discriminated against in the new system or have shut out, and it's going to be difficult, but i think it's been encouraging the kind of good faith work. >> any prediction when we might see something in a matter of days or are we still weeks -- >> i don't think it would be helpful to put that kind of pressure on the system. i would say the following. i think there is a potential, you know there is a potential for bipartisan agreement. it's always difficult to reach. i do think most of the parties involved understand they want to move with some speed because they don't want to lose the window for something this serious to get it done, so i think everybody involved feels a certain pressure to move with some force and speed, but i think trying to handicap the

odds or which day in which week is probably not helpful that i think everybody understands that if it tracks out to long but the political calendar can start working again. >> sonata tomorrow is what you're saying. moving on -- >> the problem is we are getting all of that to the competitors. >> very good. we will read that in the national journal leader. [laughter] >> just kidding. i want to talk a little bit about the james burling experience with lighted up the gst is a little bit and we were talking backstage about the pollyanna view of what washington was like in the clinton years in the late '90s and republicans and democrats got along better and there were negotiations that led to the agreement whereas now it has been much more difficult. maybe that is less so now that we don't have the debt ceiling fight and there seems to be more of a desire on the republican side to create a fiscal crisis,

but tell me a little bit about how your interactions and negotiations with republicans on the legislation, what they were like in the clinton years versus what they are like now and tell us a little bit more about that last big-budget grand bargain agreement but ultimately fell apart. why does it fall apart, and how are things different now than they were when you were in the clinton white house? >> look, i've never -- i've been the director for a little over seven years now through the two administrations, and i've never been any director director for a day or the have and provided. i don't know anything in this job other than that and i think it's always been tough and there's always been tough fighting. i don't want to do the over nostalgia for the '90s when we got shut down on the impeachment and other difficult things. what i would say that was a

little frustrating at this time was that while the opposition in the '90s was strong and aggressive and often very much out to hurt the administration politically, i do think that when the occasions came where people wanted to work together or felt it was in everybody's interest to get things done, there was more ability to say while we are fighting about this, but it is done. and when in 97 speaker gingrich decided after the election that he wanted to do a budget agreement with the president, they were able to stay at the table through the initial budget agreement with myself and they did with domenici and ultimately in the final legislative battle over the summer, and i think -- and i say this with some

sympathy as opposed to accusation to the speaker which is i think that it was hard for him to stay at the table. in other words, i think that the fact that there was a significant faction of his one-party and that one house that has not wanted to work things out with the president that it's made it hard for people to stay at the table and i think that is difficult because when you are in a negotiation if you are kind of making progress, you kind of think you stay at it until things saul. and to me we had two different times when we were close and we were still making progress and we were still talking and they just left. and i think that that reflects not having enough strength and unity to about your person to stay at the table and so i think that has been not a good thing for the country because i think

there are things not only like the budget agreement, but like immigration reform. i think that we can make a lot of progress in this country. i mean, you know, i will give another example. the president in chattanooga talk about maybe we could have a grand bargaining on the jobs. you know, if you look at the corporate tax reform, you could have, you know, we have opened the door that you could have a corporate tax reform that is meant to be scope neutral in the long term and it would reduce a certain amount of tax expenditures and loopholes to be revenue neutral but virtually any corporate tax reform or business tax reform has at one time transition revenues. so, in the short term, you could use facts to foster the infrastructure, the major infrastructure modernization. you talk to most businesses and job creators in the country they would think the idea that we can do something to encourage job

creation in the united states was revenue natural that also dealt with what they think is one of the other really compelling issues, which is the need for infrastructure modernization, and they would think that is an excellent agreement. so here we have a situation where the president is putting something on the table that you can see from the political logic light table might come together and agree on it and you would have overwhelming business support. and yet, you know, you really haven't seen much. >> although i noticed that e-echo reported today that they are going to come out with tax reform proposals next week is admirably in the great and i doubrate and idoubt the infraste spending that you want. but he's pushing for, folks are pushing forward on the proposal. but you don't think there's much of a chance for that to happen to be a bipartisan agreement that includes the corporate rate and some of the investments were talking about.

>> i think that unfortunately we just have not seen that willingness from the republicans to kind of come together and work in good faith on those types of compromises but i guess what i'm saying is that politically and economically, there is a logic to that happening. and in terms of the chairman's proposal, you know, to the degree he is going to bring down the individual rate i would be skeptical of his ability to do that in a way that is consistent with the president's principles that it would be fair to keep the tax code progressive and fiscally responsible, but we will take a look at any time someone puts a serious proposal on what the president said in his proposal is that we should be trying to do things in a way that encourages more incentive for the job location here. we think bringing the rate down but also having a minimum tax that takes away a lot of the

incentive to move profits around and makes people focus more on job incentive for job creation those are the types of things we are looking at. we are going to look at whether it does encourage location in the united states and it's one of the reason we support having the r. and d. tax credit even in the tax reform to cause that's something that does encourage high-value added job production in the united states. we will take a look at the principles the president put out which is that you have a minimum tax you can lower the rate and a revenue natural way and you could use some of the temporary revenues from the next ten years to do infrastructure is exactly the kind of bargaining on jobs that should have been, but you know, we will -- the president as you saw what the president did in the state of the union we are going to be focusing very much on the things we can get done and we are going to take nd sure whether it is on long-term unemployment, college

opportunity, college costs, the manufacturing institute, what we can do to make sure it gets done, but it doesn't mean that even if one wouldn't handicap a 51% chance of corporate tax from happening it doesn't mean we are not going to keep open the possibility of that bipartisan legislation because we don't think that we are. we've shown time and time again that we are willing to do good faith compromise to get things done. >> i have about three pages of questions left in three minutes of time so we are going to do kind of a lightning round with quick answers. >> 17, 20, 21%. >> which white house is like the left-wing -- west wing of the clinton white house or why lex [laughter] >> i foretold you one thing -- >> 30 seconds. >> when we are going through the absolute craziness of the first six months in a financial crisis, i was with the president at one point and he said is it

always like this? and i said to him i said people used to ask me when i was a consultant was that like the real white house and i said well kind of accept in real life things have been in nine months and they convince it to an hour. during this financial crisis, that's what it feels like, too. >> when there would be the gene sperling three in the white house. would you serve under the hilary clinton administration? >> you know, right now i am more focused on my flight to la after i leave and what's going to happen in the next few years obviously i would always be loyal and supportive of president clinton and hillary clinton, but that is a long way off. >> just a couple of quick questions before we go you have

a patent reform debate where you're going to talk about some of the things the administration could do but this is an issue on the reformed to come up from capitol hill to do anything real in terms of the problem? >> yes. we are trying to do what we can administratively. the president and i will talk about the administrative actions and on things like how we can get more information to the small street -- main street businesses so they are not settling because theselling becg threatened for bonus cases we are going to talk about things like ensuring there is enough transparency of its other contenthe patentcontrols can't e complicated corporate forms to hide what they are doing but yes, the patent control needs legislation and i will say that this is another area where i do think that we have some good faith work. i think that when we put out a proposaourproposal to the presia -- you saw some positive comments from chairman leahy and

charming but let -- good -- chair man goodlatte. it was a good faith effort and we had said some positive things about it. i think right now you really have probably two pretty big issues which are the shifting and the business cover practices and i think our view is they do not have to be black-and-white issues, these are things that reasonable people can work out and so we are going to keep working with both democrats and republicans in both the house and the senate and i think that this is a place that we should have softened some. -- optimism. when i talk to people, they talk about having dealt with this every three months in onc and oe

