Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160818

Shocking. 10 years ago i predicted this would never happen but i think it shows you how right i am. Look at the technology in the games of or commission and alexa which is now common. You see. Im not take interest in the Voice Recognition part im very interested in a Voice Recognition with knowledge understanding. And the data that google already has. Or the underlying algorithms. You can use of google, with or pocket that you can get on your phone, speaking your language from it comes out on another foot in another language. Oh, my god, right . Does this really work . District is as good as a human translator . Not yet. Is a good enough to have a casual conversation . Yes how does it work . It takes your voice, digitize it and puts it into text. Thats done using a network. It then uses a different Translation Network which is learned how to translate. It translates it and it translates it back into voice. So you three different translations. Is there a name to the age we were looking at now, the transformative age of all of the technologies and what its doing forced . There is not a consensus name but i can define it better. Another example, theres again called ago which americans typically dont know anything about. Its infinitely harder than chess. A group, a subsidiary google, have been with for long time to try develop the concept of intuition. They develop an ability to take a game in the form of its, they can watch the bits on the screen and with enough work and playing enough games they can figure out what the objects that they cant or, how to win it and, indeed, all the humans. Thats pretty interesting. Whats interesting technologically is that you have to tell it what the game is. So how does it do this . It sort of watches for a while, seas, patterns and it begins to develop a base of knowledge. Then it learns against a database of knowledge. This is not a human intelligence yet, so we are not making that argument. You said yet. We dont know how hard it will get there but what we do know is it something which is never been done before. We apply this to the game of go which is thought to be uncomputable. What it did is it learned how to be the only at certain positions by the same route training method. We decided to have a game against the best player in the world in korea, a nice human being, and we beat him, 41, which was historic. It was historic and huge. Help us understand, we are not talk about Artificial Intelligence. Diversity me recently, eric is thinking a lot about Artificial Intelligence. On the one hand, you have deep mine which is able to beat ago. On the other hand, you have lots and which began with ches chestd then one jeopardy and theyre working on pashtun explain Artificial Intelligence to the folks because in this audience and those were everybody hears about it, some people make deep investment in it warren of what i said about the by theres a confluence of a platform, a set of ideas and a large amount of money and a lot of investing, a lot of people coming out of school board to audit and the since it is just one of you everyone. The same, the two are symmetric. With ai, the current ai complicated a couple that are simple. If youre familiar with the disease called diabetic retinopathy, diabetes revolution is tragedy if you will, taking over the world, causes the eyes to go bad. You become blind. It can be detected by an automotive but we did a test where we take pictures then your retina and we can do better than your ophthalmologist. It turns out we see more eyes. We saw a million eyes. Very hard for the ophthalmologist as hard as they work to see a million eyes. Theres a large number of cases where if you just let the computers do technology see more examples, they can come up with better systems. We believe you can apply this to all and gas dissipation networks. Theres a great deal of leakage and sort of decisions are made about flow and storage and so on and so on. By using the data we think we can reduce the emissions from that. So the real question is how far does this go . We think we can develop enough intuition, use that term carefully, that a physicist or a chemist could say, you not to work. They wake up in the morning and they said i want to combine this chemical with this addon will have the following grades reaction. Its not going to blow up. It will give me a promotion at work. They do that. Thats at 9 a. M. At 1150 we can. At three in the afternoon it fails so they go home and have dinner. The next morning they come up with another one. Thats how it really works. These are incredibly intelligent people of that process can be automated. We can ask the computer to go through and do the probability. Does that matter . These are trillion Dollar Industries around the world run chemicals, synthetic, drugs. With respect to Artificial Intelligence, deep mine has a different operating idea than what ibms watson. Explained how they are different and what theyre trying to accomplish each on their own. Each watson and facebook and defined are doing completely different problems that indicates the watson, they use a particular kind of inference model, technical term, which worked particularly well for jeopardy and for competition problemsolving. And having a lot of success applying this to complex systems and explaining them. Think of it as this account could system, they can read it literally and tell you whats in it. So this is sort of the lawyers added complexity can you take it away or whatever model you have. You can take all the contracts can read all of them and give an edge. Thats a powerful result the facebook announced this week that they have a breakthrough in language understanding around communications, sort of what to do. They have said they have made significant progress in detecting hate speech. Thats good a good thing. In our case we took the position we wanted to build an underlying platform that allows you to do all of this stuff. Its a multidimensional matrix and underlying system i described essentially multidimensional matrix algorithms. Weve given this framework to all of our competitors. Its so strategic for us to build the community with all the players. We literally took this amazing intellectual property and have given it away. Some will say to you that deep mind, they are trying to understand how humans think and build from there. The idea people and watson people will say it dismantle smishing. That deep mind people are different because the founders came out of neuroscience. They imagined that you would build Computer Systems that use the same way we do learning. Out of you, i will do a good job of this because im not a neuroscientist but think about it when you came into this room. How much cognitive time did you spend figuring out that the floor was where your feet wet, the lights were up there, the table was bare, and he had a knife and fork and defense and roughly eight people and everyone is dressed properly . Zero time. You had already learned about. You had come to that, if you will. Theres evidence the way our brains work, if we study the scene and then we subset it to things that are really important. The things that are really important we then put into the brain. This is called reinforcement learning in the vernacular. We believe we for one is going to be a core part of this next set of ai offering. In terms of economics in the global economy. Take these five companies, apple, amazon, google, facebook, microsoft. Is there a race to do any one thing . Are they all in the same business . We know apple has made a fortune on its smartphone. Google has made a fortune on search. Microsoft made a fortune on software. Amazon made a fortune on a range of things. But in these companies are the in pursuit of a holy grail . The Tech Companies as a group are highly competitive, seeking new, want to say it right. Think of each of these as a Platform Company driven by innovation that solves the problem that is global. In some cases a problem you didnt know you had. So if you go back, microsoft being the eldest of them, solve the problem of workstation platforms. We all know the history. Amazon started off as essential to a virtual bookstore. I didnt realize i were a bookstore bigger than a current bookstore. Its a useful. Each of these has had the. Apples transformation is legendary with steve resuscitation of the company. Wednesday took over the second time he clearly wanted to do phones. And led the category. Each of these Companies Come we never in our industry, and i would argue the first four without mark soft microsoft, weve never had that Many Companies fighting so brutally against each other and get also collaborating. In our industry we always had ibm and microsoft and a few others. Where is the collaboration . You are also suing each other. [laughter] theres lots of collaboration. A typical example is our apps run on apple and microsoft. Last year they announced a partnership with microsoft. The traditional model, we would not put anything on the platform. It turns out that apple is a customer. It argues we are also a customer of apple for things. On and on and on. In fact, i do it argues with each other but we benefit, we as an industry have benefited from open markets globalization, the since the technology is transformative and the kind of speech should we insist on open sources in terms of the future, in terms of all that is being discovered, or overlook at a world in which each organization is going to be jealously guarding not only what it knows in learning but also trying to hide a way to protect itself from losing its most talented human beings . I think the competitive structure, the architecture you described, four to five companies, will continue for a while until another one joins us and one one we dont know now . Of course. I can tell you the current next one is uber, which has done remarkably well in disclosure, google is a large investor in uber. So is saudi arabians sovereign wealth fund. I didnt do that deal. Uber has done incredibly well. I wish i invented uber. What a great idea. At the same time travis and his partner were standing it was actually invented in paris at the base of the eiffel tower according to travis. At exact time he was there inventing in uber i was giving a speech Amazing Companies founded based on smartphones, gps and google maps. But i didnt figure out what the app was. The next uber, the one that is a new one, the one well be talking about in five or 10 years will be built on a Machine Intelligence platform of the kind i have defined, very fast networks. It will use a smartphone, android and iphone most likely, it will use very rapid iteration. I dont know what the app is. I dont know what problem is to be solved. Which raises in terms of Artificial Intelligence and how smart machines are coming, people like elon musk, larry, in some cases but not as strong, bill gates, the idea is there some danger from machines becoming so smart, so human, but uncontrollable that they provide a threat to the planet . These people have been watching a lot of movies. [laughter]. Your colleagues are smart people and my colleagues and competitors perhaps. Elon banged up the concern. And Stephen Hawking too. Elon, backed up his concern over this very important issue by investing a billion dollars in a competitor to [inaudible]. Well see how that plays out. It is, you never say never. Right. But lets go through what is needed to make that scenario happen. So the first thing is, were still learning how to do basic intuition and