is. >> she said of her own bedroom upstairs right across from the president's office and she was always able to hear what was going on. she read daily newspapers and broad different points?? of view to is the presidentw and was able to calm him down and was the granddaughter of the house taking care of her daughters and grandchildren

hot nick back >> gentlemen let's start after a relatively robust numbers of payroll, and durable-goods all showed a softness are really facing a slowdown similar to the last few years or is this something different or just a quick incidents? >> -- coincidence? >> long term it seems america was incredibly unfortunate to have this streak of innovation from the 1830's write-up to the 1960's and when the rate of

innovation fell sharply in the late sixties or early '70s that set the new normal unemployment rate up four successive ministrations and fired a lot of divination, and nixon will first-aid expansion, reagan tax cuts and george w. bush those entitlement expansion and tax cuts but really that is not a substitute for innovation. so we are suffering from a continuing slowdown of innovation and i would guess the new normal is the rate of six point* five or 7%. there is not a lot of room for recovery remaining, i don't believe.

>> and recently living in london as the bank of england monetary policy when you came back to the united states, did you have a different perspective? >> only on one key issue. with u.s. economy does have more room to run they an end argues and monetary policy makes a difference and private-sector demand is quite strong with the housing market except what the government takes out with the sequester. but where i adrienne's people outside the u.s. of a different perspective is i believe that the natural rate of unemployment has risen for pricey less short-term innovation although i worry about at and having so much long term unemployment that that creates its own problems and makes a harder to get back

into the workforce. i agree with ed and foreign observers the labor market is more damaged but i am much more bullish. >> query? >> more bullish them some and if you look at the data for the fourth quarter in the first quarter the fourth quarter was not as bad as a look in the first quarter was not as good as it looked so we did not see a lot of traction building if we look at those numbers but below them, we have to distinguish the private demand which is the ultimate driver of the economy. right now we see some improvement with private demand but to the point* where the economy is poised to move above the trend

growth because that was true in the fourth quarter in the first quarter but it is especially great in the second quarter from front loaded sequestration. we will have a slowdown in the second and third quarters but we can identify instead of a mysterious spoon there are forces at work that we can identify that i think will be responsible. >> ned, you were telling me in the general narrative not in that if attention is paid with consumption. >> i pick up the papers and i constantly read that consumers are scared fifth, loaded up with household debt. >> what about the assets they bought? anyway. and i just don't see it that

way. households would be more accurate to say they are bloated with entitlements and doing a decent rates of private savings in part because of under taxation as congress refuses to pay the bills. i think the household is in good shape and it strikes me is that from 2000 until 2012, consumption has been a good performer and consumption demand has risen at a good rate over the entire period with the exception of the little drop 2008 and into a 2009. but so far the sequestration

has not seemed to lay the growth on consumption expenditures. i guess more of the sequestration will become effective later but i just want to make 1.. suppose consumption demand is hit by a the remaining cuts of the next few months what about investment demand? that is a huge thing weighing on the economy is the business investment demand. it seems impossible to hope as business people see the federal finances are in better shape business will pick up and maybe we will gain more in demand than we lose was consumption demand. >> as you talk to clients

were the questions they are asking? >> recently what is on their mind is uncertainty. we have a growing literature of the crow -- economics of the macro uncertainty but with respect to fiscal policy that is very important and maybe a little less today. and this question about the economy not building traction, that is the uncertainty today. and then we don't think so. so with the monetary policy there should be that much uncertainty. >> can the economy expect help from the rest of the

world? >> our assessment is you will get a small amount but not a huge amount. if you look at major trading partners canada is slower growth with commodity and mexico to everyone's pleasant surprise is doing well and the reform is under way to boost growth there. japan i am a big bowl with the policy changes by the government and the bank of japan will increase their growth but that is not a huge impact of our exports. europe is very negative. so when you speak of the uncertainty one chunk of that has gone away a and that is not a good news but it has at least as good as an environment as last year but it will be domestic consumption, residential construction and maybe we get the investment picked up. >> but with the legacy in

the economy is comparatively high unemployment, your experience as the most recent ad is the shapes away central banks? >> that is an interesting question. they will have their views but to me, we had a shift of the central bank thinking the started to take place in 2010 that both politically and economically they decided to talk about growth and unemployment in the near term and for a long time they took gross seriously -- gross seriously but they talk explicitly about unemployment to be forced into targeting unsustainable rates of unemployment. a lot of central banks

rightly have made the call in this situation you cannot just pretend it is the means to the end and you have to address it directly but second there is growing concern that wants things start to go bad with the labor markets it is self reinforcing that is another reason why we explicitly talk about the bank of england and that is another reason central banks talk more explicitly about growth and unemployment. >> but the fed's statement that comes out every six weeks explicitly refers to the employment mandate even though it has spent a lot for some decades. >> the fed has a dual mandate the fact that they focus on full employment as well as price stability is

great but they have changed to become much more sensitive to the unemployment rate where they are prepared to see it move above the objective to continue the focus on the unemployment rate that the way they see it if you think of the reaction function as they say it depends on the circumstance. today with the unemployment rate high with the inflation low and but this is the difference operating in the way different from normal times, conditions are exceptional and monetary policy is exceptional at the same time. >> how worried are they or should they be about a

persistent selling of inflation? >> i think inflation today is remarkably low. the measures that the fed uses, 1.1% historical low the lowest since 1960. there are some forces that will work it so we are about 1.five. they have not been at 2% so how low will but will they delay raising rates because inflation is so low? lower inflation is the important part of the landscape today. >> i am not terribly worried

with the inflation rate now. i think that would get worried the medium's third -- the m's are still growing and if they managed to proceed at a reasonable rate over that period. but for right now i am more worried. >> if the vote market was in dire shape? >> my gut feeling is it is okay. in the 1972 book by using his word and came at of the

depression. with the young men and women went to war, lots of people got jobs, i don't think the economic historians have found any evidence of serious hysteresis as the massive unemployment with 25 percent unemployment rate in the 1930's. anecdotally, i paid made a lot of younger people because they do hiring for my center on capitalism and society and is interesting to see how they're coping there taking jobs far below their act -- expectations but they are not unhappy or scarred. there will come a time when they flower.

>> the bank of england is about to get a new governor for the first time in its history. what sort of innovation will they bring it and how important is his selection in the context? >> with that incompetence that is what they can have so there is the of president did to have a foreigner run the central bank they did have foreigners like me and others that have done that but it is a little different to have your governor or chairman but for those sitting here we don't think it will be a global free agent market for wood not consider the governor of the bank of japan but more

specifically to the bank of england i think he said before the select committee of oversight that his main emphasis will be on the huge managerial challenge to get bank supervision back into the integrated functioning combined with the intellectual challenge that we have this feeling we need it macro credential instruments to do with credit and asset prices but we don't know what it is yet and those are the two things. and i think and i hope they can come up with great qualifications because god knows we need it but i've a feeling no central bank will have the answer and tell the experiment.

>> it did do work on for word guidance and the fed has subsequently done that. is that something that he will bring with him? >> i don't think it matters i am very much of a skeptic and i think there has spent a combination like a the it distinguish columbia colleagues and desperation of central bankers what we are doing is not working and we need another tool so these statements are treated and talked about as though they were independents easing although we spent the last 30 years talking mouse central banking as if what they said it is cheap talk and not a commitment so it is not clear to me why the central bankers making that

a verbal statement is more than any other instrument is not mine assertion but for now from the bank of canada if you go back to the discussion at jackson hole last summer if we go back through the fact there nows forward guidance in canada and in the market impact is the office of what was intended. they did a lot of forward guidance to announce future interest rates and it didn't seem to make any difference in the markets would go in the wrong direction. so this is much fuss about nothing. carney may bring it with him but it is more what they do and say and what they say. >> but first of all, i disagree with adam and cannot talk to the various countries. we have done a lot of work

with for guidance that has been very effective. and as effective as of fairly sizable policy. back when i was that the board a long time ago, it was always emphasized communication was important. is not the current rage but the expected path over time. now the fed has become much more specific and explicit in its guidance and that is the important tool with respect with governor is not a regime change use a great supporter in my view of how the monetary policy committee has operated with the flexibility of the inflation of the regime much better communicator and

while i think he would like to bring great guidance i am not sure how that could work i cannot figure it out because the fed could handle it targeting the central bank data think it has the option so you cannot do something as aggressive as an outcome based policy of people are disenchanted with calendar based commitments mike was used with the bank of canada but i agree with adam the big story is really financial stability with the head of the financial stability forum and comes in with a background and at a really important time when the central bankers are trying to leave all their role of them and their banks to do with financial imbalances and asset bubbles. i expect him to focus on at

and we will all learn from it. >> any additional thoughts? >> but there has been an overturned of time based for guidance of cattle ready says it is very nuanced what kind of communication matters so again it is better to do both to talk clearly what you are doing and actually do something but in terms of bank of england the issue for them doing the review and the government says note change except for the flexibility so there isn't as much room for attorney to change things. >> i notice they both touched on financial stability but it deserves a few more seconds my sense is

the financial sector is performing very poorly that the would-be start ups are start for financing and that is part of the low innovation story and at the same time government's go-ahead willy-nilly with all sorts of measures to make the banks to seek even greater security. i don't think the economy can function well with the risk taking. i just want to know what my colleagues think. one of the biggest reasons why the u.k. recovery has been so much weaker than they wes ball so because

they talk about monetary policy being with us ned -- new business lending when there is you were channels with diversity of banks are instruments so i it agree but think it is a major story for why western europe and the u.k. are behind. >> with respect to small business and credit availability well there is an issue we have to understand the issue is less credit availability than demand. banks now want to lend to businesses who are not creditworthy today so that is what we have to keep in mind now it is true banks take fewer risks so that is the experience after the financial crisis that is what the regulators demand that is web fossils' three is about.

baby died from mike three don't lead a crisis go on wasted take it when you can get it so we have a situation with the short run pain for long-term gain dealing with the future financial crisis and reducing the probability that what occurred that is what is going on in the news with supervision and regulation for their herds in the short run. it is not a question is, of timing. >> adam vinc the financial crisis occurred because gains were habitually taking too much risk i think it occurred because for reasons that are complicated they behaved stupidly with regard to housing and seemed to

lose the common sense. so i don't see we need to go down the road of less risk taking. >> capital is the buffer from stupidity and risk-taking. >> but one thing we have learned from the crisis is there is not a single interest rate or credit supply curve for the whole economy and that is the point* that the different countries are facing different credit conditions of while i am very sympathetic to his point* of view that you do one more capital and the banking system but that is not in contradiction to ned's point* but the generalized reduction of risk and passed success is not the response to a more specific set of

barriers with agency problems, a derivative, and this is why it may not be enough for future financial stability to just focus on capitol. >> i would like to get back to the market for the central bankers. and as a long time jackson hole attendee that must me one heck of a scheduling conflict. >> all the way through august it is of this surprising he could not manage his calendar better than that but it is a mystery and a surprise but we will come up with answers. so here are my speculations. the chairman is likely to leave when his term is over it is the last jackson hole in it one of his great objectives is to depersonalize the fed the

last thing you want the meeting to be is about ben bernanke congratulating him it is about networking networking, papers, and hiking and this is not a good time for the chairman to come with any future action because much of that will be done by the next chairman this is not a good time to change some of paul and a fundamental way. if i had to guess those of the reasons for the scheduling conflict. >> one question that follows that if not chairman bernanke then who sits in nazi one year from now? >> i would say janet has the right of first refusal with extraordinary experience experience, obviously being on the board, vice chair

chair, president of the san francisco fed, chairman of the economic advisers and of great stress talking about exits' is a transition for someone who has that kind of experience. and then is the unwinding. . .

you told me you were a great skeptic of the idea of the vice-chairman sends chairman. can you explain that? be back when they be clear. i'm not a scout of good service as a cherry people to become chairman. i agree with larry's assessment of experience and also she's brilliant. so it's not a question of qualification. however, you should know through history there's never been a vice-chairman, at least in the years, not alan binder, ferguson, not johnson. so the idea there's a right of first refusal or presumption that the price chairperson has been promoted is contrary to history and pattern.

