Globalizations done in ripping apart american policy and politics and how to bring it back together and he points to really these wall things that have come up. I dont think he quite meant trumps border wall, but rather protectionism things to try to block ourselves off to try to restrict trade to restrict peoples choice and on the other hand having to recognize that its very disruptive when technology moves fast globalization moves fast and his his metaphor the bridge is we need to find ways to get people from one place to another we are not going to stop the world from changing. Something thats you know, all too painfully a parent and the geopolitics today. Ive known plan for a very long time is a leading scholar in Public Finance and a number of other fields. He served with distinction and the council as head of the council of economic advisors in the in the early 2000s under president bush and has since been dean of the Columbia Business School and written many important papers, and i think ive really appreciated glenn how in recent years. Youve tried to create a center not a center in the Republican Party center in the United States and you written with others who tried to do the same. For example, tim geitner who of course was the treasury secretary under president obama. So lets lets dive into your book i want to assure viewers. We are going to come back to some of the broader issues of how whats going on in geopolitics touches on glance thesis. I think i think actually this question of how do we come together has become very urgent because its one thing to say. Well, you know, we hate the atrocities being committed in ukraine, and wed like to see president putin soundly defeated and its another thing. Whats your longterm strategy for doing that . How long are we going to keep sanctions on what other things that were going to do . What are we going to do with our Energy Policy . Well come to that towards the end because i think really this overarching theme in professor hubbards book is really how to find a constructive solution to our problem. So so glenn welcome and if i can just you know start you off with what motivated write this book which you know, you see books today that are sort of written to the right and get viewers on the right people on the right to buy it and you see even more books on the left to have viewers on the left eye. I think at times the best seller list has had nine out of 10 of the books about, you know, the problems with President Trump. Youve written something that doesnt, you know, clearly go at either audience. Youre trying to create a center and im just very interested in what motivated you and even if you had early reaction yet to share that with us. Well, thanks ken and thanks for your thoughtball introduction. I was motivated really by three things in economic concern a political concern and actually a personal journey on the economic concern. You know, we have been through a period, you know, as you suggested. Were theres a bit of a tug of war in our political process so for growth and growth is something that we usually think of an economics as being about science and technology and about organizations to accommodate it. Im really worried about politics and im very worried that were in an environment where the political process has proposed protectionism of a variety of ways of firms of International Markets of jobs that really goes against growth and that leads me to sort of the political observation, which is that growth is like the head side of a colon. Its the one we all love to talk about is economists policymakers love and Business People do but every coin with the head says a tail. The tails is disruption and there isnt a serious model of Economic Growth that doesnt also entail enormous amounts of disruption and i think the political process hears cries for help if you will the demands. And the supply side from politics has to take one of two forms. It could be walls and those are really easy. Im going to protect you from something. You dont like sounds great politicians on the left and the right are both doing it. It doesnt work because you and i both know the other alternative in the political process is harder. Its about building bridges and a bridge as you said, you know takes you to somewhere or brings you back in econ speak. Thats about opportunity. Its about reform of social insurance. We once did this in a grand way in our country in the 19th century and in the 20th century, and i think we can do it again. The third is a personal journey, you know in september of 1977. Which is a chronicled event i have in the book the city of youngstown exhibited closure of all of its steel plants. In fact all of a single day september 19th 1977. And never really recovered. That very month and i think that very day i was in my first course in economics principles of economics. And if i think about the arc for me since that time, its been pretty good as it has been for you and many Business People and probably many viewers of this show. But at the same time the things that were so good to me technological advances in globalization that magnified my ability to do things have disrupted the lives of others. I take economics going all the way back to adam smith as being partly a moral discipline my teacher your colleague ben friedman, you know wrote a very powerful book on the moral consequences of Economic Growth growing societies are healthy societies that personal journey has always stuck with me and force me to put the pandy client if i can just pick up on some of the interesting things you said