policy people in the left like bernie sandals, aoc and others are saying we have tried this radical policy recently or less 4050 years. it is not led to the outcomes we want but you are writing your book very convincingly we did not have this. i believe you use the term more of a revolution in terminology or idea rather than actual policy. >> again it is important to look at the evidence i have come from a space but i'm very driven by data i look at the evidence. how does it gain ground we are in this liberal era where the market are rule and conquer people's lives. there were a few free market

policies includes the organizationd about the greater free trade. it included former socialist countries from india to china adopted a more free-market model and america are you headed line when reagan came to power government spending wasn't good. he declined a bit but never reverse course. if you look at all of the evidence the fact of government in western society like america has only increased on a net basis the recently got this impression is because of what was happening outside of the countries.

it happened because of globalization and also immigration as you pointt. out. were in als new liberal era in e financial market took off and became so big partly because of the a team there were some seat regulation. f markets took off. their main reason the financial markets have done so well because of the fact there's asymmetry and risk on the upside all of these firms and companies are benefiting from the fed's policy easy money but on the downside they have the government back. more than that what's happening to government spending has only

gotten up since the 1980s. what's happening to the debt and deficit? it's only gone up significantly as the 1980s. now we're in a situation where the government is running a deficit of 6% of gdp we have doubled down from 3% of gdp for the last couple of days really ever ran a deficit. it did so only when there is that major crises or war. the last 15 years is run budget deficit of 45 of the 50 years. only five of those years giving the clintons late second term he had a big big boom in the revenues and there was some spending restraint which was funded. otherwise it government spending has gone up in the last wonders

we% of gdp to 26% to date. is at an all-time high as a share of the gdp outside of a major depression or so. on every scale of spoken about regulation we talked about bailout. every single metric the role of government has increased. and my books the real problem over the last 30 to 40 years has not been a big neoliberal era that has undermined the life of the average american. it's been the rule of government that's got head. capitalism was ruined by big government rate that is what happened. it's not functioning today in the way it was supposed to function which was supposed to be through competition, destruction, a lot of sun happening today. >> you mentioned in an interview

in your book about how folks have been in the government debt for a long time. they havein been saying doom is going to happen. it is not happened yet. a lot of those concerns are wiped away. gone.re i have very few people in politics are outside of politics talking about these big issues. some of my college. i'm very big ways we haven't had a fiscal crisis. there are obviously limits beyond politics when either going to be limits on what the government can spend. on debt, borrowing, and deficits. when are we going to see those? and how are we going to see that manifest? how is that going to get the realhe world? >> unfortunately the history of

nations is until a country hits a crisis point which means the government literally runs out of money to spend more really a course correction. economic virtue those countries also into big trouble because the government spending increased too much and got out of control got out of control it's a deficit and debt were too large. they were forced to pull it back. sweden is such an interesting case that the liberals hold up. i think they miss this important detail in history which of is sweden has been cuttingdp back spending of the gdp in becoming more fiscallyle responsible creditor crisis in the 1990s.

affected under the 2008 financial crisis with a pretty significant government surplus. fortunee example of history and to get to it right point or a crisis point they do not self-correct. because of the world's biggest superpower it has a very long rope in a way to hang itself. i can keep it running debt and deficit much longer. having said that we are getting to a point is quite scary. today's deficit is a part of gdp is 6% for its much higher than any developed country is running. similarly america debt as a share of gdp today is gone up one 100%. it is lacking only with japan and italy. i will cross the italian levels

of the decade given the current part we are on. we are getting to a point wherea very large debt and deficit could become a real problem. america with all its resources may run out of people willing to fund it and demand higher and higher interest rates to pay for it. that becomes a negative feedback loop. including the share of the government revenue going to the interest on its debt. it begins a compromise ability to spend on anything else. including on welfare. that is the fear i have, so far we've not had any crisis. we have said all these people been fear mongering and they have been wrong for a long period of time. another taking this argument to a different level saying it doesn't matter how much debt and deficit with data 6%.

given downturn the loss and roughest means a deficit gets a another 10% doesn't't matter. america and continue. that's exactly what sows the seed for the next crisis but that's what worries about the future what i say in the book my focus is to first point out what has already happened? what's the damage that has already been caused? let's read the awareness of what's happened more than for the crisis to come and then starting course correction. >> we are set right now to even higher levels of debt and gdp and is spending sort of on automatic autopilot. historically the end of world war ii the debt to gdp ratios about the same as it is now. a little bit higher. the spending ended because the war ended the government could run the surplus and reduce spending. they could cut taxes a little

bit and still maintain the ability to pay off the debt incurred during world war iiom t with the phase where the baby boomers are retiring and very large numbers. they're starting to draw down significantly on social security and medicare to the extent the congressional budget office projects social security trust fund which isbu a phantom fund. on paper it will be exhausted in the early 2030s. medicare trust fund they will be exhausted even earlier. any serious person looking at this congress was going to sit around and do nothing. they're going to borrow a lot of money going forward. we are going to get more close to this example were all the sums going to be prohibitively expensive to borrow our people e will not lend money.

