writing the book was so angry when i heard that a the win been dismissed women when they were asked about iraq. when i look at iran it looks like those women could be set down in our mall and fit, right and and it makes me wonder in afghanistan if they were left to their own devices, how much do they resent their relationship that they are forced to have with men as the subservient relationship? >>th it is a family centereden, culture and i don't hear a lot of resentment but what women do all around the world is get on with it. people are countingh on them

and work needs to be done because do it nobody else well and they know they can andy the children are counting on them. that is also over and over again this universal everybody has the mother or grandmother who hasrisk sacrificed and for me it is a celebration of the workon women do all the time and also a war story. >> host: tell the story of dr. miriam. >> guest: one of the most compelling people i have met in any country anywhere. she was a woman doctor who practice dn medicis and authorhe of the taliban years. there were so many educated women left. she was a dressmaker because she ran a clinic for women in the afternoon after she

worked at the hospital in the morning and runs the thi clinic for people in the neighborhood. one time i asked her why in the world she had stayed when almost everyone she knew had left. she said because of my country. i will not be kicked out anday, buy the way if i left during the taliban years you would have practiced medicine onter women? because later their role was all the women doctors could treat women. if they were gone who would give them medical care? she is probably astrakhan's of the patriot as i have ever met. >> host: virginia? >> caller: doing the market analysis is a unique to their community: t or are there other similar ways asere we do in this country? gue

>> guest: a fine of business question. what is interesting is the market opportunity was created because they froze the country off that created the opening for those dresses were homemade they almost always bought the imported dressesw because people used to buy the fancy stuff were not there thatsted the local market existed.i s said then men and women literate and aliterate helped to analyze market opportunities. . . are so grin and bear it that you very rarely hear people complain and i think they are so

energized by the ability to make a difference for the family. and these women love the work they do. and her sister who is a character in the book is now at university working with her to help in her business. she just got back into the dressmaking because in the interviews she remembered how much fun she had making dresses that she started doing that again and she is the mother of four. >> host: but she's permitted to go to unive these are women -- because when men see the positive difference women earning income can make, there are a lot of men in this boom who i met are incredibly supportive. they worry for the safety of the women in their family but when they see the benefits of their being out and working can make, they are incredibly supportive. and that is unique to the people in this book. i mean, when you spend time in iran, afghanistan, you know, places like that, men see the benefits of not having to support 12 and 13 and 14 family members on their own. >> host: birth control is

nonexistent? >> guest: actually, i've been on some home visits. i've done some interviews from the "christian science monitor" and a lot of women are asking for it and a lot of mullahs are telling communities it really is okay because it's about women's lives and women's health. and also about family economic questions but it's really about women's lives and so you do start to see a lot of people moving in that direction. >> host: manhattan, kansas, we have about five minutes left. manhattan, you're on the air. >> caller: hello, i'm curious to know what your assessment is of the unlikely hood, i'll put it that way, of centralized government, for a country where things are so strongly organized by tribes, whether the -- i mean, is the feeling from tribe

to tribe getting at least closer so that there can be more detente and so forth that they can have agreements among the sections of the country without necessarily having to live under an edict from on high, so to speak? >> guest: the central government in afghanistan matters by people who get on their lives no matter what as people do all around the world. and i think the government and a lot of people feel the government presents as many challenges as it offers solutions. and so i think when you see with entrepreneurs particularly with this women in this book, i'm going to keep doing what i do. and i'm going to keep doing it because my family needs it and and i will be part of a group asking for good governance.