so i would make an observation youre about walls that you said, you know, if theyre theyre very few things that like just really all economists agree on but one of them, is that free trade is basically good you need to protect the losers will come back to that and President Trump put up remarkable barriers to trade in chinas an interesting question. We might come back to but he was doing it to canada doing it to france and some of these barriers to trade are the things president. Biden has not taken down. I mean, i think a lot of people viewed this as President Trump taking a page out of the Democratic Party playbook because Republican Party at all. We stood for free trade and i wonder you know what you think about that, but also i think a lot of a lot of people might look at at the us and say the problem is there arent enough pillows or mattresses to fall on theres not enough social insurance. You mentioned social insurance, but i think certainly when a lot of my progressive friends look at the problem with free trade. Its not its not just that they want to keep the current jobs. Its that they feel those who lost their jobs are sort of been betrayed because our our social insurance systems. So we and and youre you know, one of the worlds leading experts on Public Finance. Do you want to kind of maybe im jumping ahead too much, but it about your bridges of you know, where you see there should be social insurance, you know. Met in its many forms and where you think theres scope for helping people retrain get other jobs. What do you think works . Whats a great question i can and to start on on trade itself or as a larger versions globalization of markets . I think part of the problem here is if you go back to the queen of englands famous question during the financial crisis to the lse of why did nobody see it coming . Yeah, youre right about that and we write about that in the book. Yeah, and i think the queen might if she were sitting in our conversation today say, how could you have Something Like globalization that in the american setting came on faster . The people fought had very long lasting implications had extreme geographical consequences, and then have economists be surprised at the rise of donald trump or other populist politicians, you know, i think it speaks of while as a profession. Weve always understood gainers compensating losers. Its in every freshman textbook. Im sure its in the lecture every viewer heard on International Trade. We havent really focused on it now in the book i talk about two kinds of bridges you asked about social insurance, which i you know term as a reconnection bridge in in the book most of our social Insurance Programs in the United States today fall into two buckets the vast dollars of them are spent on old age programs on medicare and Social Security where we have social insurance in the labor market. Its largely designed for temporary layoffs our programs going back to the 1930s like insurance or designed like that. This is obviously something very different. Were talking about longterm job walks to me. The first goal is preparing people for the next job not putting them on the dole, but we do need social insurance. Thats keyed toward longer term job loss. So i talk about personal reemployment accounts as an example in the book of you know, much larger individual focus on getting people back to work as well as increased support for work. Its its self in things like in the us context the earned income tax credit and then one other form of social insurance you could use the term more broadly is also to think about community, you know, like like most economists. I have always been skeptical of play space aid normally the idea of bringing people to jobs is what makes sense but for a variety of reasons mobility geographical mobility in country is not what we can we may need to think hard about adjusting assistance to communities aimed at restarting business as a kind of social insurance for places if you will, so i think we have to just expand for viewers on one thing youre saying client. I think its incredibly important. Wed always had the view that when were buffeted by globalization people would move i grew up in rochester new york, and im gonna bring you im gonna bring you back to that later you talk about a fascinating in the book about what George Eastman did in rochester new york, but when i grow up in rochester, new york, it was the Silicon Valley of its day it had Eastman Kodak and film and cameras xerox and copy machines vouching loam and bush and lamb in optics and fine equipment, and it was incredibly prosperous and rochester just got hollowed out by globalization competition from japanese one company after another went under when i grew when i was growing up the greater rochester was 600,000 people. I dont know the number exactly today, but it might be 300,000 people but you know, it was it was very painful. It was absolutely globalization, but a lot of people moved and resettled my friends and i i and when we look at the statistics from that period there was a lot of moving i think the statistics still today that 30 of americans live in a state where they werent born compared to europe where i think its three percent of europeans live in a country where they werent born. But that has really changed the statistics on mobility have gotten drastically worse, and thats absolutely you know, as youre saying you you said in a very you know understated way. I think the mobility is gone down. And so when youngstown which you have a beautiful opening chapter in the book about this, you know when when