those kinds of things. It is there will be breakthroughs, and well get excited about it and begin to answer questions and answer email make suggestions what Movie Theater you should go to night. That is not intelligence. We may be able and hope to assist humans in their daily jobs. Who doesnt want help, right . Think of all the professionals and so on. We think we can do that. It is real speculation to get to the kind of human level intelligence that everyone here has in the room let alone going past. My own intuition, which is just a guess, is there is another discovery needed. Right. The human level infew wages, human intelligence is very hard problem, hard to define what it actually is. But my own intuition there is another discovery to which might occur. Then the concerns, over, oh, my god, robot is let loose in the lab and basically decided to kill its owners, well i saw that movie and it was really good. There are also questions of disruptive technologies. Does google fear there is disruption so that Search Engines will be obsolete . The. In my industry you always worry about the next idea. Inevitably there is new team, in a garage, young professor and two graduate students. By the way that is how we started. You always worry about that. There are many, many ways what we currently do could be disrupted over time. This is why which invest so much. Were focused on the assistive model. We have significant advantages in terms of engineers in fact that is what technology has done. Uber is a disruptive technology. Amazon was a disruptive technology. Sure. That really, then the power of technology to disrupt the way things have been. But if you look at uber, uber is both disruptive Business Model and technology. It is a two sided market. A number of things written over two sides of a market. Tough have a pricing model they dont set for the drivers and pricing model to get enough customers. This is how it works. Okay, big picture, some people worry that there may be somehow a, go back to the 2000, 2001, you lived there you that, some kind of a collapse of technology companies, a bubble bursting. We lived through the bubble. The bubble, we were so much more handsome and beautiful during the bubble i must say. Bubbles make you feel like youre god, right . I remember being at this dinner in davos where you were and i looked around, i said these are the leaders of the free world . There was some we sort of got ahead of ourselves and thank goodness, that it crashed and we rebuilt it properly. The markets and investors are much savvier now. So for the companies that dont have strong profits, they have a strong potential revenue scale solution. There is this fact too. That is how i did a conversation the other night where john malone was being honored, very successful entrepreneur, and you know, he just bought time warner through one of his companies and he obviously is intent in terms of his vision, his access to the internet. That is what broadband and access to the internet is what these companies will do for him but you raise the question with me, people like google, and apple have so much money, that he worries about the possibilities that they have. In addition, they have so much money, can they scoop up all of the best talent of the five companies were talking about. Were trying to hire the best people, each of us globally because we understand the economic return of these people but this is a narrative not just unique to the five companies. For each of the Companies Represented here in the room, if you had five or 10 of the kind of engineers im talking about we could materially improve the effectiveness of your building or business. This is software, big data stuff and, there is a great many, many examples now where you take what your business is like, put it in a big data thing, analyze it for a while, you come up with Customer Insights that drive your bottom line. That is where the race is. And the value, the economic value of these people in the labor market is very, very high. They very high little paid. They know technology will bring productivity. Will it also create problems in terms of people being displaced from the job market . Weve had this for a long time. If you go back to the 1980s automation concerns and 1990s, there was a great deal of concern there would be a loss of jobs but in fact the American Economy has generated throughout the all the travails and ups and downs a large number of jobs during the time the jobs were supposed to go away. There is evidence that the american model does create jobs and the jobs are different. Everyone has a right to fear for their own future and fear that their jobs will be disrupted but fact of the matter is but the u. S. Is running near what economists call full employment. That is a testament to the recovery since 2008 and 2009. Everybody here was in new york, i assume, 2008, 2009. Try to remember how you felt, right . That was only seven years ago. Think about how strong this city what you all have done this. That is the testament. Im not as worried about this i want to be clear i think there is a problem with the loss of highpaying middle class manufacturing jobs with new data. This is hollowing out of the middle and we need to find ways to address the job dislowlation that with Service Workers and so forth. There are many Economic Solutions for that but the ultimate answer to this stuff is more education, more education, more education, more competitiveness and more entrepreneurs. It was interesting because you named the five companies. Everyone of them was started by incredibly brilliant entrepreneurs, right . Maybe we should thank them occasionally. Think about the number of jobs these people im not founder. Think of all the jobs and taxes they pay to the state in our case in california to bail a state out . You get the idea. Speaking of taxes, should there be a change in tax structure to bring all the money overseas home . We have argued for two decades the offshore cash should be brought into america. To create jobs at home . Of course. In googles case we generate a lot of cash from our own operation, thank goodness, but seems crazy to not let the cash come into the country to be used for capital. Here is another sore point. Were underinvesting in our infrastructure. The countrys population is growing, and interconnectivity is increasing. You have greater demand on fixed services, right . We need to spend the money on roads, bridges, airports, you name it, right . Were not doing it and Interest Rates are low. Therefore investment in infrastructure will create demand . Right. There is a set of things that businesses cant do and one of them in most cases theyre not allowed to build roads and bridges across a local river. There is a proper function for government. The government needs to get organized doing it. That stuff drives economic activity, which drives wealth creation, happiness, health care, happy families and more voters. Seems very straightforward. How much time do i have, bill . I may be at time. Five minutes. Okay. When you look globally where is the competition come to the american technological, economic engine . Is it china . Is it south korea . Is it somewhere else . The history in this was that america would invent it, korea would perfect it, and china would make it in huge volumes. That is sort of the pattern and many people believe that china is now going to jump one level higher and, theyre following our playbook. Theyre incredibly intelligent. They have lots of money and theyre very focused on emphasizing their universities and so forth. There are critics who believe their educational model and lack of political speech and whole bunch things will not allow them to get to our level. Right. That is the great debate. There are other arguments chinas economy is slowing down and numbers theyre overstating, i cant really tell. China is clearly going to be a player. The most interesting country to spend anytime in is israel. On a pound for pound or person for person or whatever metaphor you want their productivity is highest in the world, because of their forced size. They have forced military service. They are aggressive in their culture with innovation and tolerate risk. That is repeatable model in other country. Interesting, last time i saw you was at tecnicom, trying to create a Silicon Valley in new york. One of great things mayor bloomberg did, building on huge campus with cornell and tekion in Silicon Valley. Silicon valley needs a competitor. Its a great thing. Im on the board. I love this project. If you go through where the innovation will occur. Beijing comes to mind, tel aviv comes to mind. London is having a huge renaissance. It is largely because kings cross has a train line that goes to cambridge. That train line is about an hour 1 2. Im serious. More important to go to cambridge say than oxford . All i can tell you that the people in cambridge have a lot of free land around the university and they allowed the construction of business parks. This is relatively rare in europe which doesnt like to build anything. Excuse the comment but i think it is roughly true. So they were clever enough, they owned a lot of land that was unoccupied. The university was able to entitle it. So they had on the order of a thousand startups, most of which didnt work and they were small and so forth but those startups at some point have to move to a city. Of course they moved to london, kings cross. So that is a pretty good model, right . What about the model that stanford has with Silicon Valley . Take the two founders of google. They were both in graduate school. Yes. The relationship between the university, allowing them to do whatever they wanted to do, does it create opportunities . Well you can argue that cornell technico is same thing here. Yes. Stanford is copyable model. There is no secret here. Not like some intellectual property in some vault somewhere. Stanford, it is organized around graduate students. They have a lost funding. Theyre encouraged to write interesting things. The moment they have something interesting, they have lunch with Venture Capitalist, get funded a couple million dollars. To them seems like enormous amount of money. For me too at the time. They move into some dumbpy little house in palo alto that costs too much and off they go. Cycle has happened now six or seven cycles. So it is highly repeatable and copyable. If you were starting over today, would you more likely go in biology rather than Computers Science and engineering . Both are having a renaissance. I dont know, i, interesting you ask the question. I spent a fair amount of time with the computer scientists work in biology and because theyre right at that intersection, all the interesting Computer Science problems at scale are true in biology. Number of proteins and protein folding. I figured that genetics was kind of a solved problem. There is an area of genetics around behavior and modification. Genes change as a result of environmental factors and very complicated ways because of proteins. This is a gold mine for kind of problems people like myself are interested in their 20s, that work today will become the foundation of nobel prizes 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now. I think one of the most exciting things happening today, is marriage between biology and Computer Science and technology, because they both help each other. I mean, with the power of computing and velocity to hit ads, we see in terms of mapping human genome. How much it cost then and how much it costs now. How much it adds to personal