every three weeks and now three times a week. this is what is taking the time and energy of the greatest innovators and companies, but it really bothers me to see somebody who is, you know, not involved in all of this. they just bought -- they are using some standard technology in a small business. and if they feel compelled and her asked to spend $10,000 to settle a bogus case, and i think that when the patent control starts hitting main streets all businesses, that should be really disturbing to us. so this is one time that we can come together and say let's be up for the innovation over the costly litigation, and again i think that there is a pragmatic way to work things out. obviously, you know, we have to look at this separately. i think that there's compromises on the shifting. on the larger tort reform if you look at this case, again i think in both of the areas that are

outstanding, there is honorable differences, but i think there should be a sweet spot for the bipartisan legislation. >> i need to ask about the economy for the national economic council director and we have seen a lot of mixed data on some of the other data that has been coming in the housing has slowed down a little bit. in your view are we in another spot in the economy where we are going to seed -- csd so the rate and we had a crummy winter and everything is going to be better in the spring and summer? >> i think that a lot of people are in the same place which is that they look at the fundamentals and they see a certain amount of fundamental. we won't have the self-inflicted wound for certainty. i think that obviously many

people sold a good enough news about the longer term that it affected the policies that the fed, those were not on temporary little things, those were about pretty solid underlying trends, so i think it's most likely that a lot of the wealthy have seen has been more weather-related. but i think you know, we all have a responsibility to. vote. i think everybody is trying to figure out how much is weather-related but i would still be -- i would be cautiously optimistic about the general notion that there are positive trends in the economy vendor interest period that we've seen the unemployment rate of 6.6%, the last jobs number was obviously not as good as we would like but was picked to be 180,000 it was 143,000. the other thing is to look at

what's happening in the state and local level. if you want to ask what is frustrating to us and the president, it's when you see that under our administration but during this recovery we have lost about 677,000 government, state and local jobs. so, you know, the president asked one day what about state and local jobs if they had the same growth they had under the past for the recovery, unemployment would be 5.8% right out. he would private-sector gdp so the private-sector components in the recovery since it started at about 3.5% of the degree that we could see less contraction from the state and local government side and a little more certainty i think there is a reason for optimism. one thing that people pointed to is the consumer confidence in the small business confidence have stayed fairly positive. those are two things that are likely not affected by whether as much, so i would say cautious

optimism but i think everybody in the economics world is going to be looking at the numbers over the next two or three months to see how much was weather related but i would still be cautiously optimistic that we are having increased momentum in the recovery with the following caveat it's not good enough. we need stronger growth and that's why we go back to where we started in the program fiscal policy because we are going to work hard on the long-term unemployment and getting stronger growth and seeing more demand in the economy right now to help get more people back to work, get more people connected to the labor market and that wouldn't only be good for right now, that would prevent -- that might lessen the degree to which we find ourselves several years from now having more people who are structurally unemployed. so we should always be happy when the direction that we

should be encouraged when the direction is moving in the right place, but we shouldn't be satisfied with where we are. we still make stronger growth, lower unemployment, more demand and more confidence in the economy. >> we live in a very partisan times, and a guy like james if you agree or disagree with his policies it's been a lot of work looking at these issues and we thank you for taking the time today to come out to the peterson foundation for their support from everybody for coming in on the live stream from everybody thank you so much. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] the white house says that is our president obama is speaking by phone to the russian president putin about the

agreement signed between the president and the opposition to end the violence. press secretary jay carney says it was consistent with what washington was advocating and it should be implemented immediately and he says the u.s. command as the leaders and remains ready to impose new sanctions if necessary. the schedule update will see the last night of the tv programming in prime timin primetime this p' day congressional recess. we wrap up the beauty of america is that in this country we have the ability to write the script of our own life. we are in a sense in the driving seat of our own future. and our biggest decisions in life are made by us. america create the sense of possibility. and out of that, you can become

an activist, community organizer. what are you doing? you are living off of the explosion of wealth but you didn't even create. >> so many strongmen set up a target to know where to begin. nobody said america is a terrible place. there are a couple of assertions you have to take on faith that are astonishing. one is the idea that the invention but about the entire continent that was a fact click that doesn't mean that 90% of the residents that live here were murdered, and that was a part of it, too.

president obama met with the dalai lama at the white house over china that would inflict great damage is on the u.s. relationship with the asian nation. at the meeting was closed to photographers and unlike previous visits he departed the white house without speaking to reporters. beijing has often protested when the world audiences were granted to the dalai lama including when he met with him in 2010 and 2011. yesterday the dalai lama was at the american enterprise institute in washington for a discussion of the free market economics and happiness. other panelists include glenn hubbard, the adviser under president george w. bush.

this is one hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> are you ready?

good morning ladies and gentlemen. the president of the american enterprise institute is a distinct pleasure and honor to be with all of you today and with his holiness, the dalai lama as well as the panel of distinguished guests as the session that follows on the mind of life institute. this is a historic day for the american enterprise institute. we are joined with one of the most respected religious readers in our world to talk about the issues that are pressing against us in the wake of the international financial crisis and the session is entitled moral free enterprise. economic perspective perspectivd business politics. why are we here? we are here to talk about what matters to us the most. right now we have an opportunity at this juncture in world economics to talk not about money for just about money and not about the business practices but what concerns us the most. our concern that the mind of life institute have shown us that there are certain things

that are the most concentric of human happiness that his holiness the dalai lama has talked about. what are they? faith, family, community, work? not money interestingly. as the president of the american institute and as an economist it hurts me to tell you money isn't on the list. yet it is true like his work the most important thing for human happiness? the answer is earning our success and we are creating value in our lives and value in the lives of other people. if we can earn the success and we have the dignity of individuals to do this, nothing can hold our world back and there is no greater example ar d his holiness the dalai lama. yet we believe the way to make this work possible for the free enterprise system is under the

question today. it's under the question because people feel legitimately that they have been left behind in the wake of the great recession. so here is the question. is the free enterprise system still the best system to pursue our happiness? to lead a good life? have we become too materialist materialistic? or do we needo we need to reordr priorities to the higher end we have a panel of experts to discuss this with his holiness. now of course we are joined by none other than the dalai lama. you are all aware of that. the dalai lama became the leader in 1950. in 1959 he was forced to leave to for persecution and he's maintained the tibetan government in exile. he travels the world almost all year round advocating for the welfare of the tibetan people, a noble cause, teaching buddhism

and talking about the importance of compassion at the start of a happy human life. we are also joined by three leaders in academia. [inaudible] [laughter] hello and good morning. [inaudible] it stands for well-being and happiness. so happy and well. i love that. this is such a good thing. i just can't tell you. anyway, but i digress.

we are joined by the most distinguished members of the community. the dean of the columbia business school and the former chairman of the council of economic advisers. after the capital and on the far end is jonathan haidt of the leadership that new york university school of business. all three of these men have done foundational work in their respective areas of administration, policy, academia and business about the nature of human happiness and the morality of the free enterprise system and each one will give their perspectives in about five minutes of the work that they've been doing followed by comments from his holiness, the dalai lama, interspersed with questions along the way, and if we have time questions from the audience. that's not necessarily the case but don't be disappointed because we are going to follow with a second session from our wonderful friends at the ninth license to toot and extorting a reorganization that has changed

but the data by the conjunction between the psychological life, the human brain and the nature of a truly poor rushing existence. we have a lot in store for you today and we are delighted to be with you. and his holiness. your holiness, would you like to start with some opening remarks? nothing click? [laughter] >> [inaudible] i'm looking forward to the serious discussions. we are told that very purpose of such meeting is to try to seek the right method to bring happy life and at the risk of happy family, happy community, had the

