. . .

to give to sell the news. and i think this is because we are genetically predispose today pay more attention to bad things. bad is stronger than good because bad things could be a threat to survival. our hunters, forefathers who were more worried, who didn't relax, who looked anxiously toward the horizon whether there might be predators, they probably survived more often than others. they passed on genes to us and stress hormones and attention to all the bad things that could go on in the world. add to this another factor, the

fact that we are by nature nostalgic. we tend to think that the good old days were in another era, previous era in our childhood or even before this or even before that. these are some scenes from a brilliant french movie in 1959 about a man who goes back in time to a better era, the gold-old days, where everything was wonderful. but then he's there and he thinks it's pretty good but then he meets an old man who tells him, oh, you should have been there when i was young. life was much better and he travels back in time to that era and it's okay, a bit boring, but old man tells him, oh, no, you should have been in that era when i grew up, that was the good-old days and he travels

back in that time as well. he goes to prove that nostalgia is always there, virtually every culture has believe that had men and women are not up to the standards of their parents and forebarriers. we always think and everybody has always thought that the gold old were days passed. if this wasn't the gold era when was it at its most harmonios. baby boom generation says it's the 1950's and one hypothesis that the present outburst of

nostalgia is as a result of baby-boomer generation retiring. old age meant that you were poor. we had still jim crowe and racial segregation in the united states, threat of immediate nuclear, but we know that we solved those problems. we know that we got through those bad old-days, so now we can think back to them as the nice era when we grew up, when things were exciting because we were young and the future was full of promise and we felt secured because were burden with all the difficult decisions. they paid the bill and were worried about all the things that could happen to their kids. as we become parents, this is much more difficult nowadays, it

used to be much simpler, this is what herman thought as well. we often confuse a certain shift, change in ourselves taking on new responsibilities, perhaps some physical decay and we confuse that with the world and think that this goes on everywhere. it's not us, it's the world. so if we have that genetic programming where we pay more attention to everything bad that happens or could happen in the future, and we are also nostalgic so we think the good-old days are behind us and you add another factor, a new factor, global media, global 24 hours a day media that looks at everything around the world. then we have more bad things to take into consideration because even though homicide rates

decline there's always a serial murder somewhere. there's always a war going on somewhere and then those bad things will always top the news cycle even though the risk of being killed in the natural disaster has declined by almost 99% over the last one hundred years. there's always people dying in a natural disaster and then that will top the news cycle everywhere and we get the impression that this is the everyday occurrence for most people around the world. add to that social media, twitter, facebook and instagram and all those places where anyone could, can add particular perspective on the world and what do you share with people yourself on those platforms? well, most -- it happens that we share some good news but most often it's something horrific, dramatic, something shocking. human suffer asking not new but

cell phone cameras are new and then it means that we can see anything that goes wrong anywhere in the world instantaneously and we know whether people will survive or not and that triggers our fear or fight or flight hormones and makes us scared about the world. what do i share on social media? well, often it's some weirdo that i've never heard of in a city whose name i cannot even pronounce who did something stupid and then i think, i have to tell people about this stupid thing. everybody does the same thing. we wake up in the morning and hear about all of those weird oas, all those bizarre people doing bad things everywhere and we think that most people are like that. we are not. unfortunately business accelerating with the rise of

social media as well. accelerating pace, we pay attention to all those bad things and we get the impression that the world is falling apart, even though all the objective data proves otherwise. and that's dangerous, it's dangerous politically. as donald trump made clear ambitions to run for president of the united states, this country is a hell hole and we are going down fast and morning in america, it ain't anymore. and that changes perspectives on the world. if you look at trump's voters compare today 50 years, life in the u.s. is worst. yes, 75% of the voters say but so does bernie sanders voters because it's the same thing among the leftist populist.