medicine now. How the kinds of ways i did a thing down at a university where they are matching what they understand about genetic causes of cancer with at global understanding of all the trials that are going on everywhere. They can compute this, so that a doctor who is treating a patient has incredible amount of innovation in front of him that might not otherwise have been available. The way this is ultimately going to work, you will have a health care record more than just a medical bill, and it will be able to digitally describe and say what is going on. It will calculate the probable outcome, as you enter the hospital. We have a project that has been announced, using the National Health service from the uk and they have a large number of blood samples and so forth. Were trying to predict prevalence of acute Kidney Injury which is very deadly problem. It was a very Common Source of death in hospitals in the uk and probably here too. We have early results we materially save lives. Large percentage of improvement. How do we do it . We study the outcomes, give doctor a heads up. We say this patient, this combination, which is impossiblably complicated is far more likely to need intervention for the next hour. There is this. Tomorrow night ive been asked by james comey to come down to washington, d. C. , to interview him. He is at forefront of a battle, loggerhead between the fbi on one hand and National Security issues and at the same time encryption. Where do you come down in terms of somehow in the National Interests on both sides, finding a solution to this . We need a solution to it. The industry is united in saying that the government forcing us to weaken encryption is a bad idea. If were forced by law to weaken encryption, and people are proposing that, wont be just the government that has access to the information on your phone, it will also be the bad guys. The computer cant tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys. It is more important in countries like china where laws are not favorable to human rights. Weve taken a position there need to be other solutions, rather than forcing a weakening or a backdoor, if you will. Right. There is a hard issue because encryption is getting stronger. In fairness to our industry, important to understand what happened, when snowden revealed all activities which he did, which is illegal act on his part, we read of the things the government was doing we didnt know about to survey among other things, United States citizens, and we have fully, fully encrypted data that google, that is in rest and transit. I can tell you if you have something that you want to be private, best place to keep it is in gmail. Seriously. Fully encrypted. Very, very difficult to break in. We know this because everyone is complaining. So what would happen then, what would happen if, fbi director came and said we know this person is suspected of some serious we think there is exchange of information through gmail, please give us access . America has a great law in that regard. It is called the fisa court. Right. So it is a legal proceeding. Its a legal proceeding. That is called the front door. Right. All terrorism is horrific thing obviously. Democracies have legal processes to follow. Right. So the fbi director would not call us. They would go to a threejudge panel. The threejudge panel would Order Information and we would give it just like that. Most of the time they have . In fact something like, the number, its a public number, less than 50,000 times, maybe 40,000 times per year, were asked this over and we have billions of users. So its a relatively rare event, that is for all National Security matters. Final two quick questions, one, 10 years from now, the world will be dramatically different because of what were doing . Think about the information you have now that you didnt have a decade ago. Think about the companies that you, we talk about today that didnt exist 10 years ago. Think about the find a 10yearold, borrow one, get one loaned to you, and watch this 10yearold manipulate his or her ipad or i iphone. You will see the future and ite good good future. All evidence is people are getting smarter, not dumber. Educational achievement is moving up and due to interconnection and integration of all of us. It will be a very good year. The old joke, why is your 13yearold working on that . Because my 10yearold is at play. Thank you. Eric. Thank you, charles. Thank you all. [applause] is. Coming up today on q a, Wisconsin Democratic senator tammy baldwin, she talked about her career in wisconsin political history. Q a 7 00 p. M. Iron each night through the end of august. Booktv prime time global politics. Starting at 8 00 eastern, david sadder, best you know, better you sleep, russias road to terror and dictatorship under yeltsin and putin. At 9 00, roderick camp. Politics in mexico. 9 30, kay levinson discusses the book, choosing the hero. The rise of africas first woman president. At 10 10, this brave new world, india, china, the United States. At 11, Oscar Martinez discusses history of violence, living and dying in central america. All this coming up on booktv in prime time on cspan2. We have this story for politico this morning, Donald Trumps campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway put positive spin on the his recent swoon in national polls. It helps us to be a little bit behind. And we are. It light as fire. We need to do this. What we need to do to get done she said in two part interview on cnns new day. Hillary clinton is in the lead, noted that the former secretary of states fundamentals are still poor. Read more about this at politico. Com. Mere are more about changes in the campaign from a reporter who joined us on washington journal. Host this is headline at washingtonpost. Com, trump shaking up campaign and demoting a top advisor. Robert costa, political reporter for the post watching overnight developments. Joining us on the phone. Thanks for being with us. Guest good to join you. Host essentially what is behind these changes . Guest trump is attempt by Paul Manafort and others in his circle to remain more with 80 days left in the campaign he decided to move away from constraint, elevate two long time associates, steve bannon from Breitbart News, and pollster Kellyanne Conway to let trump in essence be trump. More free form and aggressive and bellicose if necessary. Host Paul Manafort remains chair of the trump many campaign, why . There is a sense within Trumps Campaign that manafort has done fine in terms of stablizing some aspects of the campaign, building relationships with Washington Republicans and his relationship with trump has been solid there over the same generation, nearly the same age. Theyre both more moderate republicans from the midatlantic northeast region of the country. And both actually come from families who worked in construction. Manafort was also Campaign Chairman and chief strategist over the past couple months when trump began to drop in the polls. Trump really felt, according to people close to him, he needed a jolt, not only a jolt, but needed to return to the populist core of his campaign and he needed to be the trump like he was in the primaries. He never has been really comfortable as the scripted trump, reading from teleprompters and all that. Steve bannon, a populist, a businessman and media savant and Kellyanne Conway, new yorkbased pollster he is friendly and close with, it is a Campaign Trump is more comfortable with. Want to follow up on both of those individuals. Let me go back to Paul Manafort and stories last couple days about his link with former ukraine president Victor Yanukovych and his political part. Paul manafort and Trump Campaign deny but were these stories behind the latest move by donald trump . They were not. According to my sources, within the campaign and near it. While manafort has grown unhappy with the scrutiny around his activities especially in ukraine, and about a possible payments he may have received, that was a cloud over him but it was not the cloud that necessitated trump making the move. Trump has been more unhappy with the way manafort is a symbol for trump being less trump, and this came to a head over the weekend when trump was at a fundraiser in the hamptons in new york and he met with some donors said youre being tamed too much. Too much effort to make you different than you are, and while, chatter about manafort and russia and all of his dealings was certainly part of those conversations and has been part of the conversations for quite some time, that wasnt the impetus it seems to shelf manafort or push him out a little bit from the top spot. Should be noted manafort is keeping title as you said. He is remaining the Campaign Chairman and strategist. In a sense he is layered. Steven bannon, former navy officer and former banker up until this week the head of Breitbart News. What is his background. Does he have experience running campaigns and why did donald trump appoint him . Trump has a pour with bannon that goes back years. Brannon runs Breitbart News which is hard edge, conservative news site, something antiestablishment. It is positioned against not only the Democratic Party on the left but against the republicans. Bannon, he inherited the site in a sense from Andrew Breitbart who passed away a few years ago. Bannon is not someone who comes out of the Traditional Campaign world. He is a media operator. He has had many businesses. He has been a banker. He has done some investments, different kinds of private projection. A hollywood conservative, a hollywood radical. A bon vivant enjoys having a lot of friends and talking about issues and being combative when necessary with his opponents who are more liberal and he really has been at center of the move in the Republican Party towards populist nationalism epitomized in congress and championed by alabama senator Jeff Sessions but in the media world that strain of conservative orthodoxy or conservative views has really been championed by breitbart and by bannon. Kellyanne conway is a veteran republican pollster. What will her portfolio include . Her portfolio has already included trying to expand trumps appeal to women, particularly women in the swing states like north carolina, pennsylvania, and ohio where trump is struggling in the polls and to make trump seem more acceptable and likeable to women voters of both parties, who see in trump someone, there have been skiddish about. Dont maybe want him to have the nuclear codes. More tempted to the democratic side on temperament tall question, when it comes to donald trump. She is someone who worked in polling for a long time. She worked to work for pollster frank luntz, wellknown in the Republican Party. She is focused at her company, on womens issues for both corporate and political clients. She has developed an expertise in that area. Finally with regard to people you to in Republican Party circles, not necessarily directly involved in the Trump Campaign, do they think these changes will make a difference . Theres a mixed reception to these changes. There is a belief, near, among nearly all my sources this decision was driven by trump himself. Trump wants to drive the campaign on his terms, run it on his instincts. The idea that bannon and conway are going to change trump, no one really believes that but it will be a different type of campaign. Manafort has been trying to get trump to read more from prepared text and to be more focused on party unity. Bannon, he is a rabblerouser and he is a media guy. I think you will see someone more naturally