>> there's no refuse to do so because she's vice-chairman peer >> no, not at all. she is right of first refusal because she's gina galan, the fact that it's out of search is a brilliant economist and that experience, not so much as vice chair, that the experience on the board during this crisis in her ability as an economist, that's what i got. i agree. no space chairman has ever been selected as chair. >> larry's been in washington long enough. he should know they don't go together. this isn't about vice chair gallen merrin. this is likely to. presidents appoint federal reserve sure people who they have some personal relationship with. this particular president has

reported in the media to put a high emphasis on personal relationships. i'm sure president obama has high regard, but i don't get the sense they're particularly close in any way. >> were supposedly sometime for minutes. it last answered bags they follow a period >> if i had to bet on someone other than gina galan, it has the tim geithner. >> peter, any questions? >> is certainly stirs the pot right there. to make her a couple quick questions because the cup on the same lines. first one out there, as doug craig constrained growth? any thoughts on that? >> that's a very definitive answer. who knows. in general, we have an adjustment. we're not talking about future

growth. the right now, i think also three is more than doug frank and i think that has been a thread on the economy. i can't tell you how much immodest draft, second order, but people do spend a lot of time trying to quantify it. >> i agree. i have no idea what the quantitative effect might be, but i would think you would be yet another factor tending to slow innovation and slow investment. >> one last question in here you touched on already the bitter proposal regarding bangs to require 15% capital charge on the nation's biggest banks. what do you make of that capital requirement for banks? doesn't make sense? been a b. in ultimate.

>> justice at too big to a genuine issue, i commend senators are trying to make it practical proposal. what we care about is not too big, but too systemic to fail and it's not clear a direct size and number. i hate the complicated stuff, but i think that is still too blunt an instrument. we have to work harder to get the response. >> if we are going to constricts the banking industry in that way, we had to be simultaneously thinking about how we can aid the economy that's the more financial entities. we have to hope give birth to severe financial entities that will take the place of the bank lending that's not going to be done at the very heavy capital

requirements. >> i'm not semiarid that particular sensation. i am familiar with a surcharge for systematically important financial institutions. that does make sense. the story here is not a failure, the spillover. the macro consequences of a systematically important bank failing. so those banks reasonably should be required to hold more capital relative to smaller banks but there's no systemic implications. you could argue about what the capitalists. i certainly agree basel two and 793 can be very challenging. >> in a final question for your panelists here? >> i think it's been a great

panel. we can talk about these things for hours and hours. we're already over time. they they are a common ad, adam comic thank you for. >> and, thank you as well. [applause] >> the bloomberg summit continues at the discussion about the national debt. chris van hollen was joined at the head of the government accountability office and john podesta, chair of the center for american progress. it is moderated by bloomberg columnist, >> first of all, it's nice to be here. it is tough for us to talk about the deficit and does these days than it was years ago on ice cover and ronald reagan. they asked president reagan one time if they worried about the size of a huge debt in a set know i figure it's big enough to take care of itself. unfortunately we don't have that luxury today.

when i first came to washington we measures candles. and then a member of your institution, powerful chairman result was a tax or it ended up running around with a stripper named fannie fox. he went into the tidal basin. today the scandal is to ken rogoff and carmen rogoff and carmen reinhart cheat on their excel sheet? i really prefer fannie fox. let's start with the rogoff ran her controversy today. what did the premise that the great peril and priority that we all -- that many people expected for five years ago. with exaggerated? and they stay with you, mr. controller. >> the deficit issues she's particularly over the

longer-term. after dinner simulations cannot we share the recent actions by the congress and the administration have brought the deficit down of the next few years. in 2016, it begins to rain crease. we have a huge wave of demographic changes occurring, where almost in today's society we have about 8000 people a day turning xt five. between now and 2029 on average there'll be 10,000 people turning 65 a day. those demographics to medicare, social security entitlement programs and it's going to cause deficits to increase in the future. slowly taking short-term actionscome away at the huge long-term problem. >> no question as to demographic problem in most other countries have. the statement that expo presents she controversy, are we exaggerating bird deaths or

whatever percentage of gdp, i guess i'm asking us, is paul krugman right? >> a couple things. first of all is elected the out years as we all know because of demographic shifts and rising health care costs come you've got to get a long-term deficit in debt under control. otherwise if the economy improves still have a squeezing out and put the brakes on the economy. the problem has been people apply that analysis to the here and now say we have to act today to cut deeply into near-term deficits, even when the economy remains low. another referee, the congressional budget office projects three quarters of the deficit in 2014, three quarters of it is to do the fact the economy is low and you have lax demand. the last thing you want to do at

that point in time his point that quickly and deeply. things like sequester put the brakes on economic growth. to the extent people saw the study and said we need to immediately cut back electorate cares current deeply and quickly, if it is a mistake because it puts a drag on near-term growth. at the same time we can take actions today that kick in over a period of time and a lot turned to address the out your deficit and debt, which we should do because as the economy improves you will have that effect. it's always been partly a timing issue, but that study was misused by many republican colleagues who argue for the so-called cut and grow idea and cut and grow is not to wake up put the brakes on near-term

recovery. >> we are going to talk about the long-term chronic debt. the short term, should there be a stimulus quakes should we be spending more money in the next two or three years to get the sluggish economy in better shape? >> one version of the stimulus would be to get rid of the sequester, which i think he saw the houseplant on the faa with having to go stand in a long line and not in on the airplane. >> it's unconstitutional for a member of congress to act. >> you cannot fly to maryland. you have to take the car. you know, way -- to just come back to your original questions, i don't think this study caused a stampede towards cutting vital government service.

it is used for that purpose as chris was suggesting in the short-term we have to focus on the help and state of the current economy getting growth stronger, getting jobs going faster. i think i'm a minimum would look towards investments that can be done in the short-term, particularly infrastructure and other places that you go back to work and juice into the economy. and the context of a long-term plan. the out years or 10 years away. >> it picks up a little bit in 2016, but we've gone, when since then and roles are made in the summer 2010 tried to put their

plan together, the cbo projection was debt to gdp ratio would go over 100% by 2023. nally looks 73% of sequester in place, 75% of it's not. it's a pretty flat line. after that, we got to challenge at the retirement of the baby boom, there's the issue they are restructuring medicare in particular in our health care system in general to reduce the overall cost of health care in society to produce results for lower cost. that's is going to make a big difference over the long run, not cutting meals on wheels, faa customs and severe cuts in the defense plan. >> the president did offer entitlement cuts in his budget a few weeks ago. is that the blueprint for the

long-term deal you all think is necessary? >> is to put things in historical context, right down the debt held is over 72%. in the last several decades, it's been around mid-40s. so we are much more in debt as a percent of gross domestic product than we have been historically. through our margins are under as we go on faces demographic further. in order to even stay at the 72%, our projections show you cut revenue for an crease revenue 44% and if you cut savings come you have to cut it by 32%. just to stay at that ratio in the long-term. entitlement reform needs to be on the table. revenue needs to be on the table.

>> as you analyze, how sensitive are the entitlement cuts the president proposed in his budget? does that get you where you want to go for that component? >> it is a good starting point for dialogue, but there has to be a broader dialogue in the future. >> congressman, what's your take on not? >> a couple issues. the president budget includes things john is talking about. number one, the first principle should be do no harm. the sequester is doing harm to the economy as we speak it to congressional budget office estimates sequester remains in place and will have 750,000 fewer american jobs in this country. i have big employer in the biomedical that cuts to nih, have caused them to impose a hiring increase. this is an invisible silent job killer because people are hiring. first, do no harm.

second, we have huge infrastructure needs. american society comes civil engineers eviscerating of d+. with 15% unemployment. it's a no-brainer to have more investment international infrastructure to be more competitive against our major trading partners here. we should do that right now. second, i believe we should take action with respect to the long-term. we need to build on reforms are made in the affordable care act to begin to bring down the overall cost of health care. moving away from a fee-for-service because the fee-for-service system is one of the worst designed. the center for american progress, bipartisan policy committee, brookings today have all come out with ideas by

reducing overall cost in the health care system. not simply shifting those costs off the medicare books onto the backs of seniors, which is that the voucher proposal would do. so i welcome that moves. the president builds on those ideas. some of the ideas in the president's budget are more controversial and have some subsidies can learn with them and we can talk more about those. the overall thrust of the president's budget is a mess now, do no harm or replacing sequestering take a balanced approach to the long-term deficit. if you do it all in the tax revenue side, you'll make unsustainably deep cuts or unacceptably high tax increase. >> let stand up for a second. if you were to get a vote in the house on a balanced approach,

the president's entitlement and ivan is comparable to that, could that lift the changes in the means testing on medicare? could that when a majority of votes in the democratic caucus? >> the president's proposal as it relates to seniors on social security is troublesome because there's quite a bit about it for suggesting it's been a disproportionate amount of income on health care, which tends to rise faster and cost. if it's an accurate measure of increased costs we should make sure it's an accurate measure her constituents applied to. that conversation is alive on the democratic side. on the republican side, they reject it entirely the idea of one more penny of revenue for the purpose of reducing the deficit. and they say that again.

