i continually learn more about the business. >> for more information on the recent visit to green bay, wisconsin and in many other cities visited a local content vehicles, go to c-span.org/local content. >> new york university's, peter

blair henry sat down to talk about his book "turnaround" were third world country said the example set by many developing countries today. repressor henry was interviewed in c-span's new york city studio. this discussion is part of book tedious college series. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. we are up in our new york city studio and we are interviewing professors from new york university about some of their books. joining us now is peter blair henry. "turnaround." he's also the dean of new york universities leonard stern school of business. who is leonard stern? >> leonard stern is a dirt. he's an investor in new york city. he started with a pet food

company, grew into a large real estate empire and served in the past and is currently in the board of overseers and is a very generous benefactor of the school innate sine die with the very large gift to $25 million that allowed the business school, which is then provided to the graduate school of the other graduate programs a unified up one place of washington square. >> professor henry, does the stern school of business have a philosophy? >> we do. we captured one simple step. our mission is to develop people and ideas to transform the 21st century and opportunities for business and society. in other words, if you suppose of modern business to do well and good in the world. >> and your book, turnaround, third world lessons for first world growth, what if they

question the u.s. can learn from the third world? >> guest: well, there are really three questions in general to learn from the history that they struggle to be what are now called emerging. those three lessons are what i call disciplined, clarity and trester. so that they give you a very specific example in the case of the united states. >> host: what does discipline name? >> guest: discipline does not mean fiscal austerity. so we had a fight over the last few years about fiscal policy, which gave us sequestration and not really had the negative effects that lead to slower growth in our economy. the reason we ended up in a place in the first place is because the united states failed to learn the lesson that countries like chile taught us, which is if you want to run good

policy, on the fiscal side of the house, you need to save when times are good remedy of money to spend when times are bad. in other words, the fiscal policy of the grasshopper. take chile. in early two thousands, the trillion economy was booming because they were rising. so the treasury was that the revenue. so in 2006, chile had a record surplus on hand and the people of chile to hit the streets and marched and burned the finance minister and would basically give us the money and certain people the surplus. this is money for a rainy day. when the financial crisis in 2008, they had subsidies to stimulate the economy and keep

things moving without learning large deficit that were worried about their long-term financial health. contrast the united states in 2001 -- in 2001 we had an election which led to large tax-cut package. we gave their money so to speak and then had a series of wars that the two large deficit and we ended up in a situation where we are faced with looming deficits and sequestration, which is very damaging. either way, it's not a partisan point i am making. this is a record surpluses in the clinton years disappear in the form of higher spending rather than lower taxes. that's not a partisan point. the point is it means saving for a rainy day and we didn't do that. we didn't learn the lesson.

>> host: so there is the discipline matter. what about the other two. >> guest: well, there's clarity. countries that turn themselves around really do so. they were able to turn themselves around because their leaders demonstrate the clear commitment to a change in direction. if you look at europe, for instance, we have the following set of mixed messages coming out here on one end you have economies that has been in recession, that are struggling to recover from the president of the european central bank singing we need to do whatever is necessary on the monetary side to stimulate the economy starting with letter caught outright monetary transactions and another range of acronyms i won't go into on the air here.

but the point is expansive monetary policy. but on the fiscal side, europe has been gauged in the european compact, which said deficits need to be reduced to a certain threshold below 3% of gdp almost immediately. so the fiscal policy working against monetary policy is a lack of clarity in the direction of economy is damaging to growth because investors don't know how to think about the future and the consumers also don't know what the plan is serious about lack of clarity in which we are plagued by the same question under sequestration because we have the creative monetary policy under ben bernanke common with a fiscal policy. postcode discipline, clarity. >> guest: trust is the third point. discipline and clarity produce tries to an economies move at the speed of trust. there's a modern economy where

we have capital markets that can allocate financial resources from people who have excess savings to people who update investment projects projects they can generate economic growth. we don't have to know each other for the transaction to take place as long as they're stressed. capital markets of intermediation. where there's a lack of trust or lack of clarity come and there's a lack of discipline. a lack of focus on the future. that undermines people's confidence in economic policy and investment. very specifically when you think about the u.s. economy, we are still in terms of investment, investment is a fraction of gdp still far below where it was during the peak and part of the reason why investment -- when i say investment, real capital investment in the building of