it goes under the people are just stuck there and in this place thats been hollowed out and thats thats you know, a major change thats taken place. Anyway start interrupt you i just wanted to know i i mean you say again, you know an example of where i think weve gone wrong and all this is our efforts. So theres a program dating actually to the kennedy administrations opening the globalization called trade adjustment systems. And the idea of trade adjustment assistance or taa in washington speak is pretty intuitive if you lose your job as a result of foreign competition, you should get some assistance. The problem is it doesnt really matter whether you lose your job to foreign competition with rustic competition or to technology, which is a far bigger disruptor of the labor market. We need to do more to help people get that. Next job taa was talked about by politicians really more when they want to expand trade than actually help people left behind. So weve poured gasoline on the fire of those who want to protect jobs because we really havent offered much of of an alternative. I think that alternative is there. Its right out of econ 101. Weve got to go back. So, why do you think . Walls have become so popular politically. I mean in the old days it used to be. Yeah congress always wanted protectionism, but the president would stop at and it was kind of understood that as long as the Congress People could campaign and tell their constituents. Well, i i tried the president wouldnt allow it and everyone kind of understood that they the bigger game was to keep the economy Rolling Technology move and then i would say particularly with you you certainly speak of this interesting episode when you were head of the council of economic advisors you would just arrived you march in to president bush to say, you know here all the great reasons the steel tariff youre putting in to protect it was pennsylvania is just a terrible idea. Of course, pennsylvania is a big swing state and the election you understood that and you put on a map and you sat here are the jobs youre going to protect here are the where the way more jobs youre going to lose and you lost the argument and you know. But yeah, that was an exception. Not a rule. I think a lot of times you were very successful in arguing for free trade and other people whove been head of the council of economic advisors often speak about that thats been one of the areas where economists are really upheld principles. But boy, is that changed and why do you think it is . What do you think we can do to . Bring it back or i guess thats not a precise statement. What do you think we should be doing . What should we be bringing back . How should we be expanding trade . But building bridges at the same time. Whats a great question, you know is economists were all pretty good at reminding politicians or students or the general public about the value of trade. I dont think thats the issue. I dont think president bush disagreed with me on any of the economic arguments. In fact what he told me after was, you know, i heard everything you said that you didnt give me any way to help the people in wheeling, West Virginia and in pennsylvania, and i think part of the problem and the ease of walls for politician is its very seductive to be able to go into a Community Like youngstown and say, you know what . Im gonna bring the steel mills back. Or President Trump telling coal country. Im going to bring coal back you it sounds nice to say im going to restore the past. Its very comforting to people and the problem is bridges are harder to design and to do but theyre there. So for example if president bush had bought perhaps more about programs to help communities and individuals left behind or if i or other economist it helped him think about that. We might have gotten a very different outcome. And as i said in our country, weve traditionally had bigger ideas here, you know in the middle of the civil war lincolns move for a Land Grant College system was in part about opportunity and part about helping an economy transition from an Agrarian Society to manufacturing society. We once were good at this and we need to go back and think of it. Otherwise were just going to begging for all okay, so, but let me let me make you be more concrete though. What exactly should we be doing . So do you favor Free Community colleges do you favor . You know subsidizing employers who you know hire someone for the first time. I mean, its its absolutely sounds good, but i say again my many progressive friends in cambridge would push back saying you havent found programs at work and until you find things that work. Thank you, you know, were going to protect these jobs. Well, let me start just quickly on the protected jobs thing, you know, i teach in a Business School a very good one and when i talk to students about the job market, im always struck with many of the jobs. Theyd most like to have werent even around 30 years ago. And even for people in the general public that is true, so theres a old expression of who monitors the monitor who watches the watcher and washington is going to decide which jobs are the ones to protect. You know, we have very large gross flows in our labor market and thats very very healthy. A lot of jobs are created a lot of jobs are destroyed. The net is a positive number on average. Thats the way the labor market but thats being so social that speaks to social insurance having much and thats what you do on top of that. Yeah. I want to start with preparation. So you have specifically Community Colleges are interesting way to