it with a vehicle that's the private sector is a company i think with that you find that the outcome will be absolutely powerful and this is what i have lived and i actually believe as well with your purpose finding the vehicle to drive it. >> rebecca, final thoughts as we have a minute and a half . >> it's so easy to despair. this is a difficult moment. so many of us feel isolated, many have lost family and friends, businesses. it's easy to despair but there is no need. we have the technology the resources to solve the problems that we face humans are infinitely resourceful and you can help . we need avalanche of business, political, cultural andsocial change and avalanches are started by . you are employee.

work at your firm.you are a customer. thinkwhere you buy. you are a neighbor . make sure your own life reflects your beliefs and lastly, you are a citizen. you need to change therules . vote. but we really can all make a difference. if we do nothing, nothing will. we at, we truly can move the world. >> you see what inspiring authors we have. thank youso much for being with us. please go out and buy these books . and trevor, let meturn it back over to you . >> thanks to all so much for joining us today if you like to buy their books you can do so by clicking on the button below. we hope you enjoy this tomorrow for another session on black voters and before you go consider helping the boston book k festival

celebrate the powerof work by clicking the donate button on the screen we hope to see you again soon . >> here's a look at some of the most notable books of 20/20 according to the wall street journal. in my npr jacob goldstein forced history of currency. martin sherman looks at the cold war with a focus on the cuban missile crisis in gambling with armageddon ." war, historian margaret mcmillan considers how military has affected our lives. also on the wall street journal's list of 2020 notable books is sicily 43, author james's examination of the allied invasion of italy during world war ii historian eric larson as prime minister winston churchill's leadership during the london blitz the splendid file. >> 1940 which is when actions happened in the book was the day churchill came prime minister. the greatest day in his life

even he would agree. it's the thing you want most of all. he came prime minister owing to something of a rebellion in the house of commons where the consensus was that nettle channel and was prior prime minister was not up to the challenge of dealing with her and germany but that same day was the day that hitler his phony war cease to be a phony war when hitler invaded the low countries. so here's the situation where , this is the greatest day of his life and also one of the darkest days in the history of the war. this did not dawn churchill. churchill, this was like adding spice to the challenge. the idea of being in charge of this great empire at such a dire time reallythrilled . >> will do these authors have

appeared on both tv and you can find their progress in their entirety at booktv.org. type the authors name in thesearch bar at the top of the . >> you are watching book tv on c-span2. every weekend with the latest nonfictionbooks and authors . book tv on c-span2 rated by america's cable television. today bronchiolitis television company to provide tv viewers as a service. >> welcome, and and steinfeld, director of the washington institute for public affairs, welcome to this book talk on "angrynomics", a new and timely work by my friend and colleague mark blyth and his co-author eric long. we're joined by mark who is the director of the boston

institute's william rhodes center for international economics and finance and also william rhodes professor of economics professor of political science international and public affairs. mark and i are going to check for 25 minutes or so but then we would love to take questions from you all in the audience. if you have a lot of questions we will shorter and go to your questions . for those of you joining us biopsy it would be great if you could write your questions in the q and a. q and a window and we will monitor those for those of you joining you to live your questions and comments those questions will get to us please start writing those questions now especially if you've already had the pleasure and privilege of reading "angrynomics". so mark, let's get started. i love this book. it's really provocative and fascinating. you mentioned in the book that the work is intended to restore economics over

"angrynomics". what does that mean really? >> there's a great book from john maynard king's lifetime was the son of economics and history what you meant by that was that we expect how the thing works that there's such a thing like now, you need a root canal , nothing spectacular and it becomes part of the process the same as this desire toengineer the world . that would be nice if we could get in that world, real limits on whether you can do that or not but what we got instead world that seems to be making more and more people angry. for a variety of different reasons motivation for this simply is the world never been richer. we have more resources we should be able to do more things the same time seen people becoming very angry over the past decade or so.