they said they will not accept one tax break loophole closure here that super grover norquist pledge says and that is their position. they reject from the starting point the idea of a balanced approach in that frankly has been the impediment to moving forward, but it can have to be part of the solution. >> why is it so hard to come back to infrastructure? the chamber of commerce's story. the afl-cio is foreign infrastructure program. mayor bloomberg is for it. governor rendell, governor schwarzenegger, why is it so hard? >> you know, i think it's a combination of all that which is said, dysuria went antigovernment, almost pathology amongst a good chunk of members

on the tea party site. the inability to find financing mechanism does it requires resources of revenue put into place here. whether that is trying to find traditional sources by raising energy taxes are trying to find it by reducing the polls, but getting rid as chanel, the oil and gas industry. there's just no capacity right now to get any revenue passed through the house to support those funds. the presidents propose some of that. he suggested creating an infrastructure trust by creating a little bit more of a fee off extraction of oil and gas on public lands. there's just no appetite for that. whether you can find a week or

by getting bipartisan deal in the senate as we saw operate at the end of 2012 and then see if you could force a vote in-house. i think that has run out. i think the house solution dug in and i'll not accept any additional revenue. >> do you think it's possible right now is a look at the landscape and you know a little bit about politics, john podesta and the senate to go along with the deal that includes higher revenues in something like obama is imposed on entitlement to replace the sequester? >> my view is they should just agree that they hate each other. that's a place or they can start finding incentives, that's the

vavuniya president name will never pass the house. i'm actually coming to a solution. they need to have a shorter-term plan to get them through the next two years getting rid of the sequester and restoring the investment in the baseline but still severely restrained agreed to in 2011 stop this craziness over the debt limit and just steal together they can last through obama's. >> that would involve higher revenues. >> yeah, but the number is a lot taller. >> one of the arguments the tea party republicans make its other's infrastructure of other investments is because it's wasteful, inefficient. he ordered the economic recovery act of 2009. give a scorecard to what kind of

waste, what efficiency, fraud, whatever there was. it was a big program, $800 million spent in a short period of time. the mechanisms put in place, the recovery oversight board and accountability board, dhea has a proactive, gao is proactive. we sent teams to 16 states across the country to monitor how they spend the money. there's a lot of preventive things put in place. by historical standards d- fraud in ways in the program was not anywhere near anybody's expectations. i was handled very well. people are judgments whether it should have been spent in those areas are not. >> that's the perception people don't have. it's an interesting point because that's part of the

argument and yet there's a sense among the public in waste and fraud and abuse. >> gao and others monitor the part of the line at the republican colleagues against the recovery bill put out there. the overwhelming number of economists who look at this headset obviously that help to prevent the free flow in the economy and now we've had some gradual growth. to gradual, which is irony to take the next steps in terms of removing the sequester and dealing with the investment piece in the long-term deficit in a balanced way. just on your point on the infrastructure, the democrats, i

witnessed as a person can the united states chamber of commerce who is double had it as representing people in labor and in the work force and was simply arguing in the tradition, dealed bipartisan tradition playing a role in international structure from canals to have a thin interstate highway system is continuing role. otherwise repeat by our competitors. because of the tea party influence on the republican side, witnesses say we should localize. our infrastructure program. the concern that was that if you don't fill in the gaps between ports, whether airports, seaports, roadways. >> i would work well for the united states. >> something that he set a

bipartisan consensus of a very different philosophy among the tea party caucus is not going forward. >> way of finance nominations transportation infrastructure for a number of years now because they haven't kept pace. data and local governments under fiscal pressure this time and so there's a real debate taking place on how to move forward. there also hasn't been good measures of performance in place that demonstrate the improvement in safety and infrastructure that recently passed legislation by the house and now requires better measures of performance. i am hopeful that will increase confidence in what kind of return you get on investment in that area. >> someone alluded to the debt ceiling a moment ago.

i think august 2nd sometime this summer. are we going to another wrenching ordeal? >> i'm worried for this reason. i believe the speaker of the house, john boehner, would agree it would be a bad idea to do a replay of the summer of 2011 where the to the deadline and created uncertainty. he had a negative impact on the economy. the issue is how, how he can put together that those in the house of representatives, including tea party republicans that would allow us to method that feeling, which we had on may 17 or management take makes, the treasury department as a sign of september, october. i think they play to avoid it, but they don't know how, so they've come up for now because

cockamamie idea that you're somehow going to pay some of your bills, but not all of your bills. they collect their prioritization. if i could pay my mortgage but i don't have to pay -- they want the united states government to do that, what should be disastrous in a terribles ticknor, hurt the economy. but that so far there responds people pay some of her bills, but not all of them. look at the bottom holders including china, but we won't pay our troops in the field or other contracts united its government has entered into. that's not a solution. there's only two ways to do with it. one is a long-term -- i wouldn't call it long-term. the president proposes another 1.8-ounce approach.

and we have to take my bite-size proposals. they will require targeted cuts in the out years, shutting down some tax loopholes. tax expenditures. so far there's been resistance there. senator mccain and others have suggested they might be open to that kind of thing to replace the sequester. they been focused primarily on the defense side of the sequester. but some statements you could put together a smaller package. even not in the house because it includes closing tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit, violating, even not as rocky times. long story short, i'm nervous despite what i think are speakers good intentions to avoid showdown, he can't see his way to put in on the table a decent layout, so the clock

ticks. we have a proposal to deal with it. >> chris is recommended you think republicans will play hardball? it hurt the republican party also. >> one thing that's different between now and 2011 is the president when he says and not negotiating over this, hold onto your hat because these guys -- >> like when he would negotiate $200,000 cab or over the? >> woody's concluded was this was almost a constitutional issue at the back import, they're not going to do it again and you put throughout the powder. outthink negotiated under days. the runaround.

this is just one more nail in the political coffin of the house caucus. i think they'll find a way around it. >> would be the implications? >> we calculate the debt ceiling crisis in 2011 increase the federal government $1.3 billion for 2011 allow over the rollover debt because the yield spread between corporate bonds and treasury bonds narrowed during that period of time. we've recommended the only way to change this permanent structure obeys is to raise the debt ceiling when the budget passed the beginning of the year. as you make rabbinate spending decisions. all redoing is facing a limit to

pay bayreuth first and name a authorized. it's not an effective way to manage, so were hopeful at some point the change would mean it and you don't have this bifurcation of approving a budget and a second later how much you want a bird to pay for it. peter curt has questions to the audience. we have four minute class. when i first came, there was a congressman from massachusetts who told me the secret to success was able to further tax cut tax cut in spending bill against the debt ceiling. i said if everybody did that, there'd be anarchy. that was the all-time. >> when i put the question to your palace. how would the panel qualified the roi of the stimulus investment? you want to take that first? >> a lot of my recommendations.with the

agencies better evaluate the effect of the stimulus money, including transportation area another area. the controls prevent fraud and abuse, but there wasn't enough in my emasculation evaluation of a program by program basis with the results really were that period of time. >> let's look at the macro level. in january when the president was sworn in, the economy was dropping at a negative 5.9 debate. number two, almost 800,000 americans lost their job and not on. so sequester receptors nature or during february, hope the recovery bill.

the recovery bill clearly had in fact stopping the freefall in turning the corner in the right direction. you have to look at the chart of the pattern or the economy was going like this and turned and began to climb. >> you have thought between the u.s. and the u.k., which they don't have perfectly parallel economies. the u.k. government is trying at the other way and i think they're in a triple dip recession. they keep pushing out the time in which they're going to stabilize their debt to gdp ratio. it's had the opposite effect, to increase their death because they can't get their recovery picked up there. >> one more question here. the subject line is that the

fiscal multipliers may give? the federal government is too far away from what is needed. the government spending money does not help the economy. why should we expect the huge deficit to help us? >> congressman ben holland feared it might take back? >> there are some investment that provide a greater roi in terms of our future. i would argue infrastructure is important, that's the and science and research at the early stages or import. we also know in the spirit of the economy is where you have flak, chileans of dollars primarily because the lack of demand that moving forward in making investments now can help the economy in the short term in the long term. i do believe we should also act now to put in place this

balanced approach to long-term deficit reduction. i'm not saying wait to do that, but that should be phased in over a longer period of time. as john said, most of the real demographic push comes eight, nine, 10 years out. so yes the mechanisms we talked about, but it's very shortsighted to cut deeply into investments. it hurts our long-term economic growth. >> there's punny of saving as jean noted. bay is a good example look at what happens when you cut court government service. what is the ripple effect when you cut air traffic controllers,

tsa agents. it's not just a bill and sequester. you're cutting out the things that greased the wheels of commerce that are part of court government service. that's much bigger than a portion of extraction of demand. >> a close? >> there's no question in our view the long-term stable fiscal path, this interaction steak to better compete in. you have to balance near term versus long term for economic growth purposes. the other element was who's closer to make the decision? the bigger woman in my view is in a relationship between the federal finance team and state

i'm in pain. the whole dynamics for change. those state and local sectors under the same type of fiscal pressure long-term that the federal government. >> if anybody wants to know more in all due respect, i'm afraid this problem is too big to take care of. thank you. this is really interesting and informative.