tease out the difference between i think more riggers thinking and sloppy thinking so sloppy thinking is the idea that free tuition is the answer. If you go back to the setup of the Land Grant Colleges the idea was to build things and fund them in modern terms. Wed call that block grants Austin Goolsby and Melissa Carney and i had suggested a couple of years ago a significant federal block grant for Community Colleges. That was keyed to a set of metrics where one could measure the real issue as many people know in Community Colleges is not just getting people in the door, but getting them out the door and the other end so we could do this at a time when many states have cut back their funding so free tuition really isnt the answer Community Colleges more so than the harvards in the columbias of the world are the foot soldiers of training people for different skills in a changing job market from technology and globalization. I do think to your other point we need to do more to support work the earned income tax credit. Us was originally envisioned as a work support program. It is primarily today. I Family Support program a significant benefits in the earn income tax credit occur accrue to people with children. To me we need to make a single benefits and childless benefits much more generous to encourage work as an alternative to an idea of universal basic income. So those are examples of ways to concretely promote work. Theyre not free to do either of these requires expenditures. I talk about ways in the book to pay for it, but theyre a heck of a lot less costly than some of the less work oriented schemes that are being discussed today. Now thats super interesting. I want to ask about businesses. You have towards the end of the book a great chapter about looking at things businesses can do and i thought it was particularly great because i mentioned im a rochester new york, which you feature talking particularly about George Eastman and opening up the chapter. He was the founder of Eastman Kodak the and you know, very early in showing how to process film and he funded mit funded the university of rochester he funded, you know, many philanthropic activities the hospitals and other things in rochester and you know, certainly are you emphasize this was very admirable today is Corporate Executives and leaders, you know seem to have a mix of things, too. Are they doing it wrong . Like how was George Eastman a better example than some of what we see today . Whats interesting question because to me what makes George Eastman an interesting case is not his personal generosity. Although it was very very significant and indeed the gifts of the beautiful neoclassical buildings at mit were anonymous. They were given under the name mr. Smith when they were originally given so hes a generous man the real issue with him is that he really understood that social support for business was critical to businesses viability in his case. That was the community of rochester where he really focused a lot of his philanthropy and more broadly on areas that were complementary to business if i think of Business Today a lot of Business Leaders, i think take social support for the basic market system as as given that i i wrote a piece recently in atlantic, and i know they havent been talking to many people 30 and under that. Well, thats what i was about to say and if you talk to even Business School to so these arent undergraduate Political Science students and talk about people who are studying finance and Business School are skeptical of the outcomes of the capitalist business oriented economy. So i think businesses need to be more engaged their businesses also can solve a great many things in partnerships with each other and with local educational institutions. I use it in the book the example of pittsburgh as a place that did come together under business in philanthropic leadership to reinvent itself the state of massachusetts did the same after the evisceration of mills as an industry. So Business Leaders can play on the stage and i fear that in many companies, its thought of simply as charity or philanthropy. I view it as more not just a moral responsibility but a very practical concern that the social fabric to in which business is embedded runs the risk of being torn. Its a definitely you know, theyre incredible fissures in our society. I wonder you speak about adam smith a lot in the book. We economists regard him as my you know many people regard shakespeare not simply have been so far ahead of this time, but just how enduring is contributions are and you come up with so many examples in the book. I wonder if you could give a couple of them and then after that, what do you think adam smith would see if he looked at us today . Whats a great question . You know, i think smith was absolutely foundational and economics. Its important to remind ourselves. There wasnt an economics discipline in smiths day though wealth of nations is published in 1776 smith is a moral philosopher, but he wrote the book in large part as an attack on mercantile system, which was the dominant economic philosophy day and sadly thats not just an economic history observation. Its what autonomously you want to explain what explain to viewers, you know in american to list economy. The goal would be to accumulate surpluses for International Trade and to increase the stock of gold and silver that are available and the problem that smith saw with that is that he didnt see it as related to the true wealth of a nation which was really the productivity of its people and their ability to consume. Large