>> host: sorry, we missed you earlier. you're on the air now. >> caller: oh, yes, i'm interested in the influence of greg martinson. >> guest: thank you for asking, because -- i'm glad you asked the question because i wanted to ask the question for gayle lemmon and the whole 60 minutes controversy and what's the influence and what's your thoughts on the controversy? >> guest: well, his schools had always not been in cities and this story takes place in kabul. so i think his influence in terms of those i met over the years in the time i spent in kabul is not less. he talks about the end of the road is where they are mostly. i think it is an incredibly sad turn of events and i was as surprised as everybody else and what's so important the issue of

girls' education is so much more important than the individual, whoever it is, whatever the storyteller is because, you know, there are girls in this story who brave kidnappings and night riders and potential acid attacks and all kinds of things just for the opportunity to go to school and i think that is a big hurdle is trying to keep people focused on that issue, you know, most people will never meet those young women who are fighting every day to go to class. >> host: so knowing that the united states has contributed much in blood and treasury and the future of afghanistan -- as we close out here, what's the one take-away you want people to learn from your experiences in the book? >> guest: what most people want in afghanistan is exactly what most people want in this country. the ability to send their kids to school, the ability to feed their families, and the ability to make sure that the next generation has a better shot at a future that is peaceful. and that is what i hear over and

over. and i think because of that coverage shaped so much what we know about afghanistan, a lot of people don't ever meet those people, and i hope they get to know some of these unsung heroes. >> host: you had such a success with your first book, are you already thinking about your second? >> guest: i am, because it's sort of mission-driven because now that you've gotten people to pay attention to women's stories and not see them as much soft when the work women do is hard, you know, i want to go to -- actually, i met this really compelling entrepreneur who has a very dramatic war story and is now running a pretty fascinating business there. >> host: thanks being very much. the dress maker of khair khana is on the bestseller list. you can find it either online as an ebook or in your local booksellers workshop. thanks for being here with us. >> this is part of the l.a. los angeles festival of books.

>> up next on booktv, ha-joon chang takes a hard look at capitalism. this takes about 20 minutes. >> my name is peter. i'm the events coordinator here at city lights bookstore and i would like to welcome you all to city lights, a literary landmark since 1953. we're very delighted, very happy to have with us ha-joon chang. he teaches at the faculty of economics at the university of cambridge. and his books include the bestselling bad samaritans, he's also the recipient of two very prestigious awards, the 2003 myrtle prize and the 2005 lee & trees for advancing the felon tears of economic thought. we're happy to celebrate

tonight, 23 things they don't tell but capitalism. his new book out on bloomsbury books which is really kind of a forensic study of our ideas about capitalism. it aims to equip the reader with an understanding how global capitalism works and doesn't work. professor chang offers a surrealistic appraisal and many fresh insights how to swift from a more plucratic to more humane academic agenda. so please join us in giving him a very warm welcome. >> thank you, peter, for that very kind introduction. yes, i'm delighted to be here. i'm at one of those legendary places one hears all the time but never visits. i'm very happy to give a talk

here. let me change my glasses. so you see the book in front of you and the book arguably has the weirdest title in the history of economics. now a lot of people have asked me why 23 things? actually, a cottage industry has developed on 23. so one of the asian period, the one permanent theory i'm a big fan of michael jordan. [laughter] >> you all know michael jordan, you know? but actually i'm a very big fan of baseball but i don't watch basketball so even though i know who michael jordan i had no idea that his number was 23.

others went more to the esoteric shores in numerology there's this theory which is called the 23 enigma which claims exactly how i don't know that all significant events in human society are somehow connected to number 23. so there was that famous book -- series of novels which i, of course, haven't read called the trilogy and there was this most of with jim carrey called the number 23. now, i don't know how this theory works and i never heard of it before people pointed this out to me. and some people had very charitable view of me and so i

was referencing to the so-called mathematical problems proposed by the great german mathematician david hillberg and i had never heard of the guy. [laughter] >> this theory why if i said was true, that would put me in a very favorable light. it means i have nothing to do with the title. i mean, i can tell you exactly how the number came up. but then i worry you might be able to get -- you might disappointed by the story. well, 23 actually is a random number. how it came about -- you know, and one day -- i still remember exactly where it happened, you know, there's a station called

paddington station in london, the paddington bear, and agatha christie paddington square and i did a poll with my literary agent this irish guy named ivan mulcahey and we looked at each other and we said 20. that's a bit boring, huh? so we started playing with the numbers and i said, look, i could probably write, i don't know, 30 things, 32 things or whatever. but that will make the book too big and he said why don't you start at 25 and we thought 25 is a bit obvious. i told him i don't like even numbers. 21, well, two close to 20, huh?

