Skip to main content

tv   Edward Alden Discusses Failure to Adjust  CSPAN  February 26, 2017 6:30am-7:16am EST

6:30 am
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
6:35 am
6:36 am
6:37 am
6:38 am
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
. . .
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
7:00 am
strategic effort to end upsetting the ground work for an ability, a more welcoming attitude toward free trade in the sense that from his people's voif the united states is not that competitive. we've got immigration, which drives down the wages, you can make the argument whether you agree with it or not or the multitude of those who are dispossessed and a tax structure who does not make economy attractive for investment therefore being able to generate fewer jobs than usual and you've
7:01 am
got a horrendous regulatory increase over the last decade or two which makes it difficult for business to prosper, to tell you the truth. some industries worse than other . make america first, make america more competitive and now we can participate in trade agreements. we have gotten rid of dysfunctional policies. >> i would disagree on immigration, there are some sectors where you do see a wage lower impact but more broadly i couldn't disagree.
7:02 am
you know, it includes thinking about inputs which ii haven't heard from yet. i am not even sorry -- i can see the danger in it and i will candid that a lot of my colleagues probably disagree with me but shot across bow to go carrier, companies had sense to obligation to the united states, what they meant for the communities and broader social obligations apart from just returns to shareholders. i think we lost that to some extent. even in their narrow interest, i made who made investment in china. you're taking advantage of the big opportunity, that big market, find, when you run into problems, the chinese stealing your technology, investment discrimination, who has your
7:03 am
back? it's the u.s. government, it's the representative of the american people and so just for your own long-term's health interest, you should by thinking about always looking for opportunity to invest in the united states, expand stake in the united states and make sure you got the american people behind you. it's in the corporate breast. we let the japanese figure that out. we were booshing them in 1980's, what did they do? they started opening car factories in ohio, california, completely changed politics of the issue. companies need to think about what's the stake, i wasn't sorry to see them trump knock them on the head a little bit but we will see where that goes. >> you talked about changes,
7:04 am
they were exporting all manufacturing jobs overseas, they responded of a program to use intellectual capital, they created the venture capital business and that's created a thriving economy that's blooming in an amazing way, why did it happen there and not in many other places, it did happen in a few other places, chapel hill, bay area, very few, why was it restricted? >> that's a good question. there's probably another book in that. i can suggest -- fascinating story by my friend bob davis in the wall street journal. i think it was yesterday, taking data set of places they were hit really hard by manufacturing competition and what happened to them afterward and they broke down and they discovered a pretty striking thing that many
7:05 am
manufacturing dependent communities that have college or university did far better, an intellectual center around which was possible to attract more businesses and spin off other positive things for the communities and places without those really got whacked with the ones with the university recovered pretty well. we mentioned those places, bay area, places with really good and strong units and often this was an inheritance not necessarily something to create from scratch, it does tell you the intellectual capital is the most important asset for any community and any way that you nurture that is going to pay dividends. i wish i had a broader answer. >> right behind you. >> first of all, let me just congratulate you. i read your book. >> thank you. >> the council sent it to me and
7:06 am
it was a terrific book, fbi way. >> cod or what? [laughter] >> i picked it up or somebody else was getting it so i took it from the mailbox. i will look it out for you. [laughter] >> check is in the mail. my question is -- has to do really two parts with trade deals. the whole idea of all of the trade agreements we've had, now each when you think about, this it comes in part in your book, there's asymmetry in trade deals, the people who make them are corporate lobbyists but their interests aren't just the united states, they have the plans all over the world. so they are figuring out what is in there and by the way, what is in there in terms of consumer
7:07 am
and what we are -- we keep on making the at the same time, -- statement, wal-mart, we are getting things cheaper. the reality is not. there are big pockets of people that paid that big price and adjust the cost and it isn't as balanced as we think it is, so the first part is, trade deals and how they're done, meaning who the lobbyists are, what the corporations are, what happens, second part of trade deals, tariffs. meaning coming from what's happening, 25% tariff on everything we send to china in terms of cars, our tariffs are 2 and a half percent. there's a symmetry in all of these deals that we have seen, how would you reconcile that?
7:08 am
