tv Carol Roth The War on Small Business CSPAN July 18, 2021 7:02am-8:04am EDT
>> thank you for joining us today on our webinar. i am a senior fellow at the pacific research institute i'm pleased today we have a new york times best-selling author who just produced a new book called the war on small business available today online if you are famous bookseller having read it i cannot praise it enough it raises so many important issues of why small businesses are so important in the assault being waged for the
enabled anybody and the people from all over the globe who like to come here to try to pursue that economic freedom and that creation or in some cases just other kinds of freedom and stability that they would want to pursue a passion and so preserving that opportunity and the centralization that comes along with small business looks a lot more like free-market capitalism then the big businesses do. but when i tell you everyone says how important small business is and we do not have enough people walking across so
i'm thrilled that you are giving this important discussion and platform. >> absolutely. small businesses and in my view even more importantly, 50% of the economy will come from somebody's garage today so we are stopping that entrepreneurial path to come up with new ideas because large businesses and all these other problems. >> you do forget that every big business that exists today with the exception that it was spun off of a bigger entity started as a small business. it is a stepping stone to big business, but unfortunately when you disrupted that, whether it is the capital allocation or risk-taking or just wholesale it
makes it more difficult to get the incentive to have the businesses contained and innovate. i wrote a book ten years ago about the risks to small business and how hard it is to run a small business and it isn't for the faint of heart. but never did i think that the government was going to be the number one risk of small business and we would be in a situation where we would just shut them down yet 50 months later here we are. >> one of the important contributions of your book and i would love to talk about that as well but the pandemic people talk about how we need to support a small businesses and we spend money on the idea that we need to support small businesses, yet in all of the policies we are kind of geared towards i guess before we get into that, one of the things to
talk about in the book and the important part is you saw on the timeline the pandemic is just as much of a government failure in so many ways as it was kind of pandemics and kind of all of the biology that goes along with that and i would like to dive into that. before we have the pandemic here, what could the government have done to prevent that or -- >> this is fascinating to me. as i was doing the research for this book, it ended up how many things were misreported or not reported and in doing the research and kind of laying it out was such a head scratcher. part of it right up front, which was fascinating to me as you had
a trade deal that was signed with china i feel like put the blinders on any sort of pushback against what we were hearing out of china because it had been going on for years and years and finally we get a win in the middle of january, 2020 and the president at the time is going so excited thank you for your efforts in helping to keep this new virus away. so, there was a sort of pushback other than a few people i mentioned who wrote a letter saying what's going on here. in terms of telling the truth, you had the world health organization and so we really downplayed it in the beginning and there were travel restrictions put in place debate of course those were called a racist and horrible and xenophobic. so we didn't really get the full extent of those but i think that the biggest issue came around
the area of testing and if you look at places like south korea they had seen the failure from the government standpoint. so, right away they enlisted the private sector and pulled the cases from the new year lunar celebration and said get here right now. we need you to get on top of this so they set up testing to help right away. there was a company in germany, tiny company with 1.4 million tests out like in a short period of time and then we had a government bureaucracy where we had these labs that wanted to do testing and because of the government bureaucracy and these emergency authorizations that theoretically were supposed to shorten the process, it created a path where there was redtape
so in the beginning, the only entity that had testing that could use it was the cdc so they had to ration it and had rules about who could be tested and they were desperate. they said we know how to do this, but it took so long we had this rationing which is and something that you typically see in the free market so you have those failures and the other one that was a huge head scratcher around the ppe. we got all these companies to round up ppe and send it to china instead of stockpiling it for ourselves thinking this isn't going to be a problem. so there are all these kind of things where people were
starting to take action. the government pushback whether people don't remember, there's all these crazy things that the media went into and therefore if they really decided to take a different set of actions. >> pandemics are with us. we are going to experience and we need to learn the right lesson not just in terms of how we respond here but what can we do to prevent it and i thought that was so important that there are things we can do that would stop the pandemic or at least give us a chance to get ahead of it as opposed to being behind the curve which is one of the lessons when we talk about government failures and how we deal with the pandemic and deal with the private sector to hear that there were so many private
labs that couldn't put tests out there because it was discovered and people could have been self isolated and contained the virus before it spread. it's an important lesson that we need to learn. >> i will just add onto that one of the things that is frustrating is it's not like they didn't know about it. but the period of exercises in the year prior called crimson contagion and it was a federal government that was i think 14 different states and the scenarios on the trial was almost exactly the scenario that came out into something that came from the lab. it's almost like they should have known exactly what they need to do and where the weaknesses were in the system