so that left 23. and the title was born, huh? i know, that sounds a bit bizarre, doesn't it? it sounds a bit like a sketch in monty python, maybe. actual actually, it's in a way -- the story -- you know, i i tell you this story because i didn't know it was representative of the spirit with which the book was written, you know? my american publisher, bloomsberg usa in its catalog called it a lighthearted book with a serious purpose. in the same playful way in which we came up with the title, the book has a lot of jokes and kind of satire and things like that.

to the extent that one of the interviewers that described the book as the general theory written by the argentinean novelist well, actually the review meant it as a criticism but i took it as a praise because, you know, i love it and that's exactly the kind of -- the description that i wanted to get attached to the book. i mean, it's an excellent book but it's unusually interesting, sometimes bizarre so let me tell you a few things about this book. the book will basically tell you that a lot of things that you thought you knew about capitalism are at best partial

truths and at worst down right myths, right? in the book the chapters are called things, yeah? so thing one, thing two, thing three in the footsteps of the dr. seuss. you remember cat in the hat? with thing one and thing two. he only has two things but i have 23 of them, huh? so thing one says that there's no such thing as a free market. now, a lot of you might be puzzled by, you know -- you might say, okay, we may like or dislike the free market but how can you say that we are liking what is liking something that doesn't exist? it may be difficult kind of to scientifically know it but we

know one that we see one, in a way that's difficult to decline in elephant but you know it when you see it, huh? but i put to you that actually we cannot tell whether our market is truly free or not, in any objective way. let me give you an example, back in 1819, a new law was proposed to regulate child labor in the british parliament, huh? now, the law was incredibly weak by modern standards, so it said well, very young children shouldn't work. now, how young is very young? any guess? they were not that heartless. [laughter] >> below 8 children cannot work but from 9 they can, yeah?

and then they said that between 9 and 16, that they would be allowed to work but their working hours should be restricted. any guess? >> 12. >> 12 a day. >> yeah, that is considered being soft, huh? so you find the regulation quite certainly light especially given this law was supposed to apply only to cotton factories which are considered exceptionally harmful for chirp's health because it creates a lot of dust, dust settling in the lungs and a lot of children working in cotton factories died of lung disease, yeah? anyway, so there was this very light touch regulation but a lot of people couldn't even take it, yeah? a lot of people argued, look, this is such a fundamental

affrontry to the principle of freedom of contract which is the freedom of an economy. these children want to work. these people want to employ them, what is your problem? few people even today, including the most enthusiastic supporters of free market from the rich countries argue we need to bring back free market. but when you think about it there are few labor laws that there's few impact. many developing countries, children under 16, 15, account for nearly half of the population, yeah? they actually say we ban child

labor, you are ultimately excluding almost half of the population the potential labor force from the labor market. economists argue that regulation may make 1% more of the labor force unemployed or not. compared to that, yeah, i mean, this child labor thing is so huge but very few people from the rich countries think this is a big regulation. why? because they obsess those values underlying those regulation so totally that they now don't see them. so in other ways, like freedom of a market is in the eyes of the beholder. there's no scientific way to define a free market.

all markets have regulations. many regulations. we, depending on what we believe in, have the market and one person says this is a free market and the other person says, no, it has too many regulations, huh? there are people who the banking industry in the united states or the united kingdom is too unregulated, huh? there are a lot of people that they they are too regulated. there's free banking school who believe the government should have no say how much the capital -- the banks should have, huh? i mean, if they mismaking their money and go bankrupt, that's their problem. you see the same labor market. and child regulations and the

u.s. labor market is quite a free market, especially, compared to the markets in europe. but if you believe that child labor regulations are legitimate, then you say that it's a very heavily regulated market, because you're excluding probably one-third of the labor force by decree, huh? you think that the stock market is a free market but can you really have the bags of shares in the u.s. stock exchange and you have to get listed and can you get listed if you want to? no. you have to submit a lot of information. i mean, your detailed accounts for 3, 5 -- whatever years depending on the particular stock exchange we are talking about. when you get that listed does

that mean anyone can buy or sell it. you have to go through 35 traders and so on. you call the market a free market only because you can see these regulations, yeah, because you're implicitly have the value. free market economies like to portray all regulations has political and motivated interferences in the free organization as a free system but when there's no way to define a free market, free market position is as any position. people who want regulation tend to kind of be on the defensive. they say well, you know, there's the market. it doesn't work very well. we have to do something. no, it's not like that.