inclined to let trump do as he wishes when it comes to media appearances, that kind of thing. There is going to be emphasis more than weve seen on trump as agent of change, as trump shown as washington outsider. Those are the things that animate bannons thinking according to people that have respond to him. They expect bannon to have that as his strategy in this closing chapter. Weve been reading, robert costa, Paul Manafort behind the scenes is frustrated in his dealings with donald trump. Is that accurate . I think it is accurate that many people who are top aides to donald trump have grown weary or exasperated at times with his stubborn refusals to adapt or to change. In politics usually you have candidates changing or favorite word is pivot when it comes to the general election and grow more moderate in tone or substance. With trump, you see a candidate reluctant to do that. Someone who believes he is where he is because he trusted his gut and was kind of a mirror of his own self, his id, rather than trying to become a packaged political product. And, there is a sense with those who are close to trump he thinks at this point in his life, at this age, after all he has been through this year, he might as well keep doing what he is doing, rather than trying to become somewhat conventional. Some changes inside of the Trump Campaign and reporting of robert costa of the washington post. His work Available Online at washingtonpost. Com. As always we thank you for your time. Thank you. Now, two authors and University Professors involved in work place studies and migration look at the future of work in america. They compare the effect of Climate Change on todays work place economy with the 19 30s dust bowl and Great Depression. Stanford university is the host of this event. Okay. I think were going to get started. Im margaret levi. Director of advanced studies and behavioral sciences. Glad to have you here what promises to be a great talk by two people. I have to hold it up . Okay. You may be wondering why there are some cameras in the back . We have not only our normal video, videographer here to put this talk on the web for those unfortunate enough not to be here who want to hear it again but we also have cspan here tonight. So those of you who want to watch it sometime later this year at some hour or another, it will be available were told. We will let you know when that is the case. Okay, let me introduce our two speakers. And i will be very short and therefore somewhat unfair to them as i want to get on to hearing them and not having you hear me. So lewis hyman is associate professor of history. And as of this fall, director of the institute for work place studies, industrial and labor relations, cornell university, which moves him ithaca to new york city. He went to columbia ba where he got his ba, harvard phd. He a fellow baltimoreian by birth. He is author of wellreviewed, popular books, borrow, the american way of debt, and debtor nation, the history of america in red ink. Certain theme there. But he is now completing temp, the deep history of the gig economy and coauthoring a book with me, im happy to say, tentatively entitled, supply sided. He is one of leaders after group revising and revisiting the history of u. S. Capitalism with nuance perspective of particularities how businesses and finance have developed in this country and with what impacts on the social structure and inequality. Natasha iskander, is associate professor of Public Policy at Wagner School at nyu. She has a stanford ba and mitphd. She sped part of her youth in cairo where her aunt, leila, winner of the prestigious environmental prize, involved her in helping garbage workers learn recycling techniques. So she has had a very amazing youth that has led to some very amazing work and perspectives on work. Natasha is an expert on migration and its relationship to jobs and dignity of work. Not just the work and contracts but the dignity of work. Her first book, creative state, 48 years of Development Policy in morocco and mexico and one she is currently completing on immigrant contract laborers who work in the Construction Industry in qatar, not only deepen our understanding of the role of immigrants in International Labor and development, they also make us rethink the common conception of what it means to be skilled. A lot of people who we look at and think theyre unskilled actually encompass, embody very important skills that deserve our respect and natasha is helping us to see this. Both are engaged in a project on future of work and workers. There are several others here who are also engaged. I key catherine and margaret, you are here. Maureen, are you here . Phyllis, i thought i saw you . Okay. Have i forgotten somebody . Probably. Good. Tino, youre here, who helped us start the project. Both contributed fantastic essays as several others in the room, to the series of on that subject in pacific standard. Maria who is here, now at mother jones, helped us get that started. So im pleased to welcome all of you to this, what promises to be a great talk. [applause] well, first of all, thank you all for coming out tonight to june us in this conversation about what are probably two happiest subjects you can probably imagine, the future of work and climate can at that time fee to keep it on catastrophee to keep it on a up note. We think about the future of work, it struck natasha and me perhaps many of us are worried about the uber economy. This is what we see dominating the pages and dominating conversations especially outside of Silicon Valley but we think the future of taxis and future of climate catastrophe might be a just a little bit narrow. That in fact taxi drivers are important. It is important conversation but it is not the whole conversation. In fact it is a small part of perhaps even broader conversations about robots and how robots are all supposedly going to take our jobs. Now we like talking about technology. Its fun. Maybe you even like talking about technology at work. Climate change is harder. Climate change strikes us as more difficult to get a grasp on, get our heads on and find a location where we really can make change. When we think about the future, think about the rise of robots we also should thinking about the rise of the oceans. In fact we will argue tonight that you cant think about one without thinking about the other. That, to think about Climate Change without considering the future of the economy, without considering the future of work, is blind to the possibilities and importance of both. Now like i said, it can be a little daunting to consider Climate Change, automation, and migrant populations all at the same time but this is what were going to face in the 21st century. So, natasha and i began a conversation a thought experiment. Im a historian. She is sociologist among many other things. We thought what could we do, what is a good analogy to think through these different issues of Climate Change, automation and migrant populations . We began to think about the 1930s. We began to think about the crises, the multiple crises of the 19 30s, especially the dust bowl and the Great Depression. Now Climate Change today is not as visible as the dust bowl. But we still need to act. In words of fdr, we must act, we must act quickly. Now what are the similarities between these two moments . The 19 30s experienced the Great Depression and the dust bowl. Naively, if you look back in your High School History you remember the dust bowl had a lot of dust. It was a ecological crisis, ecological catastrophe. The Great Depression had something to do with money. They actually both had roots in the same thing. The stock market speculation, urban mortgage speculation and farm mortgage speculation of the 1920s. They converged into an economic and ecological crisis stemming from the relationship with the land that was primarily financial in, in practice. Now, the new deal has lots of ways to handle the economic. Its a long list of very long words there, that you dont need to read i promise you. Then for the Ecological Solutions they planted kudzu. They planted trees that rapidly died. In fact their economic imagination was stronger, more vital, more creative than anything we did with the ecology. So as we think through these issues, we want to ask the deep questions, why have we forgotten so is much about the Economic Solutions of the new deal, which put our economy on a brand new footing in the postwar, why is it so much harder to imagine Ecological Solutions in tandem with the economy . Now one of the things we learned as we wrote this talk together we disagree. Which we think is at the essence of how we need to approach these problems. We need collaborative disagreement, which is also part of the new deal. Was also part of the policy solutions of the 1930s. And were going to frame our talk around these two issues of mitigation and adaptation. Adaptation is the idea we need to adapt our economy to Climate Change but not alter underlying logic. We need to fundamentally alter the relationships under which our capitalism operates. This was also in the new deal, personified by these two men, these two white men, these two white men with power in the 1930s. Things obviously a little different now hopefully, but jesse jones on the top there. He is the guy hanging over the shoulders of those two other guys. Reconstruction finance corporation. He was a banker from texas. He was an investor a publisher. He was a quintessential capitalist. He believed in the power of capital to alter the world around him in the way texans believe can be remade according to their will as long as you find enough loans. On other hand, there is harold ickes, secretary of the interior, a politician. He believes in fact capitalism had fail and we need to find a new way. Now the High School History you remember is probably more about the harold ickes variety, direct spending, building of stadiums, the civilian conservation corps, building of Beautiful National parks. There is another story of the new deal i will also talk about tonight from the jesse jones perspective. Ickes felt capitalism had failed, that is what the results were in the 30s. Something new felt something new had to be built atop it. Jones felt capitalism need ad little love, a little hope help reconnecting dynamism of capitalism to the economy. In the 1930ss just like now, the causes of our crises were man made. The solutions need to be as well. In his first inaugural address roosevelt told the americans that the problems in the economy were not, quote, a playing of locusts sent by an angry god as a result of stubbornness and incompetence of rules of exchange of mankinds goods. What is nice about this, since it is manmade perhaps we can adapt to it, perhaps we can mitigate it, and we can engage with it through the mechanisms that caused this crisis to occur or hopefully will invent new solutions but these conditions roosevelt warned coming very close to destroying modern civilization are once again upon us. We hope to use this as annalgy to begin to think through how to talk about these two very scary, very important, very pressing issues facing us today. So as we think about this analogy, we thought it would be helpful to review what happened to the dust bowl and how it came to enter political conversations what to do during the new deal. So on may 9th, 1934, a few wind started blowing in the north dakotas, within two days, a huge wall of earth, from 2,000 miles wide, barreled toward new york and washington. The cities on the eastern seaboard were completely