at that point knowing what you know about political incentives in the united states. but voters think, you delved into this book, do you think americans are going to choose higher taxes the left's growth through short these benefits? park to some enthusiasm about america in the end. was that famous that america just the right thing after having tried every other option. i think once we get to that point we are optimistic the role of government will begin to get dialed back. that's when the spending cuts will happen. it becomes apparent to people what happened with the runaway growth in spending. that's even what happened in other economies from sweden to greece as well as eyesight in the book.

eventually i feel america will do this right. unfortunately i do not see that pointt now. so for me in the immediate focus is to point out what's the history of capitalism? what the definition of insanity if you keep sort of doing the same thingyo and expecting a different outcome that the definition of insanity. you get to a point what's the problem today? limited issue need to be looking at and also it's an ode to capitalism butut yes, capitalism can still work if you keep giving people economic freedom. also we strain away from. if you look at indices of economic freedom american rank in the top five for the top five. noaaaa slipped all way to 25. we need to be aware what's getting is there and how that's hurting the average american.

one political party went up on the other artists a bipartisan effort to get away from economic freedom? what does the bipartisan project even someone like trump came in 2016. stocking the language of deregulation. doing something for the average american if in terms of the regulation he spoke about that by the end of his term he put a new regulation. they did not change that much. when it comes to debt and deficit. you are in the largest deficit by cutting taxes. doing a peacetime effort. and in terms with matching spending cuts. this isis been a bipartisan project. but yes the biden administration on the last three years has

taken this to what different level of magnitude. it is double down on everything. even the icon of free-market capitalism do not do much to reverse the role of government. look at government spending or regulation. under trump now under biden we've taken this to a totally new level. that's the kind of awareness and trying to raise for that book. >> you really do raise it consistently throughout the entire book. i am glad you brought up the statement by trump about the regulation. how the statements have fed into the perception that trump wasn't radical free-market president expanding capitalism. the opposite was true.

went up, trade barriers, immigration restriction on the flow of labor across borders. the enormous amount of increase inav them. and you have on the other side trump talk about american carnage and how bad american tablet. democrats will say the same thing. how awful it is in the united states. americans have it terrible in this country pretty explain this perception feeds into this idea. they feed into perception that capitalism is crushing people economic opportunity when really it is the government doing this in most areas. i am concerned, the perception and how the perception is capitalismsm is when it's the government. on the other hand you give a little bit of credence to some

of the ideas on the other side with the idea inequality is increasing and this is a bad thing. i know you struggle with this in the book whether giving too much credit course capitol skeptical of capitalism can undermine capitalize a little bit. can underline and push for these policies you propose. how do you reconcile this about equality and inequality and what the government is doing? >> is a say in the book i do not expect capitalism to produce equality necessarily. capitalism is about equality of opportunity. shouldto reward. what i say in the book is the

fact the kind of policy the government has followed has feweral inequality and since the isn't inequality of opportunity as well because of the climbing economic and social mobility. even the billionaires are getting the feeling they can survive much longer. yes being produced under any capitalist society. there should be a feeling the topic billionaires keep changing over time. now the average a billionaire be stays on the list of billionaires for much longer than in the past. the entrenched billionaire has become much more of a common feature now. i think that's the way i try to reconcile this. yes, capitalism will lead to wealth, income, inequality. but it should lead to in a reasonable way. it should come from a space that

there's opportunity. instead we have today policies by the fed other government intervention from regulation to bailout the billionaires and as i have said earlier it appears very easy w money the explosion billionaire wealth without them having to do much. it's that feeling that needs to be corrected for the average american. otherwise some still celebrate wealth creation you see billionaires as people who they can aspire to or look up too. when the feeling the billionaires are creating a wealth just because of government help her too much easy money, think that's what feels resentment. >> your concern is the source of inequality rather than inequality yourself.

let me go by hypothetical that we have the types of free market policies you support. we do not have bailout. we do not have the crushing. we get a situation where economic inequality is the same as it is now producing economic inequality as a problem or is it still the source that matters? >> the source is more important. but i'm willing to bet at the government would not follow the policies we would not have such high levels of wealth inequality. the source is the problem. in fact this is an interesting thing, i created this index like over a decade ago called the billionaires index. what that did is it reduced and metrics to measure the wealth of nation and inequality across the world. metrics were what's a share of billionaire wealth of the economy? has that wealth been

created? is it industrious which don't require much government health or has it been created because of industry such as real estate or even commodities which require a lot of governmente help. how much of this a wealth of the thebillionaires have created is inherited? how much of it is something that is self-made. i created that formula to say countries around the world for this too much of billionaire wealth of his share of the economy too much of it is created by that red thinking industries a lot of it is inheritedar wealth is the county much more susceptible to bowl two compared to countries where the wealth is much more favored to innovation and is not so much in your face. billionaire index is something i a lot of attention to it looks at the source is much as the size i.