all markets have regulations. it's all natural which regulations you see as legitimate and legitimately. thing one is breaking away from the legitimate market activity is the first step towards understanding capitalism, huh? and then that thing two gets even weirder and says companies shouldn't run in the interest of their owners. now, how can i say that? we have been told by many experts, you know, properties get properly taken care of only when they are clear owners, yeah? and since the shareholders own company, the company should be run in the interest of the shareholders, huh?

this is the real position of shareholder value maximization propagated by mr. jack welch, former owner of general electric. so the argument that companies should be run in the shareholders interest may have made actually more sense in the old days when companies were basically owned by a small number of people, if not a single individual. but the system where all these companies have limited liabilities and have dispersed those, i.e., owned by hundreds of thousands if millions of people in this system, despite being the legal owners, most shareholders are actually the

least committed to the long-term future of the company because they are free to leave, huh? in contrast, other stakeholders in the company, like the employees, the suppliers, the local community -- they cannot leave the company -- i mean, not in the literal sense because people like suppliers do not literally leave the company in a metaphorically sense but you have been supplying in toyota and suddenly you want to switch to, i don't know, nissan or ford, is not that easy, huh? whereas, you're a shareholder you can sell it with a click of your mouse, you know? now this has made the shareholders -- well, not all shareholders but show some

floating shareholders very impatient. they would results now. they want results yesterday if they could afford it, huh? companies to have cater for their interest because a lot of them -- you have a lot of floating shareholders. and you have three decades with increased financial deregulation is free floating shareholders have become even more powerful that basically hired managers like mr. jack welch have decided to run the company in the interest of his short-term shareholders. so what you do when you run the company in their interest? well, first of all you maximize short-term profit, yeah? by squeezing the workers, squeezing the suppliers, not investing because if you don't invest the result shows 5 or 10 years. today it makes you look good

because you have a lot of, huh? so first of all, maximize short-term profit even if it means hurting the long term because you're not investing in more shares, you're not investing in research and you're not investing in training and once you have made those profits you give an ever increasing share of the profits to the shareholders through increased dividends and share buyback so in the 1970s dividends used to account for 35 to 45% of corporate profit, yeah? now it's over 60%. and so basically until the 70s, the shareholders claimed through dividends about one-third of corporate profit now they take

away nearly two-thirds. .. >> the 2007 90% of the american corporate profit was. [inaudible] now the ratio was 230% in

2008. you are spending two and a half times of your profit to buy up the shares with and productivity we have seen the decline of the giant american corporations. general motors once used to produce millions of cars in japan all the japanese companies together less than 100,000 cars. today the company has been hollowed out. they did everything to make money except for make good cars. let's not get into that. but the decline buffeted

stage with the idea that they miss of guru shareholder value reason they came out incense said it and i am quoting the dumbest idea in the role. but to destroy the economy now say it is the dumbest idea in the world? now saying something quite strange most people in rich countries are paid more than they should what do they mean by that?

especially with the last three decades of free-market capitalism we have been told we are told they're paid with they are worth some we should not complain about income inequality and goldman sachs ceo pay $50 million per year. that happens because he is worth that. or paid $10,000 is a clean-air means you are only worth that? but the natural tendency is for people to go into the world on sorry people in poor countries are poorer but it sounds quite obvious but it is true.

but that is not the case. talk about two bus drivers in the book but there is another one and sven gets paid 10 times more or is that because he drives 10 times better? you can measure your driving skills that kind of way but is a possible one guy drives 50 times better than another? maybe you compare me with michael schumacher. [laughter] but i don't think it is possible to say that there is such a difference of driving skills between regular bus drivers.