the tea party, the tea party would begin to have the first version of black lives matter and racial protest then we come out that we get into the other protests and more racial strife, this is global and inequality in chile, so hong kong's democracy protests or friends for the complete breakdown of many european party systems. the rise of populism, trump, the referendum, all of that. our challenge was to say why we think this is happening and ultimately what we can do about in this distinction between "angrynomics" versus economics, we know there's a lot of angry is out there is the point that anger is motivating people to behave in ways that aren't economically sound? why the "angrynomics"?

why has it changed what we understandthe economics ? >> anchor frames the front and we can talk about. it talks about macro "angrynomics" and there's an analogy for use in the book where capitalist economies, they're all laptops when you break them down they have the same components but arranged in differentways . kind of like countries. every country has a capital market in every country has a labor market different from each other so the way you get when you get these things work, overtime what happens is they accumulate. when you have those crosshairs is when people get annoyed just like angry because you can't do your work anymore. when the economy crashes at a micro level that creates these divides and what we do is we try and trace through the middle of the book on a macro level and microlevel what are the strengths of these anger just as it turns

out we can get into the basics, we define angrynomics condition when the economy stops serving workers perceive to stop serving them interests of the majority of citizens that seems to be feeling that stretched across these countries. arrange game, they basically there's a bunch of insiders, many of them call elites who have holy advantage, seek after those monopolies for themselves and everyone else is working hard for less and less that's basically what we want to tap into. the anger is a way of finding theextent of the different kinds of anger expression we see . >> the way i understood the book was crises are important. there are moments in which the systems breakdown there's nothing much more long-term in nature of anger that built up. so the way i read, where if

your argument was to say that over long traits of time and the disconnect happens. on the one hand there are these experts who wish certain kinds of paradigms, frameworks for understanding the way theworld works . there is the dominant paradigms. and i think your point is correct me if i'm wrong is at least at one level sometimes those paradigms as smart as the experts are working they are, the paradigms are just wrong. ordinary people know that. ordinary people here the stuff about paradigms say that's bs. that isn't right. that's one thing that you could view that as experts humorous. there is this other thing you and eric refer to which is just out and out so you elites, people in power whether financially or politically . tell me how i'm supposed to make sense of these long-term trends . the experts are smart enough to figure out versus just

self-dealingelites . >> why choose, let's have both simultaneously these environments where one allows the other to come to prominence which is where we are in the moment unfortunately. take the first one. i'm not sure there's more to understand, interesting that you're calling out but you don't explicitly say is we tend to think about it this way. our theories about the world our software for running the economy. it's a moment in time, usually after a moment of crisis so for example the crisis of inflation, all the ideas that come out in the 1980s independent federal tax, it's all reflected in that moment but we now world in which we had inflation for 20 years the only place we see asset prices so to what extent can those still on the hardware without basically softening incompatibility. it's more like the world

changes but the core insurgents stay same to create problems. in terms of the self-dealing of this, if i'm going to release in the system and it's kind of like volatility, since gets westernized culture, what's the point we live where the convergence of digital and other media technologies at the end of the established media create space for political others to go in this way we haven't seen before. we can talk about trauma to the other examples, it basically takes over who runs all the media so it's those types of dynamics, when you have a system whereby the access is no longer really running as it should be say you're telling me there's no inflation i fear about housing, college, healthcare is goingup , they are lived

experiences on the metric of the expert is a totally different thing.that result in a loss of credibility at the same time the mechanization of politics is possible about the way it was before we spent the back into the anger. in essence why choose? >> .. better to deregulate and localization is good. find those are good all ideas

and all the while that was going on there was all this other evidence. think about the process, and all these people suffering. i heard that and i would nod and then and it's all going to work out. maybe i'm an idiot but that's a mistake of hubris and then the idea is we need new paradigms in new people but you can see change coming to better ideas but fundamentally the problem is the norms of leadership on the left and right have been tossed and it's all about self-dealing now. that's a different kind of problem. that's revolution. that's regime change. that's barricades rather than write a different textbook. i know they are intertwined but which one is really the issue today? >> well we think about the second wave of the protests in

