if yo look at the points galbreath argued for, he was a berkeley phd from the '30s. they didn't have gained three on the curriculum than. there was no sophisticated smart for one, dumb for all linux thinking available to people who were in the curriculum then. but he identified what were actually the problems that have proved to be the ones that have plagued the economy. the idea that we spend so much on what ends up being not very productive expenditure in the private sector. fancher good, bigger goods, better goods that don't seem to yield lasting satisfaction. while at the same time we neglect the public sphere to a shocking degree really. that diagnoses has proved descriptive and incredibly pressing it as a portrait of what was goi to end up being america's big problem. i think he was much more than a sociologist who he would couched his arguments differently than if he was riding with the benefit of the modern regular but i think it is on an unfortunate that the committee never awarded the prize to galbreath. >> it's pretty hard to have a discussion on economics