has a very contemporary very, i feel, on the debate about how we fix the relationship between the

financial system and the economy did it exist to support. this is at the center of "masters of nothing," the book we're launching this week. because throughout her life, lady bacher passionately believe capitalism was not only the effect this form of economic organization ever invented, but also the most moral. today, the first of those points is almost undisputed and we should all be grateful to the market liberals of west and east, who in free the peoples of the former communist bloc restocked in turkey so liberated billions in china and india and indonesia in beyond, from grinding poverty and prove once

and for all that free markets are the greatest source of prosperity ever known to man. but the free market is a world force of good is less well understood and its moral authority hinges on two crucial factors. first, free-market airfare because we were disproportionate to effort. when markets work, those who prosper and work hard and risk their capital to succeed in making other people's lives, their customers lives better. for most people, fairness is a form of reciprocity that she could have according to what you put in and for most people, this is a worm for and fairness as a quality in free make that support real. second, free-market support

personal responsibility. if the state takes responsibility away from people, then people tend to behave responsibly. in britain, the savvy management for industries in the 1970s through to the irresponsible spending of the two thousands with the examples are in the june and margaret thatcher helped the only way that the way people behave of the world occasions that behavior should be at the very heart of how we think about capitalism. she supported small business, the challenger, the entrepreneur coming out the corporate giant distorting the market whether the public with private dirt but we must do the same. for too long before the crisis, for instance, metal and can pay packets here at home have stagnated and beyond the political rate is having show

that we have the juice to ensure everyone can benefit from the prosperity the market could generate. so i'm not one of those conservatives who looks at the mistakes by government who concludes the air has no case to answer. the fact is before the crash a lot of people, especially the finance industry could not be making money for their clients are from them and the moral underpinnings of personal responsibility and something for something of reciprocity were badly undermined by this behavior. we are giving, "masters of nothing: human nature, big finance, and the fight for the soul of capitalism" commented that have been because the markets at work were not truly free. there's a story in the book about a minnesota assistant to this investigating a mere quest

back in 2003. he ordered them to hand over a sample of their loan data content boxes of resurrected itself is. he pulled one at random and found the armor was listed as an antiques dealer then he went through these boxes of files for another and another and every fio said the same thing. every fio listed the barber as an antiques dealer who clearly the loans were fraudulent, but they've already been bundled and sold off and you can blame government for making life easier for companies like america west if learning to people with poor credit has explicit backing, of course the america west of the world will operate with greater impunity. focusing solely on government's failings, there's a teacher be a tacit way excuse the behavior of the loan officers who fired on the forms and wall street banks

repackage loans up without asking difficult questions in the rating these who close their eyes and put a aaa unfinished securities. in his famous essay, not friedman wrote for social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. or rather too many people on wall street seemed to have read the title and ignore the argument, for friedman goes on to say it's a social responsibility at business to make, and i quote, as much money as possible while confirming the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and embodied and ethical customs. some of the rates have taken the crisis as evidence that government should get out of the business of trying to manage the economy altogether in this book

very much argues that it is the role of government to recognize our flaws and all of our failing, but to ensure that we regulate appropriately rather than not at all. john allison from the cato institute has suggested we abolish central banking on the fact racist and private money based on gold, energy may do here of the. rarity have a system of private money because the difference between the tanks taken his deposits and what they choose to blend out is indeed private money. history shows collectively pay sometimes make the wrong call on how much money to create, even when the individuals banks at the rate decision for them. and the century or so before the fed was founded, the u.s.

experienced five major paybacks with smaller ones in between. the panic of 1873 coincided with the bursting of the bubble. for instance, a global recession lasted for nine years. i'm skeptical of the idea that eliminating central bank and management of the economy is the answer to our problems, not least because the global financial system is in that they work on plaques in the 1870s. in the book we go back further to look at the whole panorama of financial crises from tulipmania to the tech bubble and it becomes clear the constant is not central banking or deposit insurance, but it's human nature. at the height of the south sea bubble, dozens of thick dishes

trading companies are set up to cash in on the appetite for company stock. in one famous example, stock was issued on behalf of other companies were carrying out a great undertaking of great cnh but nobody to know what it is. we can laugh at the credulity of the 18th century investor and how much smarter we are now. whoever would invest in such a product? utterly smarter? with the purchases of synthetic ceos anyways there? the most dangerous idea in economics is the delusion that the economy access independently of the flaws in failures of people. from that idea is the assumption that a self-interested decision is always a rational and well-informed on and from that in turn flows much of modern economics. let me ask you this.