the u.s.. these are clear claims to you are our self-dealing. you are hypocrites. you do not actually apply the likely impact exactly what revelation -- revolutions do. another way of putting it rather than the hubris on one side and the self-dealing on the other side is simply the fact that all those things we grew up with it's a natural human tendency. we've seen this in politics but we also see it in economics and everything else. if you say free trade is good for you you will defend the argument and i still defend part of the argument doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. the problem is not so much a lack of new ideas. that affect combines with big

realist of self-dealing with the software no longer matching the hardware. that leads to wars in the economics we see with "angryonomics." sin let me restated to see if i've got it. the ideas they are a bunch of bad ideas and die thing guide d is that the obsolescence of four people recognize it and because people respond that creates this opening for in your words tribal identity and tribalism in that kind of anger to be used as a technology that some people will weaponized. the experts want the u. name it the berlusconi's and the trump to weaponized this stuff and you get the mode we are in today. >> it's just real things people are responding to.

he wants the american media when you have a lock-down protest you have a half a dozen people in the militia. there are 2000 people also who were essentially seeing it. the federal federal reserve study a few years ago said 40% of americans and maybe more [inaudible] meanwhile they are watching television and they say if you have assets don't worry we will buy everything. you don't have to have a high degree in economics to figure it out. that is what is real and what is being partially weaponized but

it's also absolutely agenda met in the fact that folks like you and i have been involved so long is a real problem. i'm the first to admit i've been tone deaf but at the same time in 2009 during the financial crisis again regardless of mike political views it made me crazy that in the early part of the first obama administration it seemed that nothing was being done punitive we against the banks or the bankers or when big bonuses were paid out nothing happened. nothing punitive and it made me with anger or moral indignation. this seems to me this is a fairly extended long-term process. >> absolutely and people pick up little bits of information and you could say for example obama's response to the newest administration coming to power

the ones who built the system to reveal the system. you end up in a world with basically old mantra was bail and sent to jail. what we did was bail and nobody fail and obviously nobody went to jail. that's the way it ended up in people basically had two sets of rules. if i'm a small businessman i go to the wall. it's essentially the system we've been running for the past decade and a half. >> i don't know how the deeply we would want to go into this but also raise anti-american story although arguably it's about the other national context too, race diffuses a lot of this discussion about involving rage and anger and moral indignation but also access to prosperity.

>> i would never be foolish enough to reduce it to economics but in the context of united states and has its own drivers. i will give you one example. two weeks ago a study looked at nick's family wealth or net liability for families in boston. your average white family and this is a bunch of superrich people in boston. your middle family income in boston. it's $247,000 a year. dear lack family is $8. let me say that again. $8. you don't get that inequality unless you have institutions pushing things in this direction

for. unable to access credit and the financial system. it's just one part of the institutions of course there's a particular form of anger and moral outrage. it's what we see in the current process. >> you know in the book you and eric have a number of interesting proposals. i guess we'll call them policy proposals for national wealth funds dual interest rates, direct transfers to household income which in fact i think are quite novel and provocative and persuasive in many respects but how would that then play out against what you just said? the new deal and the great society. we have had pushes like this which then again get filtered through race and other kinds of

biases that still lead to important parts of the population not benefiting. is there some way these new proposals could get around that? >> so what we want to do is figure out who is this good for an focusing on everybody. the way we wrote the book we basically used a couple of forums. eric did a bunch of reading and i did a bunch of reading. an irishman and scotsman had very hard time. when you do the normal test is horrible. town sounded like two white guys telling everyone we know all the solutions of what's going on. so we put it back into the dialogue format and got rid of all at sort of stuff.