-- happy nation and ultimately a happy world. we are part of the world. .. what their nationality or religious, they are humans. that i think is most important.

he asked me what you see in washington. first, i say good. then he said, some people not very happy he does they are too much politicians. so then i just wanted, on that level. so i always look to human beings. no demarcation, no differences. if there's too much emphasis on secondary level of differences, then look, different nationali nationality, different belief, even same beliefs, same nationality. the difference of family, some

richer, some poor, some their, some a little, even within the family, differences. even one individual, there are differences. taking morning thinking of something different. afternoon, d.c., new knowledge or new experience, but differences. so i think we need cooperation, humanity facing some problems including major disasters. because of climate change, due to global warming. so more major disaster i think. then also the population

increasing. so there are i think not like ancient times. ancient times, firstly, maybe native people, peacefully, then some people come from outside, okay. america i think it's like that, multiracial like that, and build this new, wonderful nation. but more or less this is the america, this is surrounded by a seat. not myself concerned but i know that situation has completely changed. and now reality. east meet west. west meets east. south meets north. north meets south. that's reality.

so our central thinking, we and they, actually unrealistic. we must think entire 7 billion human beings, we must consider, but we. that my belief. so no problem. [laughter] or as a politician, a little bit same person. same person, still human being. [laughter] clear? >> clear. >> so the main purpose you see, we have -- look, serious look about the future of humanity. at least this century. now, we already enter 21st century.

now remaining, the century, i think like fast century become something very, very -- now, this century also should be. so in the past century, a central violence, central war. now, this century should be century of peace. 'tis not come from sky. since the violence, we created your so peace, we must create it. peace only, through our action, not through wishful thinking or prayer. in my daily life about four or five hours prayer, meditation. but all your wish will materialize through prayer, i

don't believe. buddha, as a buddhist, buddha, your action is most important. buddha cannot give you what you want. you must make effort. so buddha says you are your own master. of course then those who regard believer, believes in creator, some, my friend, since we all created by god. so we all have some spark of god. so that's the concept that really gives us confidence, such confidence. and then what is the nature of god? if you really believe that, you

must be a more compassionate person. nobody says creator is full of anger. no. full of compassion. creator is such doubtful, we create -- creatures, you see, must follow creators, example. it's wonderful. but then non-believer, whether we believe religion or not, we are human beings. the biologically, we equipped human affection, and also we, everybody has come from all matter. in our life, the beginning of our life, the mother's affection

is so important. i always telling those people who received maximum affection during childhood, early age, early life, i think deep inside, much happier. that those individuals who at early age lack of affection from parent, particularly from other -- from mother, then i think all their life, remains deep inside, some sense of security. so at any rate, so believer or nonbeliever, we all have the same potentials becoming more

compassionate person. so our life start that way. now for that i think scientists are friends. i think through their own experiment, they have, you say, more things to say. so i also learning from them. [laughter] so i am looking, looking forward to rest of discussions. therefore, thank you. >> your holiness. we're going to turn now to our panel to provoke some of the wisdom of his holiness on the basis of what their work is showing to them today about our economic system, about the world economic crisis, about the marelli of our system and about our world. we will start with glenn hubbard, the dean of the business school at columbia university.

is been the chairman of the president's council of economic advisers under president bush. he has held a number of distinguished physicians and is the author of many books. len hubbard. >> thank you very much, arthur. and your holiness, i know speak for the entire audience, we are grateful to you for this engagement. arthur, and grateful to you as well because, frankly, your work is taking economics out of the dismal and bringing back the happy, so that's a good thing. i wanted to talk about really about a five step argument that i have made, at least in my professional career in research for the morality and economic success of the free enterprise system. my charges in the university are largely young business people, but i confess to you that my favorite teaching is to slip into freshman principles of economics and talk to the youngest students. i always say to them, i'm coming with two questions. and they were the questions but to me to economics. the first is why isn't the whole world rich?

a very deep question, easy to say. the second is what could we do to achieve mass prosperity in any society? and i tell them anything with me we will answer those questions together. the first point i wanted to make was that free enterprise economies have demonstrated both absolute and relative success in both generating prosperity and alleviating poverty. economist will tell you that the first, second and third industrial revolution were made possible economic institutions by the support of property rights in the defense of individual economic freedom. we've seen that extreme poverty alleviation in china, in india, in sub-saharan africa has been made possible not by government action, but by an opening of markets and the restoration of individual freedom in commerce. and on the negative side we, of course, have the spectacular economic failure of the soviet

union's collapse and a clear case study of north korea's ongoing failure, having started essentially the same place as south korea. the second point i would make is that free enterprise is critical for the economic success that can fund both the market goals that many in this room work on and the very important social goals that his holiness brought up in his remarks. entrepreneurs are not people who are directed. they are people who have an uncoordinated search for opportunity. and market oriented financial systems due to great things. one, they advanced prosperity by vesting in french that become successful, and, frankly, i allowing week or outmoded firms to fail, they advance society. this is about dynamism. economists often talk about creative destruction, then you replacing the old. but i like to talk about nondestructive creation,

brand-new things that create divisions. that is the source of innovation and wealth. it's also about happiness. michael levy college and nobel laureate in economics, ned phelps, has noted many times that satisfaction in an economy is highly positively correlated with measures of its dynamism. third point is like many concerned for status economies today, the lack of incentives for innovation, for entrepreneurship, leave both consumption possibility and living standards lagging. traditional approaches to foreign aid in those societies, relative to encouragement of business or of entrepreneurship, have largely failed. and large government roles invite rent seeking and corruption. and by the way, that is a lesson that this country needs to take each of as well. but also say that capitalistic economies face a number of cautions. we have been very good at generating average growth, but

not everyone is average. economic inclusion by which i would mean the ability to obtain meaningful work is an objective that has to be maintained with dynamism. a social safety net is important, but what's all the more important is the latter to get to work. work is the center of advancing economic mobility, it's also the symbol of advancing social mobility. and free enterprise societies need to contemplate a marshall plan almost within themselves to advance the work opportunities of the least well off. the final point i would make is that while economists, myself, often talk of economic efficiency or prosperity in economic terms, i think one can go back to adam smith and classical writers in my profession to make the defense a moral one. smith called natural liberty the power to buy and sell, take or

leave a job, and make a deal with whom ever you like. that's not just a feature of commerce. it is a feature of a moral society. dignity is also a symbol of a free enterprise society. markets promote mutual respect for each other's talent, for each other's energy and hard work. arthur has said many times and set it well that earned success or the fruit of your own creativity is an important moral and satisfaction objective, not just about gdp. and i would leave you with a couple of thoughts. free enterprise societies tend to be societies that have more in this first power. the power is spread out evenly in the population and not with a single controlling government or central planning. central planning systems are less likely to reform, to adapt, to be present in the modern

world. and free enterprise economy has that natural buffer. to close where i began, our goal ought to be to celebrate the success of free enterprise economies, but stretch the goal of success to an idea of mass prosperity. i think that goal is morally right but i also think it's economically achievable. >> thank you, glenn hubbard. your holiness, dr. hubbard has told us that the free enterprise system is naturally the most moral of economic systems, but that we have much more to do to include more people in its blessings around the world. you agree with this? and how can we make it more effective? [speaking in native tongue] >> yes. first, when you mentioned --

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: one of the questions you asked her students, what was why aren't everybody rich, why haven't we been able to make everybody rich? so his holiness was wondering, what sort of criteria are you using their in terms of someone being rich? >> all i meant by that statement was the idea that, why isn't the whole world as prosperous as the most prosperous country? so why is it that the united states is a rich country when other countries are not? what is -- it's a hard question. >> i think you used the word rich as that meaning rich, billionaire, that's impossible.