who thinks they're always freshening? and who thinks their friends service russian? we asked a representative sample of the american public these questions. 48% of the american public thought the day were always rational. only 32% of their friends were always rational. and that rather proves the point. i is a politician when i make this point had asked commensurately think you you are always rational. and i say no. have you ever fallen in love? have you ever made a mistake for being tired? we all have. all humans have. we need to pace the management of the economy on that knowledge. so let me ask a second question. imagine you're given a choice between a certain game and the chance to campbell for more.

for example, if i offer you a 50/50 chance of a thousand dollars but an equal chance of walking away with nothing, who would choose to take the risk? that's very telling. in this instance, 8% of the american public said they would take the gamble, even though the expected value of the gamble is higher. then to demonstrate risk aversion, we changed the game around so you either lose $450 for sure or you can do without the chance of losing a thousand dollars and have the chance uses nothing. because people don't like making a loss in the second case, although the expected value of the certain result is higher, the gamble was found to be more track dave.

25% of the american public would choose to campbell to lose to avoid the loss were only 8% with gamble to make a greater gain. this is because we are naturally inclined to campbell to avoid a loss because of the very human trait of loss aversion. the loss aversion can explain why the critical period between 2006 and 2008, bear stearns and lehman brothers actually increased after the housing bubble that had become to burst. another example is pat bennett decision. studies of casinos and game shows demonstrate asking exert a powerful influence on decisions made in the present can even when the odds have changed. it's a chemical rush for the physiology of literature of a big win means a high roller will

rarely quit while they're ahead. you might think they're still analogy to be turned between wall street and game show contestant, the aig's entire business model is premised on the idea that u.s. house prices would continue to rise in the future as they've done in the past. psychologists know about these for decades. the problem is nobody told the economist. and rather than confront the messy and subjective reality of how people actually behave, a economist clung to furious object to give mathematical modeling based on invalid assumptions. none of this would matter some of this market is to rule or rational when individuals are not. but this doesn't square with what we know of group psychology. we humans are naturally inclined

to follow the herd. in november 2008, her majesty the queen possessed a group of eminent economist at the london school of economics, why didn't anyone see it coming? that some people didn't see it coming. no one in a position to act wanted to listen. in the u.k., certain or large deputy governor of the bank of england made a series of speeches of an overleveraged system which grown so big complex no one knew where the risks to relay. here bertini predicted the bursting of the housing bubble on the global recession that followed. the chief economist at the imf spoke out at jackson hole of the dangers of a bonus feeling irresponsible risk-taking on a precedent of scale. in all three cases they were to

write it or are by the global economic establishment and again, this is common in psychology and the listen state to be. i don't now how many in the audience are watching our big mountaineers, but if you ever go up a big mountain, the psychology literature offers some important ways. don't go in a big group. mountaineering groups of more than four are more likely to suffer fatalities. so this is slightly unexpected. you would have thought more people save for your work, decrypting and the social pressure of the shared goal makes people more effective to suggest heading back when the weather starts to turn in bad weather is the single greatest cause of fatalities i'm not

climbing expeditions. this dynamic was replicated in bank workers and finance ministries across the world. those of private misgivings kept to to themselves and the few to speak out or ostracized. and masters of nothing but some pools fools in the corner, those who make the case that were set apart for the system. so if we accept to receive financial crises lay and human behavior, what should we do about it and what should government to? after all, we can't legislate human irrationality and many of the problems of the world would have been solved. the left argue any more rules and regulators, but the problem is with already tried this. in the u.k. the financial rupert traveled in size in the run up to the crisis. u.s. government spending has increased from 725 early in a 1982 over 2 billion in 2007.

the basel framework grew from 30 pages in 198-2350 and 2004. the system demand increasing client needs at this degenerate into superficial process. remember, not one wall street bank was in breach of its regulatory capital requirements at the time of the crash and nostrils multiplied and grew more complex, they became more easily gain and crucially thinking back to the moral purpose that i spoke about at the start, people stopped asking, is this right? and instead, started asking, is this legal? by the end they ask and we get away with it? said the answer is not more rules in this argument leads

instead to three broad conclusions for how we run our economy. first come the regulators need to move away from trying to micromanage individual bankers and instead be prepared to make countercyclical judgment against the big picture. culture and social norms will always be the best regulators. the vast majority depends not on formal rules, but choosing to do the right thing. when i perry restaurant at the end of the mill it's not because i'm scared of being arrested by the police, but it's the right thing to do. strong cultures of good social norms are supported by some wholly clear rules and laws, not complex and confusing rulebooks. given the culture they can write means stronger boards, tougher sanctions for those who behave recklessly, greater shareholder impairment and other incentives.