eclipsed. The statue of liberty was not visible. The storm had dropped 350 million tons of topsoil as it moved across the country. But most importantly, this storm brought the dust bowl, the ecological disaster in americas heartland to washington and new york, the centers of power and finance. Today, Climate Change is not always most directly felt in the as we go through the story well bring up some analogies that might be helpful. The dust bowl and the storms that accompanied it was truly apocalyptic. The storms were catastrophic. The drought that afflictedded the region was equally catastrophic. Reporters who visited the region wrote of blistered fields, dead crops, starving livestock. Plagues of jackrabbits and grasshoppers. The New York Times wrote, the cold hand of death has descended on the bread basket of the nation. It has become a lot of People Living a lost People Living in a lost land. By the time the dust storm hit, 850 million tons of topsoil had been lifted off the earth and transported around the country. And these storms would continue for four more years. Unlike today where Climate Change is something theoretical, often in the future. This was truly catastrophic. It felt like the end of days. But the dust bowl was geographically from washington. You see where the dust bowl was concentrated, concentrated in the southern heartland of the United States. Policymakers felt it intermitt antly. The effect that it had was that the policy solutions to an ecological disaster did not feel as pressing as policy sew is solutions to the Economic Disaster afflecking the nation. But 10 years earlier the dust bowl was the great plains. Right . So it only took 10 years to transform this verdant area where you could see herds of bison 50 miles wide transfer this area into this massive ecological disaster. So, these changes can happen tremendously fast. So how did this happen . Well, essentially the dust bowl was a product of a speculative bubble. The government had begun parceling out the land in 1909 through expanded homestead act. People didnt take them up on the offer right away. When wheat prices shot up to 2 a bushel during world war i, when the turks blocked the shipment of wheat, to the u. S. , eastward, westward, im a little dyslexic, and wheat prices shot up dramatically, people moved west and it was the new gold rush caused by these high wheat prices. But it was also made possible by a series of financial structures that allowed for this massive and energetic movement of people to take advantage of it. So easy credit for mortgages and tractors. And most saliently also the notion it didnt matter this area had no rivers. The rain would follow the plow. If you disrupted the earth, it would cause atmospheric imbalances which would cause the rain to fall. So the movement was massive and people came, who were speculative farmers. They were called suitcase farmers. Then wheat prices started to fall. They didnt fall dramatically at first. They fell a little bit from 2 a bushel to half that. It is pretty dramatic but not catastrophic yet. People started to leave. Before they started to leave, sorry, jumping ahead myself, they started to overexploit the land. Though broke up more sod and planted more wheat and shouldnted the wheat to the cities. In much the same way were facing a situation, the financial structures we set up, the speculative structures we set up may be affecting our planet yet in ways we dont fully understood. Drought came to this region in 1930, and belied the claim that rain would follow the plow. It dried up the land. People began to not plant crops. Suitcase farmers left. The price of wheat dropped dramatically. When the winds started to blow, which they did in 1933, 33 million acres were naked, ungrassed, unplanted and vulnerable to the winds. By 1940, 75 of plains land lost their original topsoil. That is a loss equivalent to about a 7 decline in gdp or the total value of the land in oklahoma. The poor, as they always are, were hit the hardest. 1 3 of all farms faced foreclosure. The poor were getting sick on dust pneumonia. So much livestock was starving that the federal government launched a program to purchase and cull starving cattle. By 1930, by the 1930s, the mid 1930s quarter of families in the plains were relying on aid for basic subsistence. That is not is surprise. The poor are always hit the hardest. But the issue raises are the poor are indicator when our social and Economic Systems are not working . Are they indicator of broader system failure . The poor left. 2. 5 Million People left. Those who were poorest without resources, without land, they went westward. These are the famous pictures Dorothy Lange took. They became first Climate Change refugees in the u. S. So, these drought refugeeses as they were called at the time, became a huge cultural phenomenon. Think steinbeck. Much cultural production around this. Turns out most people didnt leave. They didnt leave the dust bowl. Most people moved within the dust bowl to places where there hadnt been as much erosion or to the cities in the dust bowl but the total population decline was actually only 5 . There is also a narrative about how everyone moved to california. There was great migration of oakkies to california. Many did migrate to california. Turns out not that many more than had migrated in the previous decade. So between 1930 and 1940 only 80,000 more people than had migrated in the previous decade migrated during the dust bowl. So that is you know, 8,000 a year. That is not a huge amount, but they migrated at a time of economic crisis. They displaced people from soup lines and jobs. This is why there was such a strong reaction. Our Economic Systems may actually be much more fragile in times of economic crisis than otherwise. So, the federal government came up with series of ideas how to deal with most of them. Most were national in scope. The one idea they come up with, for dealing with ecological disaster in particular was very, very modest. To deal with this cat chrisic, a cataclysmic disaster. There was much debate whether this was necessary. Hugh bennett, director and leader of the Soil Conservation district was asked, should we even bother . Turns out that day a dust storm blown in the from the dust bowl. He said, sir, look out your window. Rehabilitation of the land was very standard, not very imaginative. Things like terraces, drainage, plowing techniques. The planting of trees, saplings which died within a year and grasses. Making the rehabilitation of soil contingent receiving state aid. You deal with any kind of collective action problem there has been. This program was modestly successful. Modestly successful achieving its goal to make sure people could stay where they were and continue to plant wheat. By breaking up, by exploiting the soil in a way that the soil could not handle. So fast forward. Right, so it turns out, that we are actually following that same trajectory. The dust bowl is an area where e Technical Area of agriculture deepened through agribusiness. It grows wheat and many other thirsty crops. It does so by drawing from an underground aquifer. 30 which has been drained within 50 years. The prediction within 50 additional years will not likely have any water at all. Equivalent of one lake meade is drawn up every year. Some places the water is already gone. So it would take 6,000 years to replenish this aquifer. In fact more energy in the form of soil fertilizer goes into the ground that comes out through food. There is an Economic System through federal subsidies and organization of agribusiness that supports this kind of agriculture. And as the aquifer declines were beginning to he see some of the same kind of desperate intensification strategies we saw by farmers during the dust bowl. Trying to figure out how to draw up more water, drill deeper, plant wider. But, the dust bowl has reemerged as the dust bowl. The great plains have reemerged as a dust bowl. They have been hit by drought since 2012. Many oldtimers who lived through the first series of droughts and storms claim that it looks just like the beginnings of the dust proposal that they lived through. That is the story of intensification. What is the story of story of innovation through the new deal . What is story of misallocation of capital but proactive, innovate of it allocation of capital . So the economic policies of the new deal did not directly address the dust bowl, but help people set in motion, these migrants, they began to adapt to their new lives. The pictures of socalled hoovervilles, shanty towns visible in most cities. This one flooded out in california. These werent unique. About 300,000 migrants came to california even though that was not substantially more than would have come in the previous decade as well. But this issue of all these people, like today, was framed as an excess of people, too many people, there are not enough jobs. But it wasnt just in the early 1930s, the question of too many people or excess labor but a question of excess capital. Today, if you look at our own banks, how much capital is there above what is required by law . The answer is, 2. 3 trillion. In excess of what is required to pleat reserve requirements. That is about 2 3 of the federal budget. Well come back to this number in a little while. But i think we should recognize if there is 2. 3 trillion just sitting in a bank, probably it is not being wellused. That probably this capital ought to be invested somewhere else. And this, right here, is where capitalism failed. This is not a question of uber or even of robots but the failure of capital to be invested in Innovative New industries that provide millions of new jobs. The problem is not unique to today. This was also a problem in the Great Depression. More than any graph, you look at letter, a letter between the head of citibank, then national city, and bank of america. They talked about how it was quote, impossible to find any use of money. They did not know where to invest their capital. The smartest bankers in the country were unable to find a place to invest their capital productively. The new deal was not just a story of harold ickes and statist spending. The new deal was also a moment where there was a reinvention of how capital could be stimulated to move through the economy, to restart the economy. How do you get private capital, now making film guys nervous, how did you get the private capital over here, on to the garden to foster recovery . This is an image from the 1930s. I want you to notice how nervous uncle sam looks. How uncle sam is in fact standing on the hose, but only uncle sam has the nozzle. And this is, a basic question of the 1930s. How do you get private capital back in circulation, so that there is a widespread recovery . The way they did it then, we can get wonk ish in the q a if you want, basically how this private capital at bank of america and citibank and our Largest Insurance Companies got filtered through federal Market Making mechanism, the federal housing administration, which provided houses, rea which provided electricity to all Rural America and the Defense Plant Corporation which well come back to in a second. What is interesting about this, there wasnt one single silver bullet. There was multiplicity of approaches. So capital went to local banks an finance companies. Capital went to local electric cooperatives and capital went to big business. Through this you see variety of different sectors of the could economy that received stimulation. So, aerospace which i will talk about now, was but one of many different areas