>> he joined joins forces and found a partnership with copartner tim kane in the creation of this latest book. he is the chief economist at the hudson institute and active as an entrepreneur and investor having founded of peoplesoft

performs. in addition to senior research at the heritage foundation and the kauffman foundation, he has served at the joint economic committee for the congress. he and glenn hubbard blog at economics.com and tim also offered leading soft in the national review. more information can be found in the information she's the you have on your chair in front of you. without further ado, i'm going to ask glenn hubbard and tim kane to speak a little bit about their partnership in the book. then we will move to the question and answer session. think about any questions you may have about this very important subject.

mr. hubbard, please begin. >> thank you. thank you for everyone for coming out tonight to talk about the book. tim and myself are radicals because you may not think we look like them, but we consider ourselves that, because the book explains why the decline is inevitable for the united states and it is quite the opposite. we are at a say no to the decline school for america. it is radical as well in that we claim that we have an answer and a roadmap to what causes great powers to decline. it's a bit like a clinician looking at a series of patients and spotting common symptoms and treating them and then finally we try to offer some very specific way out to avoid some of the historical fates. economists tend to get really

excited about explaining economic growth and this book about great powers are different than that because we are about explaining why growth stops, which can sound like less fun, but is actually quite entertaining. before old one in the per capita income in the industrial world was a little over $3000 at the time. if you're fortunate enough to be in america, it was about a thousand dollars higher. if you were to dialback from

1913, it would be about a thousand dollars in today's income. if you dial the clock way back to rome, people were better off than they were in that subsequent time. the question is what happened to rome. it was classic overstretched and an empire that had its reach exceed its grasp. it is not our view. our view is what happened to rome and many great powers that we look at was rather more akin to politics not keeping up with economics rather than looking outward. review of this, it is the rise of the nation and decline after

its allies. i'm a new yorker and i really read the cartoons. but really, attention was the cover. it was a globe with a set of people crossing it. someone had stumbled off the globe was john bull, a leader in england, and then the other that was uncle sam. it was the talk and it was 1987, and japan was the topic at the time on people's minds. paul kennedy was not alone, there were many economists trumpeting japan's rising probably the biggest symbol of this decline and fall comes from his famous textbook where for many editions the soviet union

was expected to take over the united states. in the 1989 addition, for reasons that are probably familiar, it seemed to disappear from the text. even the greatest economists have struggled with this notion and tim and i look at a lot of case studies of the book and we are very fond of rome as a starter. but we also look at china as a period in which china is the envy of the world and we see in word looking killed. we look at the empire, which is a a surprise other people, which was very outward, inclusive, and diverse, until taking over internal forces, but we do look at japan's through the lens of the game of go, for those of you that are those fanatics of the game go, it is like a blank slate and anything is possible

and the middle is where the fun is and that is the end where the fun is determined. and that is where japan is today. we look at the british empire decline through the lens of the failure to make more people british. a small part of the world that noticed that in 1987. and we also talk about some contemporary examples in europe in the state of california. what we really have in mind in thinking about the book was the contemporary united states. the u.s. is fundamentally imbalanced. it is imbalanced and the gap between its interest in the present versus interest in the future. indeed a great symbol of this is what has happened to the budget of the united states.

if you were to look prior to 1970 and fought the federal debt to gdp ratio over time, when he what he said was the picture would look like? not numbers, but just shapes. it would look like -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, that is right. he said war and peace. not just for the united states. i could've said britain or france. it tended to rise in wartime and in peacetime, military spending fell, the debt to gdp declined. after 1970, the rise of large spending and social security and medicare principally the united states, but social welfare spending throughout the industrial world really increases the debt to gdp substantially. when we come down on this is not a book about policy or even a

book about economics. we don't see that this is an economic problem. we see it as a political problem and we have a system and it was to polarize to deal with what was in front of thighs. it is really about three things. the standard economist joe, which you have to understand, the game of basketball in reading the odyssey and i can look you all and tell that economics was your favorite class in college. you just have that look about you. [laughter] >> your member the classic economist joke, which tim and myself pay because we are economists. the classic joke is the economist, the chemist and the physicists are on a desert island and a can of soup washes