for the first response to call for simpler and clearer rules. second, we are all human. things can invoke around. everyone, even the great debaters behaved in ways that are irrational. to reduce the damage when pigs took over. and the u.k., the analysis has led to the vickers will. all markets exist in a framework. the rule of law are all vital for markets to work a truly free. finally, we as conservatives as supporters of free markets need to recognize human behavior for what it is, make sure the rules of the game free us from the over mighty, whether banking for energy or government support the challenge, competitor,

entrepreneur and the innovator. whether the business started for the aspiring homeowner, mrs. thatcher was on the side of the serpent and so must we. from time to liberty and prosperity of our great nations will once again this spring. thank you pre-match. [applause] >> matthew, thank you very much for a very timely analysis. i'd now like to invite questions from the audience for a guest speaker if i may take the liberty of asking the first, switching gears slightly over to europe, an issue very close to lady thatcher's heart and bear in mind the tremendous financial turmoil taking place within the euro zone. the prime minister, david

cameron has pledged to hold a referendum on riddance membership of the european union provided the conservatives reelection in 2015 and cameron has pledged to renegotiate britain's relationship with e.u. to seek urgent reforms within the european union. is this in your view a viable strategy? can you make it work effectively? can you advance national authority within the e.u.? can you go against the tide being pushed forward by the french and german stories that never close and union. >> thank you very much. he picked up on an element of the book, which i didn't mention in this speech, but which is also important. britain's relationship with the e.u., which has been based on a

referendum on the venture into and staying within the common market in the 1970s, we believe needs to be put -- needs to once again be resolved. with the euro crisis, we're talking about the irrationalities if you been there are some parallels. the hero crisis means there is an inevitable triumph within the euro sound person closer collaboration and i understand not because they have a monetary union. the u.k. does not want to be part. however, the trading relationship with the e.u. is a beneficial one to the u.k. so he sat out a clear strategy to renegotiate our relationship based more on trade and then put

the results to the british people in a referendum. i have every confidence that the prime minister not least because there'll be a referendum at the end of that process will be able to negotiate a good settlement. we are at the moment in the process of assessing what the balance of competency is between the u.k. and the e.u. is and none will set out what racing to renegotiate with the results of the referendum. it's a very clear strategy to get us to the position where we get the best from the e.u. and have a positive trading relationship, but allowed them to go on with the necessary changes they need to make of which we don't want to be a

part. >> a very persuasive thesis. i would ask you to re-examine your example to prove how free markets also lead to bubbles, which of course they do. but the 1870s were wrote bubble, free land and other subsidies of government is behind that of will. your argument about the free market have been a moral basis is a good one, but a certain point everybody seeks their own good and all work out fine. there's been an argument from another part of the rate going back to catholic church, which is self-interest has to be tempered with searching judeo-christian principles to really work most effectively. there is of course the criticism from the right in britain. what do you make of his arguments against the free

market or in addition to the free market? how do you suffered his arguments? >> derivation of examples of bubbles the break and of course in many% government involvement, but that doesn't get private behavior off the hook. one example was little government involvement to the railways likewise. i think they need for an ethical behavior within business, which is the argument you mentioned coming from the catholic right is a great deal of validity and indeed i strongly believe that is the argument that margaret thatcher but is made and friedman is making because he

talked about the ethical boundaries of behavior and social norms. and indeed, that sort of cultural, whether it be religious or otherwise, that cultural restraint is a strong current editor of regulation than the rulebook. it is both valuable for ensuring we get the best out of the market, but that people don't -- avoid some of those damaging consequences. but at the same time, have a free market that can be innovative in change. i think there is a lot in it. the question is how to promote it, which is difficult because you can't legislate for culture

alone. legislation of course underpins some of the cultural conditions that we have been a society. culture is so much more than the government chooses to do. >> please identify yourself and an institutional affiliation as well. goodnight thank you for sharing your insights. in the context of your argument, how do you see the future of china? a basic question is what is your take on china? >> they can never be criticized for small thinking because the two questions from the heritage foundation fellows have been what about china, each of which are worthy of his speech in their own right.

china tells us two things. the first first and biggest single lesson from china over the last 30 years is the free market is the route to prosperity that mankind has ever invented in the engagement of hundreds william, indeed a billion people with the free market, not only in china, but other countries to india be another whole, has lifted more people a poverty than socialism could ever achieve and its disengagement with the global economy which has led to the enormous and very positive changes we've seen over the last two decades and he. the imf has produced its annual fall in china suggesting growth will be 7.75%, a downgrade from