and get they still bundled it over and over again into this monster that we have created in terms of the big government and the inability to do anything well rather than the actual things that they should be doing. >> the more things you do the less well between the competency. that is one of the important reasons they do important things and if you want them to do them well -- >> exactly. i thought this was important we talk about the small businesses and the pandemic policies in practice discriminate against small businesses. could you talk to that a little bit because i thought that was
fascinating. >> it is up to you what conclusion you want to draw whether this was intentional or unintentional it doesn't matter because the outcome is the same. we are in a scenario that if you think about what the united states stands for in the government to protect the rights of the individuals, the most horrifying thing and under underreported the story the last 15 months. but the government decided that they were going to give you a label and you were either essential or nonessential based on the risk of what was essential or nonessential and it turns out there list was based on the political connections, not really any data of science and we talk about that in the book and we talked about previously i could get my dogs nails and hair done at the retailer but i couldn't get my nails and hair done. it hadn't been legal for more
than a couple of years in a certain jurisdiction and they were now deemed to be incredibly essential. it was picking the winners and losers but that they were then not appropriately compensated for that. so under the constitution the eminent domain is that the government wants to take the property for the quote on quote public good which is what happened here. we need to shed some people down so it looks like we are doing something but we owe you just compensation and that didn't happen. if we had everyone locked down, if amazon had to shut down their warehouses and big-box grocery stores had shut down and the weed dispensaries had shut down, we probably would have had two to three weeks before there was a lot of screaming you can't do this to us and you can't do this
to the economy. but because those were allowed to continue to be essential and some of the handful of folks like the airlines that were actually not directly affected, but indirectly affected by some of the mandates, they got this incredible direct bailout, but with a small businesses got was this ridiculous ppe program, which was a fraction of the overall dollars that were put out and certainly not enough to compensate the taking of property so you had this crazy set of winners and losers and that enabled the wealth transfer because you had the businesses that were closed and customers were patronized into big companies and the revenues were growing. and at the same time, you had the federal reserve intervening at historical levels and at this point i think the balance sheet
was just hair shy of $8 trillion and so not only were the company's revenues higher the overall valuations were increased because of all of the money that was going into the stock market and so, you saw last year's $3.4 trillion increase in value in the tech companies. seven companies gained $3.4 trillion in value. it was a record year for the access to capital. record value raised by the special-purpose acquisition companies at the same time hundreds of thousands of small businesses and millions of more were hanging on by a thread. the retirees were earning zero interest on the savings and people were out of work and you had sort of these two separate economic outcomes that are 100%
by government mandate which is again thinking about it that in the context of the usa is just completely mind blowing. >> and i think that this is really worth emphasizing. there are so many things what you have is the response to the pandemic by the government. economically there was a lot of it that didn't make sense. so much money was spent that didn't have anything to do with the pandemic. sending out checks because there is a pandemic to people made no sense. it was a waste of money. >> or people that are dead. >> the key multiplier. the ppe in the book talks about this and i think it was incredibly important and we need
to emphasize that all that spending was justified that a small businesses were moving forward so everyone loves the small businesses. what the government gave the small businesses was a program that was complex and so many small business owners who got the first tranche of money up again and again. you can't run your business and instead we said we are going to compensate you which was the right thing to do. if you take somebody's property you need to compensate them for it. we said we will give you a loan and make the loan forgivable and understand how to forgive those loans, so we created a process and a small businesses didn't want it because they didn't
understand it let alone you talk about ppe. >> the whole thing was the biggest cluster. you were trying to do everything wrong. that's what came out of the act in general and then the ppe provision and you hit the nail on the head in the way that it was structured was so opaque and it's not a bailout. it's not like you did these bad things and we need to rescue you. this is eminent domain. we are giving you money to compensate about out of all of the money that was given out in the cares act to the universities who by the way got the money from the government anyway for the student lending business and to the kennedy center which was shut down and furloughed employees and had all
kinds of assets and all of these other organizations that got money out right for whatever reason because the cronies were connected and then you had a struggling small business and you are not sending them directly the money. you have that information. you have to file numerous reports and with the irs. it's not like they have access to that information but you have to go to a bank and that first tranche was a fraction of the overall cares package. kanye west was named a billionaire and unveiled his collaboration and the company.
they had other assets to capital and they probably were not going away because government mandates. so if you are a smaller business you are going okay. for the compensation for shutting down your business it's like if you were trying to put small businesses out of this in a way that was only 95% obvious instead of 100% obvious you try to get more people on the government conditioning them.