new factories, investment in communities is still below where we were during our peak years. part of the reason is that as a lack of clarity and a lack of discipline, uncertainty about the future and therefore a lack of trust. >> host: you talk about all this, professor henry, at the u.s. economy in the world. there is some growth in it. europe's second 10%, 12% unemployment in many cases. what can the world learn from the u.s.? >> guest: well, here is the key point. the united states economy is growing again. as you mentioned, europe is a growing and you are not really back on track. we are in a situation where we are living with diminished expectations about the future. those were underperforming. this is a lesson that applies

both to the banff economies and emerging markets. so the emerging markets during the past four years where we've had really unconventional monetary policy and relatively acquiescent periods have not taken full advantage of that window of expansion of monetary policy to implement in their own economies key reforms that greater investment, infrastructure in some cases, financial sector reform, places like india, key impediments in the labor market. those are forms when times are good so you can begin to release the growth process. emerging markets, even though they learn many lessons in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, they themselves need to stick to what i call long order discipline and continues with the policies that allow them to

grow. as far as the united states and europe, the u.s. is growing, but one of the key issues facing the united states is rising income equality. rising income equality in the united states is fomenting a lot of hard feelings towards those who are doing well and those who are not doing well. what we know is the key to solving inequality in the united states, creating sustainable long-term prosperity, higher wages can only solve the problem by creating more high skilled workers for the 21st century economy. but we don't see ourselves in the conversation right now about how we do that. so we know for instance there's a lot of high achieving low-income students in the united states that don't have access to the four-year university college education. they tell us high school seniors in the united states who scored

the top 10% of all students on standardized tests, roughly one fifth of those students comes from the lower courts out of u.s. income distribution. sometimes there is a lot of smart poor kids, but they also tell us if you're born in the bottom quartile in the united states coming up on the key% chance of going to college for to college or as the top quartile is an 85% chance of going to college. so we lack the discipline right now to do with the long-term problem, lack of access to higher education for smart low-income kids in this country to help us create a 21st century workforce that will drive higher wages and greater prosperity for everybody. so yes, the economy is growing for underperforming where we could be. that's the point. it's not as though the markets will take over the world. that's not the point of turnaround. the humility to learn from their success and by the way the heaviness of the world.

the number, how they generated those turnarounds and stick with the policies and principles of clarity interest of everything from labor market policy and how they deal with financial models in a two-week road and the kinds of rates we saw a penny a curly economies. >> host: is income inequality greater in the u.s. and other nations? >> guest: it is greater than western europe and on the dais. it's the direction. we are moving in the wrong direction. in the last decade, middle-class families have not seen an increase in their take-home income. again, this creates discontent. one of the really important lessons for turnaround is if you want to create prosperity, you can not do it with capital.

let's point to an example i can think of from my native country of jamaica where i was born. in the 1970s, jamaica elected michael o'malley, who wanted to address income equality. he wanted to lift people up. so he put in place a set of policies that were designed for whatever cause zero-sum rather than positive son. in other words, there is a fixed pie between us and the only way to get pious to take type from you. rather than growing the pie, he put in place policies to redistribute and made a very famous speech in 1977 where he said there is no room for millionaires in jamaica. if you want to be a millionaire, fly to miami. what he says matters very much. ashburn areas,.tears, scientists, including my parents who didn't want to be millionaires. people like my parents left the

country. by creating environments, and here's the key point. by creating an environment in which there's uncertainty about the future and profit is a dirty word, in which capital is being bashed, and my concern is we are at a moment where there is rising income equality in the united states. a lot of discussion from occupied wall street to capital the 21st century. feeding the cycle of some rising discontent, my worry is if leaders don't exercise the long-term discipline, the clarity interest and articulate response of the ways of dealing with the problem is income equality run the risk of not learning the lessons in an 1870s, which is you cannot lift up the poor.