>> the decision point theater is the place where our group of friends would come together to go when instead he decisions that george made on the financial crisis of hurricane katrina, afghanistan and get the information and then what are

you going to decided what are you going to do that doesn't reinforce the decision, but shows people what he would place. the information he had its people and issues to see if that's what they would've done if they'd been president. it gives people an idea what plague to be president and have the serious decisions to make. all the decisions that come to the desk of the president of the united state. >> american university professor, naomi baron work sub

for. we talked for about the book in this 40 minute interview. univet klesko american university professor, naomi baron, is technology changing how we is t communicate? >> guest: yes andg no. gueyes tiere is the assumption thatassp technologies of computers andhoe mobile phones way we write to each other, because we're suppose lid using all these abbreviations and acronyms and we're not using all that many there may be handful of these kinds of emoticons used but not nearly as many as the press would lead to us believe. what is changing the ways in which we read, the way we right. our social relationships are changing, and i'm going to

suggest our personal individual psyches are changing as well. >> host: walk me through those. >> guest: let's start with how we read. what's pretty clear is that when you're reading things on the screen, you don't do it to -- by screen, i moon whether it's a laptop or ereader or tablet commuter or mobile phone. you don't do it the same way as when you're reading hard copies. that's the subject of my next book. what we know already is that you tend to skim, or worse, you ten to use the find function, zero in on just that word that your professor said, i'd like you to write an essay on, and you look at that little snippet of what has been written and ignore the rest of the content. what we know from the work of psychologists is that when you read a regular web page, you

don't go zip, zip, zip, but you do instead is an s-pattern. that first line of text you probably read most of. and the next one a little less, and by the time you get to the bottom, forget about putting anything in the lower right-hand corner. nobody is reading it. and other people have said it's not exactly the s pattern but scattered. don't think anyone is going to read it. >> host: the f pattern. >> guest: big lines, an f is made -- then you have a shorter line, and then you have the anchor piece. that's the -- on this line. so we know that the kind of reading that we tend to do on a screen when it's a continuous text is different from what we're doing when we're surfing the web. wait a second. if you're reading on the same kind of twice you use for surfing the web, we tend to read, whether it's withering heights or a biology textbook or the newspaper, we read it with the same mindset that we do the

thing wes skim through or the term, power browsing, has been used to describe how we actually read. so that how we read. how do we write? because we're not reading a lot of continuous texts, we're writing shorter and short are things. look at the publishers today. they'll tell you we don't want the 90,000, 100,000 word books like the one i wrote. we want the shorter stuff. a lot of publishers are coming out with things they called stanford short. this is something like 30,000, 40,000 words. stephen king is coming out with things he is selling for 99 cents on amazon. we're changing our notion what is to read and changing the notion of what it means to write bought our reader are not reading a lot of stuff. then there are other things. you tack something like

spelling. well, remember spellcheck? doesn't do well on homonyms, but we're changing our notions of whether we care about spelling or not. people who use these technologies are accused of about carrying about punctuation. actually you can find some pattern. i did staff study on instant messages. you want to ask a question, you use a question mark. if you want to make statement, you don't put a period in. if you have two sentences you put the period in after the first sentence but not after the last sentence because it's the end of the transmission. so there are patterns we use. they're just not what we're taught in gramar school. >> host: but computer programs are also automatically putting in periods now, so you just -- all yo you have to do is space twice. >> guest: you do have to space twice, and -- but one of the things is happening is we're changing our notions what it means to be an author.

these new computer technologies, on your cell phone or ipad or laptop, are making is write a great deal more than we used to. but we also have a greater sense of we can be informal and we have a greater sense that people don't really care if we make mistakes. we don't want to look like fools but no longer judged as fools if we get in the punctuation or spelling wrong or make a gram grammatical mistake, because option you read it, it's gone. we don't feel this is durable, long-lasting text that someone will look at and say, wait a second, you made a mistake here. >> host: professor baron, the boom is "always on." talking about reading and writing. what about the "whatever" generation. what is that? >> guest: a term i came up with because i've been teaching in universities for a good long

time and had to listen to students -- not so much now but a few years back keep saying, when you'd ask a question, whatever. it just doesn't matter what the answer it. you have two people trying to figure out where you want to go for lunch and we would say, i don't care, whatever. that's the kind of attitude i see developing in an awful lot of our writing. namely, we don't think it matters how we write. and i need to cough, i'm sorry. what do we mean by, it doesn't matter? if you don't believe somebody's going to read what you write again, then if you make in mistakes, it's okay. but it gets a little dicer than that. it used to be argued there were standards of grammar. you can talk about grammar and spelling -- and that who you were, how you were perceived by

other people, depend upon whether you used grammar correctly. the story i love to tell is when i first started teaching, i'm a linguist, and i would be asked what due you do, and i say, i teach length with sticks and they're like, i better watch my grammar they don't say that to me anymore. they say, oh, that's cool, because we have seasons that -- have a sense that the rules of language don't matter so much. so if you want to say everybody raised -- what is the word that goes with hand? his hand? his or her hand? their hand? everyone is singular. their is plural. as a length wisconsin i was raised to believe there are rules of language. the man noam chomsky got us thinking about how you talk about what people know.

their length with stick competence, so i knew that everybody who is native speaker of a language has a level of competence, knows the difference between what is grammatical and not, and this is the model we worked with for many decades. so you like to think people would be consistent in the way they speak and would care whether it's everybody raised their hand or everybody raided his or her hand, but when you actually talk with people, they say, whatever. why are you so hung up on this? it doesn't matter. and then you go to the next step and say, just for the record, which one is correct? and they say, i don't know. there's a whole model we have had in the linguistic language, what is your way of speaking, i'm finding that people don't care as much. in part it's because language has become far more informal so

we speak, we write the way we speak rather than having a different register. wright has to be all corrected and speech can be informal. and we're speaking increasingly informally and doesn't matter to us anymore. the new technologies for communicating, the instant messages and the chats and the blogs and the ims, and the sms text, are great avenues for not caring, because we think nobody is going to look at this again name it's like speech, you say it, it's gone. >> host: do you attach a value judgment to the changing way we read and write? is it good, bad? >> guest: if i'm being a good look length wisconsin i would say, it's a value judgment. language changes. but here's where we need to think twice. if you don't have a love of the language, and the appreciation for its possibility, and the

appreciation for its nuance, it's what could i do that is different from the way anyone else has said it, then you're losing out on something as a writer of the language. and i think one of the problems is we're writing so much -- the term i like to use is flooding the script. do we think about what we write? you ask any professional writers, automatic drafts? oh, seven or 12, as opposed to, you dash things off and it doesn't matter. then there's the question of what it means to be a reader. if you are reading, moby dick on your mobile people, -- mobile phone, you're reading when you're bored and you're afraid somebody might come and speak with you. a lot of the use of mobile phones, whether it's looking for

facebook updates or reading "the new york times" or whether it's reading a novel, a lot of that is done to avoid speaking with other people. we have data to show people use their mobile phones not because -- they sometimes pretend to speak. they just want to avoid other people. americans do it more than anybody else. so, if people have the notion that reading is just sort of this one-off activity rather than you sitting and thinking about it and you're by yourself and it's leisurely and i don't care you an know tate a book. they're not going back to a book they once read or bought it and said, you know what? i really should go back to that. i see it. it's staring at me. you may have 100 books on your kindle do you thumb through them them and say, what haven't i read? so the whole relationship of what read could go be, i worry

it's changing because the devices are making it less easy for us to happen upon things we want to read and for us to reflect on what we actually have in front of our noses. >> host: professor, you touched on this, but is being always on changing our human interaction? >> guest: unfortunately, you betcha. okay. i tell a story about the amish in pennsylvania. an interview about the fact that the watchish do not allow telephones in their houses. and these days because the watchish do business and they have a little white house where you keep the mobile phone but it's not allowed in the house. why not? as the gentleman who was interviewed said, because if we

have the phone take precedence over a face-to-face relationship, -- his words -- what kind of people do we become? we care more about something that is not here with us, then the person is with us, and what we see over and over and over again, and the studies we do is that you and i are walking down the street and chatting and your phone rings. you take the call or get a buzz knowing you have the text. and we know the other people, however much they like you, feels left out. we know these kinds of devices have a lot of social problems attached to them. i'll give you one other. what can we do with these devices, whether it's an 0 computer or im, mobile phone, facebook, you can block people. so in eastbound messaging if i don't want you to see -- this is

a real story of a student who didn't want his mom to say the messages he was putting up. he would block her, and she would worry, is he sick, dead? no, he just wanted to have his fun. you can block people. you can do what i call control the volume. think of the old fashion evidence volume knob on your level of communication. on facebook, can defriend you. in relationships and we're walking down the street and i don't want to see you, might across the street and you might come over and say, hey, hello, and i'm going to have to learn socially to deal with it. with the new technology, we're able to block people in various ways, and i worry about the kinds of social impact that has upon us. i also worry about the fact that we feel we must be connected to people. my students worry inordinately if they haven't gotten back to

someone immediate limit maybe they'll be shunned. you don't get to go to dinner because you didn't answer fast enough. so many of them feel driven like hamsters on wheels that they must be on, but they'll tell you they don't want to be. it's not good for us. >> host: that's how i affects our psyche. when you want to be always on or we don't want to be always on but feel compelled? >> guest: we feel conflicted. so, part of the problem is, we recognize that always being available to others, or doing something to distract yourself, is not necessarily a good thing. a quick little story. i was giving a lecture yesterday. a group of students were taking a course on digital citizenship. that's are all heavily wired kinds of undergraduates. most of them had a computer in front of them, a laptop or an ipad. so i was talking about an article written in the atlantic

monthly called, is facebook making us lonely? so then i got them into little groups and had them ask questions of one another and so forth. one of the questions i posed was, if you were teaching a class today -- mind you, this is a sea of computer and ipads -- if you were teaching a class today would you want your students to be able to use these technologies in class? and they said, no. even the ones who had the computers sitting in front of them, they're own computer, said, no. i said, okay, why? because we're so distracted. we're not paying attention to what is happening. and we feel we always have to have something filling our minds. so, we go on and we surf and we check our status updates and we read old text messages, because we're not able to focus on one thing at a time. and that is not good for us. even though they're the ones who were doing it. >> host: what is your rule when it comes to electronic devices

in class? >> guest: i have made some enemies of my colleagues here in american university because i have a policy, no what i call teletechnology. no computers, no ipads. i don't care what the tablet is, no mobile phones. so students sometimes say to me, but you weren't sure how to spell this word. and i'm not the world's greatest speller and people have their names spelled ie and some ei or two ns at the end, and i may not get it right. and they could look it up, right? i don't care. if i get year of the publication wrong and i said 1963 and it's actually 1964, i'll correct it. what i want to do is have a conversation. i want to have shared minds thinking together, and what i will tell you issue block to an organization called the association of internet researchers. sober -- so internet and mobile

phone issues. there was a threat do you let your students use these technologies? and it's the number of people who do research on this and say no. i stay to my students, the reason you can't use these is because i know too much about system know how your mind gets torn. put them away and let's talk. >> host: with the new technologies we have -- well, first of all, there is any historical -- past historical trends similar to today's technology? >> guest: sure. so, you -- start with one question of, are we using these technologies to distract us? to save us from loneliness? to fill the time? to kill time? they did a study of mobile phones and one of the most common reasons people use them is to kill time because they have the space and time and don't want to think. so studies were done in the