to which the idle capital got put in motion again through the activities of men and women like jesse jones. In the 1930s airplane remained an oddity. Lindbergh flew the atlantic in 1927. And so you should think about the relationship between the new deal and the Aerospace Industry but we think about space place today. Made in Silicon Valley, that works fine but i else that seems crazy. Nobody thinks they will ride a space playing anywhere ever. This is how aerospace was conceived. To put in perspective, in 1939, you might think aerospace was big in the 30s. I watched indiana jones. It was more like a garage industry. More americans in 1939 work in candy manufacturing and worked in aerospace. How did it is . How to go from something thats less important than candy to being the main driver of the entire economy in about five years . The and took him it was done to the Defense Plant Corporation the Defense Plant Corporation using the legitimization of war but really it was about allocating capital, takes all this money from the banks and Insurance Companies and puts it into the Aerospace Industry. And just the course of a few years the aircraft capacity was expanded by 4000 . By the end of the war it was four times larger than the prewar auto industry. It also transform manufacturing. Its prewar Manufacturing Centers new york city, or detroit, during the war manufacturing moved into exactly those regions like fort worth and kansas city, tulsa and omaha. They were hardest hit by the dust bowl. Its in those places that new factors were built, new jobs were created. What does this mean . It means that this is the mechanism by which entirely new innovative cutting edge crazy technologies can provide jobs to millions of people throughout the country. I the end of the war, 40 of the lost angels workforce, about to put 1 billion people, ended up working for airplane companies. Where did the okies go to work . They went to work for kurdish right. This was made possible by capital, capital that was not being provided by tribe it means. Instead filtered through Defense Plant Corporation. This is a different company, all wellknown companies now. You can see the varieties of different amounts of financing akin to the Defense Plant Corporation which was a part of the reconstruction finance corporation. We talk about aerospace. Lets talk about aluminum. Aluminum today is considered a commodity, a cheap commodity. Something that is so cheap we can line our streets with it. Yet in the late 19th century it was more expensive than gold. Part of what the dpc did was to transform the aluminum industry into something that was an expensive hard to get metal into something that was so cheap we use it everyday. In all our products. When we think about how to move from expensive, dangerous and dirty oil towards green energy, this is a model we should be considering. Do we have the money for it . If you convert all the money from this exact moment, the reconstruction, from the dpc, out of everything and provided from an Aerospace Industry to aluminum industry, synthetic rubber, all these other things, its 95 billion. Sounds like a lot of money until you compare it with the 2. 3 trillion that is sitting there idle in the banks right now. This is an example of how you could adapt to the changes. Out of the adapt these models, japanese innovative ways, created in ways and investing capital to the Climate Change challenge of today . To the challenge of the future of work today. Where jobs in task are being replaced because it is easy to replace them with technologies that we have. Hubert professor tiefer jobs that dont exist yet. Roosevelt had a portfolio mindset. He knew some things would fail. He knew other things would succeed. Instead of having a consistent ideology about where to put money when im hoping one particular think would work out, he unleashed a variety of different approaches. This is something we need to do as we move forward trying to handle Climate Change. So now we just want to fastforward to the present, bring us back to the moment and look at Climate Change as it is manifesting today. We will not going to hold thats better scope and would take many days. What we want to flag is if you just take one prediction, the sea level rise, and umass giunta economic change and production, it turns out the race, alarm bells that cause us to think about the necessity for going solutions of adaptation. These are the areas of the u. S. That are very affordable to sea level rise, into the extreme lactic events that accompany them. Major storms in storm surges and flooding in seawater intrusion, et cetera. These are the areas of our country would economy is most productive. Notice that there is a colocation, that they map almost perfectly on one another. This is a place where were betting on our future. This is where Venture Capital is investing. This is where we see our future energy. If you notice there seems to be an overlap. Unlike during the dust bowl, in some way the catastrophic, very painful cataclysmic climate event that happened ecological disaster that happened in the dust bowl with the climate event of the drought was a godsend. It moved labor from smallscale agriculture to the industries that needed them. And so this act of god protected the federal government from having to do it basically by force or through other policy means. It was fortuitous. If you look at where our future lies, or at least what we think it lies, any kind of climactic event that affects of those areas is not likely to happen have the same kind of salutatorian effect. If we just look at two centers that we think of as places of innovation, financial innovation, technological innovation, we can see that though centers with a one meter rise, are likely to be highly effective. The thing to note is that this one meter rise, the projection for what, when it is likely to occur moves closer and closer as each Scientific Study emerges. So a year ago we thought this would happen in the century. Now we are worried that it may happen with them 3040 years. The life of a mortgage. If you are in new york you might think okay, that does look terrible, no more people from new jersey. They cant cross the bridge. Maybe that will not be so bad. But if you are google you should be asking yourself, why you are building your headquarters where coming 30 years, it will be flooded. If your facebook you should be asking yourself, why you are investing in locating your office is here. We are likely to be fine. Speaks what does it mean using, thinking about the new deal, thinking about the 1930s . These are analogies. These are not a playbook they are expenses, warnings, beginning of the conversations, encouragement to oppose think about the future, to help us think about what has worked and what is at work but it isnt defined the entire space of what we can do what we should not do. We do know we should avoid that investment is easier than abolition. Wheat farming, for instance. We know the force will be hit the hardest post under both in u. S. And abroad. The collaborative disagreement, multiplicity can a consistent experience and a portfolio mindset have enabled us to think through and succeed in solving some of the most crushing economic challenges of the day. The world is not the same as it was. There are new things in the 21st century. The biggest advantage we have, of course, is that, one, we know its coming. We know this is going to happen. We know that Climate Change is now inevitable. And we have the lessons of the past to help steer us. Between the two of us with a slight disagreement. We agree on our values, we agree whats going to happen. But how to respond to this . This is not something to be avoided. This is something to be acknowledged, encouraged and fostered. Only through this collaborative disagreement that we can really get to these crises. I think its very important to created to finance new technology, new work practices that will help us mitigate Climate Change. I think we can remake capitalism to be greener, more profitable and more ethical. I think we can move from oil to artificial photosynthesis. I think we can move from consolidated centralized stable workplaces to distribute workplaces. And i think because i know it has happened before. I think to be practical we should confine our solution space with minimal set of capitalism. At the same time i think that rule set of capitalism can do while the altered. I can think back to the 19th century where we radically reconfigure to capitalism toward a more moral and more profitable and. Of course, i think about the end of slavery. In the mid19th century, about half of our gdp was related to the production of, the consumption of, or the distribution of slaves in slavery that commodities including the mortgaging of enslaved people. Debris in slavery . We did. Did we destroy capitalism . No. In fact, the opposite. We took something that was half our economy and reoriented towards a new type of capitalism that was more profitable, innovative do anything that happened before. This is how we should b befriend our thinking about the challenges to our economy. This isnt about cost. Its about opportunity. So anything you but Climate Change is lot of discussion about technological innovation, technological opportunity. What i think is add a patient is important necessary i dont think its sufficient. Google cars have become an avatar for the future. Theyre very exciting, self driving. By actually what will matter more for Climate Change is a fundamental rethinking of how we move through space. Google cars us use the same highways, the same infrastructure and the same concept about moving through space. What we may need to start thinking about are things like zoning, redesigning our transport systems, rethinking about, rethink our relationship to space and how we move through it. In fact, still picking on google, google is thinking about that a lot through their alphabet outfit. They have a lab called sidewalk lab. The trouble with zoning is its not sexy. So why isnt zoning not sexy . We have certain ideas about where the fields of possible actions are during the new deal. They were very heavily focused on finance and less one agriculture as weve shown. Another way of thinking about these are institutions and land use. Institution are essentially how we interact with each other, how we deal with each other. Land use is how we deal with the land, how we use the land for our productive purposes. As we conceptualize of these we always view the earth has been changing the there is a constant. Its a background. It does not change unless we change it by applying of the earth and hoping the rain will fall. Or todays analogy, by seeding the clouds and hoping the rain will fall on california. If you imagine the earth constantly changing under your feet, if you imagine that what we understand to be stable is to longer so, that these are new problems, new challenges. We have to build new systems of flexibility. Thinking about playing in that way, forces us to think how we might think about how we interact with each other to institution if we werent about the earth change in unpredictable, unknowable ways. And im interact with the earth. It is also changing and evolving, and often very, very fast ways. The trouble is, it is the challenge for making fundamental change is that the people who worry about Climate Change dont talk to the people who worry about changing Production Systems and the future for. In both spheres doesnt understand that we are at an Inflection Point, that things will forward