>> they are accessible though. >> the other side of it is if you say green new deal to people most of the country switches off. new deal is politically toxic in this talks about the lack of genuine new ideas across the political divide in the united states. i think the case for decarbonization is overwhelming but the new deal throws out all these things. in a sense i tempted describe it as neutral as possible. it's not based on increasing the tax base and make a real difference to the people who don't have a shorter period of

time. also are likely to get people to say yeah sure that sounds fine. that's why we ended up with this in particular britain and much you argue things there's no point in saying them. >> we will get into that in some the details about the proposals and i'm sure the audience will have questions about it but i want to explore a little bit how these proposals again whether it's for dual interest rates or the national wealth fund direct transfers to household income, how did those translate into a new kind of politics and some of us made to do with the water idea politics is but i suppose one view is people vote their pocketbooks but maybe a different view is that people want to feel something.

they want their dignity reaffirmed. i want to feel something. your point if i've got it right is where locked into these politics of these techie answers which people don't want to hear or these anti-slogans versus the raw meat of negative zero some xenophobic identity. what is the kind of new politics that's going to reshape the fissures that are currently existing and society? >> people have had sovereign wealth funds and it's all these dollars what we are going to do with them. we don't use dollars we buy assets. norway is the richest country in the world. on the technical side of it if you invest in stocks over the long run the yield -- why would

you buy bonds? in the financial crisis governments bought bonds and they dumped all the equity. when a lee rather than by equity just issue more bonds because people want them in a negative by what's out there put them in a completely away from it and over 10 years if you bought those assets you would have a multitude trillion dollar wealth fund which you could give to people for college and room warming health care pretty good really make a difference in peoples lives. it actually is doing what the fed has done without doing in it in such a way that it's always an asset. you have to look at multiple electoral cycles created institution which cuts

bipartisan support. that's how you and gender politics because you've got things that people can basically seal is real assets. is there value in and of itself? hued buildings to make a difference at last more than six months. >> yeah that makes sense. i guess they are these kinds of transfers and i wouldn't even call them transfers but new wealth being generated through investment and money is being allocated i would think if there is a sense of solidarity in society as a citizen i would feel this is great i'm really happy that this is happening. if there are these tribal identities though i might say that poor guy. he or she is lazy. that welfare mom which was racialized one was deployed deployed in early american

politics. to what extent are the proposals vulnerable to that kind of angry attitude in the tribal versus what i would hope for more solidarity take on citizenship. >> the keyword they are a citizen because part of the problem is over the past 30 years that concept has been emptied of all volume and essentially we are consumer than the citizen. i think you need to get people in the society and the politics you are talking about is not recognize that way. when was it that these types of reactionary protest movements exclusionary deals -- they were in them mid-to-late 90s. all he was really doing is not paying the taxes.

what was going on. real wages were rising. when you actually change the amount of money it works wonders but it's not the only thing that's going on but if you could basically go back and take african-american families in boston and radically change, forget community banking etc. make the house is bearable to buy the one thing you can land against anbar against. some people will definitely feel the bump against their interest that the majority would benefit from the process leading to more prosperous and just society. when i look at the opinion polls around the black lives matter resurgence of the protest it really seems united states whether the combination of what d.c. police doing in protest but

use of the opinion polls move. the majority were not protesters and you are not putting this one back in the box. you can do that come you can have these institutions to change the conversation that change the way we think about these things. i think that's really adjusting. i would say that's a whole set of questions about economics equity assets and dignity. >> i agree and i hope you can tell in the audience can tell that this book got me thinking it's really a great read. we have a lot of questions from the audience so let's turn to them that that's okay with you. let me start with a question from chris harding. chris asks do you see a bigger 500 year cycle going on here or are we living in a time when we

are due for massive reset because the paradox have revealed their limitations? >> i get suspicious when people suddenly declare themselves expert historians. i can draw any colorblind you want to. but i think there are limits to how much people can take. i read them as mea culpa for what we have done and if you look at the business roundtable involving shareholder value and decorations i think this is a recognition that the system is botched and we want to edge

towards a solution because they understand that angryonomics is a normal and their strategies just simply can't survive it. >> i was going to follow up. you got me going now. let the audience talked. what is the trajectory from austerity previous book a 32 angryonomics? is the change due to misogynist factors are endogenous? thank you for writing the previous book and this book. >> thank you barbara. great question. i would see everything ultimately has endogenous and most of what we think is outside to the financial crisis was endogenous. in that sense it's basically the failure to change the business model.