ashore. the chemist says let's heated up and we will eat and the physicist says no, we will eat it open and economists says assume a can opener. the reason that is important is we cannot assume a good government. too much of our idea of power thinking about public policy. the political process is essentially fine, but we just need an economic answer and we think that that has an interesting theme to good government. here's where basketball comes in. it's providing us a little bit of competition. here's where comes in. in the 1930s, basketball nearly died. it nearly died because in those days there was not a three-point shot, the components were

different and what they had was a tall man problem. the tall guys hung around and dominated play. it could be interesting for the players, but not for fans. mr. hobson was state coach who did his phd at columbia. you might be asking about a basketball coach with a phd? absolutely. what howard figured out was that the answer to the tall man problem with the three-point shot. it was tried out in 1945. it took a while for the three-point shot to make it into the nba what makes the career of michael jordan. changing the rules. the question is how you change the rules in a way that they

actually fix the problem. this is where the odyssey comes in. but our favorite stories in the odyssey story of the sirens. remember, this authority of this i sirens, how does the manhandle things? he is able to hear the songs of the sirens but not too it respond. in order to respond, sometimes you have to be in his shoes. we talk about budget rule reforms and who we think is a novel and better way to have a spending limitation and balanced budget amendment that we can come back and talk to, i will just say that this book really is optimistic. when i talk to students on campus about it, one picture was

of agatha christie and another was ben franklin. with agatha christie i had in mind her book and then there were none. if you remember her books, there were group of people doing things in a mansion in a murder happens. some people come back together. then another murder happens and then another. and then there were none. the country is on her past. but what we think is more likely is ben franklin's. franklin commented that he had spent much of the time watching the back of george washington's chair. on the back of the chair, franklin said that he had been

very curious to figure out whether the sun was rising or setting he concluded that it was rising. we think these case studies are cautionary tales, but they are not a entail that indicates that the sun is setting. indeed, we think the sun is still rising. >> okay, sometimes i am caught up listening. we have done a few of these talking about the book "balance." [laughter] >> okay, so you have thrown me, but we do have copies here. and you guys for being here. as glenn mentioned, i'm a spurs fan, and tonight they are in a decisive -- well, maybe not decisive, but if they when it's a big deal. maybe just fans of basketball, any of you here tonight, they

set a record with the most three-point shots in the nba finals game at the end of the night. it was just a treat to watch. different places around the arc, to think the game would be possible if it weren't for a wise man from columbia, it's pretty interesting. as we say in the book, michael jordan probably doesn't know who howard hobson azor hadn't heard the name, that made him and away the greatest air in nba history. because you he probably would have been without the equalizing rules. the basketball guys of the time had said that this is so out-of-control that we will need to cap the height. and if you are higher than 6'", you just can't play. that's not a smart way to deal with the problem, all right his termination. as glenn has said, america needs a three-point shot. we need to think about a rules and constrain the playing field

to get politicians back to making wise choices. in a sense, that is what bounces about. i say this as an ex-military officer, a we tend to look at history as great battles when great powers fell. but economists have said, on the clock back a century or two, you can see the power that loses is the power that has a weaker economy. only strong for so long that it became economically unbalanced. by the time the barbarians at the gates were bursting through, their fate had only been sealed by centuries of stagnation. so that is why the plan about how to fix the budget -- there were too many blue ribbon panels already in receipt of not succeeding.

not because this is bad, not because they aren't smart. they're a lot with good ideas about how to bring bounce back to the budget. that the politicians just can't work together. one of the lessons replied as microeconomics where people can make rational choices with what look like rational outcomes. if you did to prisoners separated and it doesn't make sense for either of them to confess unless they have been told that the other might confess. but not even that case. when they are by themselves, they have a better outcome, no matter what the other person does if they admit what had happened even though it appears that they might go to jail for longer periods of time. because we have two very divided parties without any entrepreneurial center and its political prisoners dilemma