they also think the country is a hell hole probably inequality, rising sea levels, global warming, disasters, and so on. and hillary clinton says the same thing only in full sentences. [laughter] >> she tells us that, yes, you are angry, you should be angry because everything is awful and only i can make things right. and this is the problem, fear is the health of the state. political forces can always stifle progress and they can stop creativity and block the technology, they can block trade if they like. you know, the old joke, if the opposite of pro is con, what's the opposite of progress? yeah? it's not new. it has always happened. in every election you threaten people that if the other guy wins the water taps will run dry and the sun will not set

tomorrow, will not rise tomorrow. but this is new. the sense that everything is already awful in the u.s. and in europe and in other places. the world is dangerous. it is dangerous and if it's dangers and if the world is falling apart, you need a strong man or a strong woman or a muscular government that sets things right. if a martian tried from the planet mars tried to understand what goes on on planet earth by listening to a speech by donald trump or bernie sanders or jeremy or mar irrción ne in france, he would think that everything is on fire on planet earth. poverty is rising everywhere and everything is dangerous and if everything is dairnción we have to protect what little we have

and we need that strong person, that big government that helps us. if people left to their own devices, created a lot of progress, in that case we can have more freedom and open societies and economy because we will see more progress in the future. if we think that people left to their own devices and free to do things and trade and move and if we think that they create chaos, chaos everywhere, then we need those strong men who will take care of all of us. in social psychology, there's a discussion about this -- about authoritarian reflex, people like jonathan, karen have pointed out that authoritarianism which is a loaded term, we can say some kind of interest in blocking people's freedom, blocking globalization, controlling

people rather than setting them free. that kind of authoritarianism is not a stable permity trait. it's more like a predisposition that a lot of people have and it can be triggered and it triggers when people get the sense that their way of life is threatened when they have the sense that their society, that people like them or their country is being threatened by external forces or chaos, that author tar ape dynamic sets in. they become more authoritarian in other fears that are not related to the very thing that went wrong in that fake story which means that we all sort of end up in a protective mode. if you wake up and listen to the

breaking news, what's your twitter feed and find out there are weirdos out there and to destroy your way of life. you become more authoritarian and you begin to vote for the strong man or for the big government. so i wrote this book to sum out not out of complacency, not telling people that, look, everything is in order, we do ent have -- we don't have to bother. i wrote this book because i'm worried about the progress, we cannot take it for granted. it didn't happen automatically by itself. it happened because people were given more freedom to explore, to experiment and to exchange the results of that. if we have political forces in power that blocks those freedoms, those individual liberties, those economic freedoms, then we will see less progress in the future, so we

have something to fear and that is fear itself and the risk that fear will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and self-generating because we think only problems out there, only stagnation, then we will block reforms. new technologies, free trade reforms that should take place to create more progress and then we will see more stagnation and more fearful in the future and difficult to pursue reforms we need to make progress. it could happen. we can block progress like that. it has happened before. it's a boring way to stand in the way of people's progress. to conclude in the words -- another one of my heros, great thinker, captain james kirk of the enterprise, only a fool

stands in the way of human progress. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> i was hoping to have on sale and for reasons that i show, i have to apologize for the rest of my life, it's not out there. it makes wonderful, wonderful presents, both of them for the upcoming holidays. ron bailey is an award-winning science correspondent for reason magazine and reason.com where he writes column and he was one of the original optimists out there and has a tremendous pedigree in

terms of promoting ideas that johan is talking about or was talking about today. bailey is the author of the end of doom, environmental renewal of 21st century and also liberation biology, moral and scientific case for the biotech revolution. from 1987 to 1990 bailey was a staff writer for forbes magazine covering economic scientific and business topics. prior to joining reason in 1997, he produced several weekly national public television series including think tank and technopolitics. he's also an editor of a number of books including global warming.

earth reports 2000, visiting true state of the economy and also echo scan, false profits of apocalypse. the american society of bioethics and humanity, with that, help me welcome ron bailey . >> progress in its enemies. i'm going to be taking a very unaccost -- unaccustomed role here. whatever nostalgia is, i suffer from the exact opposite of whatever that is.

fortunately johan's excellent book which you should all buy just as soon as you buy mine, completely makes the strong and very powerfully does so. what i'm going to do is go through some of the challenges at which john also discussed and go into greater detail of what enemies we have to face as the 21st century unfold. which way do i push? what am i doing wrong? all right. [laughter] >> technical difficulties. progress is being made. don't worry, just one second.