everyone a billionaire, impossible. then perhaps billionaire. i think difficult. [laughter] so that's a non, basic point. yes, every human being today has activities. it's an individual initiative. it is very essential, as i mentioned before. so, therefore, i think the whole world witnessed centralized economy, no matter how much the effort, failed, former soviet union, and then also china. so then to compare to all, more

new patterns. that's more or less a capitalist system. i think deng xiaoping very, very realistic leader. so he accept the reality. so he has courage, you see, to change that economy system. so that really brought real prosperity. at the same time a capitalist countries, united states, most richest, but the gap in rich and poor. so nowadays, i usually have, i don't know these things. india under nehru, he emphasized democratic social systems,

country. leaders of control by government, not very successful. then some changed. so that is a fact, reality shows this is just a socialist thinking. not a vision. just simply the only capitalist way. so now we have to sort of find more of that. or discussions. that we need more sense of concern of other human beings, as i mentioned before. and, finally, a sense of humanity, a concern of humanity on the basis of a sense of oneness of humanity.

that, of course, all our activities with that kind of motivation, then everything, become constructive. if there is some sort of, negative side, things happen. then immediately pay attention and change, multiply. but i myself, i don't know. unless i spend, you see, i think at least a few years study about the world economy. and become a student of you. [laughter] otherwise impossible to make such a precise economy. >> thank you, your holiness. >> i see the beginnings of a joint op-ed here. [laughter] [speaking in native tongue]

>> we turn next to the perspective of business, and dan loeb, who is the founder and chief executive officer of third point capital which is a hedge fund deeply involved in the finest system here in the united states. he has done work on both eastern and western thought and practiced it extensively in his own life. he will give us his perspectives on what we see in america's business community today. dan loeb. >> thank you, arthur. i just want to say, your holiness, it's an incredible honor to be here with you here today, the spiritual leader of the tibetan people. i grew up with my dad who would have been about your age today, had he still been alive. he would be so proud to see his son up there with you. it's really incredible. i carry that spirit within. is incredible to be with the spiritual leader of the capitalists people, arthur

brooks. [laughter] and i'm not sure my dad would be quite so proud of that. [laughter] he would certainly be happy. i start my fun in 1995 with $3 million under management. is going a bit over the years, but i started it in june of that year, and started practicing yoga a few months before that. in fact, my yoga teacher is here in the back of the room. and about five months after starting my business, fiduciary, i do the people's money under management, my yoga teacher convinced me to go to india to study yoga with the master for a month. it was unusual decision. in fact, i got a call from one of my friends, a competitor in the businesses that don't do that.

that's a huge mistake. everyone will think you're a flight for leaving your business, going to india, studying yoga for a month. and mind you, there were no internet connections then, cell phone service was not existent. but the concerns are well-founded. so i went anyway. i had a great month and it really launched me into really a lifelong passion for spirituality, for contemplation, meditation. and you know, i just want to say that contemplation and meditation of these things, they are not just for monks in her much. there really for people i think can approve all of our lives and can really improve us as business people as well. i'm going to chuckle a bit about some specifics around that. i'm going to talk about how contemplation makes us better decision-makers and why that's important in our system.

and then i'm going to close talking a little bit about my experiences on the front lines of the financial markets and how this all kind of goes together. so just a couple quick lessons from yoga. for me and what it's been crucial as an investor in being a better decision-maker, one of the first lesson you learned in yoga, i think it was in yoga sutra, -- which means yoga quiets the fluctuations of the mind. i think this is consistent with what his holiness says educate be a happy person if your mind is not at peace. the second thing that's very important that we learn from yoga is to put ourselves into difficult positions, and to deal with, to the degree a sense of equanimity in those difficult decisions and -- sorry,

situations so that you can persevere and emerge from those situations making good choices. you know, i was with a navy seal last night and he told me about his training at what forges them like steel. that's probably the appropriate time for someone who is a warrior but certainly in life is other types of training, certainly what the dalai lama teaches and what i learned from yoga is applicable to all of us to be better decision-makers. it isn't just a question, getting to the right outcome. one of the other things that we learned from yoga and this is in the upon the shots, life is described as a we'll with many spokes that come out of it. at the center of it is your heart which would be your moral ground. i think for all of us survive for all of us in our society that is critical because that when we make choices they come not just from a standpoint of

what's going to create a favorable outcome, but as the dalai lama said yesterday, make sure that we make decisions that do no harm. make sure that we make decisions that are consistent with our moral framework, whatever that might be. how has it helped me as a businessperson? on the one hand we have, i look at like three types of decisions that we make. one is the very core foundation decisions which are easy, yeah, you are honest, you don't people, treat people as you would like, whatever your framework is. the second our decisions which we can turn to a framework, might be in sports, you're going downhill. you know there's a framework for hohow to ski, but to ski, eventually us, district await a certain way. or in business you may think you've seen time and time again

that you can do things consistent with the pattern. then there's the third type of decisions. we all have them in her own world. for me it's trading decisions. some of them they might fall into very consistent pattern that we've seen before, but a lot of times it's just new territory for us and that's where this practice enables us to be more creative, to be intuitive, to make these better decisions is really important. why i'm wasting others' time talking about decision-making? we are really lucky as the dalai lama said, we live in a system that favors the individual. not all systems, not all countries give us those choices. so glenn hubbard talked about the dispersion of power. that's a key. having a system in which power is dispersed and puts it down to the individual makes for a more effective country, makes for more effective organizations,

and it's important that you also to trust individuals to make good decisions. so i'm going to pivot here to capital markets. and why this relates but obviously i'm in the business of making many decisions all day long about people, about markets, about stocks, all kinds of different things. i want to talk about the markets themselves and how they relate to this discussion of prosperity and flourishing, and why the markets actually make the world a better place. i think, i think there is a common view that financial markets are good in the sense that if somebody has a new idea in and there's a venture capitalist, they can invest in the idea and that man or woman can create a business around it. there will be innovation and growth and new things will get

iphones out of that type of system. they will get medical advances and everything from fedex to you name it, our businesses that have been started from this type of framework. that is dna think everybody appreciates the importance of a robust venture capital market, ipo market for that to happen. but that's just the tip of the iceberg. without a system that also provides for credit, that's another part because once you start your business you need credit. you also need, these issues don't come out of thin air and credit isn't a get out of thin air and it's not just by banks. institutions run by people make decisions, too. to. invest in equity, to invest in credit. so we need a couple of conditions for that. one, we need robust financial markets are there's liquidity, and it's that person invest $10,000 or $20,000, or a few hundred thousand osha and started knows the potential for

the ipo and for it to go public. and down the line the person who buys those shares needs to feel comfortable that there's a rule of law and there's corporate governance. sometimes these things, people look at these things in isolation and they miss the importance of all of this. this is key. two key concepts. one is liquidity and one is the availability of low-cost capital. those two things are critical ingredients to the system that we have. they only exist if you have the rule of all. if you have people that feel confident in the system that we have, so sometimes you will see situations where creditors are treated badly and you might feel like, well, who are those creditors? they are a bunch of vultures. they really don't deserve to get the money back. let's just change the rules now. you might say those are unappealing people who are buying the credit, let's just