where we have one party that fights and we are uncompromising for lower taxes and the other is compromising for higher spending and they are both okay with the other solution neither will stick their neck out. even when they have complete control over all the chambers of government. you don't see the bounce from that. so there is this is functional equilibrium. we've worked on that. but it's a lot like a peanut butter jelly sandwich. we have a belief on case studies and glenn referenced a few of those. the one thing we wanted to apply to history that we think sometimes you don't see it on on the pundits on tv when they say,

it's a great power, a superpower , they have meaning to those words, but they don't have measurements. what economists have done even 100 years before adam smith, one william petty wrote the book, we have heard the talk about other powers working together, gp wasn't invented until the '30s or 40s here in the u.s. but petty said we need to bring numbers in weight and measurement processing the nations. that's when it began the idea of looking at trade flows as a measure of power and exports and currency exchange rates. it was perfected then by adam smith said it's not just the amount of gold in the kingdom has the productivity and its people and its capital of land

and labor in gdp was undeveloped. well, gwen glenn and i wanted to make an intellectual contribution with balance as to how we do economic measure and how we provide numbers. it's an idea that has been thrown around, we think him a little bit too vaguely. it leads to the pundit class saying lookout, here comes the bogeyman come here comes the soviets, here comes japan. here comes china. one of the things we do is analyze 50 articles by leading newspapers about the economy of china to see how many times they mentioned growth or the phrase gdp or anything referencing the size of the economy, how it measured, what is important is gdp per capita. wall street journal, it was mentioned in 80% of the

articles. the others were almost not mentioned at all. gdp was mentioned 11 times. what we are worried about is the great power growing at 10% per year, i think both of us want america to grow faster and we think we have some ideas about that. not taking over the household, at least not for another 10 years. but putting this in context, it's really exciting and what people have tended to focus on is the other white bread of the other side, which is policy prescriptions and how can we fix it. glenn pointed out that the only appendix in the book is one-page

proposed balanced budget amendment. in this chapter about california, the fate of america isn't just the federal government budget but the 50 states and they also have massive budgetary problems in california's golden state. according to our power measure, it's one of the most powerful questions in the world. that agreement is the 10th most powerful in the world, even if you look at the military bases, to have that as well. california suffered from some political balance, there were no moderate districts left, they had really strict term limits. one of the problems of politicians is that they have a very short attention span. i don't mean that as a criticism, but they have to think about the elections because it's part of the business.

when he set up a term limit, it goes your gut. i can imagine talking to my aunts and uncles and cousins. they get so angry. they seem like they are nonresponsive. and these are individuals who are hard-working and you tell them they are combing the sixers on. well, they are not going to care too much about what happens when the consequences come due on their actions. so shortening their consequence arising from their real consequences for us that are longer, here's a fun question. which two states have the worst fiscal developments in the united states in which two states have the shortest term limits on their state legislations? economic and michigan has had a rough decade or two, michigan and california have the shortest

in america. the california just went lengthened there is. and there is hope for california. there's hope for california, there could be hope for america as well. but we have great stuff on rome and china and some of the things that we have found -- we were asked earlier about this. maybe i should give this away. >> go ahead see that we were asked which repower mostly resembles america. only talked about this, it took great courage to pick that. because we don't want to be called about how can you write it upon powers and not mention great britain, there were things we didn't know about a few of these things. but we knew that there were

places that had to be talked about in the thing with great britain was we didn't want to include back. but it's like the agatha christie murder mystery. but we knew he would be criticized and so when we talk about this, we talk about the horrible mistake being so expensive. they set up a tremendous calming and they decide not to let those subjects become citizens. they bring scotland into the parliament, to bring northern ireland into parliament after the revolution. why haven't they let the americans be recognized. adam smith called for this in the wealth of nations. he called for didn't happen, it was a mistake.