are likely to look very different from the way they look in the past. These discussions have remained separate and our intention with this talk was to bring them together. What we would like to see, which i think is extremely important, is that climate scientists hope informed discussion about how production is likely to be impacted by Climate Change. How will our transport routes be affected . Hubble our Global Supply chains fall apart with how will manufacturing be affected . How will you build the planes . What we would like to have these people who worry about changing Production Systems, have conversations with clients, climate scientists so they can productively think about how to adopt and mitigate even as they produce. And bringing these areas together raises a whole series of new im asked questions and experience, some of which may seem kind of fantastical, i catch wind of Silicon Valley . Its not a trivial question. If Silicon Valley gets flooded how to remove the networks, the capital, the knowledge, the economy that has been so embedded coming though cities and osha around the world have tried to replicate it. How to remove it when its flooded . Thats 30 years down the road. A whole series of questions, and questions were asking here through the future of work and workers projects. We are in particular worried about how do we treat each other as the climate and the economy change, what is a numeral economy for a changing world . So we highlighted our differences, and actually maybe just a difference in focus or approach. If youre worried about adaptation, it seems that the solutions may be easier to come by. There is a data that there are clear price signals and there are institutional pathways and historic examples of reform and make it seem possible and doable and lessons we can draw on. If you are worried about medication, its a whole different ballgame because we dont understand the systems that are changing the our understanding of them is profoundly incomplete, changes by the day. We have to ask in a setting that is highly inchoate, and yet we have to ask the otherwise our actions are likely not to any of that battle. We have to ask i would argue in ways that are profound, in ways that would actually look like a revolution in the institutional structures that we rely on, the revolution in our relationship to land. Im not using revolution in a Bernie Sanders kind of way. What im trying to say here is that we need to reconceptualize our notion that the earth and the resources that it generates are here for our productive use only. Although these are different approaches, we think that they offer possibilities, and here i will mention the possibilities. You want to say anything about this . No. I think the important thing is what act and act quickly and act in multiple ways, and realize the future will not be stable, the future will be a rewriting of the world in a change way. As we move forward, the future of work must help us address these issues. The conversations we have has to be brought together it was going to mitigate and adapt, survive as a species and as a planet. The analogies of the 1930s are not perfect. We hope its a starting point, begin to think through what are the policies we can do to invest industries of the future to end it away of handling this ongoing and almost inevitable crisis. And to face the constraints and the unknowable. Thank you so much for coming here tonight. [applause] did we go longer than we were supposed to or will we still has time for q a . We will have about 15 minutes or so for q a. All the questions and all the pages, we will solve it in 15 minutes. I think youre in the middle. And ive also got the microphone for the front of the room, okay your that was a fantastic talk, and it was a very common the work and Workers Group has been dealing with many of these issues, but this brought together a hold aspect to it even though we talked about Climate Change and environmental problems that could enhance both the kind of economic complexities that we face but also at the future working workers will be. We have not learned that out that agenda quite so clearly as the two of you did tonight, and im very grateful for that because it helps us into the everybody in the room who is part of a group and hopefully others of you will see this as a way in which we might begin to think as we go forward. Are there some questions . Im sure there are, comments, that you want to raise. Used in the first would you introduce yourself . Thank you. I am martha russell, media exit, stanford university. I loved the talk, bringing disciplines together in this way is so exciting. Its what casbs does the idea that this question. You talk about a lot of things that we know, it is important to put those stakes in the ground. But looking at the future that yoyou paint, what would you said of the most important things that we need to know that we dont now know that would help us create this future that we want to live in . I was going to collect a couple of questions, but that one is too hard to pass on. I think you have to take it right away. I think the challenges that we dont really know what we need it now. This is like an impossible problem. Its a wicked problem. We do know that things that we have considered stable are no longer such, and that they are likely to present us with challenges that are unpredictable and unlike anything weve ever seen. So just to give you an example, basically much of our economy relies on shipping containers, moving products around the world. One can imagine that storms, major climactic storm events, would make the difficult. So one piece of data that we came across was for a cup of coffee, thats 30,000 miles of transport. What, i think the answer to the question is, what are our sensitivities . What are the places where most vulnerable as an Economic System . Since we cant predict what the climate will do, we are trying hard but we are not there yet, where is the Economic System most vulnerable, and who is most vulnerable . And where will we see these vulnerabilities emerged . Who will be the canary in a coal mine . What will be the canary in a coal mine . I think when we do our financial models were often to run aggressions adult Everything Else constant. I like numbers go to. Numbers of very reassuring and numbers may or may not have anything to do with how were going. Wild discontinuities for the good and for the bad. Thats the essential truth about capitalism, that its a discontinuity within all of human history. Its only been around a few hundred years, has produced unimaginable amounts of wealth and inequality. What we think about is how to turn an engine that works for us rather than just working for us. You have to think about those things simultaneously. You cant of Everything Else constant. My name is Edward Strickland im the ceo of a business named gb is in corporate and we are a member of the Stanford Center professional development. In regards to the timing of the change, there some systemic issues that are occurring today that did not happen in the early 1900s. Thats the population growth. Its tenfold. The demand of the industrialized capitalist model is that much greater now than it ever has been before. The problems that were facing today from that in regards to land grabs throughout the world can for the oceans, the land that is distinct to be used is even more grave than it ever has been. How do you catch a to change . If you say theres an Inflection Point that needs to make this change occur, it cannot be gradual. It has to be bifurcated answer has to be some radical revolution, otherwise we will not change. Can that be addressed . Thats a very important point. Spent do you want to collect questions . Why do we collect a couple questions . Chief Technology Officer at a tech company. It strikes me theres one difference. Maybe there isnt because i just dont know the history but we are in a situation where theres a lot of prediction of Climate Change and many people dont believe the predictions. The photographs you should from the 1930s is not a prediction. Theres a wall of dirt coming across the country. I dont know whether that was a precursor of the predictions of disaster that was ignored but in our case, theres a politically different challenge and its a little related to the earlier question. You almost need to have an actual cataclysmic event. It appears, as we did in the 30s, to bring people to action. Its wonderful to think about this i think in this audience you get lots of people sympathetic but to move the population, how do we bring that about . Do we sit here and in five years we say, we told you so. Why dont we take one more question. Is there one in the back . Ill come to you next, i promi promise. My name is randy spock. Am a student of the Business School down the road, and i cant speak a bit of my fellow future capitalist cronies but i personally am very receptive to the arguments both for adaptation and mitigation. My question, how can we help . How can those of us who are not scrutinizing these institutions from without but hope to be embedded in them from within, how can we contribute to this ongoing quest . We have three questions. One has to do with imports of population shift. The second has to do with how do we get the public to understand whats going on. The third comes from the next generation, how can we help . Ill just try to pull a couple of things together. Some people already know this is happening in the special people who live in coastal areas, especially in the develop world. Climate change is already real. Its not as real to us that in many parts of the many parts of were it already is and theres emerging economies where cumulative studies, we are counting on for the continued growth of capitalism, global capitalism. If you look to how we value our stuff, its to these emerging markets. Yet these emerging markets are the ones that are most vulnerable to the snooty filaments. One of the challenges how do we think about this not just in a National Context but a global context where we come up against very real governance issues . We will have to think through how to deal with that. What can be done . If the answer is that these governance issues are such a barrier, id we mitigate those governance issues in a libertarian way, or how do we go to go and bring together different constituencies in a more statist way . I think that it would be lovely if capitalists of the future to figure out how to make money off saving the world. That would be the ideal situation. But i suspect the people who have these ideas dont have the capital to get going, and that through a series of policies have choked off access to innovative and Small Businesses that need that capital. Its hard if youre outside of very sexy short term profits to get longterm investment. We need to do something to mitigate that risk for investors like we did in the 1930s to get these new kinds of industries going. Can i Say Something . I think louis is actually right on the money with this. Theres something about speed we usually agree by the way. I think i would place the emphasis slightly differently, which is that the rigidity in terms of how we value successful investments come in many ways we can split those onto emerging economies. Those rigidities are mirrored by policy rigidities. If youre going to think about what to do, one is a prescription would be do no harm. For example, and many of our trade agreements, we have stipulations that make it incredibly difficult for local and National Governments to adjust