but i'm ready to take the argument the government is not going to distort capitalism as much. we would not have a source problem but the share would not be as large apo disproportionate of the economy as it is today. >> one of things i'm worried abouthy and play along with me d tell me why you think i am wrong about this, as if we give a lot of credence to the idea inequality is getting worse and this is a bad thing in principle. we open ourselves up to more policies that increase moral hazards. more distribution, more bailout, targeted at people in the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. and then we get more of these problems that we talk about. one y of the things i've come to think over the years is a lot of support from rita's division, higher taxes on the wealthy and trying to take the resources and

trying to give the people less fortunate. some comes fromat the good placs were talking about. people are aghast at the inequality is or what they think is a lack of opportunity. but in most cases are half the cases it's more like malicious envy. a lot of peopleon really do not like successful people. want to take their money and hurt them even if it hurts them in the process. my off w base? >> the fact i am in favor of a equality opportunity. but i totally understand i need to appreciate that capitalism doesn't lead to inequality of wealth and inequality of income. i think the idea of leveling inequality is misguided on its own. did not have socialism and that is the india i came from any

wealth that was made was taxed away. it is about the idea that you have to have a h feeling of opportunity and america have hat is the eye say in the book, right up until three or four decades ago most americans felt they would be better off than their parents are most americans felt they could afford to buy a home. is no great talk about inequality. this talk of inequality has really surged and we have seen a surge of the number of new billionaires created as was billionaires have become more entrenched. that's reducing the surgeon take place. sometime the solution for these only makes it worse. one thing the government is doing is they spend a lot more on the welfare state to protect people against this anger that's

been building up. in doing that in term' of making things a bitit worse. they keep spending so much further compromise on the fact for doing away unsustainable in the future you will not be able to support people given the amount of spending today. there has to be an appreciation of the fact equality of opportunity is with the focus needs to be. notal in terms of eliminating ad that is what equality is about. progress on the sections of your book i found very extraordinary you explain bureaucrats and politicians how this uniformly pushes in one direction. which is more regulation, more control, more bailouts, more protection for firms that have these political connections. but then i was a little surprise in another section you wrote

about your support for antitrust laws more vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws. can you reconcile these things for me? i see a lot of antitrust policy at least historically. and today there's some work at the ftc at the fairly arbitrary, fairly capricious leads to insurgency in the market. so i am curious how you reconcile this contradiction? or is it even a contradiction am i misreading you? >> think the first step is that the role of government has expanded. not in the camp that believes the government should have zero rules there is a role for government when there is a crisis. there is a role for government in providing some basic welfare. like for a society. antitrust -- when things get too fards something needs to be done

about it. which is the fact something is wrong and america when a handful of companies are earning extraordinary amount of profits. and then they are using those profits to just keep gobbling up new entrance which slows down the pace of innovation. and they are using the a in critical to lobby in washington to get regulation done like in the way that suits them. it like in terms of new technology which comes and applies a massive spending. only these companies seem to have the cash to be able to do that. i don't feel capitalism and its true level should naturally work when it wait were not just a handful of companies make note profits but the profits are more distributed. also private sector enterprise making a lot of profit. when you reach a point were just a handful of companies are making profit you know

something's gone wrong somewhere. otherwise that's not going to end. the fact the same companies dominate like microsoft or whatever you want to call it something's gone a bit wrong there. antitrust of those kind of policies. one area i feel we need to examine theses, big tech compans the weight they dominate not only our lives but the entire investment landscape. it's not just about innovative ability. they are producing extraordinary level of profits which have been consistent with any capitol society. because capitalism at the core needs to be competition and through new companies coming out. that is the concert i have there something which we need to do about antitrust.

in a systematic way with these big companies are not going to geez keep gobbling up the small companies and have a disproportionate life. what happens in many ways. one of the biggest frustrations of many americans today is the fact that many towns in america today are dominated by one big company hurt when that one big company dominates that town they have an incredible amount of bargaining power. it creates a feeling for the average person there being y oppressed. they are being forced to work for the one big company and they get to set all of the rules. the domination of these handful of companies is inconsistent with the troop capitalist system. therefore i have some sympathy with antitrust being forced in a more systematic way. we need to recognize at times when that happens something wrong has i happened. there is too much regulation we

too.to do that antitrust and expect is going to go away. if you don't deal with the source to make easy money that's just going to come back needs to work if you deal antitrust what's led to the big domination of the companies. >> if you want to because you're about to wrap up your but if you don't mind and 30 seconds your book gives us a lot to worry about in the united states. why don't you tell us what is the biggest reason you're optimistic about the future of the united stateshe and economic freedom and capitalism? >> think eventually america does the right thing after having tried all options. america in the end will course correct. it is a country that has done so. the fact we can have this free

debatebe out here is great. the fact i'm able to put this argument out here is terrific. i got to this argument out in china and even in places like india the fact i can put this argument out there and the fact it's early days has just come out. i get a lot of positive feedback from the rights and the left on some of these issues, it makes me optimistic the fact that someone put it this is a capitalist critique of capitalism. i say yes there is so much have seen this and also from the outside i have a seen it as an immigrant who gave himnt a socialist country by the facts i can put this argument out there. we can have this hour-long debate here and discussion still give me reason in the end america will course correct. >> thank you i really appreciate it. the book is what went wrong with capitalism. so thank you very much. >> thankou