1950s on talk radio, and i read about this in the book. talk radio? relates to what is happening -- but one of the questions was, who listens to talk radio? and the answer is, if you do psychological profiles of the people that listen to talk radio, it's people who are lonely. they're looking for communication but not so close that they actually have to participate in it themselves. so we know these deviceses can be used for those functions. another example on this notion of loneliness and being alone. study done by clifford knapp at stanford university his students on eight to 12-year-old girls looking at how they use social networking. and what they found is that the people who did the most amount of social networking, and who did the most amount of multitasking -- you have your

phone and i have my phone and we're sort of together but not really -- tended to have the lowest self-esteem, tended to have just the lowest self-confidence. and only -- this is an interesting piece to the study -- if you were an eight to 12-year-old girl who would look in the eye of the people you're talking with, which is really hard for teenagers, and preteenagers and a lot of adults -- but look people in the eye that would compensate for the social networking you did, and you didn't end up at least having low self-esteem and so forth. so, what we know is that technologies can attract people who may already not have the greatest self-esteem, may already be lonely and it's nothing different. it's just a new technology we're using as a way of distracting ourselves but probably with the same ill consequences. >> host: we're basically with the first generation now that

has been raised entirely with computers and cell phones. are you finding it different in competency in your students in are the more informed? less informed? >> guest: okay. there's someone who works at google named dan russell, and he has a concept he calls informasy. and he believes education needs to be geared -- he is not alone in this. people in lower and higher education are arguing the same thing, but we should be spending our efforts teaching people how to find stuff. how to find information. on the internet. and if you're dan russell at google. which is different from knowing things. so if i took all the electricity away, and in washington we often have no electricity, and i ask my student ifs your devices don't work, what do you know? and they said, not much.

because i need to be able to find things. we have studies done by a psychologist, in which she said, if you ask people to do a google search, and then later you ask them what they found, the they're better at remembering how they followed the search path than they are at remembering the content. so one thing that happens with these technologies -- and bless google. i couldn't live without it -- maybe i could. it's redefining what it means mo know. so if you have students that are raised -- people in education are saying we want you to be part of the 21st century generation so it's our fault as much as it is the technology's fault. we're raising a generation of people to believe that not. -- it's not what you -- it's how you can fine it. not what you know, who you are,

if there's no electricity, that worries me incredibly. >> host: what's your view on wikipedia? >> guest: we no there are faculty members who say over my dead body would i use wick speeda. wikipedia is fascinating. i did an analysis of the growth of encyclopedias, why they came to be in the first place. basically it was this explosion of, quote, knowledge of things we knew about in western europe and the 16th and 17th 17th century and people couldn't read everything so they started building encyclopedias, and then some wanted the common man to be able to read the enencyclopedia. wells hat a terrific idea. wikipedia has been very, very helpful. i use it? why? because when i put in a search

term, thanks to collaboration between wells and google, wikipedia is the first hit. didn't used to be. if gives me ideas, what to do research on. the question is, with any kind of research do you stop there? do you say, done? or do you say, i've learned something but now i need to learn it in department, and the problem is the lack of in-depth learning and lack of motivation for the in-depth learning. the lack of saying i could read a book -- yeah, we had libraries -- and so many libraries are now getting rid of the books and saying what you need to do is either read it as an ebook or as some kind of a file, and the problem with that is we lose the contemplation. we lose the hands-on of laying out five books and saying, this one says this, this one says

something very different. when was it published? what die know about the awe their? that's what research used to be about and what we used to train students to do. the technology is not helping us with that kind of teaching anymore. which is too our student's detriment and therefore to the society's detriment. >> host: who is studying linguist sticks -- linguistics today? >> guest: that term is defined so differently depending on which individual you're talking with, which institution, which country. we have studies of grammar and history of language. the biggest topic today is endangered languages. how many languages are there on earth? depend on what you define languages. 6,000-ish. how many languages are dying every day? meaning they're no longer any

living speakers of the language? a bunch, again, depends on what you speak. people are projecting 50 years from now, instead of there being 6,000 languages there will be a thousand because for all kinds of social and political and economic especially reasons, speaking a language that very few people speak doesn't seem worth it. so, children are not learning the languages from their parents and so forth. so if you go to society meet little there are session on what to do about endangered languages. another big issue is it there a lingual -- used to be the language of the frogs but is there one language that pretty much we share amongst ours? it's said it used to be latin. then in the 18th century it was french. the germans wish it were german but it was french, and then it

became english insuring part because of the british empire and then because of the staning of the united states during the 20th century, particularly after world war i and world war ii. so a lot of people are asking, is one language better than any other, and should the brits or the americans be the ones to tell you how they should speak? are should people be able to define their language as they wish themself. the australian accent is very different should we lead people have their own autonomy with the way they speak in another big issue because it gets into what we call social rights of the speakers. are you going to tell me because i speak a version of english, it's not real enough and i have to do it a particular way? the whole movement towards whatever. the movement towards cultural diversity. has been one which says, i'm not going to judge your accent.

30 years ago we judged accents a lot. we don't judge them as much as we used to. we don't judge grammatical mistakes. we're a much more international society. so how that plays out in terms of grammar rules and standards, that's one of the really interesting things. >> host: how that being always on affected us? >> guest: it's led to frustration we talked about earlier. it's always the misnomer. instant messaging. if you run eight or 12im chats -- i know people don't do instant messages as much as they used to, but if you're doing six or eight or ten of those at the same time, you're not doing them at the same time you do one and

then another and then another. it's said that the reason that spelling and gramaries so bad is because we're sending this stuff out. a lot of people edit their im. particularly if you're a teenage girl, they say i got this e-mail from guy x. this us how i'm going to respond, and they sit there and edit and edit before a response comes. okay? so, we don't actually take this instant as a call that we have to respond immediately, unless we're in a particular social group. now, social groups have always had ways of expressing and responding to insecurities before, and i don't mean insecurity in the bad sense. it's called growing up. so, if i send an e-mail to -- i want to answer right away to somebody and i don't get spoons right away, i might be unhappy

but the person has the right to wait. if i send an im to someone and they don't answer right away, it doesn't matter what technology, the person has a right. so what has changed since i wrote the book? more and more people are beginning to understand it's a problem to always be on. so you take -- look at something like nicholas carr. is google making us stupid? and then the article and then the book. you take people like william powers, who wrote a terrific book called holiday pamlet's blackberry." when he said you have to find time when you're not doing this. you be a human being and have social interaction. marion wolf in her book start worrying, do we read the same way? sitting down in your own sweet time and reading, what kind of people have we become? a lot of businesses that are now saying, there's going to be no

e-mail on fridays because i actually want you to get some productive work done. it's better for your soul and better for our bottom line. and you see this the book on distracted. more and more people are starting to recognize in a way they didn't ten years ago, that this may not be good for us, where this will go, i don't know. but to me. at least at the beginning. >> host: which devices do you own? do you ever turn them off? >> guest: do i ever turn them on is the question. okay. i have a laptop, needless to say, an ipad. i have -- my husband has a couple of ereaders which i borrow once in a while. i don't like to use ereader. i don't want to have 150 pain book be 400 pages because that's what they are on the kindle. i don't have a mobile phone. we used could joke any family

that my mobile phone -- it was all turn off, and it was. and it still is. and the only reason i turn it on now is because the ipad takes too long and warm up. and i only use it when i need it, and people say, but don't you study this stuff? don't you know? don't you and they and i say it's because i study this stuff that i want my sense of -- i say, do you know how long human kind has lived without having these devices? is there some emergency, i'll wait. it's probably okay. my husband takes him -- he'll come find me. but i don't need to live that way. and i have a much better blood pressure as a result. >> host: naomi baron, are you seeing changeness your students the way they communicate with you in the classroom? look can you in the eye, talking

with you, talking with each a? >> guest: here's the first change and this started up, almost ten years ago. faculty members are supposed to have office hours, right? a lot of office hours. and the joke we used to say to each -- to tell ounce another, we feel like the lonely anyway tag repair 'man, and these are ads you have to be a certain age to remember but maytag is so great the repairman never has any business. so students stop coming to office hours, because they can e-mail me 24/7. some people use im or text. they don't have to show up. they do, however, now expect to get an answer immediately. so if i get an e-mail from someone at 2:00 in the morning saying i'm not clear about this assignment, if i wait until monday, the beginning of the work week, to respond, when my student evaluations come, does not respond to students.

okay so one of the big changes is they don't physically show up. a second big change is there's an expectation structure that is different inasmuch as what the timeliness is in response. the third is a total lack of understanding that if you talk with someone face-to-face -- the same problem with teaching courses online -- the things that happen in that exchange between people that wouldn't happen if i'm typing or if i am only hearing your voice, or even if there's only a little video of you on the screen it's a different dynamic. and that, i think, is the new dynamic and the fact that it's being practiced to at the debt courtroom -- detriment of students. i don't have a chance to come up with the idea by looking at the flint in the eye or the disappointment or looking up, is there something else going on in

your life? i can't do that unless i'm with you. unless you have a really good camera on skype. so there's changes and they're worrying me. >> host: finally in your book, you ask the question, how much of the blame for personal cognitive and social change associated with new language tools really can be laid at the feet of the technologies themselves? >> guest: i do. let's start with spelling and punctuation. a nice simple example of what i believe is the case. my students are lousy in terms of knowing the rule of punctuation. they haven't the a clue what to do with a semi colon or colon and just sprinkle them like pepperoni on a cesar salad. it's not their fault. no one taught them. a lot of students say, i rely on spellcheck. ask if you go to kindergarten

through high school, did anyone spoke cuss on spell -- focus on spelling? no, why? because the faculty are thinking i need to focus on other things to be a modern faculty member. i shouldn't be so persnickety. if they don't team these things it's not the students' fault. with change our expectations of our goals in education, instead of reflecting, instead of being by yourself and thinking, instead of reading for long periods of time with no distracters, the students don't know how to do it. it's not the technology's fault. it's ours. so one of my major concerns is how much we should take the blame. another kind of issue is, what else is happening in society in it's not the technology that is doing it. it's social change which for better or worse is leading a particular direction. so take, for example,

proofreading. one of my favorite bugaboos. there are many instances where people have paid huge amounts of money to say dish know what a pull page ad in the "new york times" costs. i know what it costs in glossy magazines. i know that books published by some publishers want to have right. i compare what i see with what i saw, say, 20 years ago. i've been in the business for a while. and the professionals care less. if the professionals care less, why shouldn't the lay people care less? it's okay for them. i guess it should be okay for me. it's not the technology that is driving it. it's social attitudes that are driving it. >> host: and we have been talking with american university professor naomi baron, who teaches linguistics and is the author of a couple of books: growing up with language, this, her newest, always on: language

in an online and mobile word, and you're ws for the wealthy and the well connected suddenly well you know what? we'll take the sequester. and the notion of somehow we had

exaggerated the effect of the sequester. remember? the rule chicken little. sequester no problem. and then in rapid succession suddenly white house terrorists how can we let it happen? we have to fix that. and most recently where what are they going to do about potential delay with the airport? so despite the fact that a lot of mens of congress were suggesting that somehow the sequester was a viblght for them and it wouldn't hurt the economy we know it's -- stood up and warned repeatedly is happening. it slowed the growth, resulted in people being thrown out of work, and it's hurting folks all across the country. and the fact that congress respond to the short term