>> i think if you would have mandated how to get them as opposed to small banks you could've made it more difficult. >> most of the money in the beginning did go to the big banks you can't blame them for the structure of the program. >> if you are trying to survive, you don't have time to go through and spend the hours that you needed to spend to get the loan. time matters. small business doesn't have the payroll sitting in the banks or maybe through a couple of months at best.
it's a headache. you don't have the department or the economies of scale. putting this all into perspective the government came in and created problems with small businesses because they didn't respond in the right way. people were retracted and i was guilty of this and they go to amazon and the big retailers and not patronizing the small businesses. the pandemic response the economies are recovering and we
have all these things looking good but you still have the small businesses that are suffering, particularly in restaurants and social venues that are not really coming back but you put this in perspective with ongoing war on the small businesses and i would love to start talking about what is the ongoing war against the small businesses as we already talked about the small businesses being a wonderful thing and get there is a war against them. >> it's fascinating in this bastion of free market and centralization scanned as independent thinkers and if you try to consolidate power, which we have seen depending on how you want to define the number of laws and the amount of spending, the purview in the decisions that they are involved in. we see more of a consolidation
of power in the levels of government over time so if you are trying to continue to consolidate that power it is much easier to deal with a handful of big businesses than to try to get to the support of all of these independent small businesses who just want to be left alone anyway. so the challenge is that this was obviously a very brazen situation. you can go back decades and see everything from licensed requirements to regulatory capture that often is painted as trying to help the little guy which ends up helping the big guy and the most obvious one that happened within the last 12 to 13 years is what came out of the great recession financial crisis. the dodd frank regulation that was supposed to say bad
financial institutions, we are going to have to rain you in was so onerous that it ended up capping the new entrance to small businesses particularly small community types of banks and put a lot of other small banks out of business and if you can imagine both because of having more costs lending to the small businesses decreased the multiple double digits. but what happened while you have no competition so they end up getting bigger and there's more loans for the big entities and in fact i think i have a spreadsheet in the book it is like $17.7 trillion in corporate nonfinancial right now taken down by companies. so we are supposed to be raining
in making sure the little guys are taken care of and it's giving the banks free reign. and we see this all the time with every piece of legislation or, you know, regulation that's proposed. we want to make sure that it's a fair playing field and that we take a look out for the little guys and all it is is a crony for less competition and that enables more further away from capitalism despite the label they like to put on top of everything. >> i remember one of our first conversations crony capitalism but it seems we've had this conversation because it had nothing to do with capitalism.
>> that's part of the problem that we contend with is that even right now with what has happened with of the small businesses, people are going we can't make it a small business, you shouldn't be in business. that isn't free competition. you get this between cronyism and capitalism. the private enterprise given the fact the playing field is tilted
i appreciate you adopting -- that's one thing that i love about dodd frank in your example because that is exactly where we see the economy going. regulations in the name of small businesses with more burden. when you put on more burdens, the small businesses can hire teams of lawyers to comply so dodd frank is such a perfect example where there was misunderstanding. >> we will find out new regulations because we want to talk about these and help the small banks and like ronald reagan said i'm here in the government here to help you if
you're a small businessman you don't have time to talk to the government all day just to talk about the cost that's involved in something as simple as the insurance requirements. i am based in illinois which is the headquarters for crony government intervention and anything they can do for a small business. and one of the things every single year is i have to pay my employees who work from home on their computer.