he also saw mercantilis systems as favoring the special few state monopolies. He wrote a lot on the British East India Companies is something he really detested and sovereigns at the expense of ordinary people so you can think of smith as wanting what my colleague ned phelps in the Economics Department here calls a mass flourish. He was not about just the sovereigns or projected monopolists. So the wealth of nations is very powerful in that regard and smith doesnt use these exact words, but it is very big on openness. I dont know how i dont want a high jack the conversation over to russia. I just want to make a point and see what you think about it. I mean in many ways if you look at the economic regime putin ran over the last 10 or 15 years, he sort of learned the lesson that he wanted to have a war chest. He wanted to build up money in case wanted to have a war in case it was cut off by the west and he actually ran a surpluses all the time in the government very little government that i mean last. I looked it up 15 or 20 percent of gdp and they have of course reserves as i think almost everyone knows by now that the central bank has a loan of 630 billion dollars. They have a Sovereign Wealth Fund with hundreds of billions of dollars and you know building up these workshops for war. I mean that that was mercantilism part of the rationale was that you were going to have a war and you want to operate things this way and in some ways hes a modern day illustration of that. But hes also proof of what smith was concerned about the prosperity of average people in russia. Yes is not where it could be. So happy absolutely. Yeah, so it may in smiths day. It was about the British East India Company in a sovereign in putins time. Its putin versus the people, but if you take smith of russia, yes, yeah average people isnt hes an illustration of whats exactly exactly. So thats why these ideas are are in fact timeless, but you know smith wrote another book. Hd smith wrote it almost two decades before the wealth of nations, theres the moralnd philosopher whose the professor of moral philosophy. In that book he argues mutual sensitivity, i think we would call it empathy today. He had in mind people being all in. If i put this together, i could see two meanings of all in,or wealth of nations is about all in for me as an individual, my skills in the labor market and you put as an entrepreneur so its all in, mass flourishingo and fingers werent on this. I think theres a lot to say and what you say today calls attention in the wealth of nations, understand arguments about superiority of the system and it requires this belief that markets are competitive, firms compete with each other capitol markets are competitive and labor markets are competitive and he be concerned about the ability to compete so i cant say that i am pro competition if i havent made sure everybody has the ability to compete, it goes back to the intervention in American History for education and training and i think that is where smith would focus. He argued for spending on Public Education as well as infrastructure and i think 1776 few of those ideas would definitely capture and today. A lot of these ideas, the wall and the bridge and you will hear a lot more about it that way. I do know if you come out and say this in the book but i feel you have said itt now adam smith would say economists, he read one of my books, youre supposed to be them together, they both had something to say, one was incomplete without the other. That speaks to what you say in the book. It is and a quick line on that would be time to put the liberal back in neoliberal and i dont mean the way we use it in this country, i mean classical liberalism of adam smith and i do think he and other enlightened figures are in moral discussion and economic discussion which is why i recommended this. Hes been my colleague. Im going to throw out another outofthebox question, he write in the book when you went to Harvard University to list treatment but also marty phelps died, an amazing scholar of Public Finance and leader in American Economics, he passed away very recently. What do you think he would say about the book i dont know if you got to talk to him about it. Where did you get from him, or do you think he would have said . He was a sharp thinker. How would he have reacted . Marty was essential influence in my life as an economist not just as a scholar although he had a considerable repetition there. As an advisor and friend over many years. I think hey would like the ideas in the book, he had Economic Research when he was president of it. He ran when he called factory tours, a critical example in smiths book illustrates Specialization Division in labor, i suggest he wanted economist to talk to practical people on more than onecc occasn being stuck on something he would say a couple things, the solution probably lies in Walking Around talking to people, trying to figure it out. Thats incredible insight from a scholar, nothing could be truer, its very hard to think of everything not just yours but the students listening. And the other piece of the advice is be about the economy, not projections. If you want to have an impact, problems that matter, then talk about them. Look at the American Economic issues in your take on that and i think that is very powerful. Going back to the queen of england with the financialthfi crisis, we would have been more on top of the financial crisis if we talked more to people in ecommerce and today the more economists we talked to, Business People, workers, communities, it becomes easier to