we can't patch the software. we didn't change anything and now we basically said everything is fine. we will do some belt tightening and we will find it and wasn't found. quantitative ease in -- quantitative easing and all this stuff. when we started to see the global trumpism that identified this as a sense the working out of the global trumpism moments if you want to put it that way. c excellent. a question, broad question she says when and under which conditions can anger be productive? >> that's a good one. we make a distinction between the anger and tribal -- that can

be weaponized. an analysis of news reports the one thing that came up all the time is correspondence. what is correspondence to? it's a kind of solidarity. that tends to be the response in the wider world that leads to increased uncertainty. if you think about the microstructures hear the gig economy and the fact that 18 million americans work on contracts with very few rights. that's where the brunt of the covid shock is going to be. that's where you see anger generated and what exit good or bad think of it when you have moral outrage. that's a signal.

do you think we just listened to hedge funds screaming about the viands and their assets are going down or airlines -- that's nonsense and that makes people angry but the real signal is why do we have protections? those people are angry and that's something we should listen to. an example used in the book is iceland. iceland is in the huge financial crisis and people were angry but really got them angry was years later finding out they were banking off shores. that's when they got angry. that's what we need to fundamentally change. moral outrage versus tribalism and that's how we played out in the book.

>> successful political leaders navigate their way through different kinds of anger. i'm thinking of say ronald reagan and the reagan revolution if you get a bunch of people devote seemingly against their economic interests by accessing their anger about the state and overly intrusive state or by accessing their attitudes about race. we argue he's tapping one kind of anger and noted to create -- and bill clinton you could trace it along. meanwhile in doing that effectively tapping that anger conditions are created by which new kind of anger generated. that's the right way to think about that. >> i think that's exactly right. they tend to be equality.

it looks at profit dispersal not just wage dispersal. they absolutely dominate the stock market and everyone else basically you are better off lying one months of treasury and investing. there's enormous inequality among businesses themselves as well. all of these things compounded show a lack of control and the lack of ability or the precariousness of your own investment. meanwhile if 80% of the cut. that seems to be the fundamental driver but it's not just about income inequality of inequality amongst businesses and amongst races. it's all compounding in that sense.

>> at that's go to a question from douglas. he writes can you adjust the effective campaign caught traditions and what policies get enacted in the rigging of the system. bradley if you have self-dealing people in power how do you get them out at power and how to be a strain -- restrain him? >> there are dialogues between academic and essentially what we think what wrong and what generally went wrong and what to do with it. this is one part of it which is particularly in united states. it's really not my field. >> there is a related question about the intellectual relationship and the differences between you and eric. an audience member from youtube rights apart from quibbles over for size metrics what are the

biggest differences between you mark and eric with respect to solutions to the accumulated bugs of capitalism? are you guys on the same track or different? >> we are in the same track. eric thinks it inequality is fundamentally -- but he thinks there's a bunch of other things going on as well. i'm sympathetic to that. that's basically where that comes out. one of the things that eric alluded to his concentration this is something we see elizabeth warren campaigns. consolidation across-the-board. it leads to price fixing and more investment all of which are in deleterious to the consumer and these cash-strapped etc.

etc.. i focused on income inequality and profit distribution. i think buybacks are big deal. he doesn't. not because they are not viable but if you change the rules on buybacks next week the federal figure out a new way. if you just focus on that rather than the big one problem of corp grit -- corporate governance you are missing it. >> i'm wondering would it be fair for me to say that you are focused more on the issue of fairness rather than egalitarianism. se? where does bareness come into the discussion? >> i more naturally equalitarian and eric is more -- to me it's

fine to talk about equality and opportunity but the opportunity should produce the outcomes you want. i tend to focus more on the outcomes generated if you want to put it that way. spirit makes sense. moving into the details of some of the proposals christopher garrity asks excuse me if this is an answer should know. no apology christopher because i mentors an answer to. how is the proposed sovereign wealth fund different from the social security trust fund? does that make sense? >> absolutely. you're trying to pick up equity because equity is a long-term premium of 6% which is awesome when you consider others or 2%.