think about to try to pick the problem is that people who suffer are not just the investors in that particular credit situation. it's the entire system because the entire system relies on the role of law and the dependability and the knowledge that if they don't get their money back, there's a system where they can rehabilitate and restructure whatever it is they have invested in. there's also the benefits of people who invest their capital. for example, the people that invest, on whose behalf we invest, the pension plans, the retirement funds, individuals are providing for the future. so it's a great system. there's no other system that can create this sort of prosperity that we have, the kind of innovation. it isn't perfect though, and there are folks left behind. i just want to close by saying,

glenn had mentioned how important it is complex we should have a marshall plan for this. most important thing i see out there is education, to get people included in the system. for me personally, my philanthropic energy is directed towards how do we get a broad base of less privileged people, folks that have been, kids and families have been written off by the system. aisle to you one thing, it is a myth that poor people can't learn and can't achieve at the same level as white, rich kids. we have a school on the board of success charter school to grab a school in the bronx in the poorest congressional district in the country where our children just scored number three in the state out of 3528 schools in math. one in two were gifted and held at school. so it is possible. we need to work hard on educating kids but there's a lot of things can we can do different things. minus education. i think that will help. we need a great safety net, but

when he, as glenn said, bring as many people as possible into the system so they can all flourish along with us. thank you very much. [applause] >> your holiness, dan loeb has covered a lot of territory, but one of the things he talked about is that for the free enterprise system to create blessings for the most people, we require government regimes that protect the property rights of individuals. i know you travel all over the world. you talk to people in all pressed countries and in free countries. what do you think that our nations can do more to protect the property rights of individuals so that our systems can bring more poor people out of poverty?

[speaking in native tongue] >> your presentation, the same i think as you mentioned, more holistic, comprehensive, wonderful. i think basically things are interconnected, so if things, some things independent, then the only concern is about that, usually called expert. but the reality, everything is interrelated. so that proper way is to pursue that. we have to look more holistic,

larger picture. so now firstly, i think individual initiative, that also entirely depend on self confidence. self-confidence, also sometimes blind over self-confidence. very dangerous. so education, education also is more holistic education. then as you mentioned, the whole system. i think here the judicial system, rule of law very, very important. and anyway, among people, strange people who are wicked people, so protection from rule of law. so all this i think is a

combination -- >> so you can see many factors that are really intertwined. >> then as you both mentioned, the trust. even in business field, trust, important. so trust very much in order to develop trust, trust, on this, truthful, transparent. very, very important. so in these, in that respect, i think the more self-centered attitude, then some sort of, it's always possible to develop differences of reality, saying something nice but thinking

something different. then immediately destroy trust. so honest, transparent. so long you really take care about other human beings, then no room to cheat. because you take care about -- so here, all these things depend on rest of the committee or rest of the group. so, therefore, trust, very, very essential. trust, first comes the, you remain strange person and helping more trust from others is illogical. first, we must show sincerity, honest, truth. so this --

[inaudible] but through i think as a mentioned earlier, the human nature, affection, sense of brotherhood, sisterhood. biologically, potential is there. now through education further nurture these the quality. that i really believe is, as i mentioned yesterday, existing model education is something lacking in that respect. so we usually, when we, when the point about compassion, these things, the religious state. some people, some people feel must be based on religious state. then it becomes very -- after all, i think for human being,

for humanity, we really need more universal, sense of universal responsibility and commitment. so wonderful presentation. thank you. now after listening yesterday and also today, but today i developed more respect about capitalism. [laughter] [applause] >> otherwise my impression, capitalism only takes money, then exploitation. [laughter] >> we've learned from your holiness over the past two days that human rights truly can be and should be a blessing and the

lives of all people, especially the poor but everything one of us in this room, notwithstanding the fact it will not be, if it's not on the basis, if it's not executed in practice on the basis of brotherhood, of compassion and of moral living. that's of course what we are learning from you these last two days. to our respect for capital is him was very solid coming in, but our respect for the underlying principles that can make it live up to its promise of course are coming from you. we move on now to jonathan height. jonathan height is a professor of ethical leadership at nuke university stern school of business. he's also the world leading expert on the science of morality and is given these ideas from a moral dimension a great deal of thought. jonathan haidt. >> this is such a wonderful day, when a religious leader, revered religious leaders particularly beloved on the left comes with free market think tank run by a

man who seems every day to be arguing in his most recent are you was that conservatives should start putting for social justice. and for that it was declared peace on the safety net exodus are scrambling all the categories. this makes me so excited that we might finally break out of the but we been in for so many years in arguments about the role of business and government. in my remarks today i would like to tell you three stories about capitalism. his holiness, welcome his holiness embraced the first story until i guess about five minutes ago i just discovered maybe is moving on to the second story which was told by glenn and dan. what i would like to urge is that he didn't devote his efforts to helping us right the third story. here they are. the first story is that capitalism is exploitation and it goes like this. once upon a time, work was real and authentic. farmers raised crops. craftsman made goods.

people traded these goods locally and that trade strengthened local communities. but then one day capitalism was invented, and darkness spread across the land. the capitalists develop ingenious techniques for wringing more work and wealth out of the workers. they then sucked up all the surplus wealth for themselves. they used this wealth to buy political power, making the rest of us their pawns forever. the end. [laughter] now, in the wonderful recent book why nations fail, the authors showed that his actual a great deal of truth to this story in those nations and at most times. economic institutions have historically been extracted, not inclusive and generative. is exploitation story activates many of our deep moral psychological circuits. one of those is that we judge

people based on their intentions. people do something for us without intending to help us, we don't 10 to give them much credit to this assortment what happens to business people who enrich our lives but are be grateful? as adam smith put it, it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the baker -- the butcher, the baker -- what's happening? let's be grateful for better technical equipment. it seems to be steady now. all right. it's not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner. but from their regard to their own interest. we may praise their skills, but we never praise the virtues. in fact, we see them as selfish. this i believe is the view that his holiness held again into five minutes ago. i first met his holiness at the university of southern california three years ago, and at that time, at a conference i asked him, what kind of government would you like to see

in tibet if you could advise on the new government for tibet? what would it be? his response was this. quote, between socialism and capitalism i'm a socialist. and furthermore i always described myself as a marxist, but not a leninist. in my mind, marxism is the only economic theory that expresses a sense of concern about equal distribution, and that is a moral thing. whereas capitalism is about how to make a profit. only that. and in order to get more profit, there is no hesitation to exploit. but what if we were to judge people and ideologies am not by their intentions, but by their effects? that would take us to the second story which is told so ably by glenn and then. i will abbreviate it. it might go like this. once upon a time, and for thousands of years, almost everybody was poor and most people were serfs or slaves.

then one day some good institutions were invented in britain and holland, and these democratic institutions put checks on the explosive power of the elites which led to the creation of economic institutions that supported private property rights, risk-taking and innovation. free market capitalism was born and it spread across europe, and too many of the english colonies. in just a few centuries, poverty disappeared from these fortunate countries, not only that, but people got dignity and safety and longevity. free market capitalism in this story is our savior, and marxism is the devil. in the last 30 years, dozens of countries have embraced our savior and kicked out of the devil to endeavor to spread the gospel to the rest of the world, we will soon enter a golden age. the end.