actually if you think about it if anything sven is the more skilled driver because of every second to but more or less yes and then to keep the traffic where it is in there are no house is that i have seen in so how is it is a much more skilled the driver from the one being paid is the main reason

protectionism? in other words, immigration control? the truth of the matter adr 90% of the countries could be displaced not just bus drivers are cleaners but acres, met engineers, medical doctors i should know because i am a british when guy. [laughter] i am not advocating immigration but to do more harm than good but for the capital market the for the capitalization for the trade and services then why not the free market in of labor?

and once again the markets are fundamentally pete structured and looking at the of free market they should advocate for immigration bring back child labor and slavery they don't do that because some of these things are political but it is inconsistent sell back into my points on the flip side not because they are poor people but a rich people. not that bad.

and to tell people if they will listen because of the uneducated lazy people if our people were card like the japanese thank up time like the germans and as inventive as the americans we would be a rich country but look at all of the good for nothing. not wanting to work hard but these people do not realize as i said earlier that poor people can hold their own quiet well against their counterparts in the rich country. many of them would be more productive than their counterparts at then for the

rest of the country to go together which is what makes the country pour. that leaves out the rich a of the rich countries to me now they could pat themselves on the back with the money that they get. i don't think so. what those people don't realize is the productivity depends on the fact they are born into widower migrated to when organize firms have institutions and infrastructure. and this is what has been accumulated collectively over time and not something that has been treated themselves.

and of the smarter months no back from 1995 they said it and then it is not my and doing -- own doing. i would be a poor farmer. and then for the infrastructure needed to make my money. the smart ones no why he has studied and you can debate will that is necessarily the best use of his money but he knows that individual productivity is fundamentally collective.

it is not just your own doing. the same person with the same skills and the same brain can become different a productive according the society that they belong. anyway i can go on like this but i don't have the time to go through all 23 of them but let me just give you one or two more. i could talk about number 40 washington has changed the world more than the internet. list may raise some eyebrows but this will take a little better time so i can get back to its. if you're interested. i a kn say no. 23 equal

policy does not cause good economy. [laughter] i have my union card also the markets need to become less common now more efficient. and we are not smart enough to bring things to the market. so the statements and then in may delivery leave productivity way so it goes on with that of fame. maybe give one or two more. to number 13 making rich people richer does not make the rest of us richer.

this is what we have been told by the free market economist all the time over the last three decades. you have to keep today's keep giving more money to the rich people so they invest and create wealth. initially they are taking the slice of the pie but they invest to make the pie bigger so in the end that slice becomes bigger. now you're getting a smaller proportion but the pipe itself is bigger than the amount that you get is beer. sometimes known as trickle-down economics. that is not a completely stupid idea. but you cannot judge things

simply from. [inaudible] initially they may take more money but after so on it might be more positive from what you think in the beginning. it is not a completely stupid idea but the only problem is the evidence. [laughter] and then seven economist and then don't let that get in the way of a good argument. the interesting fame is the logic is identical to a stall unused when he collectivize soviet agriculture.

what he argued at the time over a classical argument from the free market economy that argued there are three groups in a society the workers, the capitalist and the landowners. landowners of the ones to accumulate capital for other workers with more air wages, but the landlords this by having a lot of money they don't have the drive. they blow the money on and consumption. so we have to focus on the investor or the capital is.

but in its logic it was identical and argue that at that moment all that could be listed in the economy was in the agricultural sector. its is tiny and therefore you have to mobilize in the sector but unfortunately the land lowered reaching the farmers, you have to get their resources away from them by collectivizing agriculture and extracting the sector for by deliberately keeping the agricultural prices down and transferring that research to the investor is very

striking of the similarity with the free market version of stalinism. of course, that leads to huge human cost. you will know there was also a huge fan of men 1932 and 33 there is a huge disruption of the sector in large part because they ship so much grain out of the countryside that they could not feed the animals like the horses. if you don't have that power how do you use the land?