they could've been one british with what they have held. and it would still be most powerful country in the world. so i will end up on a pessimistic note. is america next? well, yes. it has to be by definition. this is the most powerful economy in the world and it will be the next. but it doesn't have to be this century or next century. >> there are two masters to come up on the book. one is who is going to be on top in 2030. another might surprise you is why citizens united is actually one of the best things have happened to the american political system in a long time. >> you are yammering is fascinating and i thank you so much for what you have shared thus far. tim, could you share little bit

more from the japan chapter. i think there is quite a bit there is also relevant to the interest. >> sure, nothing is going in the book. we know that. >> it's okay to butter and jelly? [laughter] >> yes, it's all been a butter and jelly. so the chapter on japan was personal because i was stationed there in the military. and i had a perspective on how economies grow and they are trying to catch up. it is what my dissertation was about. what is really fascinating look at only look at japan's trajectory, the predictions of the assessments were japan have caught up to america in the 1990s. which was wrong. the data that we have at our fingertips now, we really can compare incomes and what the country can purchase, they

really never go past 90%. settle into an 80% gdp per capita of the old fun. in the 80% level is the same level of britain is hovering around for the past 50 years, france, germany, there is the equilibrium that japan found. the reason we actually met and started to work together, we are both scholars of entrepreneurship. creative technology, pushing the frontier forward and also creating jobs, it turns out. what japan developed was a wonderful developmental economy, made companies and big government and industrial planning and it shocks the world how fast you can go and follow that model.

but it is a ketchup bottle. requires you to be open to the world to export and biotechnology. but you don't need a nonterritorial class. if you want to make that transition successful, you need an entrepreneurial class and this is where we use the go message board. it was so great that it was copied by many other countries and still is diffusing across japan. it's a set of rules, sort of a three-point shot. but they need to come up with a new strategy if they want to make it through this definition therein. don't cry for japan, have a lot of world leading industries, they have demographic challenges, but institutionally

they need to take a second look. >> they are also fooled again. they have always been very focused internally. mr. hubbard, you talk about their has been the rise of seeking in the u.s. economy. can you elaborate? >> well, it's about special interest groups trying to manipulate government for their own advantage. one of the things that you see is typically the rise of this, part of it was essentially taking over and in the case of the u.s., there are two elements. one is the fact that some of the social programs are growing large and creating constituencies around them that they run the risk of crowded out everything else that government does. the ability to defend the nation, to educate children, to conduct basic research, then

there is enormous political rent seeking among our political leaders. the extreme polarization of the congress relative to the american people makes it very difficult to get anything done. the way to combat that would be to have much more political competition, which is one of the reasons that citizens united caught our attention. they have been part of this. >> which i comment on this? >> yes, i was fascinated by this. i have heard of it from a military perspective. the ottoman empire was incredibly long-lived. i think it was six centuries. they preserved for so long because they were slaves to the empire, very committed to preserving the structure. but what we found in great power after great power, it would

corrupted after time, the janitors were only recruited from foreign lands, usually christian lands, and converted. eventually they started wanted to have families and children. finally someone talked about this and that is where this notion became self-serving, they got into industries and trades, then they want to monopolies and traits, and referencing the roman empire, who are they today? well, who are the servants of the public that over time they are serving themselves? you know, that is a question that we have to think about. that's where the special interests, the special interest is the government itself that is most dangerous. so that's what we need to stay

on guard for. >> so it sounds like there is need for radical change. is the u.s. ready for that? are they ready to face radical change, can we embrace that and be prepared for that? or are we still very cautious? >> you know, i do not know the answer to that question. but i think that the american people are far more prepared than a political leaders on, but the problem is -- and this is why rome was our first chapter to set the stage for the book. the decline generally doesn't happen quickly. so in terms of limiting the public's attention, it is more akin to cancer than it is a heart attack or something that is very gripping. but i do think that there is more of a consensus today for

significant change. the way to mobilize it would be focusing on us. i know it sounds not so interesting, but that really could be something that could move much faster. so i would love for you to be able to say that there is a groundswell for radical change. but i think that that could be an understatement. >> you know, the american people, whether you're a democrat or republican, this book doesn't have answers for you that will make you happy. because it's not about democratic and republican and economic views. but we all agree that our politics are broken and we have to find a way to fix them. but what gives me hope is the founding fathers established the constitution and give us a mechanism to amend the constitution. so we think when you look at the budget in particular, that is the balance that has been released from pandora's box or

whatever you want to use. legislative constraints have not worked. so we have to find a democratic willpower to do these things. but they are not a fundamental constraint. the ropes haven't been strong enough. that is what politics is, constraining government, how long the terms are, somehow this has broken and i think it probably won't happen in the next month. but i do think in the next decade it could happen,, this might get done. >> they speak about that amendment? >> sure. >> is very different from what people commonly called balanced budget amendments. economists are very skeptical of proposed balanced budget amendments because they tend to exacerbate business cycles.