give us a moment. if you want, i can do that too. there we go. no. should be working. i find that discriminatory, johan's worked. >> there we go. >> again, i was delighted to hear that johan was quoting one of my favorite science fiction authors but as you can see he's making a very good point that poverty is a normal condition of humanity. in fact, johan said that would

permit here and there and work of extremely small minority frequency condemned and almost always opposed by all-right thinking people. whenever minorities kept from creating or sometimes happened driven out of society the people then slipped into poverty. this is known as bad luck. venezuela is suffering some bad luck right at the moment as an example. but to highlight of what this is, how this progress might b i would like to refer to a wonderful book by north western economist joel, the gifts of athena, historical origins of knowledge and he pointed out that history shows that technological progress in a society is by and large temporary and vulnerable process with many powerful enemies with invested interest in the status quo or change continuousy threatening it. the net result that changes in

technology, the mainspring of economic progress and most progress period, i would argue, have been relative to what we now know human creativity capable of. in other words, people in the roman empire and before were as smart as we were and why they could not use creativity. it is own anal and specially it is our own anal and specially the rapid technological change that have been historical. what happens? what occurs is technological progress involves losers and losers tends to be concentrated and find it easy to organize. sooner or later the progress of technology will grind to a halt because the forces that used to support innovation becomes vested interest.

in a purely fashion, technological progress creates a very force that is eventually destroy it. i hope that's not true but it is something we should be concerned about is that in fact, what you find is vested interest over time and will be discussing a bit more of that, get control of the government. another trend, though, that johan describes brilliantly in the book is trend in education around the world, and how that's liberating both boys and girls, men and women across the world. unfortunately there are some societies where this trend is being blocked and in some cases reversed and that is a terrible, terrible problem. there are two problems with that, one is that it has an effect on the choices that women make with regard to the number of children they desire to have and the second one is it also dramatically reduces the amount of growth and economic well-being that people can earn.

study after study shows that if women are educated to at least a secondary level of egg, complete secondary education, fertility is reduced by a third to 50%, that is going town from basically 5 or 6 children in countries where women are not educated to 2 or 3 children and part of the trespassedden that we see and i think it's a beneficial trend, world population is likely to top out around 9 billion people or so and begin falling during this century largely again because women will have learned, i hope, will be able to become educated and make choices that they want about their fertility. in addition, educated women participate more in the wage economy.

you see in the world today that the world economy would be -- would be an additional $12 billion richer in 2025 than it is now. increase of over 11%. if men and women had the same level of education over that period of time, there would be $28 billion more of gdp by 2025, increase of 28%. we are foregoing by keeping women uneducated in the countries that do so a huge benefit for themselves and for us all. another problem that was discussed that joha in is discussing, the notion that every country should be self-sufficient. a that unfortunately leading presidential candidates, i will not be voting for either of them, just for the record, are in favor of restricting free

trade in exchange of ideas an immigration and so forth and this is a terrible problem. if we can only produce what we have here in this country, we will be denying ourselves the benefits of what other people in other countries can produce more cheaply for us and the benefits of innovation and change, this is example of what happened and as great depression was coming on, senator smith and representative holey managed to get tariffs in the united states raised quite substantially and the result was, is that in over a two-year period 1930 and 1932 u.s. trade with europe both imports and exports fell by two-thirds. this led to huge job losses, within four years after that, 24 other countries had raised

tariff barriers and world trade had fallen by almost two third. basically activity and this is the policy that some of our leading politicians whose name start with t and c are recommending to us. this is a terrible problem and we see that foreign direct investment in the united states is down 40% and international trade is growing at its slowest rate ever. have we achieved or fallen to the globalization? i just hope no. then there's the problem with cronyism. you know, it's a problem with international trade largely but this is an internal problem basically and just a quote from lloyd who as the ceo of goaled

man sax in 2015 said, more intense regulatory and technology requirements have raised barriers than any other time in modern history. sadly, he wasn't complaining about that. he was explaining that this was great for his company and for other companies like it because it made it possible to competitors would not be able to challenge him in his company and extra profits could be earned from that. the problem we see this all of the time. the center just issued a study back in june where they were calculating what the regulatory drag on the united states would be and i highly recommend looking at the study but basically our economy is $4 trillion poorer than it would otherwise be because of regulations. most of the regulations do serve as barriers to innovation and to

