the incentives to do so. what you see is a total absence of bringing together two important parts you want. what the data suggests we should do, and how to use good intuition and judgment and assessment of help humans want to behave. it is a seem hard.

plainly it is. but i also believe that intuition is fed by a series of experiences which is data. >> that is one advantage that all the people have over younger people. younger brains are very plastic and sharp. we do have wisdom and experience. >> what would you have done if you had not come together? >> i would be living in a shack writing a book that nobody would have read. >> instead you have profited. , [laughter] congratulations. >> thank you for having us. >> where do think the empire goes? >> we know where it is going next. we are working on golf. >> what are you going to tell us? >> we're going to tell you how to think your way around the

golf course. how to use freakonomics to lower your scores. we are engaged in a massive field experiment of trying to see how to practice golf, and whether we can turn bad amateurs into somewhat bad imagers and pretty good amateurs into good. >> thank you. the book is called "think like a freak." ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we focus on innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. microsoft calls it the tablet that could replace your laptop. they unveil its new surface pro 3. it has a 12-inch screen and a $799 price tag. is it too large and expensive to make a dent in the market? chad dickerson is here to talk about the new wholesale pot form and whether it will be going public anytime soon.