they are very hard to mention because they focus on the deficit. so why don't you set a spending limitation verdicts capped at a moving average of adjusting revenue. the reason we put it that way is the agnostic as to whether or not you should raise taxes or cut spending -- it is a disagree with some on the right decision everything possible to avoid a tax increase. this is a democracy. it's up to the american people to decide that. what we can do is promise ourselves something that's not fair. you can imagine something that works that way in manhattan universal exception. so having politicians to finance, saying he just has to have a super majority to just test-esque way. so three fifths becomes 4675 sevenths and the longer you play the game.

with some relatively simple nips and tucks, this can really happen. for those who say that this sounds odd, well, that's how universities work, it is exactly according to the average and it is not an unusual motion at all. >> the early draft of the balanced budget amendment in 1980 to almost became law that passed the house and then there was 110 years later that i can pass the senate. the earlier versions were more balanced. they had democratic and republican support. it sort of became a republican idea and a layer of it on. the only exception would be a war. well, then people said, can you get a president and they were

just sort of -- it's a sort of a bad exception to have. so we don't know what prices will be in the future. i don't want to be a guy watching senator say that an alien attack is not at war. we don't want to say what the street would be. it's an emergency. this is very different that we have from the one the republicans are pushing. it's one where we are thinking about the institutional changes are that we want to recommend. and then glenn might have said this is one of those wacky ideas that is bad. well, it is. if you want to fix the spending this year to at the income is, and you lose your job, it's like, sorry, kid, you cannot beat this year -- there are some years that you have to bridge

the gaps. but by the same token, whether they balance the spending, suddenly if you get a big raise, we're not going to let it change your moving average or it's i think it is written in a way that larry summers may have thought it would be a crazy idea. but this newly drafted one isn't so crazy. it makes sense. it returns power to the voters. >> so at columbia business school we have talked about entrepreneurship a great deal. and i know that you to teach entrepreneurship. that very much has been part of the solution for our economy. you have an example that has been represented in the political system that might be inspiration for us moving forward?

>> just come i think it surprised us both when we applied this economical and political system. we thought, well, we have two strong parties, not only naturally, that there is a political system, it is one that has taken over the regulatory apparatus of itself. and made it punishable to be a political one. so starting in the 1970s, which is a strange coincidence when the hyper partisanship takes off, when fiscal balance was crazy, that is one it was a law passed that said if you wanted to give money to a candidate, more than $1000 come you had to funnel it through one of the key parties. so if you are a candidate with some unorthodox ideas and we can't redefine what those ideas are, some of them may be bad,

some might be like that political art work, abe lincoln, where the two parties than were both applied in the 1850s. and if those laws apply, there would have been a republican party and an anti-slavery resolution and abe lincoln would've been president. and i would think that would be a tragedy. we have political diversity that might want to run for office and raise their voice. and it's so effective the thinking of the regulatory apparatus of the candidate of their nonprofit status that. we see a problem with the government and the parties being in bed together and reinforcing that. and we need political entrepreneurs. >> this is where citizens united comes in. it allows the giving to on political parties monies. i'm not personally a tea party

fan, but i felt that the fact we can get ideas from progressive groups on the left, those that can challenge democratic and republican parties. so doesn't have to be these two with their current views only. there could be some competition that is a good thing. the next time that you read the bashing of citizens united, at least think about competitive element that it introduces. >> with that thought of competition is a good thing, we now open it up to questions. we have a microphone. >> a lot of times change is spread by either a crisis in this country and other times technology advancements help. how do you see those playing a role in the future? >> it is a great point. where the country has risen,