so that, of course, was told much more ably with much more detail by the two previous speakers, but i think it's important to note that these are sets of ideas that have been circulating through the intellectual class and through political discourse for centuries now. let's see, free markets really are miracles. i've come to see this as i joined the stern school of business just a couple of years ago and suddenly i'm seeing how miraculous it is that you really can turn water into wine, vast quantities of wine at low low prices, as long as the vineyard owners can get access to cheap credit and charge petitioner what about property rights, et cetera, et cetera. it would publish his miracles. but because free markets are so astonishingly good, people sometimes come to worship him. one of the basic principles of moral psychology is that morale the bombings and blinds. what this means is that when people come together around a

shared worship of some sacred object, it makes them cohesive, makes and able to work together but it blinds them to the faults and flaws, to nuance and subtlety. pope francis pointed this out in his controversial extradition last november when he said, he was criticizing those embraced the second story. he said quote, a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system, and this brings us to the third story about capitalism which is a story that isn't written yet it's one that we will be riding in the 21st century. it begins like this. in the 1990s, or once upon a time in the making '90s, capitalism triumphed over all other forms of economic organization in the entire planet begin moving towards prosperity. but we didn't live happily ever after. in fact, this period marks the

beginning of a new chapter where we discovered a bunch of problems that we didn't really see before or didn't appreciate before. the gap between rich and poor within nations begin to shoot up. economic gains went mostly to the rich who began increasingly to use their wealth to buy legislators and laws, just as was charged by the first story. the problem of global warming was first recognized, and just his age was beginning to industrialize, making it so much harder to solve and leading to apocalyptic forecasts of submerged cities all around the world. the crash of 2008 showed our confidence in capitalism's ability -- without strong government oversight. and has market values expected beyond the marketplace, into medicine and education and family life, many people began to feel somehow cheapened as though something valuable have

been lost. so this is our challenge for the 21st century. we celebrate the fact that more than a billion people have been lifted out of poverty in recent decades i freed markets. yet, we know we can do better as both of the prior speakers pointed out. if we can strip away the anger, the worship and the ideology, we can look more clearly and openly at capitalism, its ethical challenges. i take it that's what our panel today is really about. we can see that the supply chains that keep our shelves stocked, originate in the dangers sweatshops of bangladesh. we can measure the polluted air and empty oceans that we are bequeathing to our children. and we can have a more nuanced view of equality of opportunity, particularly here in america where wealth buys your children a much, much better starting line in the race of life.

so let us be grateful to the butcher, the brewer and the bigger, even when they are corporations. let us look back in all at the political and economic changes that brought us from the first story to the second story, at least in many of the most advanced nations economically. and then let us work together to write this third story, a store that must draw on insights from the political left and right, and that must draw on insights and secular thinkers and religious leaders alike. is there a story about capitalism that could be embraced by pope francis, by his holiness, and by the rest of this panel? let's find out. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, jonathan. your holiness, jonathan has told

stories about the capitalist systems that are at odds, and that are common to all three are common in america today, and around the world for that matter. and his conclusion is that the capitalist system can be the greatest blessing economic initiative mankind, but that it has certain dangers. these dangers come from ignoring, once again as we talked about again and again today, those who are being left behind. now, we understand that in theory, but to understand and practice those who are more affordable than we are, those who were weaker, such that when we each of us examine our conscious tonight before we go to sleep, we can say that everything i did today helped those who are weaker than me. such that we can answer that question in the affirmative, what practical advice do you give us for helping the poor to enjoy the blessings of the free enterprise system that every person in this room is enjoying

today? >> i don't know. i am buddhist, as i mentioned earlier. in my daily practice, for five hours, some meditation. meditation means here analytical meditation, analyze, analyze. analyze the outward nature of oneself and also the nature of the whole world, whole universe, all these things. but that's something typical of what the buddhists are supposed to practice. relevance, relevance. but then these complicated sort

of philosophical views, finally, since the things are heavily interdependent, therefore, for your own interest, you see, you have to take seriously about other's well being. ducey, taking care, more about other's is not selfishness. a bad thing for your future is taking care about others, basically we are social animals. one individual future depends on the community. community, the community's future depends on the nation. the individual nations future depend on humanity. so the reality, then not find

selfishly, but you see, usually -- we are selfish. it's very important for our own survival. without self-care, we cannot survive. so, therefore, but that is selfish, should be why selfish, rather than foolish selfish. so many problems, people don't care about other well being. taking care more about others, then you get more benefit. so that i think all religious traditions, talking same message. message of love, compassion, and for different practice, message of tolerance, message of

forgiveness. and also ducey in order to sustain -- extreme selfish or sort of now greed, too much agreed. so, therefore, practice of contentment. all religious traditions talk back. now these, i think not just -- [inaudible] simply our very life, comfortable life, peaceful life in these are very much individual. so now we need i think religious field, you see, in order to promote this practice we are using some things about next

life, heaven, these things. now we must find a way, don't talk these things, but this very life, very world here, i think everybody wants more peaceful, more happier, more friendly world. everybody agrees that. nobody i think once nuclear weapon or war. everything you see on television, kicking, killing, dying. different. for example, i think response, one -- [inaudible] like that. it's part of nature. so, therefore, you see,

everybody, you see love, peaceful life, friendly life, friendly community. very much appreciate trust, someone trust you, you feel happy. and that also develop some response, happy, trust. this is our nature. not coming from religious, not talking about next life. not talking about heaven or hell. out of fear of heaven. that is not very good. through reasoning, thinking more about positive, that developed enthusiasm. out of fear, some enthusiasm, not very good. so anyway, i think we can teach,

we can educate people for best way fulfillment of self interest is taking care of rest of humanity. i think modern education, i think modern day, i think education is so important. through education, i think we can -- >> bring these ideas spent we can promote education through these values. take time, 10 years, 20 years. so that's my view. whether realistic or not, you can judge. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen, we have a lot more in store for you but

i want to some of the four points what we've learned from his holiness this morning. .. the fourth lesson is the good news that we have got him today which is the principles and practices of global brotherhood and sisterhood are in each one of our hands to practice and to

teach what is an affirming lesson of something that we cann grow away from in this session today and each one of our lines of work and everything we do to make a better world this is our charge, our privilege, this is our obligation. this brings us back to the subject of happiness which is going to be our next session from our friends at the life and mind institute. a quick moment of gratitude, these programs we have had over the last two days doesn't come about spontaneously. they never do. we first have to start by thanking his holiness's amazing team from the tibet administration and from the dalai lama and the administration is he with us today? thank you so much. [applause] second, we have to recognize the administration and especially for prime minister.

he's not here to read the prime minister is not with us today. [applause] aei collaboration with his holiness came about with the sense of vision of radio free asia. they contacted us with a concept no one ever thought of this collaboration. they thought of it and we want to recognize them together lead to founder of radio free asia. [applause] the intellectual collaboration are going to see today between the mind and life institute you're going to be hearing from our friends at the line in place institute we are going to follow the program with our own session on walking the mind and human happiness, and in just a minute i'm going to turn the moderator role over to my counterpart,

another arthur who will be working with his holiness, the dalai lama and has been for several decades that we are so grateful to them for joining us and the professionalism. intellectually this couldn't have happened if it were not for glenn hubbard, daniel loeb and john haidt. [applause] our program today has been made possible by third point capital and other supporters including supporters from throughout the audience. our wonderful trustees, scholars and staff and the entire community, and especially today my deep gratitude for all of his work for many decades, it has changed all that our hearts, his holiness, the dalai lama. stay with us. we are just getting started. we are going to change up the

program. president obama met with the dalai lama despite warnings doing so would in inflict greater damage. they used the tibetan spiritual leader that the photograph you are seeing this morning us from the white house room instead of the oval office where visiting leaders are usually greeted in front of photographers. the dalai lama at the white house without speaking to reporters. also the white house praised an agreement between the president and the opposition to end violence and said it should be implemented immediately. white house press secretary jay carney said the u.s. will monitor whether there's an action to implement it and the parliament voted to give protesters amnesty and restore the previous constitution that limits presidential powers as part of an agreement signed today. president obama expected to reach russian president vladimir putin about that agreement as well. looking at tonight's primetime

lineup on the c-span networks. new jersey governor chris christie told a town hall meeting that lasted nearly two hours and he talked to residents about hurricanes and the efforts and on a range of other subjects. you can see that at ten eastern over on c-span but here is a portion where a new jersey resident asked about the bruce springsteen parody song on the bridge controversy. >> when you go home tonight -- just want to go around and make sure he's not in the room -- but when you go home tonight will you please be strolling all of your bruce springsteen cds?