competition. even more starling study was done by john cedar of north carolina state. if you could imagine giving the rate of 1939, what size would the u.s. economy be now? >> three times larger than it is now. i don't know. it seems that's a particular problem we need to be worried about. again, something that johan was highlighting. this is, well, this is president putin and president xi jingping of china. i'm calling this the return of the united states, one of the best books i read in the last ten years is by nobel prize-winning economist douglas north and colleagues of his called violence and social orders. and what they were trying to get at is the notion of how do we

handle violence in society and humanity as the agriculture revolution took off, hit upon one solution which is basically what they call natural states. natural states are essentially organized as client network, top men, if you will, elites who are militarily potent and ranged to whom they distribute resources. they hand out monopolies over time. the point here is that this was basic organization of human societies up until two cinch -- centuries ago that we saw in the chart from -- that johan showed us earlier in economic growth. the problem is -- and johan documents this very well in his book, is that we have been moving in the direction of greater democracy, greater freedom, greater openness over

time but stalled lately. the question here is would we have a reversal of that over time? the thing about natural states is, is that patrion-client networks, every state up until the beginning of the 19th century essentially was organized, the roman empire, the incan empire all the way down to putin's russia, soviet union, these were patron-client networks and societies stopped innovation and stagnated, so the question is, can this be stopped over time? can we continue the momentum forward to more of an open society over time? another problem is the growth of

the surveillance society? this is a map, if you will, published in the wonderful website catounbound. for example, united states is one of the worth societies with regard to surveillance. ..

fundamentally shift the balance of power between a state and citizens. of the danger of abuse may seem remote, given historical abuse of personal information that government during the 20th century than the risk is more than merely theoretical. it is more than merely theoretical. we still see people in congress trying to expand the surveillance in the united states. earlier this year, senator dianne finds time and senator richard are introduced a bill that called the compliance court orders at 22016. why shouldn't we comply with court orders? the problem is that basically says when service providers, technologies and telecommunications people must provide back doors to their technologies of the government

snoops can get it whenever they want to. the problem is among many other things we can't be sure what the government will do with the information and secondly that guys can also find the backdoors and disrupt the economy and innovation as well. i do suspect that if they even thought about it a little bit that the folks at the democratic national committee wished they had used encryption. in any case. now to what i think is possibly the worst of the policy idea in all of history and this includes communism. the precautionary principle which they say better safe than sorry. we shouldn't let any technologies out that this is one way to do it. i summarized it is never do anything for the first time. one perfect example of this and there are lots of examples

unfortunately is the case of golden case of golden rice. golden rice is developed within 15 years ago that is enhanced by adding precursors to vitamin a. it helps vitamin a deficiencies in countries that that is their basic food. resources have been trying to get this to poor women in asia are a very long time and has been stymied a opposition by a lot of environmentalist groups, but none more than greenpeace fighting this all the time. they have sent folks to international rice research institute to dig up the crops and killed them off in that kind of thing. the good news in june 100 nobel prize winners for an open letter to greenpeace excoriate in the campaign from urging them to stop this, pointing out a stymieing the technology to world health organization

estimates quarter million of 500,000 kids go blind every year because of vitamin a deficiency in poor countries than half of these kids die a year or two after that because vitamin a deficiency means your immune system is not as strong as it might be to resist infections. the great news is in this letter the greenpeace campaign bordered on a crime against humanity. this must be stopped. this is one example of how it is deployed across the globe and there are lots of people in favor of this. one of my favorites of this is a boat called a dangerous master. how to keep technology from slipping beyond our control. wendell wallach, the author of this book is worried that her incessant outpouring of groundbreaking discoveries and tools are raising a tax storm