the solution is tax capitol at 80%. why can't we all get a better bar rather than worrying about -- and that's basically why its equity base. there was another question i just saw from a viewer that i wanted to address switches, where did it go? this is from -- you could if you designed it in a completely active fund to buy 0.25%. that was completely independent board that has nothing to do with any electoral cycle.

that's more of a design question than a political question i think. >> and presumably though that wealth fund can invest in a bunch of domestic companies could one could imagine an equity position in apple. >> another when we talk about and this is a universal income is if you think about the stock market with apple as 20% of the stock market and everybody else's in the tail. how do they make money? they do it because they are using a platform and every keystroke is data. why are we giving it out for free? should we have to pay a dividend? that's 40% of the stock market and we are the fuel for the engine. if we were talking to sprint or t-mobile and we wanted 5g with

dave say yes we will sell you the spectrum and it's going to cost to x billion but when it comes to individuals with facebook you just keep getting in the field so why not lies in state in that way we get a stake in these forms that is a colin two equity stake so we are giving them something to use for the vestment but it's actually new information. that's an asset taste response to the inequality that gives us the upside we get because we make so much money. >> on the data dividend i think there's a different kind of perspective this sort of the shoshana zubac capitalism argument that there's something fundamentally wrong and intrusive and companies whether it's amazon facebook or google not just accessing our personal information but politicizing it

and in using personal information to understand her deepest most emotions and then manipulating off and if one agrees with that argument no need free to agree agree but if one agrees one could say it's inappropriate to put people in a position of selling this in legitimizing this kind of corporate access. it would be like saying you can sell yourself into slavery. if you choose to do it than what we will give you some money. i have to admit i was a little of comparable with it. we met with the alternative? you're not going to shut them down. you aren't going to blow up 20% of the stock market. you could buy equities which are super expensive or he could basically make sure what they used -- again there's an element in one of my more liberal moment and eric and i disagree on this one.

i more on the surveillance capitol side and eric is much more on regulation. the way that eric thinks about this is he doesn't care. you can do whatever you want. but you give me things that i value and i'm willing to give you my data. in this era gone to shut them down you are doing it anyway. hume isil get the money for it. let's turn to a slightly different angle. they ask a national structure projects be used to restart economies in countries by investing in things like roadways or energy whichever infrastructure you target. >> absolutely. you could use a citizens wealth fund to help you do this which would be good. i'm not against reform

proposals. if you want to really have a technical version of this with far more detailed have a look at the economics of -- you name it it's in there that's fabulous. if you think about infrastructure everybody loves mass transportation. what about trains? what happens as we continue to destroy our natural infrastructure. this become something we have to deal with much more frequently. then this other view that's it becomes attainable as it once was even though i'm a huge fan of it what can we do. one third of all carbon emissions come from buildings but if you want to retool the

market force retrofit every building united states which probably cost less over the past three months. they are buying stuff and let's be clear but the same time what we have shown in this crisis everywhere except the united states is you really can't just basically pay 80% of wages for an indefinite period and lock down the economy. britain has done it, denmark has done it. everybody was able to do this and what that tells us is you can put more constraints on doing those types of investments any realize if you told me six months ago boris johnson would be doing what we call helicopter money to save the british

economy -- yet that's exactly what is done. >> moving to a different question a more philosophical one chris harding asks he's not sure whether we can fix this policy are these problems and policies. if we don't do the hard work of articulating some kind of shared -- about what businesses really for in life and society and that comes to my earlier question about solidarity. do we need a new philosophy that can motivate people and if so what and how? >> a 64,000-dollar question. my challenge is this, think that is held back reformist politics is this idea that you fix things with policies for there's a

problem. we have a policy and we have a gdp score. that's what you saw in the clinton campaign the worn campaign. the problem is what do you mean by back? if we think about the success of the projects of the 20 century is not as if the social data in sweden came out with multimedia trained to key people invested. it's very simple. that's all we are asking for and here's something we need to do to our economy to make sure becomes normal life for everyone. either by making it infinitely technical with policies that people understand or transformative green new deal which unfortunately alienates