think about interventions that might help as opposed to academic exercises Walking Around. Its funny you say that because i think a lot of the excitement and economics profession now would be data science, large fields being shaped by this but its not really Walking Around, its sort of relying on survey or census data. Its very informative and involves Machine Learning and all sorts of fascinating algorithms for using there needs to bed more Walking Around ther, too . I think its a lot of opportunity, it is a way of getting microed information we might not have called for data in the past. So thats all good but in order to generate understanding of something and help with generating this, something is better than Walking Around talking to people, i just dont know for that. We are not terrific at it, we are good at talking to each other but i think practical exchanges the word. Im wondering if i can come back to have you sum up the theme of your book, we need to put the liberal back in neoliberalism. Another way we can frame it is adam smith if he was here today, he would say read both my books but can you p be as concrete as possible on what riches you think we should have, what you think we should be doing . Maybe afters this we will talk about what further lessons are going on europe and what it will mean for globalization. Great question. The backing neoliberalism implies taking both sides of smith and realizing growth and destruction are the size of one another and we cant simply celebrate gains from market economy without noticing and doing something about destruction. Bridges need to be in two camps, either preparing people to succeed in a disruptive world or reconnecting them when they are dropped off and thats about Community Colleges, work support, brought changes in social insurance systems and the way we treat communities, a way of noticing and doing things its very different, that iser putting liberal back in leo numeral. Thank you for the answer. You are a very good speaker, a terrific book. If you dont mind, i would like to take it a little bit to Current Events because march talk about globalization. Let me pick something really concrete and this is going too far but i think it is useful. We end up with a new iron curtain around russia and china, trade not just from russia but china shrinks dramatically. The globalization shock. What all the people who hated globalization think that was great because it unwinds competition and everything going on, would that be great or what shock people would think globalization is terrible . I dont think they would think it would be great. I think would be an increase in prices and loss of goods and Services People enjoy it is also a more dangerous world implying premium assets and Greater Public expenditure. It is a hard problem because ntrussia is a well integrated economy, it does sell economies such as energy but the aluminum and wheat in the world market but China Integrated into the global economy. For china to the globalized would be a major hit to the chinese economy and the World Economy so i think we have to hope that doesnt happen. Even aside from instability, he raised good points of a risk premium, i think people cant imagine what that would be in terms of costs. On the consumer side of things, people take walmart for granted or they get mad at walmart for some reason or another, they take lowcost alternatives for granted. They just have no clue of what the other side of things could be such a difficult question. I want toan ask about the sanctions on russia, thats natural the globalization. Do think it is less important or if for some reason you could still trade with russia and china, they couldnt invest here, a permeable law that allows trade through but didnt allow finance, would that not be so bad or what you think the effects would be . And it is hard to do. I think sanctions currently implement on central bank and the use of swift messaging system that would go along with payments and transfers are having a devastating effect and side russian economy, that is absolutely happen. One problem is energy is carved out so theres still hard currency flows to russia that can be used to finance a number of things so i think sanctions are harsh but could well be harsher. A question i have just as Vladimir Putin has to decide exit strategy in ukraine, the west hatched to decide was an exit strategy from sanctions . When her sanctions over . With a preconditioned other lasting implications . I think we are beginning to have that discussion. I think its a very important part i want to underscore. Sanctions have not brought regime change in north korea or venezuela, iran, cuba. Weve had sanctions most of the last 60 years on cuba and periods of trade. It hasnt changed. We want to hoarding it off . Not just from an economic view but in terms of global stability, is it healthy . I think youan are right, we are just going to have bigger and bigger sanctions such but thats not a simple calculus, its a way more important economy. I completely agree with that. That said, europe was probably russiadependent on rethinking about the European Energy security reasons and economic but i agree we dont want to wall russia off. What you think an exit strategy should be . Markers to bring down sanctions that are plausible you raised it, its a good question. I dont hear anybody asking it. It is a problem because im not sure to be honest. Lets suppose president putin declared victory and used the old expression, suppose he said the separatist areas in the east of been the precursor, i want those and