that will soon be dangerously beyond our control. the question at the heart of the book is split their week book is whether we, humanity as a whole had the intelligence to navigate the promise in pairs of technological innovation. how do they want to navigate this in a precautionary manner? his solution is to create governance coordinating committees that will guide policy makers in the committees to be for comprehensively coordinating development of different scientific fields and oversee the industry's at each field create. wyatt technology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, robotics, what have you. in other words, the government's court mating committees would function as gatekeepers given permission by most likely not to the rest of us to developing these technologies. but that apparent irony

moderating the adoption of technology. moderating the adoption of technology he should not be done for ideological reasons. the idea of moderating progress is not ideological. in any case, and those are just some cautions that i do have and worries about it. i actually think that the 10 reasons that are offered in delhi this book are more likely to become likely to be country do not know that two months again restored their faith in the face of the rest of the public in progress. there's a great deal in that direction and i heartily, heartily recommend it. you can't buy too many copies. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much.

we now have some time for q&a. i would like to ask you to please raise your hand if you have a question. then wait for the microphone to get to you. please tell us who you are and address to a speaker. >> hello. >> every cato intern. quick question because i really like your book on financial fiasco and capitalism. this is the question i'm asking every person i see that as for free-market and free-trade is that since the market is in vain

invisible that people can see, it's difficult to trust. as the ratio of trust. it's easy to trust the government because it's visible and they can hear what their policies and incentives are. what could we have that is visible. >> thank you. that's a very good question. that's the eternal problem. in an election campaign, it seems like fewer people are interested in this located. i don't know how america is going to be great again but if i give you all more freedom to ask her event with various ideas, i'm sure some of you will come up with some amazing technologies and business models that will be wonderful and i have no idea which ones they are. they seem more interested in the slogans that will make this

happen, i'll do this via trust me. i'm a big tough guy. i'll make people do that. it's a problem of how we communicate this trust in markets and individuals rather than specific political forces. on the other hand, i don't see the problem of trusting people's everyday activities. on the contrary, people do not have a problem going this written by things from people they've never seen and eating it. when i have to travel to another city and just get a car by showing my piece of plastic for this weekend. and it's all fine. it's all perfect and it works out in 99.99% of cases and people trust a market in that regard and the rule of law. it's only when they make their shift into the political system,

the economic system they like that they for some reason forget their personal experiences and the fact that they dislike and do not trust politicians they vote for again and again and end up in this kind of can't do search for an authority figure. that's an internal communications problem at one of the most important thing is making people understand their own personal trust in the market and that is something they should change your life than they as well. >> i don't have a solution to that problem. i wish i did. why don't you work on that and figure it out. one of the major concerns is this is a problem with the visible scene and teen example with the policies are the things we see world the others to get this working for us is exactly

what you said. it's invisible. it is unseen. i would have everybody read every day as their week of prayer -- wake up prayer. the >> rate here in front. >> my question is direct did to mr. norberg. i subscribe to the glass half-full rather than glass half-empty. he makes some cogent arguments have things have improved worldwide, but i would turn the question back on you. in this country we still have poverty and we still have hunger and they ask you whether scandinavia has the same degree of poverty and hunger and why should our class b. fuller.

>> well, i had pro full glass. the question is really about my own country, sweden and our neighboring countries. we have generally a higher degree of material equality in the united states even though i'm a lower material level than most other places. i think all of the things, we prefer people not to be in poverty and not to end up in difficult circumstances. but there is a difficult trade-off is slow. we've done not by increasing wages. the fact a minimum wage at the trade unions very much in control of the labor market and fairly generous welfare systems. that means that it would be

difficult to find an example of people in desperate poverty and sweden. people who cannot make ends meet so that they can not eat. on the other hand, it means many, many of them are shut off from the labor market entirely. it means they are socially ask loaded from the rest of society because they don't go up to a job in the morning and that is something we realize right now because we have a large recent refugee population is read and am we've created a society that's very good if you have the right level of education, if you're a very good, notes of language and everything, then it is easy to get a job and a wage that is higher than the welfare requirement and things like that. but if you don't, you are priced out of the market. if you have a productivity level amount 80% of average, then you are priced out of the market. if you rise in unemployment,