[laughter] he is not a friend of yours, governor. [applause] [laughter] >> the cds could be destroyed. i have it all on my iphone now. [laughter] how about this -- first of all, thank you for the kind words. secondly, i don't think i've ever been under the illusion that as a bruce fan that he and i were never necessarily simpatico on a number of other issues. and so, there's lots of people in new jersey who do things to make us proud. and they do certain aspects andd others that we disagree with. and i have had this conversation about a lot of different people, especially people in the arts that have been to the governor.

but what i can tell you is that despite the fact you might be right also as a guy that has been to over 13 132 bruce springsteen concert i don't do drugs or drink, this is it for me, that's all i've got, i still live in hope that someday even as he gets older and older he's going to wake up like he's a good guy that's all right we could be friends, he told me we were actually a year and a half ago. she's telling me don't pity them. but i live in hope of that because when i think we get attached to certain people or youngsters, which i did, it's hard to kind of let that go. so, you are probably giving me why his counsel that i should accept, but my heart keeps telling me not to. thank you very much.

>> a portion of governor christie's townhall meeting last night in new jersey. you can see the entire event at ten eastern on c-span. for two reasons, one, he thought he could handle it. and secondly, he wants people, young people of both races to come into the sucking court but by the hundreds and thousands and somebody to say who is that man [inaudible] somebody said he is the general of the united states and somebody said he is a negro. >> thurgood marshall served as solicitor general to the johnson administration from 1965 to 1967. hear more from the justice at c-span radio concludes the series of the oral history interviews with former supreme court justices later today at

4:00 eastern in washington at 90.4 fm and c-span.org and nationwide on satellite radio channel 120. congressional budget office director doug elmendorf defends the newly released minimum wage report calling it a balanced and consistent with many other economists thinking the report finds that the minimum wage is increased it would raise family income levels but also cost jobs. david cook the monitor bureau chief moderates the hour-long conversation. thanks for coming everyone. our guest today is doug elmendorf director of the congressional budget office and this is his fifth visit in the group. mr. elmendorf became director in 2009 and brings a background to the assignment. his undergraduate degrees from princeton, his master's and doctorate in economics from

harvard, before being named the cbo director from our guests talk at harvard and was on the staff of the council of economic advisors in federal reserve board in the served as the deputy assistant treasury secretary for economic policy area just before the selection in the cbo, he was the senior fellow in th economic studies program at brookings. so that is the biographical portion of the program and the mechanical details as always we are on the record here. please come and go live blogging or other means for filing while the breakfast is underway. when the session ends except our friends at c-span have agreed not to air video until one hour after the breakfast is over to give the reporters in the room a chance to file. finally, if you would like to ask a question please do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on one and all iallin a store just the opportuy to make some opening comments and move to questions from around the table. thanks again for doing this.

>> thank you very much. it's great to be here and i appreciate the invitation to come back. i want to start with a few minutes on pictures taken from the recent report on the slow recovery of the market. we released this together with our outlook from the budget economy a few weeks ago. the development in the labor market in the past several years have been among the most puzzling aspects of the economic recovery, and for millions of americans among the most distressing aspects of the american recovery, and we took a particularly careful look at the labor market development as a part of this year's updating of the economic and budget projections. in our view, the slow recovery labor market stems primarily from the slo slow growth in thed for the goods and services. and a smal to a small extent fre various structural factors. our analysis shows a considerable slack remains in the labor market. we estimated the economy is about 6 million jobs short of

where it would be if the unemployment rate was back down to its pre- recession level on and of the labor force participation rate was back up to the level that it would be without the current cyclical weakness. looking ahead under the current federal laws regarding the taxes and spending, we have expected the unemployment rate will decline to 5.8% by the end of 2017 and 5.5% by 2024. reflecting both the strength in the economy and in the demand for workers but also structural factors today. the participation rate shown in the middle of the panel will move down despite the upward pressure from drawing some of the workers back in the labor force that will be continued pressure on the participation rate from demographic changes particularly the retirement of the baby boomer generation and

balancing the participation rate will decline for the coming decade. the share of the population that will be employed to shown on the bottom panel is subject to the same cross currents. there will be some pressure upwards on that rate. as the economy strengthens and as the firms feel the need to hire more workers, but they won't be from the demographic factors into some aspects of the fiscal policy. on balance we think the employment of the population ratio will rise a little bit over the next few years am i but then declined furthe decline fu. and i hope that after some of the attention to other aspects are reached in this work have subsided a little you will have a chance to go back and take a look at this report because i think it covers some very important issues for the u.s. economy. i will stop there and try to answer your questions. >> thanks for doing that and a profile of you one of your predecessors was quoted as saying if the folks that invited

you want to drive you home at the end of it, you haven't done your job, ace on the reaction of the cbo studies of the labor market effects of the affordable care act and yesterday's report on the impact of the minimum wage increase, you seem to be doing your job. yesterday in a phone call with reporters, betty stevenson of the council of economic advisers said that cbo was, quote, not fully appreciating how much of the literature has moved, "-end-double-quote, on the spillover effects raising the minimum wage. what made you and your team take the approach you did estimating the loss of about 500,000 jobs and benefiting about 16.5 million workers went according to the both of economic studies have concluded that the effect on the unemployment of the minimum wage increases in the range now under the consideration art likely to become a quote from a small to nonexistent?

>> i don't want to respond directly to what the cea has said. we try to talk about our analysis and let people talk about theirs. but i want to be clear that our analysis of the effec effective increase to the minimum wage is completely consistent with the latest thinking in the economics profession. we did an exhaustive review of the literature in this area up through the reports that will be released in the last month. a very large number of studies as you know that reach a range of conclusions, and the studies all have the strength and weaknesses, and in the long methodological appendix to the report, we talk about some of the characteristics of the studies that made them more or less compelling in our view, that a balanced reading of the set of research studies in this area led us to conclude that an increase in the minimum wage would probably have a small negative effect on employment, but there was a substantial uncertainty around the estimate as we reported.

naturally, some economists focus more on studies that show smaller employment effects. other economists focus on the larger unemployment. our responsibility for the congress is to report the middle of the distribution of the possible outcomes impossible the range of the likely outcomes. that is what we have done in this report. if you try to compare with our analyst this other economists have said, most other economies don't have the numbers behind the words of their evaluations. but we have looked at some of these other statements. one place one might look is a survey conducted by economists at the university of chicago. they ask a panel of leading economists from across the country questions of economic policy on a regular basis. and when they ask that panel about the effect of raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour a year ago, about half of the

economtheeconomy us would have r to that question and to say that increased to $9 would make it, quote, noticeably harder, "-end-double-quote for the low skilled workers to find a plant. and about the other half of economists responding to that survey said that they would not make it noticeably harder to find employment. in our analyst is with the effect of raising the minimum wage to $9, we get a range from a reduction in the employment of 2.5% to a slight increase. we in all know exactly what the response meant by noticeably harder. but it seems to be har be hardes two and a half% reduction in the employment and are range of 2.5% to a slight increase seems to us to match quite nicely in the thinking to be noticeably harder. another place one might look is a to the letter signed by several hundred economists in

advocating the minimum wage. that is in the random sample economy and they are presumably disproportionately those who think that the effect on unemployment would be smaller. but nonetheless, i'm not sure that we would disagree with the statement of the evidence. but they said that if i can find my copy of it, what they said is that there would be increases in the minimum wage and that have little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum wage workers, "-end-double-quote. again they don't say what they mean by little in that statement. the increase in the minimum wage that we looked at his most analogous to the past increase studied in the literature of this 9-dollar increase, so we estimate a range for me to .5% reduction to a slight increase. again without knowing exactly what little means in this context the range we have looks to me like a little reduction to essentially no change.