you can have the rest. Is that enough . I dont know. If he has difficulty with the offramp, i would think we have fully bought it through. Are weoi going to impose energy tensions as well . It would take even more credit and currency away from russia. Much more than the first class. I did north korean rulers have not seen their consumption for all as a result of sanctions and my guess is putin is doing fairly well, too. So the question is really do the sanctions give you enough political pressure at home and history is not been kind. No, it is not. I mean its sanctions have not had regime change and they sort of its hard to predict Going Forward, but kenneth its hard to predict Going Forward but we can talk about before theres certainly very smart and knowledgeable people, bill bower who wrote that notice and gary caspa whos my friend and former champion who argued the problem with the sanctions in 2014 was they were half baked. You did not do nearly enough. You should have taken everything away. But that i guess part of the reason they might not have done that was the hope of the fear that if they were more extreme in their sanctions they would have put putin into a corner much more quickly. Its a very delicate game, politically in the west, you cant have enough sanctions and yet how do we play this . I believe theres some hope and people say russia couldnt live cut off, of course they could. It was called the soviet union and it was the modern economy. The differences is this isnt 1970 and a lot of people . People in russia are used to transactions in Financial Markets that cross boundaries and its not obvious to me that there wouldnt be substantial political pressure to bear on putin with very broad sanctions but its a gambit if we do it. Kenneth no, absolutely. President xi has tremendous power,r, putin has tremendous power and Henry Kissenger wrote this a few years ago its becoming harder to overthrough bureaucrats and deck tay at a timers because they have dictators because they have access to Spine Technology to see potential opponents before they potential opponent had the idea they were a potential opponent. Thats one of the reasons were not seeing regime change. Thats what we hope for and that would be an incredibly optimistic outcome for this. But its very difficult to knowe what might create that. Its not like there isnt pushback in cuba. Its not like the cubans are going, no. But the police are so powerful they cant get away from it. I think when youre talking about the wall and the bridge were really speaking about the unfortunately shrinking space in which awed greats are not autogreats are not ruling and how do we make sure we dont come into that. I guess i have well, i cant help but ask are you concerned about the unit at all about the politics becoming so paralyze that had we end up with a much more awed cat ick system on the left or right. Glenn the more walls of protection we try to put up and the less growth well have and going back to bens book, those stagnant societies are were suspicious, more racist, more antisemitic and more afraid of the other and thats a breeding ground for authoritarianism. Kenneth thats very interesting. So as we sort of move towards wrapping up in the next few minutes,s, just say what an unusual book this is because, you know, if youve set out to write a book these days and want to have a lot of people by it, you either say that, you know, you either appeal very strongly to the left. Call it the New York Times reader or appeal very strongly to the right and call it the fox viewer. Those are big markets. A lot of books. And i cant even think of an example. Im sure im missing a dozen, but im sort of having double reaching for an example where, you know, someones tried to do something in the middle. Op i hope you dont end up like one of those people who grow up, you know, in some city where theres a lot of gangs and you didnt join a gang so both sides beat you. If that does happen or it may happen, i have to warn you its really great that you stock up ask where is our common ground, where can we make things better and what are we arguing about in the economic issues. Glenn its what economists need to do and its our standard answers but delivered in a way that hopefully allows the center to flourish. I actually think, im not a mpolitician so this may be nai, but theres political gold in the hills and imagine a population thats been suffer from disruption that has tangible things offered to them rather than kissy promises. I dont know if its a democrat or republican that takes that intervention. I dont care, but that could make a difference. Kenneth lets wrap up on that optimistic thought that theres gold in the dream and the wall and the bridge iss a very important reading to think about it. Thank you so much to our viewers for listening and thank you to my friend, glenn, for speaking about his book today. We we hope you find a chance to react and think about these issues. Glenn thanks. Hear those during the president ial regardings. The nixon tapes, part private conversations, part deliberations, and 100 unfiltered. Yeah, let me say that we have the main thing is that it will pass and my heart goes out to those people who with the best of intentions are overzealous but as im sure you know, ill tell you if i could have only if i could have spent a bit more time being politician and not being president , i would have kicked their butts out but i didnt know what they were doing. Find president ial recordings season 2 on the cpan app or wherever you get your podcasts. My name is rachel and im the