at 1.5% and i learned many things from herbert stein we used to be richard nixon's council of economic advisor is used to say the difference between the growth rate of 1% and 2 percent is 100 percent. that is absolutely true over 30 years you double at 2% and you don't double of 1%. even after 35 years if you were growing at 2% but these are important consequences for the long run. >> everybody tries to find out what is going on. but you talk about long-term interest rates. and we had this discussion about productivity. and with the cash and the board rooms are not interested in capital expansion. why is that a missingash, boa ingredient? what must happen before we see the acceleration quick. >> that was higher before the oil price and the decline of the price of whale which not coincidentally is to leveleclino of production of shale in is marginal. of the capital goods needed to expand production. we lost a lot of investment from shale production with the price of oil but overeded t and above that they're sitting on a wad of cash from the united states and there is the air of uncertai

used to be over to and i learned many things from a person who many of you here have heard of, herbert stein, it used to be richard nixon's chairman of the council of economic advisers. he used to say the difference between a growth rate of 1% 2% is 100%. and that is absolutely true. if you look over 30 years you double at 2% and you don't double at one percent, you would be about half of the 35 years of where you would be if you are growing at two percent. these have very important consequences for the long run, these low numbers. and everybody's trying to find out what's going on. >> you gave a speech last night that i read last night and he talked about long-term interest rates, cyclical versus structural. we had we had discussion about productivity and the weakness of investment. investment has not showed up in this recovery, at the u.s. corporation sitting on 2,000,000,000,000 dollars worth of cash, board rooms are not interested in capital expansion, why do you think investment has been so weak? what must happen before we see an excel ration? >> investment was higher before the oil pri

i learned many things we pursue many of you here have heard of, herbert stein county is to be richardsed to say the difference between a growth rate of 1% and 2% is 100%. that is absolutely true. if you look over 30 years, you double the 2%, and you don't double up 1%, you would be about half after about 35 years of where would you be if you were growing at 2%. so these have very important consequences for the long run, these low numbers, everybody is trying to find out what's going on. >> you gave a speech yesterday which i scored to read last night he goes at it now you're getting it but you talk about the long-term interest rate, cyclical versus structural. and get we've had this discussion about productivity and the weakness of investment. investment just hasn't shown up in this recovery. u.s. corporation say unto trillion trillion dollars worth of cash, ordering truly are not arrested and capital expansion. why do you think investment has been so weak? why is it the missing ingredie ingredient? >> part of it come investment was hired before the oil price started falling. indeterm