problem of flight delays by giving us the option of shifting money that is designed to repair an improve airports over the long-term to fix the short term problem that's not a solution. so essentially what we have done is said in order to . >> why did you go along with . >> . >> hold on a second. so the alternative, of course, here is either to impose a bumming of delays on passengers now which also doesn't fix the problem. or the third alternative is actually fix the problem by coming up with a bredder larger deal. but jonathan, you have seemed to suggest that somehow these folks over there have no

responsibility and my job is to somehow get them to get aid. that's their job. they're elected -- member of congress are elected in order to do what is right for the constituencies and for the american people. so if in fact they are seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety, then they shouldn't just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that. they should be thinking about what is going to happen five year from now, ten years from now, or fifteen years from now. the only way to do that is ebb gauge with me oncoming up with a broader deal. tbhas i'm trying to do. continue to talk to them about other ways for us to fix this. frankly, i don't think that if i were to veto, for example, the bill that somehow would lead to the broader fix. it means there would be paying

now which they try to blame on me as opposed to i paing five years from now. but either way the problem is not getting fixed. the only way the problem gets fixed, if both party sit down and say how are we making sure we are investing in things like rebuilding our airport and roads and bridges and investing in early childhood education and things that help us grow. that's what the american people want. >> tomorrow on c-span2, the center for strategic and international studies releasing a port on the future of u.s. ground forces. panelists will does military budget cut and the strategy of rebalancing from iraq and afghanistan to the asia-pacific region. it live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. later former state department official from the george w. bush

administration discuss the use of drones and targeted killings of u.s. citizens abroad. live coverage from the bipartisan policy center begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span. >> we do know that -- which he got to the white house, but people think she didn't participate much. that isn't exactly true. she was very, very involved. and she sat up her bedroom from the president's office, basically. and she was always able to hear what was going on. she was very active. she ran daily newspaper, brought different point of view to the president. able to calm him down. she was the grandmother of the house as well as taking care of her daughter and grand chirr. it's available on our website c-span.org/first lady. tune in monday on first lady

julia grant. '02 you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affair. every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule at our website. and you join in the conversation on social media sites. douglas' book "present shock exams the technological change. the author spoke at the new york bookstore about the idea in the book and how they relate to the rise of the tea party, the occupy movement, and zombie apocalypse fiction. it's just over an hour. [applause] >> you're welcome to sit in thet front too, if you are floor people. >> well, first of all, thankou ev you, everybody for coming.o

tonight to celebrate the launch of the book "present shock ." i think doug has been giving lots of talks about the book iaa have seen just in the last fewil days, and so to start us off. i think we are going get to it. briefly contextualize. and we have known each other for a ea few years. f i helped him do the research on "present shock "and he's a" and blogger in addition to the othes accomplishments. accomp and so,li dog, can you tell us what present shock is? first, thr coming and being here, in person, sharing your time, and in some ways i think the most radical thing about the book is that it's a book at all. a book is kind of an anacreonistic and so is gathering in a book store, in an

age where everybody things to happen now. "present shock" is about the human reaction to living in a world that is occurring in real-time, and always on, and it's really about the confluence of two things that are interrelated and mutually supporting. one of them is just having reached the end of the millennium, the end of the industrial age, we kind of sped up as much as we could. we leaned into the future as frantically and as -- with as much anticipation as was humanly possible, and as y2k approach, klm grounded their airline fleet in fear the changeover would down their planes because the computers wouldn't be able to handle the switch in digits. we got 9/11, which was also a huge kind of break in continuity. we had the dot-com booming along

until 2000, and then in february and march, all of a sudden people stopped thinking about, where are my investments go going be to worth one day, and to what are they worth now? and we realized, nothing, and the stock market crashed. there was this leaning forward. and an holmage to of her there was a sense of future shock, things changing in. the 90s, we're leaning into the millennium and then we got there a moment of maas when we said, we're in the future everybody was describing. that happened at the same time that we changed from a kind of an analog, industrial age mechanical to site, into this digital society, and the real difference occurred to me when i was -- i was at disney world on

our vacation, and there was this little girl on the line and it said, like, 90 minutes until goofy, how long you have to wait to get to the thing. and she looked up at her dad and she said, what's a minute? and i thought, that's an interesting question. in the last era, the last century, a minute on our nice round clock face is a portion of an hour. and an hour is a portion of a day. it's the way we break up the cycles of our planet, of our day, of our lives. in a digital reality, a minute is not some portion of something else. it's a duration. it's like an absolute. it just sits there. when my dad replaced my alarm clock when i was a kid, he replaced my analog alarm clock with a digital alarm clock and

my life change. i would watch the second hand go around and in a fresh minute, 9:02, getting around -- halfway through the minute, and now we're in the tail end of the minute. the second half, and we're now we're moving to 9:03. at it 9:03. you hear a fresh new minute. then we got -- i got my digital alarm clock, will the railroad signs, numbers that flipped down and it's like, 9:02. 9:03. and each minute was no longer this thing that was moving towards something else. just this thing in itself, each minute was just paused. so, present shock for me is dealing with that. at it dealing with the fact that time now feels suspended, and in each one of these moments, thanks to digital technology, there's this sort of sense of infinite, which i all these different things we could be

doing. my gosh, my twitter feed and my sms and my this and my that, the sense of constantly being pinged by all these different things, the irony in it is when we're trying to keep up with all of those digital map fess stations of the moment we actually lose track of the moment we're in. not to get too zen buddhist on you, but we're actually here now. , and we're so busy trying to keep up with these devices and these things and all these pings, when in reality the pings are just trying to keep up with us. so present shock, at its simpless, is this futile effort to keep track of time. it's the given bat we greeks call time of the clock, andle timing. and that real difference is what

is the best time to tell dad you crashed the car? 5:00 2? no, nothing to do with time. has to do with timing. after he had his beer, but before he opened the bills. and that is the kind of time that humans are in, if we're alive and aware of what is actually going on around us. so, as i looked at the society that we're in, i realized that there are sayreous way -- various ways in which we're in present shock, rather than in theory. do believe there's been a shift from a society that leaps forward, from a mechanical industrial aged society, very goal-ore gent industrial oriented. even the money we use has a clock in it. it's lent out at interest. you have to pay it back over time. all the businesses are racing to get bigger and bigger because they have to abuse they have to -- because they have to pay back their debt structures. but there should be, could be a

liberation from that as we move into a digital reality. there's this all the time in the worldness to a digital life that we could embrace if we weren't so busy trying to catch up with it. so i looked the five ways -- i kind of called them syndromes -- through which we experience present shock, 0 through which we exercise that. the first one is simple. call narrative collapse, and the idea is that in a present society, it's very hard to tell a story to even follow a story, to live by the story. stories is what we have been using really since aristotle's time or before, to share our values, to make our points. goes back as far as the bible and greek tragedy and comes up to the commercial where she girl is going at the prom and she has a zit and it pops and it gets worse and then she finds the oxy-5 and then puts it on ask

she is relieved and can go to the prom and we can be relieved because we watched the character go into tension and then relax. except now with digital devices, with remote controls, with dvrs, with vcrs, pause buttons and changing the channel, we don't have to sit through that narrative anymore. especially if we don't trust the story-teller. don't trust the advertiser. so, boom, we go away. we leave the story before it even reaches that peak. the whole notion of striving towards the goal, whether it's capitalism or communism or christianity. you're going to do great things so the ends justifies the means journey to some goal, mo longer really makes sense not when we worked for a company and they crash our pension before we get it. not when we vote for obama and the thing we were waiting for -- wait a minute, where is the us part of it?

back to something as urge usual. so without stories it's easy to feel rudderless. we don't have a goal, sense of anything. i do think there are some inklings. we were talking about this before, the "occupy" movement. people were so unnerved and unsettled by the "occupy" movement because they wouldn't state their demands. they wouldn't state their goals. what do you want? well, we're doing it right now. what are you demands? we're not really demanding anything from you. we're not doing this for something else. we're doing this. right? sort of of an internet style political movement. right? and that it's not part of some great narrative about winning a war, fighting something and beating the bad guys. it's about attaining a new kind of normative behavior right now.

that not just exemplifies but actualizes the thing we're talking about. it's the difference between a society for whom books and stories is the predominant entertainment medium, and one where video games is. by video games, for all the violence and problems in their early stage, video games point the way towards a more presentive style of engame. in a video game you're not watching the character going through some story, beginning, middle and end, you're the character making choices in real-time. you're living it in the present. and in a game, if you read someone like james carr's finite and infinity it in game. the beauty of a game is you're not playing the game order to win and end it. you're playing the game in order to keep the play alive. it's more like a fantasy role-playing game where you keep coming up with new ways to keep the game going.

it's a sustainable strategy to narrative rather than one aching for conclusion. it's no longer crisis, climb mass -- climax, sleep. it's now how long can we keep this going? which is a better question to ask in the world you're living in now, rather than colonial world. so narrative collapse is one of them. the second one, which comes from the video game impulse, is something i called digiphrenia and what is it like to live in a world where we are currently making all these choices all the time. digital world tells us, commercially commercial, you can make both choices you've don't have to choose this or that. you can choose this and that and this and that all at the same time. for me the challenge of living digitally is not information overload. it's never been about that.