social exclusion that does not mean hunger, but it means a terrible blow to self-esteem, vatican society in relation to your neighbors and even your children. that resulted not a material desperation, but a social desperation which is quite problematic in sweden right now. i will leave those facts on the table and we can all decide back and forth the costs and benefits of the various systems. >> i was very puzzled because as we know, lots of people on the website, denmark and scandinavia is a good example of social mobility. two other facts on the table when i started looking into it. if you look at the gini coefficient, the degree of inequality from the lowest to the highest, if you look, for

example in germany france, before taxes there's actually much higher than the united states before taxes. they are quite comparable in denmark and scandinavia, just a little bit lower in most cases. the equality is achieved by taxing the rich. social mobility is greater. if you look at the quintiles of population and i haven't looked at these for denmark, the fact of the matter is getting to the lowest quintile as to the highest in denmark coming from $20,000 a year to $65,000 a year. and the united states is $20,000 a year to $160,000 a year. it's a lot harder to get to $160,000 a year but more americans do that. if you want social mobility to go between quintiles, go to denmark, which are not going to get a lot of money out of that. >> and i had something to

complicate the picture further about sweden and the other scandinavian countries. i sometimes meet bernie sanders supporters to say the united states should be more like sweden. let's pick sweden because that's where i come from. i tell them in that case you have to have more free trade than the united states. you have to have more deregulated market and more open product markets. you need to introduce school vouchers of people are entitled to go to any private school and keep the money and do that. you have to partially privatize the social security system. you have to abolish property taxes and death taxes and a couple other things. when it comes to almost any area except this thing with taxation, sweden and denmark are more economically free in the united states. so it is a very open economy. and then they try to

redistribute more of the results about. i just lay that at the table for everybody, including the brief anecdote about that. he ran this per scandinavian campaign and at the same time as the worst protectionist sins donald trump. i tell bernie sanders supporters an anecdote about when president obama visited sweden because then he was approached by the three big labor unions in sweden. it is very much affiliated the social democrats. their message to president obama and was we want to talk to you about an important subject that is free trade and why we need more free trade are touring europe and the united states because that's the only way we can constantly upgrade and give people better jobs and higher wages in the future. we think you're too much of a protectionist from the swedish

socialists. >> lastly, i want to lawless entre also comment to your research from duke university and the recent paper he found the heritage ability of wealth is actually higher in europe than in the united states. roughly 12% of wealthy individuals in the united states have inherited farewell in denmark figure is 25%. roughly double the rate of the united states. i recommend that research to you. let's take a question on this side. i was listening to the presentation and the follow-on from his ending quote from "star trek." do you see the current is sent in the nationstate as some sort

of impediment to future progress? you sound like you were sort of a one world globalist. you see the concept of the nationstate is a detriment, detrimental thing. >> in relation to the united federation of planets. we are not there yet. i don't think that we should have a world government. i think that's a bad idea. i don't care where the lines are drawn, but it's incredibly important to some institutional competition so we have many different political areas that have different rules and institutions so that we can see what works and what doesn't and hopefully people will imitate the ones that create more progress in human freedom. i'm not in favor of abolishing nationstate nonsense.

but i am opposed to the kind of tariffs, the kind of laws being built between countries so people, citizens are and are heavily regulated when they want to engage in peaceful capitalist acts between consenting adults. basically trade, exchange, and the end, all those things, which is something you can do even though you have nations face if they are open to individual freedom and economic freedom. the frat. >> edward had a chance. peter demanders who founded the x prize as well as their excellent book called abundance. this points to my question concerns the audience or the kind of information. we have an audience of

achievers, bio hackers, all of these sorts of folks who love their work, who are leaving the progress he won enough political and economic freedom to do what they love doing it big time on "good day" to be soft leftists be soft leftists. they see donald trump and so one of those words. would this be a community to answer the question how we get it wrong country and around figure could mobilize because one of the things people are excited about this technology even though you have the pessimist that ron pointed out quite well. >> that's a very good point when it comes to opt-in this first pessimist is people who do things are normally opt-in if whereas those who do not, if they do not engage with innovation without knowledge of