business has to be part of the solution. packets back to her mission. you can either let people a better trained to redistribute income and exhibit the policy. the minimum wage and other redistributive policies, let's have a serious discussion about how we put in place policies that will create sites to education. make it easy for businesses to invest in the people to start new businesses. make it easy for people to create the opportunities for employment and prosperity. >> host: peter blair, henry served on a bonus team in 2008. and ronald reagan used to say, the rising tide lifts all boats. let's make a bigger pie.

by the statements you would agree with? >> guest: a rising tide and the problem we see in this country and around the world is the rising tide has not been looking at all those rates. and so, we have to recognize the broad principle for the market economy can be hard for the greater good of them all. there is a role for government. there are such things as market failures and we also have policies in place that incentivize the hate in such a way that we encourage short-term specific examples. so again in the united states, we have a tax code which says that if you own a house and you take out a loan to buy that house, up $2 million of debt you can write off the interest paid and. we have no such uniform

incentives. in other words, if you make more than i think it is more than $100,000 a year, you cannot write off the debt of your child's student loan. so notice dispute policy we have. we policy that encourages people to buy and build large houses and you say that's okay, but we don't encourage people to invest in their child's education. we don't make it easy. so rising tide lifts all boats, but sometimes it needs a little help, a little steering and that's what the government can play a positive role in creating the right incentives for people to engage in project of economic at 230 for the future. >> host: should the minimum wage increase? >> guest: i think we can have a discussion on the minimum

wage. the minimum wage in real terms is 20% lower than jim and president. personally, i think we need a lot more good for a lot more people if we spend political capital in that discussion. how do we really create access for low income high achieving students? more generally, how do we create broader access? how do we generate -- how do we produce that 20% because as we bring more people out of low skill into high skill, their wages will rise and we will create a scarcity for people at the low end of the workforce. so the low-end wages will begin to rise as well. you can't get away from the fundamental law of supply and demand. so i prefer we do with the underlying issues rather than symptoms. >> host: maybe i should've

started with the of the page five of your book, from the economics is all about the smaller. >> guest: yes, this mall is a figure from my past. when i was a child growing up in jamaica, but each of six or seven i spent a lot of terms of my grandmother's house. i grandmother is a terrific teacher and existed on her go into reading books and having conversations about geography and science and all sorts of things. once in a while we got interested by a woman named ms. mullah and she was barefooted. she had to send a belly because she didn't get enough to eat, matted hair to my grandmother would always welcome her into giver something to eat. i always wondered why is it that she can't get enough food. what i studied economics in life you have to realize if you tell people, the best way to do that is certainly extend kindness and give people food when they need

it, but teach people how to feed themselves. that is the way to lift people out of poverty. and a source of economic policy. the policy decisions that governments make today, tomorrow and the next two months, avoiding impact in people's lives in this first country of the united states, but certainly in developing countries that jamaica, brazil, nigeria and parts of asia, china, that will have a profound affect on millions of people's lives and turn around they felt the lessons we can glean from struggles frantically trying to reform their economies than 1870s, 80s and 90s saying this is what we know about how to put policies in place that will help people like ms. mullah help them selves. by the way, there are plenty of the united states as well. not just jamaica.

>> host: peter blair henry, you talked about jamaica, but you have a comparison in your book between jamaica and barbados. what's the difference? >> guest: jamaica and barbados are interesting cases if you will, geographic and cultural twins. we're as close as you can find two twins in the real world. they are both for british colonies. so when jamaica and barbados gained independence, they have the same government, western parliamentary democracy. they both have the same rule of law, english common law. and the basic economic institutions for private property of someone. so for most of the research that we know in economics, there has been a big push by some about as co-author james robinson in the two shoes are really what drives economic growth. but i knew this example it