the last thing i will say on this is that we also look as you know what the effect of minimum wage to $10.10. in addition to looking at the effect of raising it to $9. and we estimate raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would have a much larger effect on employment, but still i think a small effect is larger than raising the minimum wage to $9 the difference is for good reason. the first t first recognizes rat to $10.10 would affect a lot more people than raising it to $9. as we estimate the number of people whose wages would go up for the much larger than the $10.10 centuries and the 9-dollar raise, 16.5 million as opposed to 7 million. there's many more people who are affected but also we think there would be a larger percentage of production and employment. with the larger pool. and we offer a number of reasons in the report. we are expecting that to be somewhat larger areas of the

highlights two of. one is the $10.10 but we talked about model after some legislation to be considered by the congress of the index for inflation at that point. that is different from the past experience in the federal minimum wage of the races at the state level where they had been raised in nominal terms and fixed in higher nominal levels in real terms into the inflation is just the terms of the time area that is a 10-dollar increase in the model would be adjusted for inflation. so would this be higher on an ongoing basis. that would reduce the larger incomes is a -- responses. it cuts much more deeply into the distribution of wages and the increase to $9. and you can see this on the cover of five report. it puts the minimum wage back up near the 10% of the workers wages and increases the $10 puts the minimum wage much higher than that, higher but if the distribution of wages that has

been at any point in at least 40 years that we have come here. and cutting further into the distribution. this is because of the large increase and because it's starting from the minimum wage level that it's not. so far into the distribution. it means that employers will face a much larger shock in their cost and have more incentive to encourage a cost that would be needed to make the larger changes in the workforce. so we think that they are very good economic reasons and others have stated in the report for white attend our and 10-cent index increase. it would have a bigger effect than the $9, and the $9 which is the increase of the worst comparable to mos but most econs have analyzed in the past. it is completely consistent with the balance of the evidence. >> one loss on myself and then we will go to damien. you have about a year left in your term, a little less.

do you feel that you are the director that's worked in the most extreme political conditions, and if so, has it changed the reaction of either this or the reaction to the affordable care act or any others? has it changed how you and your colleagues do your work lacks >> when i became the director i was taken out to lunch by my predecessors, and as a group, and they all pulled up a source of their experiences. it wasn't the sort of loungewear after you kind of wondered if i'd done the right thing by signing up. i think my predecessors all have stories to tell yo and i cannot compare my experience to them. but i will say that we worked quite hard and very carefully on all sorts of issues that don't see a lot of public attention and we work very hard and carefully on the issues that do need help and attention. and the working really doesn't

-- we are focused on trying to find the best possible estimate so that congress has the best information. >> we do that across the board in all sorts of estimates that matter a lot to the one committee or small set of people. and they matter a lot to the larger crowd. and we don't take them any differently based on the attention that they get, and we don't do anything differently if we think that there will be more or less adverse reaction from different people. that's just not what we do. >> i mean, obviously you worked in the clinton treasury department and i think it was the democrats figured that you would sort of give them the benefit of the doubt on issues like minimum wage. how do you see keeping politics out of your analysis and the second question to be ready for? spin on the first question, my view about the economic policy

is completely irrelevant to the work that we do, and the personal views of my colleagues economic policies are completely irrelevant to the work that we do. the congress does not care what we would you personally about the policy committee and they should not care about that. they hired us to do object of analysis and that is what we do. that is what hundreds of thousands of people do and that is what a string of directors have done for 39 years. on the second question, we are working on lots of things. i don't have anything in particular. >> feel free to blurt something out if it comes to you. >> on your budget and your economic outlook, you estimated that as a result of the affordable care act there would be a reduced demand for jobs for

about 2.5 million by the end of ten years. and then in the minimum wage report, you are talkin you're ta reduced demand by employers in the minimum wage. is there any kind of interaction or overlap between on the one hand, people demanding less work than on the other hand employers having less demand for the workers if wage goes up? >> our analysis of the affordable care act in the current law and/or mlss of the perspective of the minimum wage increase in the labor market is more or less independent. the labor market is affected by lots of forces all the time in the federal policies only one who usually it is fairly small piece of what's happening. so, for the affordable care act, we estimate that there would be a reduction in the supply of the labor. because of the affordable care

act it reduces the incentive to work by a little bit for a variety of channels. you think of it is a more or less separate question of the effect of the wage increase and what it would mean. as you know, the minimum wage we increase is affecting employers demand for workers. but there are different sorts of effects. if the minimum wage increase for one of the sorts that we estimated, some of this that we pass into the wall and future projections in the economy would take on that work. as well as the affordable care act in as well as other pieces of the tax code and as well as what's going on in the economy. so there is no secret reach for action. >> on the same two issues of the leader in the supply issues on the affordable care act is this a first-order that you would like for the affordable care act piece of it and i but does thate into account what happens after the 2.5 million more people want those jobs and so that has an

effect on wages and higher income and a sort of separate on the minimum wage, do you forecast a range of the employment effects, but you also say that a lot of people have higher wages is very multiplayer to be factored into this? like a second order effect of what happens in the job market is relative of the result of those? >> the analysis of the ^-caret we focus on the effect of labor markets in the second half of the coming decade. at which point we expect the labor market will be at work closer to its traditional balance between the supply of the workers and the demand for workers. we talked to that which would have been between now and then. but the quantification that we offered was for the decade. so that is the point at which we think most people that are looking for work would be able to find work. so, the people that withdraw from the labor force at that point would not work for hours while still working would not be replaced by other people who would be stepping up.

an hour and i was on the effect of raising the minimum wage, we have focused on the perco at the end of 2016 on the wage increases that would be large at the end. it would be fully phased in, and our estimate of the employment effects, the estimates do incorporate the effects of the redistribution of income down the income scale towards people who perform former likely to spend that money and demand for the services and whose employment would come from that. and that connotative estimates are handing out that affect. >> they both incorporate -- >> i wanted to ask about the process that the ceo followed. it seems like -- and these are my words -- it seems like the

members find a way to gain the appointed window and ten years worth of pay for for the question to the one years worth of spending, which is a structural thing that will have to come back again and again and again. i'm wondering if you have any, you know, constructive criticisms or recommendations for the members of congress coming either about the process or just sort of how to approach the bill, and i guess second of all if there is a -- i don't know if when you do your scores, for example if you borrow over ten years, if you spend now and then you end up paying for it over ten years presumably especially in the current deficit, there is a big cost that builds up and i don't knoww if you include the cost, you know, in the early years for the servicservice of the cost estime what do you do that, can you do that and should you?

>> we don't incorporate the service and the cost estimates. we just offer the year by year for ten year cost and provide a summation. they understand the policies understand the traditional debt but it's hard to know how a particular policy will affect the service. we know it has its existing debt but to understand how it would be financed as the question and i don't think that including the extra whatever it would be ten, 15, 20% charge if you will what affect the fiscal policy. i think it is understood across the congress that there are debt service applications. >> it wouldn't necessarily be in the balance