it was a total failure of that respect but but then raising investment but this of the industry developed very quickly so much so that two but the once very fluoridation is to repel the nazis and unfortunately we cannot say this same about the free market installment as some they failed to deliver higher investment and growth the top 1% are 10 percent of national and come but by 2006 through a

series of tax cuts and deregulation and so on it had gone up at 23% maybe higher today the very rich get two 1/2 times more than before but since the late '70s the way to investment is a proportion of national and come and they have all fallen compared to the previous period. so the american rich have become a very lazy and efficient. you have to pay them two and a half times more to consider what is inferior good?

and they tried to justify this by three have the policies which are richer than ever. even with the 0.1% if you keep going you will be richer than ever but could we have been even richer? the growth rate has slowed down. also said disparity have been come and why are we doing this? i don't mind giving money to their rich people because it creates wealth and jobs. there is something to think about. i have to wind up to have

time for q&a. but let me just tell you that in this book i try my best to dispel the notion that it is too difficult only for the economist. i say in the book that 95% of economics is common sense this is known as the entry barrier. [laughter] to be fair is not just the economist. lawyers, i have to say that to i own my apartment does it mean that i do not? i have not been trained.

so it is the same but those who have done more than others if we tried to read economics rate teens it is very difficult but 95% is common-sense. there is the remaining 5% which is not but even for that reasoning the details can be explained in the plain terms. to this a want to let my readers know of the reasoning and some basic but misunderstood capitalism so they can exercise they can demand a course of action from our makers and business leaders. been you think about this, we demand all sorts of

things we don't know the technical details. how many of you know, anything about the epidemiology but you still demand a restaurant and food factories have to have hygiene standards? if you know, some basic facts but to make a robust argument former heavily regulating complex financial instruments. you can take good arguments i am sorry. for letting government developed certain industries because there are some industries which are naturally through the beer

market mechanism. just a couple of examples but basically you can make judgments of policy with relative the basic knowledge of fact i went this booktv encouragement for people to do things a end exercise and keeping the questions and comments and thank you for listening. [applause] >> i have a question about

population. the great mathematical physicist in england and the fellow who died recently he was an australian and biologist said in 100 years we will be extinct because of overpopulation and overuse of resources. i can understand through technology we may be able to feed the world but we cannot create enough jobs. how many barrista are a shoe salesman for doctors can you have in the world? i am wondering if governments must be thinking about the final solution to use the nazi term. it is brittle but it transcends gender and ethnicity and everything. when famous american 10 film silent green making food from dead bodies. i think we are approaching

that. what do you think about the adr there are too many people in the world and what do we do? >> first of all, i do not think it is right to say technology makes it impossible to create jobs. once again something that people routinely the leave only through profit seeking forms but there are a lot of jobs that we can create by a providing solutions to services and with regulations that require our labor in quiet. how do they make money? by basically not hiring people to make things very

inconvenient. buy american standards with the service sector but if you go to the issue store somebody helps within one minute. here you have to wait 20 minutes. and then don't even bother. so you can argue industries have to hire more people through regulation and as we create jobs. you can have many government service jobs. government services are very labor intensive. home care, lots of things.

this is the relentless corporate campaign to make us believe that they make money for the corporation are you really making money? because as you can see it is all consequential and we have been doing this for ages 10 do do not even realize. you do all of the work win the super markets first came they found it offensive. if you order a savage in the

restaurant it is the kitchen garden. but we are so used to the idea about doing the work for them. so we need to think about this in a totally different way. with this resource constraint i have the great trust with a human ingenuity with our problems but this thing about technology is it is uncertain. it is unpredictable sen they call it a solution to the world's energy problems in two years' time or take 500 years and people might die before then. that is my problem but yes some other environmentalist.

but let's leave it at that. >> can you talk about whether the observation that capitalism needs growth in order to survive? is that maybe number 24? or not? >> let the start in a roundabout way. my view on the capitalism is my winds do churchill view on democracy. that the words of the economic system so i don't see some form of capitalism that there is capitalism.