there have been economic crisis is, one of the reasons we were for the rule changes is if i can be candid to manufacture a crisis -- politicians have very difficult times of dealing with long-term present value issues and we may have to manufacture that. because if we don't, the problem is, as with other great powers, our ability to do all the things that the american people today take for granted, they will simply diminish. i would love to believe that this crisis will solve all the sun, but i think that that is unlikely. >> i think one of the reasons that the spurs recently -- >> yes, you and the spurs. [laughter] >> gregg popovich is a great coach. he learns from other teams that have gone before him and faced

lebron james and your common juggernaut. it doesn't have to be an american crisis. we can learn from rome. we can learn from china. but we can also learn -- and i hear this for my mom and dad, that they are completely won by seeing riots and capitalism in europe. so the crisis today is what has happened to these countries, which are having their own balances. they are quite hit the wall at least a decade before we do. they have that different set of institutions and many are your composite. one of those has a different model we call them the supermodels. the southern european supermodel and some of those are fragile. the nordic countries are just absolutely fragile. they happen to be more economically free. we can learn from that crisis

and i think that we will. my parents are learning about this and they have their preferences. i think american voters will pay more attention to what happens in europe and they will to balance. >> basketball players who are retiring in eight and eight days later being selected to be the coach, that is the entrepreneurial model as well. >> correct. >> a lot of teams -- i just want to say to anyone hiring that sometimes this is very interesting. >> yes. >> just curious why you create this is a political problem. my impression is that there is a range of opinion in the spending is were the least of our problems. but maybe down the road you need some gradual adjustments.

it is the income distributions, and it's something the politicians are reflecting differences of opinions on what the problems are for the next decade. it is not purely a political issue about one of intellectual disagreement with what the right prescription ends. >> i think there is a continuum of economic views to illustrate what europe and the united states are suffering through now, things like sequesters and debt ceilings and politicians cannot always do the right thing, which is to address long-term problem. as much as it may pay me to say what i've said. that's still the case that it's difficult to leading pleading to the trouble. i suspect that you have 100 economists in the room, 100

different ideas. all of them could be consistent with the notion of getting a problem stabilized. tim and i are not advocating a particular way of doing it. we are saying let's get a system that allows those ideas to come forward. there will always be disagreements, but i don't think there's much disagreement on the scope of the long-term problem. the problem is that the politicians are just not doing it. it's not an america only problem. europe is the same way. what we get is this here and now that angers the left is we don't have the courage and the future [inaudible] [laughter] >> okay, one more question over there? >> when you talk about balance, you talk about how there has

been charles murray's book last year that talk about how we are in a wealth gap in education gap. does that answer this as well? does it talk about the great powers as well? >> well, we got accused of not talking about income inequality and we read the comments that people make. it reminds me of an interview that i did once. we didn't talk about income inequality in the polls. but sometimes you are just limited on what you can do. just 100 years ago, the average income in the world was $3000 per person. now in the united states it is closer to 45,000 and there is still inequality that goes on and i think most agree that growth is a big part of the solution to better the quality.

but the program's waiver and they have gone up tremendously. the world has never seen that sort of prosperity and is what makes us optimistic. today the rounded economist passed away, thinking about economic history, we should tip our hat to him. i say that because when we approach this, we are both from relatively humble backgrounds of it makes us very amazed by the opportunities this country has given us. income inequality it comes from rent seeking as opposed to natural outcome of forces, is deeply troubling. there's a there is a chance that the massive rent seeking latest. >> another question here?

>> yes, then we will have two more questions. >> i'm a child of the 50s, but took most my graduate education in the 70s and i'm now in my 60s. i see myself as part of a generation which grew up thinking that they could have everything that human could want. the politicians who gave it to us, we have been able to borrow her away because the rest of world would have us as a standard currency, we could do things because of the power that comes from not. allowing us to have everything. we have a dissonance within our society that people want to have everything and don't pay for it. >> yes. i think that the system works perfectly well. but the problem is more inside of us to understand some of the things that you brought up today. the 18 '80s strike me as a

time to this idea of having lobbyists and the rest of the control, we had it before the civil war. >> joe question for the speakers? >> question is about the budget. we don't have a long-term budget for infrastructure or things like this, but we have a budget, a unified budget. as i make the distinction between those things which government can and should do for the longer run than those which by now they don't do. >> okay, so one of the trends that we saw, that there wasn't one country that is parallel to the united states, every great power we saw the center consolidate its authority, the sovereign authority. ancient rome had a very small bureaucracy.