and respond quickly and effectively to Climate Change pressure. Politics of knowledge. So the native americans who were displaced from the great plains were famously expert in managing these huge bison herds and got their livelihoods and even though chased off land this will destroy the earth but they were not included in the speculative financial bubble and finally the question about population, pretty much everywhere we look t in the the world we are on the population bubble. We are on the other side of the population hump, by that i mean our population pretty much everywhere in the work is going to start declining, the challenge, the bigger challenge and we know how to manage that. The bigger challenge is that we dont know how to manage the movement of population. So, syria, for example, is just a warmup. The syrian conflict was a product initially of a drought that caused people to move today cities that lit the match on political conflict and now we have these large refugee movements but they are much like dust bowl and not that large. The question is how do we develop that capacity because this would be a structural issue and we will need to think about how to organize our Production System to accommodate this structural flow of people who have left in a rapid, not gradual way. I want to add one thing to where the mind is, people have moved to actual margins to Water Resources. They know when everybody is disappearing. I also want to say theres insufficient opportunities. People are amazing and people are more creative than given credit for and we need to figure out ways to harness that and not put people in roles where they cant be creative or human, part of the task of addressing issues is really capturing the global creativity of the human rights. I promise bob, who is not my question the my husband, the next question. Youre not the boss captain because youre not my husband. [inaudible] [laughter] introduce yourself. In the last ten years chief economist for investment in a small Boutique Firm and i think you underestimated although i love the integration of two different fields so well including discussion about Technology Solutions or revolutionary solutions. I think we are heading towards revolutionary personally because i dont think that it will evolve. The problems that i see financial and political ones are intertwine means that we are going to have Political Revolution that is going to proceed, perhaps, the biological environmental revolution and i consider perhaps fairly soon. So my question is how do you see that four third, im not sure which additional introduction because i consider politics very vulnerable and certainly wouldnt use the name mitigation for that. I say revolution on its own name. Thank you, bud. I prefer not to be a revolution. There was this fear of the organization of people. The Russian Revolution was a decade and a half earlier, it was still very real, maybe when the crisis comes together, we will finally be able to push the political economy in a new way like we have in the past to produce this is where we disagree, right, because if we dont act now we are done for. Any kind of resource that is we are thinking about managing, any kind of hope for really survival on this for unless we actively engage and thinking about developing a new productive relationship with the earth at the time when the earth will no longer be constant. You take water, for example, we think about Water Resources to be pretty stable and theyre not and theyre stressing our Productive Systems and political systems in a way that are extreme. California has had a mild expressions of this and have seen political unrest as a result. And yet we dont tend to worry about it as being immediate but when the crisis is here, the game is over and theres one colleague in a talk he gave here, extinction is permanent. [laughter] as a historian we have time for just two more questions. I know you think of long cycles, but the rest of us think about whats lunch for tomorrow or whats concerned about next week. We apply huge discounts for the futures or maybe even worse for policy members. How do you take that into consideration . You take it. Im a fellow here. I teach at brown university. Okay, my question is we have a historian and capitalism and historian on migration, where do you see people moving on the planet, they are moving toward and not away from capitalism . Erin harper so i was very interested in how future work and our company intersect and thats why im here. The three things that you talked about that freed a lot of unuse capital, one you talked about slavery and the second you talked about world war ii and i had a talk i went to talk and talked about the Space Program being fueled by the cold war. What i was wondering about is has there been an example where theres been tremendous capital infusions of that size that did not involve war and then second is there does that predict anything for you about how capital will move in the future of that scale . Thank you. I will answer in reverse order. One of the debates we had, i think its an excellent question, i advocated that we frame this as war, war against the planet that the planet wants to kill us and we should frame it as war because people seem to like war for whatever reason rather than we are defending the earth, we are attacking the earth. This is a way in which we need to figure out. Germany had no interest in attacking they were nazis, they were just germans, just one of many imperial powers. Its one of the questions we should think about. How do we frame the question and get people excited about saving the earth as we are about killing other people and i think this is an important questions. You think at capital, you think of factories and in the 19th century the textile factories was a war on african that were enslaved. You think about railroads, that was about the wars against the indians, i mean, these are things that are partially about war but partially other issues and theres a pretext of war for Capital Investment that i think itll be nice if they were thing about war, if we could have nasa without thinking of how to fight the russians at the same time. How do we get people motivated without trying to kill people . Glens question, why are we moving towards capitalism, how do we create capitalism can absorb all of these people and a passport is only a century old. How do we absorb all the migration and make it more inclusive and in terms of long cycles, its true, im less alarmist or less alarmed than my colleague because i think well, we have seen inequities before. I can think about 1877 and the railroads and how, you know, they were widespread strikes against capitalism that lead to parts of pennsylvania being reconquered in the backs of railroad cars. Is that a possibility, i hope not. People will die. Is this different, is this secondmachine age not be able to absorb all of these people and the real question should we be asking is this climate shift, is this more like an ice age than a shortchange. So i would say, yes, it is certainly the best understanding of what is happening now suggests that this is a different scale in terms of the kinds of change that we are likely to see and if we draw a historical examples we might look at the mayas, for example, other collapse of civilization that have not managed resources well and in those civilizations like we are seeing now, the poor suffered most. And we are hit first and hit hardest. So, yeah, i really do think that this may be a paradigm shift. The failure is institutional. The ground beneath our feet literally shifting. The glens point, i think migration is great and i think that its great as someone who worries about economies and, you know, with the exception of one or two economists basically theres a consensus that migration is helpful for economic growth. The trouble is not the people and before i mention that i would just say that there are barometer just like we are arguing the poor, the fact that more mexicans are leaving than arriving should tell us more about the future that middle class and lowerclass workers have in the u. S. The pr spects prospects are not good and theres no point in staying. The trouble on institution that is we have. Our institutions are so not designed to deal with mass influx of people n. The past they have been more flexible and they have grown in the u. S. And around the world and i dont think its accidental that we are also engaged in labor arbitrage than they may have been before. And the point about war, right, so Louis Campaign makes me deeply nervous. Its an experiment. But that thought experiment makes me deeply uneasy and the reason it makes me deeply uneasy is that it requires us to draw on the same paradigms that have created the damage to solve the problem and that paradigm is us against the earth and we need a shift and practices embody that shift. So how do we think about structuring our government, our laws, our international agreements, our international trade, our International Finance in ways that embody and those around us working with this changing and stressed earth and just to close, what does this mean for the future at work. Also [laughter] i agree with natasha that that would be lovely but im a little more pessimistic about the possibility of that institutional change. What im trying to think through what are the most power leaders. It would be lovely to do something else. War and capitalism seems something people like. Well, there are hard constraints. You know, in california, right, so there are lots of debates about water rashing and water shortening, theres no way we can ration water and then theres water drought. These kind of constraints, we may not want to deal with them until they are upon us, but once they are upon us and we are stuck, better to have more options when we are stuck than a fewer. With that note, im going to think both of our speakers for a fabulous presentation of very disturbing material and i want to thank all of you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] here is some of what we have coming up for you for the rest of the day in cspan2. Up next discussing on Digital Technology and whether technology is addictive. At 12 45 open internet rules following the decision to follow the fccs opening order and at 2 25 this afternoon sessions from the urban league conference. Homeland security jay johnson is touring flood damaged areas in louisiana today and hes scheduled to speak to reporters of what we had seen, thatll happen about 2 45 eastern from baton rouge, cspan will have live coverage of those remarks. Coming up tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan, she talks about the world of black market for cyber criminals and she comments on the history of cyber crime and how it became a vehicle for making money. So going back in time 10 to 15 years ago cyber crime or hacking was consisted of an Ad Hoc Networks of individuals largely motivated by ego and they wanted to show off to their friends. They wanted to have a resume boost, they we wanted to prove to themselves and their friends that they can do this kind of a thing. This is the age of the lonewolf hacker. As time went on and more Digital Natives and technological savvy individuals entered the world, as more connected computing components got connected, more people recognized the opportunity that there was by hacking for financial profit specially criminal enterprises recognizes the low risk and potential of high reward by getting into the cyber crime. Echo to making money and financial gain