even the united states sanofi about the new deal. this is a different country. there are different forms of capitalism. this is different from the swedish one which is different from the french one so because of the global warming issue the rich countries need to seriously think about not as growth per se that somehow we have been obsess with economic growth but on the other hand, i don't see how we can guarantee a decent standard

of living for everyone without having a period of significant economic growth. so we need to be a bit more whether we want more growth or not. who we talk about, capitalism is relentless with pursuit of profit because all other countries have modified capitalism and quite happily. the government takes 50% of our national and come as tax hike the soviet union but if you look all the indicators of the policies of living with happiness there at the

top of the world and other good things are in the country but people are not as happy. why? >> i told you the first thing about the free market approach we can agree that is a good thing. it m. inf prehuman? not in the way that a tiger is free. i am assuming by the free market you mean to say the market that is liquid? is that an accurate description of the free market? if so, if your to look over

the past 50 years, those economies which switch to more deeper markets and a shallow markets the difference is small. did they become systematically better or happier with what ever economic gdp or is there a systematic economy is that has a more liquid market? or like asian countries? but is quite too problematic because it is very liquid and very deep this is where

we don't understand about the workings of the market but the fact that some doors of some things are beneficial that doesn't mean more is better. so definitely of the few that it was not working so injecting the market for since then to the economy but this doesn't mean the market is the best. look at iceland basically it has abolished these

regulations that the market has and for a while it looked great. and then buying every other one having a party but quickly went off the rail now they are in deep trouble. so we need to see things in a more balanced way. let me give an example. more so maybe not a completely good thing because it increases the health risk but makes the

more pleasurable but after point* it comes to the point* where it cancels out the pleasure that you get to for the tasty food so some of that is absolutely necessary but that could be harmful of the 23 things that you propose to with the economic environment of today which one do you think children of today should be educated about now seeing that they will soon inherit the economic climate we are creating? >> [laughter] all of them. but in terms of practical lessons, number 16 we're not

smart enough to leave things to the market. at the more philosophical level i'm glad say there is no such thing as a free market but to say that it has changed the world more than the internet had? >> >> i am curious to hear at least in the american system what are a few changes you would suggest to make it a more humane and equitable system?

>> day think the most important thing of the mayor can context is to realize that this country is not the country of the american dream anymore. that this country has operated on the belief if you work hard and invest and educating their children, the next generation will be better. for a long time this was true because in europe, their word to many legacies and it was difficult for people you were born in the lower class to move up but today it is the reverse except for one third two european countries all the other countries have much higher social mobility

so this country, going in the other direction that they have too much government debt to and social services but actually met since the quality opportunity may not be fair. in a free market economist coming if you try to equalize the outcome then punish people who work hard sonat equally. but this is true but dade deeper sense it is not true because unless you guarantee a minimum living standard,

the children from the deprived background. so we have this 100-meter race and without mentioning they have only one leg. this is the problem with the american approach to open this and the quality. other countries have gone beyond that. other countries in europe have gone beyond that. and some that guarantees a minimum for all children said they can be genuine fair but here you are

deceiving yourself because you keep saying yes. it all starts from the same starting line but some kids have one leg. some are blind. now this kid we thought that all these possibilities win to say is that fair? it starts from the same starting line. and he is the biggest problem in this country. >> which country is the closest to being completely free-market? if you want to take bets on the other end? >> probably the freest market is hong kong. of the countries that are

functioning. really coming if you have too much free market people buy and sell government and then a functioning society i am excluding. >> [inaudible] >> one of those? but on the defense also functioning one scum of hong kong is the closest that comes to mind but it is a tricky proposition because it was never an independent country before 1984 or 1994. sorry.

and part of china but if you excluded those that come the closest and to the other extreme is our own north korea. a country that to there is a history of wanting to live on their own but sadly they kept talking about the self-reliance was said on the invented by a koreans over the last 10,000 years? no. and also with the 1930's

japanese and do they do themselves so once again the extremes tend not to work very well. >> given their religion owns most of the property in the world how does it change the equation to tax religious property in america? [laughter] that is an interesting question. on the soleil i do not know exactly how the religious bodies exercise do they the -- behavior differently from other property owners? i don't know.