aim not going to read it. i'm not going to look at it. what overload? you can't overload. i'm just not going to look. that's the easy one. the real trick is digital technology is really good at making copies of things, but it's really hard to make copies of people. it's really hard to make copies of yourself, but meanwhile, there's five or ten different map fess stations, different instances of you, operating simultaneously all over the place. there's your facebook account. at it happening now. mark zuckerberg is advertising with your face to someone else right now. you better check. there's your twitter feed, your sms, all of these different instances of you behaving simultaneously. but i was trying to log into my google callender in berlin after i up successfully tried from the airport, and google kale -- came back and said, sorry, we can't let you in, you appear to be

logging in from too many places at once, and when google no longer believes i am a human being, there's too many instance office me for even to it believe i could be human, that's how i know i'm in trouble. right? there's a digital sense, a sense in digital time, that every moment is like every other moment. that time is somehow generic. 3:02 might as well be 3:03 or 3:04 but as human beings with sunup and sundown, we understand we don't live like that. eave moment is not like every other moment. the more we learn about bio rhythms and biological clocks the more we fine out just how many different biological natural time pieceness is. jet lag used to be knew age folklore. the can't believe it in until

major league baseball manager realized that pitchers traveling west to east did worse than pitchers traveling east to west. so once they believed and it the state department started to believe it in terms of negotiations they said, maybe time isn't just all the same. you can't just schedule ourself into the a a thousand things. the research i saw each week of the lunar cycle, different neurochemical tens to dominate (chemistry grew through week dope mean, and nor ennever flip so if you know that everybody is in dope mean week -- greene week, that's part week. do try to get anything done. or they're open to new ideas. serotonin week, they'll work really hard. and ennever rein week they'll be like obama in fight or flight, organizational structural thinking, looking at things from affair, but if you understand that, not as some weird kris school possession new age

witchcraft but as the fact that we are biological creatures, we have been for hundred hundreds of thousands of years for whom time was not generic, we go, i can actually program my devices to conform to me rather than trying to stretch me across the these devices. the third syndrome i looked at, i called overwinding. and i actually got the idea when i was reading stewart brand's brilliant, the long now, which is his sort of call for us to think of time in ten thousand year time spans. rather than just every year, every day. and i was trying to think of my life in ten thousand year time spans and i realized i wasn't speaking it as a long now. i was experiencing it as short forever. it's really hard to have the weight of ten thousand years on every moment. this plastic bottle. irthere's not a recycling bin toy have to think about the ten thousand years this about ill will be sitting in the land

phil? what's going on? it's this overwinding -- it's this sort of misapplication of one time scale on to another. overwining is what the new york stock change tries to do. when people nor longer patient enough to invest now to make money five years from now, they say, it's okay, you can make your money on the trade. you're not going to make money by investing. what happened when people tried to invest in facebook if the bought the stock the in the morning and then in the afternoon they didn't make any money so they started selling. so they thought the buying of the stock was going to make money. now we have derivatives. which are what? which are really just basically saying, this stock over time, or this stock over time, over time, trying to just bur burrow into the moment so you making money on the rate of change report thentive if the thing is going

to change at all. ... it's a weird one. on a human level overwinding is like what happens on housewives of orange county. ever watch that show? i'm fascinated. it gave me the idea for the book. [laughter] i was watching them and i, you know, and they have the botox faces stuck in this horrible

little smile, and they basically get in fights and have communication misunderstandings. i'm thinking what it going on here? they have the woman who tried to lock their faces at 289 years of age. they are trying to freeze time n in the one moment of 29 years an old? o what do they do?years old. what's the result?ey when they are sitting withr someone in reale time they can'h be present in the moment.alte th the faces can't register the ree appropriate emotional response and one says my daughter is being tested for cancer. the other says i am so sorry to hear that then she says i don't think she meant that. but she could not express it because she was not available to the real moment because she was over winding herself because she could not be where she was.

the fourth one is really what happens when there is no longer time between the thing you do and the feedback you get. feedback is how we judge everything in our business or farming you plant the seed in and you wait to see how that grew in next time you plant them closer together than you get feedback three months later or in business we will make red sweatshirts at the end of the quarter they did well we will do more or less. in the instantaneous society the feedback is so fast you cannot see the cause from the fact. is this our marketing campaign for a way to read about it before so now we should change ship are responding to the tweet horsey responding to what we have done? it is in the same moment. so you no longer have time

to understand or have stories so you try to understand the instantaneous picture. when you try to understand things as a snapshot, the only way to make sense is trying connections between things. freeze frame. this must be connected to that connected to this and you sound like a conspiracy theorist. you draw connections between things that are not connected. the real way to make sense of rapid feedback is through fractals but the way to understand them is not to have a direct comparison or equivalencies but the pattern recognition. pattern recognition sees how this is kind i'd like that kind i'd like that. bacteria do this so people

must do that. no bacteria do this and people are different but maybe we do something similar. in order to make sense of the world in present tense you have to stop looking at the subject and the get the land so long dash landscape too unfocused and see what is going on rather than the details and the last syndrome i look at is apocalypse joe it is the fun one and the idea that it is easier to imagines says on the apocalypse. when you lived in the reality that is just to maintain it can become unbearable. you can overlaid them on the reality that does not fit that.

it is what the peers are doing with the rise of technology they get separatist and then say except for the past -- the fact it passes us but then information will be dissolved in the greater state of complexity. these people say yes it is but it is all the stories we had before they take the capitalist biblical narrative to throw out on the digital the beauty is that it could break us free from the industrial age time is money make everything faster paradigm. for those readers -- weirdos part of the movement. i will get to work whenever i want. i can trade with people directly and not work for

the man or invest in this crap but deal with a much more sustainable way with the peer to peer marketplace. that what do they do instead? they checked the digital revolution and apply it to the industrial age bellevue's. don't worry instead of being something new we will show you how to be the last gasp another injection in the failing economy. it led to a sense of the information of something that has its own mind and evolutionary path and we are serving information on the journey toward consciousness. when it reaches that we can go away but that has a medium and the message

reversed. human is not in the services of information it is a byproduct of humanity. but we are the same and even if not, i will fight for us. so what "present shock" is is a call to reclaim humanity in the face of seemingly alienating technology and to realize the genuine opportunity is not to be programmed into submission but to seize the day and use these technologies in a way that is consonant to conform to who we are rather than us conforming to it. [laughter] >> what do you want to understand a little better?

combining what you opened with and your conclusion is where "present shock" comes from. you say it is about as conforming to digital technology but what is this determine phenomenon or are there other forces at work to make this moment come to fruition? you mentioned 9/11 was the breaking continuity and it makes me wonder is this a western experience or new york city? were all ohio is somebody in mind by? that you see the phenomenon fitting into our global identity? >> that is a good one. i am not a techno determinist did with us a

digital technology happened now we all ripple in response. i think digital technology and merged with our readiness for something beyond the industrial age. it had puttered out in a number of ways. time is money is great for colonial empires to explant -- expand around the globe but that is what allowed western europe to take over a lot of the world but we reached the limits of that. with nowhere else to take over through virtual world bank loans to countries got wise to that and said wait a moment that may not be a good thing so we have

reached elements were a free plug door computers into the phone lines and got the internet but the internet to cough i would argue because of a cultural readiness for it. we were ready for the peer to peer culture. just as jet travel was ready for something other than flights in human beings are ready for something other than an outsourcing everything fade due to a corporation. it wasn't working any more. says digital technology come at a different time i don't know if we would have embraced at the same way. but once it came, it ended up really taking over and doing all whole lot more

than we might have suspected. part of that is a digital technology is more natural appropriate way to be used but part of that is said dying corporate culture ended up grabbing it as a way of extending itself one inappropriately into the next era but they will fight and if everybody is in this are some of us there is some present shock that affect high-tech urban dwellers more than other people. but if you are working for a corporation and your shift is determined by machine, if you are on net flecks in ohio and now watching media created by big data engines

like house of cards that was assembled. they used big data. people who like kevin spacey also like david and political intrigues and we will create this show like the william manufacture the cheese doodle and makes people compelled. it is weird and empty like it is made by a machine but with you time shift the television viewing that is "present shock" now you cannot go to work the next day and to save did use the house of cards? i saw member for use on number nine you have to watch it on your own. it is not a bad thing you have agency and autonomy but you lose the other. and with other other other

parts of the world, yes and no. they are in less present shocked and with indigenous cultures to did not have to contend with the industrial age their values and systems are retrieved in the digital era. every time you get a new renaissance you retrieve the values repress the last time. the last time we repressed feminism and indigenous people and peer to peer culture value creation and pressed the occult now we see those things coming back. occupy, and the archaic revival, and those are weird but positive steps and the

indigenous cultures loved out of "present shock" and left out again. >> with all the books you have written your subject matter always changes but the message is that there is a program determined by some interested power so before was urban planning and realizing there was a real-estate moneyed interest the way the street or where the parks are placed and once you can learn to read the world as a program then you can claim agency and subverted and hackett. a departure in this book is it seems everyone is scared by "present shock."

atrophy across the board board, with capitalism the stock market is crashing and there is student dead and is there a program and if not is anybody benefiting recapitalizing on the phenomenon? >> what you are referring to was my initial hit even before any meditated a psychedelic by opening experience when i was in seventh grade learning how to program for the first time. i realized i could make what was on the tv set that when you save a program for a file that you were gone you have to choose if you save it as read only or read

right for our realize at that moment ago my gosh. television is read only content but that is only because they made it that way. they could make every right and i could make this stuff and they started to look in the world with a grid pattern of new york and this isn't just city, somebody made this city and chose to make it that way but other cities do not have great patterns. they are round or this or that and no bunker as a set of given circumstances but the choices people made sometimes consciously with a specific agenda they make they york side -- a city like this to maximize motion it is the many cities so be maximized efficiency to go like that it is not about beauty or introspection or a

city to contemplate but get things done. then i started to look every of their system, money. the money we use was invented 11 or 1200 and replaced other moneys that peer to peer economy rising out of control the aristocracy did not know how to maintain -- maintain control so they may be illegal and said to have to borrow money from the central treasury it at interest was a way to stay rich and it worked but now we think it is money manager is anti-general semantics. what is this? it is what we used as money we think of this as many. we live in a world where certain monopolies maintain this is money so if it is

the only program you have you taken at face value. every computer had windows operating system there would be no such thing as windows until you have a choice you don't know there is choice and tell the alternative you do not know it is there that is the driving force. when the digital age came we can program stuff i looked at judea's some -- judea's m as rather than a belief system to come up with a behavioral thing and i was arguing how it was locked down in the 20th-century we lost the open source quality and i don't see present shked asene >> and our biologicalr program.m with a our emotional and social

program not as created by armeone else but what comes we from us. we are creatures and had to remake ourselves moreo we ke available so when we do all this programming we can doould o with that is consummate with who we are? how we create situations are we with other people? that is such a challenge to aese days because we spend thee so much time with kasper's looking for words rescue's but 94 percent of communication is nonverbal.and m if your pupils are dilating or and all that stuff we have grown to respond to an end releasing dopamine and howu do you get that?t you can. yocan. what i am trying to do withest h "present shock" is give people clues and hints how

to reconnect to theth t fundamental rhythms.wi there is if there is a break in club to lew an opportunity for the mice to play breaking away from the industrial agemore clock and this more fluid form of time there is also an opportunity for us toso to ring gauge more primal biological e. emotional and socially healthys to theassa relationships to the passage of time a.and >> hearing you say that i have to observe all of these people together nine if youa are looking at your phones and reset your promoting aok whs book that is old-fashioned ol analog technology so why isk any

this a book and why is this the medium? youhu >> the hubris of writing aon he book on the one hand cleaning i am allowed to do coud take a year to figure out what to say that maybe the idea is that cannot be conveyed in a bull list i cannot tweet this and also it is inviting people nott demanding but inviting people to surrender theirpe auto autonomy over sevener eighthours hours of their lives to sayu wib you will be with me seven or s eighet hours so i can inoun gauge with you on the level

that i can't with the cnn column in the treaty or the article and ideally a way to say we are allowed to do this. we are allowed to dodedicatesevr dedicate something we don't have to shove it into the plane ride. who says we are not allowed to dos that?l age bu and partly by a doing that imb say just beecause we embracee digital time does not mean the of their times do notwith th coexist. yes we move into a culture where video game logic and making choices is thes e predominant form of communication but it doesn't mean all the others just go away they can still be therest you still go to the opera even if everyone is doing

extreme sports but there's still a place for these experiences. i of a book person that is where certain kinds of ideas are home. that is our ims home. ith negative where i am at home. but the way i sell a book you does not by saying if youon't ud don't understand digitizing and you can market.a you need this in your tweed's will not make sense.se. what is that? by this or else? read this or you are in trouble. that is the maximum. no. you don't need this. this is cool. you are allowed this. you're a human being livingn int the 21st century you

are allowed to have time. and ironically the more time you take the more time you have it is the opposite.try the retry to catch up the less time you have.u answeh thee faster you answer e-mail's the faster they come in and the slower you people answer the males they solve the problems without you. [laughter] they really do so books are wo wonderful discipline to say no.i am readin i reading this book.if i can if i can create more excuses for people to say no, i am reading a book that i have done my job. >> thank you. [applause]