we are talking like hundreds of thousands of dollars because they are at home and are going to injure themselves typing? 70% of the economy right now was not running huge machine factories and whatnot. like why am i doing this? one that drives me crazy that i talk about in the book and there's been some pushback against that as well you have these women and men doing the same thing mom and dad to do to their kids before they sent their kids to school they have to spend thousands of dollars to get training which by the way has nothing to do with hair braiding and continuing education requirements and as you can imagine this impacts particularly the minority communities and less advantageous communities and
women and people you really want to get into the situation that are taking advantage of these opportunities and from the get-go you are saying sorry you can't do it if you don't have the cash grab. >> we see that over and over again. for the consumer protection we will have the occupational licensing. even with haircutting if you are a stylist you need the government training to teach you how to cut hair. perhaps people won't patronize my store. >> it's interesting because the pandemic brought to life because they had to remove a lot of these regulations to meet the
demand whether it was licensing for certain healthcare professionals for people who could go across state lines or whatnot with covid to the big hand sanitizer debacle. they removed regulations so more people could create hand sanitizer and guess what happened? we had more hand sanitizer. go figure the market figured that out. so it just goes to show that these are completely restrictive and the question is whether or not they will go back and say now that things are back to normal you can't do hand sanitizer and deliver alcohol on sunday or whatever it is that they took away to help during the pandemic that was just insane to begin with. >> one of the problems with all
of the increased spending the spending becomes permanent. >> that is the scary part is certainly things like the tax rate gets changed around which is annoying as well because how do you plan as an individual or business owner whether you are exiting or investing in your business and to even navigate around that there are so many things that they are talking about now that are difficult to repeal once you put into place things like raising the minimum wage on a national basis which we could probably have a whole webinar but you raise the minimum wage and now you have a downturn and you lower it
because it only moves in one direction. those are the kind of things structurally that are concerning because once they going to affect it is so much more difficult to roll that back. >> and again talking about the war on the small business, the increase in the minimum wage it makes small businesses less competitive so again it's part of that ongoing we in the capital city no better we just talk about the importance but we keep passing the laws that disadvantaged them in the marketplace. >> and you are seeing now amazon is jumping into the fight. they want to see a 50-dollar minimum wage. of course they do because it is going to feel short.
that's where you get the cronyism coming into play. the other thing we had coming out of the pandemic and central planning is that a lot of these issues tried to push on the de facto basis they compensated people not just the traditional unemployment that the states may also pay into and you certainly should have access to but the fact that they did these enhanced bonuses and they were $600 to begin with and they continued it obviously but that is a de facto way to push the minimum wage increase and we are seeing the affect of it right now with 9.3 million jobs that are still down about 8 million workers in the workforce then when we were in february, 2020 before all of this happened.
so, clearly these specific actions are not only a legislative way to do it but a sneaky way to go in to try to compete with the small businesses by offering the enhanced bonus to not work. some of the states have gotten wise to that but that is a big issue because either way, the damage is done and people are going to start having to offer more money and in many cases for small businesses they are offering more money and they still can't get people back to work. a. >> and it's becoming less and less competitive and beyond that there are many entrepreneurs who at the start or making minimum wage when you take into account all of the hours that they are putting into it. >> again why would you do that?
coming up with a new idea of how to serve people better when you say i can make $15 an hour without having to work or having to do -- somebody that was making above the minimum wage what you are really doing if it becomes pervasive is your pushing up the entire scale. a. >> and the prices on the consumers and then you wonder why you are making $15 an hour but it is $23 for a slice of pizza. how did that possibly happen. it's a really challenging situation obviously for small businesses. >> something you mentioned earlier and you spend a couple chapters in the book talking about federal reserve and this is complicated and people get
confused because it is very cryptic. monetary policy is one of those things your eyes start to glaze over because it is so complicated but it's important because prior to the financial crisis the government thought of short-term debt it went from a trillion to 8 trillion so it's increased its footprint eight times and it's not just buying short-term government debt but its mortgage-backed securities and influencing the mortgage market and so much debt and long term government debt and on top of this it is allowing the government to issue debt by
people that say the market isn't expecting inflation of course not because the federal reserve now they are the government debt markets and we are a monetizing with all sorts of macroeconomic complications but you talk about how it hurts small businesses the worst. i would love to talk about that. when you go out and make an investment and required the rate of return, that is compensation for risk-taking. it used to be that we had some understanding of okay i'm taking on a certain amount of risk and if it is more risky i'm going to
make more money and if it isn't very risky i'm still taking a little bit of risk. by intervening in the market in the way that they have with all of these securities and the notion of risk in the market so now you've got more people that are seeking more risk and you have bigger companies able to take down more capital at almost no cost. so think about it. you go to the bank, you have your money hoping to get something back and they are not giving you anything. but they are loaning it out to these companies and very little interest cost they are able to go out and expand. what it does is the companies that shouldn't be there are those that don't make enough profit to be able to serve the interest on the debt let alone