against landowners had to exercise the property rights of land or whatever else that you own the way the economy works that differs quite significantly i do not have any basis a different from any of their property owners. >> apart from that that is only part of the vision because the way they exercise their property rights friday less willing

to sell at the slightest disturbance? i don't know. high. basically basically in the eighties and latin america there was a lot of dads in countries had to take out loans from the i am -- imf and then the nineties and 2000's with nafta and cafta and is there any ways pledge trade agreement could be made sell there are more fair and competitive to developing countries? >> my basic view is free trade is good if tons of among countries similar level of development if 10

between countries but in the short run everyone benefits central american countries through cafta of but the problem is once you sign the free trade agreements with the united states it means basically you will not develop any new industry. [inaudible] [laughter] that is how people should feel. [laughter] so that short-term loan term trade it is better to sign the agreement you lose some industry you're protecting but the could talk more about what would have been over 10a20 year period you cannot develop anything new.

look at mexico. designing nafta in 1990 for everybody thought the mexican future was decided everybody was happy. it seemed to work off four 5/6 years because the mayor can japanese companies with their to build factories and create jobs to target the american market but in the last 10 years they have been losing a lot of jobs to guatemala and in the meantime have lost their own capability to create new activities and new jobs. unfortunately the countries

are so desperate for the benefit over the next five for 10 years but they signed away their future. >> professor chang it, i paid the work that you do is very special especially as an economist from cambridge university i feel oftentimes academics come out when they get to that level they don't care about trying to engage with ordinary people. i applaud you for that. i will lead like to know if what happened makes you want to engage with citizenry and more practical economics to have a more educated populace? and the other question is i

will get the book but i would love to hear your perspective on the role of women. i guess that is a broad question but i am grappling with this kind of rhetoric that has been emerging with the need of investing in women that it feels as if it has such a capitalist agenda behind it so women could be more productive workers in the work force. and jpmorgan and the big multinational corporations have the efforts to bring women to business schools there seems something very suspect about that and also wisconsin. what do you think about what is happening in wisconsin and? >>

[laughter] i am grateful you appreciate my effort to communicate with the general public. some of my colleagues get worried. [laughter] i do not want to suggest even for a second that what i am doing here there are some technical sayings that can do well that is not what i am trying to do but to tell you that, but you can make a judgment.

it is strange because when it comes to drug safety, nuclear power, that middle east policy those with very strong opinions. it should not be like that. why does the economist get off the hook so easily? with the fda and everyone but you seeing larry summers is okay and greenspan was okay? i don't think so. what you have raised is a complex question but mainly

because of my lack of expertise but contributing to women is number four washington has changed the world more than the internet. basically the argument is the house of technology represented by the washing machine has reduced the requirement for household work so much but now that we have a completely different labor market dynamic and family dynamic that comes from women working have a different means a and teen jeans the bargaining power in the family and good decisions and many things. let me put it simply, it has

been translated into four languages and one of the countries that has already translated to the nether lands and watching dutch cable tv and a dutch professor, the really liked the book and thought there was nothing to do day. [laughter] i have a great issue with the washing machine thing. i believe we have little time left. i said i cannot go into the details but have you ever had to break the ice in the river to wash your clothes? and the answer is no. i rest my case. he was smart. yes. you are right. the problem this those

setter crazy about said transformative power of internet the media of academia who could never do household word if those are the changes like the washing machine. not saying mine is entirely fair because that has been around 100 years. internet may be only 20 and 100 years later may be internet will change the world more but so far it has not. wisconsin? i don't know enough about that situation there but this is what i find very depressing. not just this country but with many european countries as well, basically the

recession has been created by the industry but as we use addis an attack on the welfare state who have nothing to do with this crisis. so much so that a governor of the bank of england who by any stretch of the imagination, resurveys said i am quite surprised by the lack of anger in the population because they are totally to blame for creating the crisis so those who are hit by the welfare cuts and creating the crisis and they did not say it that way but to we need to think about this.

this is the right wing media so with the budget deficit created by excessive social spending when the deficits are mainly caused by full tax revenue as a result as well addis the public money into the failing karzai institution. although cleverly they say now we can afford the nice things and we have to cut them out. but to really wake up to this problem but today is wisconsin tomorrow is massachusetts than double country. and once you begin this