>> thank you so much. fs there any aspect of youro assessment that can be conn connected to the employment rate? eld the uc any correlations?bsot >> absolutely. first of all, and this sounds awful but since whenwhen is unemployment of bad bad thing?seriy. seriously. create jobs for good jobs.e j do you want jobs? no.obs? you want stuff.ff you want the stuff you getou for having a job. job is an artifact of the industrial age.ver people made stuff and sold h it. nine tel charterun corporations put everybodyev we had to iness by law we had to work for a company and instead of being paid to ma make a thing you were paid for thee time you put intofor the corporation.

you are selling your time. that is what the bible calle bl slavery. veal the reason, we don't need jobs. we have enough staff. there is more than enoughhan houses. they're burning down houses and the california to keep their prices high because sohe many are in foreclosure. are in for we can't just let people live there we have to tearthe them down every month we burnt food to keep the of marketplace high.o the only reason we need people to have jobs isstuff misleading justify giving the stuff to them not because we need them to make more stuff but now we havef an nod excuses for the stuff we stick and the storage unit. we have more stuff than rainy day and have more wh excusesa and tom black friday get them to consume more.

housing starts arehou? rebuilding more houses? because of the industrial age requirement of the economy to grow. i don't know in our lifetimetime that i do think we will get to a place where we can haven hv the robots do this stuff in t itfield and we can't just ea eat it and it is not a bad thing and we work to make things better to be ingersoll's coming teachingno children, not just importpot more plastic crap from chinaep e to keep the economic machine it is it is a program that hasoutl outlived its will come.>> do yok >> did you think the reason l the digital axplatform thwacks narrative is narrative is based of the fact the lack of contactouhere

awareness that if we knew where we were that seems toem be going that way that would remedy the problem? >> or it would create a new one. the illusion of narrative israte what they call predictive modeling.ca they use the data analysis to figure out johnny is wealth the weekend tell from his statistical profile hethe te will be gay by the time he is 14 we can tell by the way she is on twitter that sheproaby will be dealing with infertility issues. they can send you the things yop to help manifest the personre ml you're likely to be. s that is not a story tellingthatr but turning people into ogram programs rather than let

them be what they are. i do think there is afrom context for that is moree like beavis and butt-head more of the mess andra w stability so the way we make of sense of things is by en recognizing when you watch this some sense what is thenucle hit? noted this is a satire and when you recognize that youmaket feel more oriented. so what we move toward is ofmore more a moment to momentdin do getng that we from screens within screensd ing from getting the joke more mor

than getting to the end. [laughter] have you think "presentcts t shock" is affecting have the wars are fought today? >> in the $0.1 is less seth things that we win them moret y chronic situations.win you never really win the war you just win the battle and bata kill people. but there is a sense of the ongoing state. one phenomenon of a drone fighting is the did jeffdigal phrenic approach here you

are in a room outside las vegas flying a plane that is in in afghanistan killing people far away then you get in your car and go home andu hae have dinner with your wife wi and kids. itd turns out the drone pilots with virtual combat have higher levels of psd battlehose who are in the actual battlefield that would argue because of the new way of fighting war "p where you try to manifest toibl. at ones that are ultimately incompatible and that is ing what will start to happenhappe now and fair is this part of apr me or part of us doing this

that is not consonant with our values in we have to reconcile but the more alienated we are the more it does seem distant so it doesoes get pretty weird. >> but to say they live an additional world dealing with media why don't use ayou machine world? >> there is a difference between machine world andbetw digital world bridal thinkthinke we live in a digital road we wol live in the physicalnirse universe but it is nownow dominated by the digitalf a dig buys as opposed to the mechanical bias and the d

difference is mechanical age technology this shovel big some of the car drives theshel steam shovel does this. >> but we don't know how to store the stuff. >> the kinds of things thatible i look at as digital agedigit technology like computers, robotics, andnaotec genomics, i look at thingstion that you set in motion then have a life of their own andy te hry to survive and replicatet they keep going where a shovel just sits there. you can argue it is the same

continuum is to make bet you couldh have that merit can system. >> you can.the kind o but the kind of culture that builds around text forwhteve whatever reason and said being different than thet than e culture that builds up around the printing press which forever reason is different than the culture from digital technology. the reasons why could be completely stupid and basedt on nuothing but ourhing of o perception of how the devices work but they do have different media environments.light there is a libel. it creates an environment we don't care about the contenttent

there is no content with a light bulb of less you havees a slide in front of it but the label itself creates the environment to.ir-ctioning creas air-conditioning is a technology. television creates thetelevisile environment. antidote technology createsenvio the environment it makeserminis this thing happened that as a culture changes our values change we change the tools we develop and the way weange he see things. the >> you save saidd differencesnt but how many are inherent the environment of the culture over it is ah is a new media of the wild wild

west? >> i always felt we are inof danger of folding said the interestsd -- digital media environment into the industrial age. is why i have been kicking and screaming since 1998. but it was here. like their reality hackers i wee thought here we have thegy d technology. digital means digits we can make the world they never is ty said this is coming in wired said the tsunami iss coming to change your business andmi do this so then industrial capitalism canever ae grow forever and ever beenthen o on then same day jerry accursi and died netscape

went public in their if the wondered the potential thatitemf e see for a new digital environment will be consumed by the industrial age.y the d it may be but i believe if it is, most of us will die. i really believe that the we have reached the limits that is the way to do things and i try to create the mostthe mo appetizing ways of describing what it might behat h like it may be a moreto sustainablel approach as individuals and as a nation and rather the thing that wethae keep doing it. >> taking that media revolution to use fact been>> be

changed via the things that are different as opposed to letting it go back? >> had no if it will but lok an when id am in the wardroomrdroo the way corporations exist, they are dyingyi the corporations are sitting on t all thishi money and work on the operating system designed to help them collect money.m they got good at that but mo didn't know how to make their money with their money profite corporate profitability has been going down steadily over the lastove 50 years.to they don't know how to keep doing it. there at -- say are at thet of crossroads to.pe but i also a genuine medianot it

renaissance.is revolution feels twentiethis century. our round the clock but more of a renaissance where wew retrieved old ideas andd reborn into a new context so when we became centralized than monarchies as a central currency and the stuff that was repressed i feel those are just picking up theythes take andrew said years topen happen so i am trying too re remain hopeful it just seems infinitesimal.. >> you think digital technologies are helping or hurting?poverty? >> i think they could help ory hurt when you use digitalls

technology and send the kids is in to pay as it is hurting that when we use digital tec technology in the open source planning to giveeve developing nations how toc build agricultural machinery it is helping. it to when we exacerbatebut capitalism or to allow forer to peer to peer marketplace acurrcs new economic models it helps.it is do but ita double-edged sword but it seems to be in thisvocato powerful stuff i advocate for people to use separate or digitally illiterate population is like one that knows come through and if come you t don't know how to program ourselves at leaste it to be aware of theseent we

environments we are inhabiting. ay will cafe's both that this is not fun for me and makes me feel a foldable i will just got. and then i'll publish they and article makes them hating get peo ople to follow mfoe.iono it is craig i know not not progress one corporation attacking another but to the but extent we feel that we ares allowed to make choices is r the beginning. >> it has come up a couple times with the obviousof he reaction to the digital sbviou stuff everywhere to consider the narrative like everyone b wants to do tap into and youbout

said something that i amfor youd curious you expanded ongenous cultures? for it to come back to life? o> it is not about going g back to the good old days. neither can you lean forward. just like them lotto leanedleaed forward you can't do it either way. n we are right here now but hat means the to beableto available to things that were unavailable before. in the more primitive formstresd every day is medieval because that is where we ho associate those means thevities activities.

the last memories we have a is that medieval bizarre but i say we bring it back inonu but context so in the peer to peer currency you end upo per with one that is in the iphone and go somewhere else. so in terms of the indigenous culture they have access to certain things we know they now find again through science.for me t so to say we're justure figuring out there is athere lunaris cycle of course, everyone knows there is a lunar cycle.like really? i get it.buin the in terms of western science every week there is

a dominant moving and d chemistry? of course, they say yes. th nhis is what we call it.sa we have there is saying if you go back they were respecting a lot of thet wlo different rhythms but we lost that. some of it feels very old that we can revise the ancient wisdom that there isthen in shape to time and maybe they knowmb that and like we have a james joyce, and now we try to do it.

>> i can sign books in the will talked to. d> how does the logic speak to india by indexing camep t more about china this and india. and i look at the moments culturally with the chinese olympics standing there doing ty cheap trying to do o it demonstrate the older cultk i sometimes worry for cultures that adopt theag

digital agee mentalitythut pasi without passing through thesuchl user such powerful tools i worked at a place at codeacdem academy these people nt generally they want to create a product and thenng anda launched the iphone knapp but people in india they say i want the decree. can you give me theicate? certificate? when people are poor in the cast and have never been allowed to do anything it is p a great and beautiful thing that then to the even know what they're getting companlves into? we already have these laborthe mills in china and india d doing those repetitive tasks.g this is re ab

this is the book really more about culture than anythingcausa else and i am writing way more about us than it is ha aboutn them i interested of their reaction of my gosh g this is interesting we'remethn suffering more you americanseria did not know this all along? i guess it is something i fi will found -- find out. to a >> we have to stop there. . .