the only tend to see the problem pointed out, the problems are often can't entreated whereas the benefit often go to the whole of society. if you feel like your driver behind these events in those things come to you or more a natural pop to miss any should be more in favor of more freedom to do things like that and i definitely think that if a group they should be mobilized more and i don't know why that hasn't happened yet. ron probably knows more of these people than i do. perhaps he's got a better respond. >> actually am not sure you have a betters. it's a puzzle to me as well. for example it been covering biotechnology for over 30 years and a lot of biotechnologists are weirdly inherently precautionary. part of it stems from the fact that they did not want to commit the same quote crime that is assisted with the development of the atomic bomb so they set up a

system in 1970s that has fallen from there. the truth is when you talk to people who are the real innovators as opposed to academic biotechnologists, they're quite frustrated about the system. it is set up that way. i see it unraveling now. one of the great things of the good recently had a meeting to discuss the amazing to crisper gene editing tape algae. if you haven't heard of it is time to completely change the world in 10 years or you will not recognize it. if we get to precautionary people on the day. the greatness of the national academy of sciences was asked again using technology for use in human beings and they said actually no, we need to go's low but we are not going to be in favor of a ban. i see some cracks in that regard as well. it is a race between the

technologists and the precautionary act of his son and i don't know who is going to win that. i am hoping there will be 10 more good reason. >> that's a great sequel. [inaudible] with regard to the refugee situation somewhat called the refugee crisis in europe. angela merkel from germany said we can make it. let's suppose that she would consult to you and say i foolishly launched that, but i forgot to develop the argument now i have to address the crowd of worried people, very critical people, angry people and she needs you to develop the

argument to calm them down to the things in perspective. how would you respond to that? >> it would have to be a very well-paid position for me to accept that i think because that would take some really hard work from other things. i think the refugee crisis and i think we should call it that because a lot of countries were really overwhelmed last year in europe by this influx from syria, but also afghanistan and several other countries. to an incredibly big extend. at the same time would've him as a planned economy when it comes to any kind of reception and accepting refugees. they are not allowed to work. they are not allowed to start working. it's a long asylum process that can take two years until you know what you can stay or not. until then you're in a

government directed plays where you sit there all day. everything is heavily regulated but i pay people who take care of everything from cleaning to preparing food which is a strange thing which gives people the impression of your refugee should start preparing your own food as well. basically they are testified in so many ways and do not get the connection of society they need to be integrated. what do i saw angela merkel? first of all, the only thing that could make this work is people get a basic solidarity within their societies they come to a deal they get that if they are integrated by the labor market and they start working, if they learn the language on the job and get new friends and neighbors to the interact with constant and go to school so your kids start learning the language and get a taste of the

kind of culture that they entered. if that happens i think there is a chance that they could be not just well integrated, but also very useful productive members of society. we've got a demographic situation in europe that is disastrous. we have no way of knowing how i would get any kind of retirement and social security in the future. we have huge problems in the health care sector with many low skilled jobs where we don't have enough people. they should be able to fill this in. the problem is we've got high minimum wages, or high taxes and is incredibly expensive to hire anyone to do anything. it's all done on homogenous societies are people of the same education, the same language of nevada fixed. since that one. then you can enter the labor market. that means that it's easy to get

your second job that you never get your first job. this is something that is difficult for domestic born young people as well. we have very high youth unemployment is low. not just immigrants and refugees. i would stop telling merkel that we have to deal about. we have to radically liberalized the market. we have to radically change taxation so i don't understand why we tax individual and, though. we should reduce tax is that we should find that their tax bases as well to deal with these things. basically she opened the external border for a while. but she forgot that there is another border around the labor market and society so people end up in between and that's a disaster. that's the thing that create social exclusion and separation

and also send hatred against the society that put you in this situation and attract some people, a few people, not even close to a majority to radical islamist ideas and that is incredibly dangerous. we have to up in the border as well. >> so i think unfortunately we have run out of time. i know there are many more questions, but both of our speakers are going to stick around to sign books and to answer questions and also please don't forget that lunch is served upstairs. thank you very much for your attendance and help me thank our speakers today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> communicators is next with a look at the development of self driving cars. our guest is audi of america president scott keogh. ..