the cities of rome were independent to have their own rules. it was when the united states sort of displaces the sovereign authority of the 50 states -- one with the health insurance system and one with minimum wages and one speeding limit, for example. i mean, the states can't be responsible set their own in which? it's when we as a people, to your point, when we just look to the president to service every problem. we used to not do that as a people. the constitution was established with the 10th amendment has limited the sovereignty of the united states. we have been a little bit drunk on how the federal government can solve everything, kind of notion. so it is what preceded this to work for a while. it will work for maybe a century, then what the chinese call that ever problem, you get

one as all his powers as we don't refrigerate anymore because a group of advisers said that the merchant class is threatening our power and let's and free trade, that will work. well, not so much to the point. >> to the point of decentralization, it is also a nation which has a lower efficiency. what does that say in their minds when you compare states like utah and tennessee with the lowest efficiency as compared to the district of colombia, new york, connecticut, the highest -- what does that say to the role of government? we have a government, less government, utah, tennessee, lots of equality, what does it

say about the role of government or in the future? >> is a frequent mention of this. >> is so amazing that i would just when we were there. [laughter] >> it does suggest that riveting inequality is harder than it sounds. the better things to go with the foundations of equality itself. mainly the opportunities among us. tim and i are working on another project, 10 mention lincoln before. he has always been mentioned as a father of the republican party. partially because of his muscular role to power the people. lincoln was for the railroads, william grant colleges, is a retired quality to the most powerful than a country to empower people in my life as public libraries. i'm so thankful for libraries

that were out there. and it breaks my heart to see libraries closing on saturdays and sundays. we think we can find money for that. to your question, glenn said this earlier, when you see what eisenhower talked about, the government makes money, goes out to certain companies, and then it doesn't filter down. it doesn't go down to the poor. a great education system in a diversified education system and it's important that each state considers its own standards. >> then you can buy a copy of this can buy a copy was of this book and give it to your public library and. >> yes. [laughter] >> quick comment in question. i saw this conversation and i would argue that it eventually

became where the '30s it has become global. so the second-best second best player is from the virgin islands and it's very original the very best players have been known for this. and lebron james is not the best on this team by far. but the question is this. >> yes, we needed a rule change. >> laster there was a thing that you read, yes. >> this was more of a nations prosper because they are inclusive rather than they fail because they are extracted.

can you talk about how balances to your thesis? >> we talked about this book by jim robinson. i think that the difference is that in a moment in time he can draw that distinction, but many of the case studies that we cite are very then type. in and the question is what process led to that within the country. so we view it as explaining that phenomenon. but what we have in common is the emphasis on competition is and whether it is for market forces of competition in the labor market or capital market, is viewed as a hallmark of success. one good thing i will say it is shorter than our nation's and i will give us that. >> terrific. we have learned that tic-tac-toe

is a wrong name. we have learned from your book that this is the wrong game. with the right game is, is a bridge? teamwork? something to think about? >> i think those are the right things that have to be created and constantly innovated. >> yes. >> so on that note, thank you so much for both being here with us today. >> is there a nonfiction author a book you'd like to see featured on the tv? send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> this summer, booktv has been asking bostonians what they are reading and here's what some of you had to say. on facebook, judy young posted the boys in the bow by daniel

james brown is a fantastic book. we recently covered an event with the soccer software and you can watch it online. on april 4, booktv attended the party for david stockman it is also available to watch a booktv.org. and gloria olsen posted masters of the planet, the search for human origins. it is a fascinating look at what we know or think we know about the appellation evolution of homo sapiens. it is tied to the museum research at the museum of national history. post us or e-mail us what you read on your summer reading list. we can share your posts here on

booktv. >> welcome to dover, delaware. on to dover, delaware. on behalf of comcast corporation, for the next hour we will host the book fair at the capital of delaware. .. political thought of john dickinson as it was rooted in quicker constitutions of 30. it came out of my interest in rl