people trying to get on board. why not just do stuff that makes a big difference and then build on that. >> i agree. i'm looking for the new philosophy. a few different questions about the eu and the euro but let me go with this one from stephan. is there really any alternative to the euro? our 19 floating currencies, is that a bad idea to? i guess i would add what about the eu in general? what is the future for the euro at the eu? >> the eu is the most likely place for somebody things to be tried. sovereign wealth funds take

germany for example they make diesel. that's what they do. they need some kind of fun to bridge the transition. it's like a vehicle for the whole economy if you want to put it that way. on the bureau itself the downside is you can like the hotel california can check in and not check out. i think the things that have moved us to a different position and the reason the proposal shows the writing is on the wall. here is why. essentially you have a couple of things that happened last year. china's bid to germany if you -- huawei we will start buying your

cars. now you've got particularly americans will tar the out of europe. they said because we are the people who -- companies around the world we don't care anymore. the world is moving into these fears and europe basically can no longer pretend to be this apolitical place that doesn't have a nationalized currency. it's the wealthiest part of the world and its politically this unified thread was going to drive it is a new recognition amongst those states that it is in their interest to mutualize not just the depth but their assets. that's not a good place to be.

europe begins to see it as a liability in their baby steps toward going in another direction. >> is that possible mark without a strong european identity among the citizenry of various countries? >> think about the american experience. they were born in the revolution and they try to have a central bank. they have tons of currencies and it's all a mess in the 19th century. what is the currency of the central bank and then we'll see how far we go. the fiscal agenda has been that of bands for years. no one is denying that but

there's a massive disruption of wealth which nobody wants to see or you have assets going into something more and what we see particularly with france and germany whether or not they like it. >> you feel the electorate buys that position? >> not yet. the weaponization is very much where we are but the solution national populism for these types of -- you can try it and you may fail and then you go on to something else. the virtue of not being able to get out of the euro this populace can't destroy without destroying themselves and if they destroy themselves then yes, you move on. >> although sometimes i wonder given the nihilistic moment we are arguably and there may be a

certain passion of self-destruction at least among some political leaders. >> the fastest growing party in italy is -- these guys are actual fascists. they might do something like crazy like bring in a new leader. it'd be the eu saying i know you're dad has grown from 120 to 170% of gdp and you haven't grown a lot. if you are at doing is stared he -- but i think europe knows that. >> we have a couple more minutes so we will tried to get the last few questions then. there's a question from chris about climate change. chris asks do you think there could be bipartisan support for

climate change if and when it's framed as a national security question? is there some way to get support for climate change for mediation? >> where the biggest solar fund of the united states. where are the windfarms? there in the republican heartland. this is like a technocrat telling people what to do. there's a bunch of people drive around in a prius saying this is a moral problem and these people are wrong for living in a carbon economy for the transition is already happening at the end of the day take an example britain has not generated cold for three months. that transition is happening in the problem is we are in needlessly politicizing it by funding it into a crusade as being on the wrong side and not

the right side. >> because time is short let's go to one more. we didn't talk a lot about technology and demographics which is the discussion in the book but darren sweeney asked to what degree does income provide silicon valley the -- that displaces workers with automation? >> we think about proposing i do and wouldn't it be great if you are redundant and you should be suspicious. in conversations with ubi advocates have come to realize in fact these are not necessary conditions. what we are talking about with you vi is it's done properly. it's kind of minimum wage plus they are better than being at politically contested in the nam

it's a said income i want to do that you forced labor-intensive jobs out he forced businesses to invest more in capitol and the shift of composition in employment and is income goes up you change -- and wealth is generated. that goes back to hyman minsky in the state of the last resort. there's lots of ubi that's not the silicon valley version. >> to some extent the issue isn't whether the total amount of jobs will be destroyed but the issue is the nature of those jobs could very well change. we are seeing that change and what does that transition look like not so much would we going to do with all this free time that we have for all these jobs but how is that dislocation handled even enter ge