8% next year and something we in the west with a thrilled to have us an assessment. as the first great lesson from china over the last few decades is the power of the free market. the other lesson is they have freed their market carefully and they have insisted in contrast to some of the eastern bloc in the early 1990s that once they free their market, they try to promote competitive markets and not as much as possible collapse into oligarchy. the lesson there is that without a trademark, it is difficult to have a strong market because this is emphatically not a libertarian doctrine.

it is a doctrine for the strong framework within which free market can offer. >> i think your conclusion was right that the basic causes human behavior. in an analysis of that foreclosure bubble, which caused one of the major causes of that crash in the bush administration ran it bad management or the human behavior as some criminality tear. and then comes to the obama administration to lift, they don't see any problem. another criminal group of the left endorses this criminal square. so when is it your theory that

the best would come out of this human easier interaction somewhere in a pretty much bad shape. >> these thesis that human behavior is essentially behind the crash and the dangers -- the flaws and failures of our human is not one that limits the critique to the private sector. in order to get things right, we need a specialist policy makers to show humility about the ability of systems to get things perfectly right. i've talked about privacy or behavior, the regulator behavior of politicians and policymakers, those designing and implementing regulation, all of the systems

are designed by humans and we are all flawed and fallen creatures. they can trick the system can be inevitable failures, whether in the private or public sphere, with the inevitable failures happen, the system is as least damaging as possible as an important inclusion and is a for humility, not least of political leadership, which is something that i try to crack as although i myself am flawed and my to crack this. [inaudible] >> i would like to hear your

opinion on the route of culture and the human view because i see that you look at crisis different to ask him the euros debt crisis that is determined by human behavior, so kabbalistic southern europe is somehow i'm not going to support support -- northern europe and how to bridge the difference. in the case of china, india, also shows they are very substantial and human behavior. >> quite so, but culture is in another south, one way of

describing different tendencies in human behavior. culture is a description of social norms and the way people tend to react. although in all the countries you mention, there isn't innovative opinion that overlaps with other countries. i think we can too often think of countries as inseparable blocks. supporters of living within your means is a country, with conference in scum of greece or spain exists in large numbers and the question is the tendency. there are those in germany who are more profligate than the average greek and likewise there are those in spain who are more fiscally conservative than the

average german. it's a think very important to understand the full array of behavior and how it aggregates up rather than seeing individual countries as blocks that move as one. >> name is sean brown from university of notre dame. emission concepts from psychology. to see the emergency business should they be psychologists in the sport rooms working with his visitors to affect change? >> absolutely. this is one of the most enjoyable parts assess an economist, i call myself an ex-communist because i used to be the economic forecaster and if you want to be a flawed individual, you only have to look at the results of economic

forecast. for one of the most exciting is happening policy development is the introduction in two economics of different -- different studies, different subjects. you mention psychology, the physiology is also. there's some wonderful research on and the women on trading floors. if you have a trading floor that is almost entirely men, the adrenaline on an testosterone in the bloodstream of the traders is higher and in order to get the same adrenaline had, they need to take overtime bigger and bigger risks because if you take the team size hit, you have less of an impact over time. if you introduce more than a few women into that environment, the

research shows that testosterone penetrable muscles of the traders reduces and therefore the desire in taking up higher thank you, mr. chairman. hit risks reduces. so in order to understand economics, we need to understand human either initiatives all the research on all sorts of different disciplines, not just psychology and in this case physiology as well. >> james bustamante with the heritage foundation. maybe this is because i've been reading some job to relatedly, but one of the things he argues for his liberalism is going to grow. he's his liberalism has to incorporate things like psychology, physiology and to

lawmaking. his argument is liberals have done a bad job putting this into policy. as we talk about more women on the floor, why is it somehow inherently can servitor position this leaves the sciences they don't necessarily become a title ii make a law saying you want this many women in the room were x or why is going on. what separates this from the liberal use? >> using different disciplines and all of the signs at her behest isn't particularly conservative approach at all. the argument from a conservative point of view is they need to make sure free markets operate and operate in a framework that we understand properly human

behavior and one of the essences of conservatives and throughout time that we understand realities of the world and change it when necessary and reflection of those realities, rather than having duly eyed fears of what ought to be a respect to how people are. the inherent conservatism in the argument essay burkett and conservatism if you'd like, based on the realities of people in the need for us to preserve the past and embrace the best of female. for instance, institutions and the importance of institutions because institutions attract loyalty and attract a