should make a barbados, with the same institutions bequeathed by their masters and completely different outcomes. barbados grew steady as you go 2.5, 3% per year in jamaica have a terrible collapse that happened under mike o'malley. the point where today difference between jamaica and barbados in the income per capita, the average income of the family is greater than the average overall level and that happened because barbados, the leadership and barbados understood discipline, clarity and trust. in jamaica, the leadership under mike o'malley had a vision for a more prosperous future, but did not follow policies. in other words, ignore disciplines. and i have a favorite if i may

share with you a leadership. in barbados in 1991, the country was on the verge of a financial meltdown. there were a small country and they rely heavily on imported and they were about to run on the foreign exchanges, u.s. dollars. to the international monetary fund, the imf said the team to barbados and they said to the leadership of barbados, he must devalue currency. in other words, it's been fixed at 1.7. you cannot change the value. that's got to be 1.9 barbados dollars. i remember the number, but you get the idea. it will make the currency worth less so will be more expensive to import goods in your exports will be cheaper. it will be cheaper to take a bite keeshan so more people will comment and that will help you raise your intake of dollars nl

p. solve this problem. the minister barbados said no, we don't want to do that because if we do that, if we devalue the currency, it will make people's wages worth less. you ask for wage increases and therefore employers will raise their prices seminal set off a wage price parlors to drive up inflation. very import and we have alternative plan. they said we are going to go to the workers in assam to take a wage cut directly. without getting into all the details of the story, the government barely passed and implemented we tried workers took to the streets of bridgetown. in the fall, 30,000 people, one 12th of the country took to the streets, something like the equivalent of 30,000 people -- 30 million people marching on

washington. countries about to fall apart at the seams. the prime minister come in ahead of the labor union, the private sector of that together on this too can be a reconvened three party talks and they called the people together. he took out a lot of heat, but they got the policy through. the stock market rebounded. growth took off in for struggles of the prime minister to call in three party talks. he and his party were voted out of office in the next election in their party did not return a policy for 13 years. i paid a small price that is the kind of clarity that leaders demonstrate in order to move their countries forward.

postcode the u.s. has a say. but with the issue be? who would you like to see these should be? >> guest: i think the issue is skills. how do we upgrade the skills of our workforce for the 21st century? even the manufacturing jobs that appeared in the united states, those jobs are not coming back in their old form. if you want to work in manufacturing today, unique skills. for me to understand the computer. we need to understand data and numbers. so the issue is not referring back to manufacturing jobs of the 1970s, it is how to re-create the manufacturing jobs of the 19th century. in order to do that, you need a 21st century workforce. we has to have a more flexible work environment because the technology. but how do we create a cadre of

citizens that it can have the skills, communication skills, and the analytical skills, the processing skills to take advantage of the workforce flexibility to be a valuable employee. without education you don't have any of that. with public skills, how to create the skills, a skilled workforce of the 21st century. again, the reason my business education is so critical ms is if we are going to create leaders who can effectively deal with the problems of incoming equality, problems of the 99%, occupy wall street or to address the problems of the lower court to income distribution and feeling more systematic about it, we need to educate and give access to higher education.

we need to do that for children, high school students, 17, 18, 19-year-olds and others spread the distribution, that skills imperative. >> host: peter blair henry is the dean of the new york city stern school of business. he's also the author of this book, "turnaround: third world lessons for first world growth." you are watching booktv on c-span2. >> booktv talk to new york journalism professor brooke kroeger about the ethics of undercover reporting. this interview recorded in new york city is about 25 minutes. >> host: this is booktv on c-span2. we are new york city studio interviewing professors from york university as part of our university series. joining us now is professor brooke kroeger, "undercover reporting" is the name of her most recent book. she is a professor of journalism

at nyu. professor kroeger, what is the definition of undercover reporting? >> guest: undercover reporting is a subset of investigative reporting that usually involves reporters engaged informs the deceased covering, blending in, actually disguising, depending on the thousand permutations of how to do undercover reporting. >> host: as a legitimate reporting? >> guest: i think in many cases yes, in some cases no. the book argues for the legitimacy of the forum, which is a bit of a contrary decision. >> host: how do you make it legitimate? >> guest: by observing the import guidelines, which would include being sure there is no other effect way to tell the story. some would say no other race but i did not. i