>> we have a 25% tariff on all the light truck that is we trade. the united states has pretty high tariffs too. i mean, i understand from the corporate perspective. their responsibility quite understandably to their share elders, they are interested in doing businesses globally and i'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, we live in a world of global supply chains, companies source from all over the world and that's just the way things operate now. i really think it gets back to what do we do as a country to make sure that we have a reasonable share of that and a lot of that is outed the trade deals. i'm not saying the trade deals have all been working. one of the ironies is the one that's going to die as a result of see what happened in the ballot box, transpacific partnership.
7:09 am
helped our digital industries where the united states is a really good leader and do create good jobs in the united states. i don't want pog apologist for the trade agreement. too much focus is put on them. i think partly because we are a nation of lawyers, we sort of thing that the rules can solve everything. if we write the rules, everything will work out. not to say the rules are perfect. but they are far from the biggest problem. >> thanks, richard, great discussion. >> thank you. >> people in the military, a lot of effort in the last two years focused on working with the private sector to bring back
7:10 am
training into the military environment so that you're getting ready for your new career before you leave your military career. given all that you looked at, what would be advice on how to maximize that program that has bipartisan support? i'm not sure that my challenge is grandular enough. i feel like sometimes have to talk to someone who does training program effectively. my general recommendation would be to work very closely with the private sector, right, talk to the folks who are creating jobs in the communities and find out what they need and structure the program in close discussion with them. if you look at vol -- volkswagen and tennessee and the company basically said, look, anybody who comes through the program we are going to hire because we need these folks.
7:11 am
i think you're going to be a step ahead of the game. often those forecasts are way off, so -- >> yes, ma'am. >> how do you feel about guarantied income? i -- you know, i'm still wrestling with this, is my honest answer. andy stern who was part of the former service employer's union, part of task force in 2011, got a book out arguing for universal basic income. i -- at that level i think it's the wrong way to go. i think it's extremely expensive for one and if you cut a whole range of other programs you might be able to do it in some reasonable budgetary fashion but i also just think, i think work
7:12 am
is an essential part of what makes us tick as human beings and it's the way we advance in society. if i were going to spend my money, i would spend on wage insurance, they are working and continuing to acquire a new skill, they are trying to advance their career and they can't make enough money to make end's meet. i think that was one of the best programs created in the last two decade where you get rebaits from the working, i would rather see us extend programs like that than go to universal basic income across the board. i'm still wrestling to it. i'm open to persuasion. >> programs that are related to work. >> as oppose that everybody gets $10,000 a year.
7:13 am
>> the switzerland? yes, sir. time for one or two more people. >> eric stein. i read your book and i actually bought it from amazon. [laughter] >> you have two questions. >> okay, i'm going to take advantage of that. first question is how much of a difference than the economy is going services in the internet of things, how much difference can they generally manufacture in goods, base trade deals or enforcing those rules actually do help and the second question and you allude today this in your opening remarks, a lot of people have gained, consumers, multinational companies to to the extent under trump administration, tariffs are up how have those actors respond? >> i worry very much about some of the things that donald trump
7:14 am
talked about in the campaign. the peterson institute had a big look at economic impact if trump did across the board -- hugely negatively. it would hurt a lot of people that think that would benefit, it would hurt employees, companies are going to lay off people. that is definitely not -- not the way to go. i think the cost -- what was your first question. services. you actually kind of seen in the last five, ten years, a popping out of the traded part of the economy, services is obviously growing faster, i don't think we are going to see this reverse, but i think manufacturing remains extremely important to the economies and a lot of the the innovation continues to take place in the manufacturing sector and a lot of what we think is services, particularly high-end services are support in various ways for manufacturing industries. you know, you look at the work out of the harvard business
7:15 am
school, i'm a real believer in the importance of manufacturer, obviously not the bulk of the employment in our economy, the numbers are probably going to continue to decline, as a society if we are not successful in those traded sectors, i don't think we are going to be as prosperous so it would be very important. >> we can't have a book failure to adjust and we confuse matters to end on time, so -- i am going to shut down here. i want to do three things, one is -- your award by the reception, your reward is that books are being sold here and i want to congratulate, what you've gotten is a glimpse and a taste of how verse he is and the set of issues that has come to the floor, it has tremendous economic consequences but also


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on