steadfastness that helps lean against irrationalities of humanity. and that again is an essentially conservative position. >> you indicated to stop moderate risk taking, but las vegas is used to set in the opposite direction. they bring women who increased from goodness. >> that's a very good point. yours learn something new at any these presentations. it's a very good point in that case women in order to heighten testosterone and adrenaline, i was thinking of women being brought in to trading flaws as an equal to men, rather than

being ordered to serve the drinks. i didn't make that clear the first i want to put on the record with as much clarity as they can muster. >> i think you to put your hat on as an economic forecaster. here in the united states, the federal reserve has gone into considerable risks in my judgment with regard to quantitative easing. what do you think the prospects are emerging from this monetary policy without a serious bout of inflation in the pundit ultimately economic -- negative economic outcome as a result? >> i think there are good prospects. the economic strategy in the u.k. is based on tight fiscal and loose monetary policy and

alongside supply-side reform. we judge that is the best way to come through the crisis. the need for demand management to the automatic stabilizers, which is larger than in the u.s. and also directed on a cheery policy to offset the direct effects of tightening fiscal policy. the central bank came, the zero was based on a judgment of risks as an active politician below to criticize or comment on the independent judgments of monetary policy. but the strategy is clear and consistent with getting through those of supporting the economy as much as possible, while also dealing with our debt and

ensuring inflation is kept under control over the medium to long term. in the u.k., the quantitive e-zine has offset a taping of balance sheets of the major banks and if you look at the effect of the ground, the money supply growth has recently picked up and started to become positive and that this happened at the same time as strengthening confidence in improvement in the economy and many people does two things were linked. so i'm out to ms. solana's unconventional loose monetary policy is part of a broad plan and strategy.

>> re: shells from flyover country. you know, these two young gentlemen questions got me in a different train of thought. i think liberals totally understand what you're saying about psychology. i've been reading george orwell and he was anti-utopian as opposed to utopian us who live in reality. it took us live in a fantasy world and another gentleman of the book called anti-fragile and he talks about the highest form of morality in the free market is the small businessmen and liberals do all they can to destroy the small businessmen. reducing the tipping point in this country or we can fight off this liberal philosophy in reading this now.

where i live, business is good, but i am fearful nowadays when i see my government and i know margaret thatcher went through that her time. where do you see us going? >> the argument this analysis leads to is the need to ensure regulation of the strong simple. and at the same time, the free market and support for enterprise and particularly small business, insurgent companies and small and growing businesses at the free market for them is they are. the u.k. is bring in tougher regulation. the us of a program of deregulation broadly for much of

the rest of the economy and especially small businesses. i don't think those things are consistent at all because it's making sure the financial system works for the rest of the economy and all business rather than the other way around. so we are very clear the direction of travel in the u.k. in terms of deregulation for small business at the same time it's been clear we need to make sure finances regulated properly. >> a follow-up on that question. only you concerning your ballot point in london about the tremendous amount of debt. the united states owed by the federal government, over $16 trillion. the rise over the past few years here in america. are you concerned about the

implications of all of this debt and visa policies for america's ability, especially the vast unfunded entitlement programs, the threat would go bankrupt. is that a concern? >> i'm a fiscal conservative and i believe our country is are the strongest when we are strong economically and we pay our way in the world that means exporting and also making sure we don't are beyond our means. this is an important part of our economic program in the u.k. but america is a great country that relies on the individual,

the ingenuity of millions and millions of american who are in the shows that were carved in our entrepreneurial and have a great culture of that enterprise. i think it is an unwise person who edits against a return to greatness of america based on that history has strengths that comes from the many, many millions of americans across this great nation. >> terrific answer, matthew. i would like to bring this event to a close. thank you very much to matthew hancock for a tremendous q&a session. [applause] would like to wish matthew h. amanda success with this book

here in the united states in the u.k. and every success as well in the political sphere. thank you for joining us today. have to see the future events at the heritage foundation. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> next, a tour of quail ridge books and music with honor nancy olson.

ms. olsen talks about difficulties of owning an independent bookstore in north carolina and the current economic climate. >> we are your quail ridge books and music in raleigh surmounted a nonfiction of all kinds. that is one of our best-selling sessions. i'm happy to say we have lots of nonfiction writers. our customers have a nice exchange of ideas. our customers -- i. just love them of course because they supported us so well all these years. not just for that, they appreciate what we are doing. they are smart of course. they are not taken to commercial books, although a kerry commercial books, i have to if i want to pay the rent and i'm happy to do that. but they are really interested in more esoteric books and the

specific books of different subjects. lots of them come in. they don't need to ask for help. they know exactly where they want to go, where the new books are, but we do our best to help them find what they want and introduce them to new things. that's our job to find those books that they would never hear about. we read hundreds of journals and reviews, hand-picked by her senior, hancock every book we put in here and that's a bit of a difference in philosophy from some other bookstores and that's why we have succeeded and are still here because we try to have high quality unusual unique selection of books in so far as

work. i'll think i'll independent bookstores are as concerned about service and their customers as they should be. we are absolutely devoted to be not only a store providing good quality customer service, but hospitality. that's the big thing. we want people to feel comfortable here. we have many, many activities to cover a range of people and people such as ps i'm not saying they are better than other peaceful, but we assert money withstood the challenge is that a lot of independents did. half of them went out in the 90s when the change started and the ones of us who stayed the course and been successful i think have found that correct

philosophy or formula to be cut to learn business principles that i never thought i'd have to know. i'm not a business person. i'm a book and people other and greater. we make everybody feel comfortable. twenty-first up in the store, but it is getting ready to have us recommended i read the book, in search of excellence and there were a couple other books people recommended. more recently i read danny meyer's book on how he developed his restaurants and chains of restaurant and he's the one who kept saying hospitality and i just stick with that principle. great customer service and great books and the customer is always

right. i see that attitude and other businesses that is very defensive about customers. they just can't make themselves except they have to do everything they need to do to make the customer happy and to make them feel good about spending their money in an independent store like this. they want us to succeed. they are very loyal people. that makes a change to ministry as you imagine because some of them caused the deadly. there were some lawsuits that loosened up the discounts that publishers are giving to independents, giving to the big chains, but they were given unto us and they could miss some people filed suit on our behalf and now we get wonderful

discounts from almost all the publishers. those points of discount make a huge difference. where a just-in-time ordering story. we converted to just-in-time way of ordering back in 94 and that turned us totally around because we can order more titles, fewer copies, but by and large we order in one and if they are something hot, we reorder right away. we have a good efficient ordering system. so that has enabled this number wise financially to make a bigger profit, turnover books more often. if you turn over your books three times, you're breaking even with their profit margin. if you go above that, you are

making money and selling books. you saw the book and sell out to make it again in another day. so we don't have the stock sitting on the shelf for months like we used it before we were really making money. we were breaking even for years, but we got some good ways from people in the business because i just-in-time ordering, sales escalated, profits when nothing was done while sense. the thing is when you are supporting a globally owned store, you are supporting the community. the >> what role does religion play? it seems to be an important

project or in some sense of who's going to have children has not. not religion in the sense of belief, but in terms of attendance at church services or other participation in religious life. could you talk about that a little bit? >> this is a fascinating subject because it has changed. if you look at the national vital statistics reports in the 1900s, what you see as classification, fertility by religious sect. demographers worked fast between catholics and protestants. it happens there is an enormous demographic split. over the years, catholic fraternity lesson until they met together and a lot of demographers that this was the end of catholic fertility. instead, something much more interesting happened. it no longer mattered which are actual belief was, if you're jewish or muslim or mormon or

catholic or protestant, all that mattered was how often you attended services. there is a real straight line between increased fertility and church attendance. so if you go once every two months, if you go once a month your fertility is higher still. once a week attire still can not only is fertility higher, the people who go to church or some sort once a week want to have bigger families and people who do not. you've got this real split between secular america were not on your fertility rates much lower, i feel fertility rates are lower in believing religious america are people not only want it for families but happier families. if you take anecdotally from your own real-life experience, once listed beside a family with six or seven kids that didn't go to church every week? the general social survey, this

giant wonderful longitudinal survey of 17,000 families. you could look at the number of people who had four more children by church attendance. the number of people who never go to church is exactly zero. >> churches play an important role in enforcing family dynamics and encouraging people and perhaps that helps encourage families to have more. >> i think so. i have a number of three quarters baked thoughts about this in the book. to a lot of expense, have indicated state raw deal. it's not a lot of fun pages to do research on happiness studies that suggest you take any two people a debacle, same race come as a religion same income and one of them is apparent among us

not, the parent is about six percentage points less happy than the non-parent and that makes sense because having a kid is a lot of hard work and this is it's difficult for governments to bribe people into having children. don't knock ..