the principal. it would be an innovative endeavor with few 2 million jobs attached to them so that is a potential crisis there although there are a lot of people that need to hire workers, so maybe not as much as one would have thought otherwise. and it just creates an advantage in terms of the amount of capital that these big guys are able to deploy versus the little guys and little people having to take out more risk in order to get any yield and that is when you see that kind of background into the housing market. they are buying up single-family homes and taking those opportunities away or competing with the average home buyer they
are just kind of a middleman collecting a toll and basically being done with taxpayer money. a wealth transfer that is both happening on the physical level with small business being closed and money going to the small businesses but on a monetary policy level where they are getting more capital to the big guys and giving them another advantage in the market and it is just unprecedented. we have never seen anything like this. so in terms of how did this and, there are scenarios many of which it's just so hard to say based on what is happening here in the u.s. and around the world. but that is why there are so many people looking at bitcoin or these other assets because
they feel they can't trust the government and the fed which is because i government. do not devalue our dollar to do these crazy things. and then the whole enabling the behavior to spend because they are ready to purchase that debt so it is a horrible cycle because it is so intentionally opaque and complicated to understand by design why people are not spending enough time saying we need to reign this and like it is a bad thing for the economy and it's the biggest facilitator and we need to stop that. >> it's important that the idea they are funding the low cost
going to the corporations and we also have retirees looking for interest intimately linked. fifteen to 20 years ago no financial advisor would say that you should be taking on that type of risk but if you don't now, it has all of these capital markets that we don't know how it is going to end but there's certainly some possibilities if this doesn't and the way the central planners model say that it should end. a. >> i'm not even sure that they have or that they are even following the mandate because the mandate is supposed to be stable prices which they know they are not and they are supposed to be full employment and i would argue if you have
9.3 million jobs available and nobody brings back they could probably have employment that isn't going to be moved by monetary policy let's just call it like it is so what are they really doing they are transferring wealth and propping up the stock market. that is in their mandate, that isn't what they are set up to do and one of the chapters i talked about that i've gotten the most positive feedback because a lot of time i spent time trying to break it down in a way that you can understand it to potentially come out and all of the ways they are facilitating the wealth transfer and behavior and the financial system. >> one thing we have a growth of
cronyism and capitalism which leads to these outcomes. you talk about where do we go from here and how do we arrest to the cronyism and allow capitalism to flourish? >> the easiest thing you can do is support small business. the joke is alexa why does jeff have so much money. if you are spending all of your money on amazon, like why is it better and if they have more power on top of it. be thoughtful about where it is that you are spending your dollars and how you want to support small business because you can't not support them and then we have a responsibility to allocate dollars. we need to push back very heavily on the regulations and
certainly anything new that comes up whether it is the minimum wage, whatever it is and really think through those unintended consequences. even now they are talking about this. let's break up facebook. i'm not sure if you separated facebook and like they will have any less control over you but what the regulations look like and who to keep out of the market to compete with them those are the things we need to think through. we need to figure out a way to break up this duopoly. the biggest duopoly that we have is between the two party systems and the fact of the matter is this book is meant as a nonpartisan book. it's political but it's not about political parties. it's about a system that is broken, so we need to figure out a way to get rid of that stranglehold because the government has that control under the purview of both
parties. so we just need a list to be done elsewhere and i know if you are somebody that likes freedom and liberty and you just want to be left alone but unfortunately, freedom is something that we have to actively preserve and we have done a poor job in a lot of areas. we've done good on areas like the second amendment, but other areas we have done a poor job so i feel like we need to push back and i also feel like we need to use the legal system more. a lot of people that donate spend a lot of time to try to put somebody in to create more laws and do those things. we need to challenge the things on the books already. how many when it was a 50 year period over a million new laws at the state level and then at the national level it's like 12 or 15,000 or 20,000 regulations over a smaller period. hundreds of those at most are
challenged and a lot of them are not constitutional infringements and we need to spend more time challenging those because if we challenge them and say you can't do that they would be more likely to put those in place. your new book which is fantastic is called the war own small business. it's online and in the stores to kind of support small businesses and -- >> if i can throw out an idea if you want to take what we said to heart, there is a store called bookshop.org and the entire idea is to support local businesses
so if you buy it from them they will support from the business retailers. it is just as easy as any other site, and they actually support the small business on the backend. >> i would ask you is there any questions from small business? that is the only one, where to buy the book. that's perfect. why don't we wait and see if anyone comes up with any other questions. i guess i would like to get more into the idea of cronyism and talk about the dangers of cronyism. one of the things we have not discussed yet we need government to play its role because it has an important role that is very
important and i would love to have your take on this. if we want to properly brand capitalism and we need to do a couple of things, one is the idea that capitalism doesn't mean we don't have to pursue a problem. we have a problem and here is the solution. with capitalism the idea is not that we won't do something but it's that we will and power millions of people and when you and power more, all of us make mistakes that we need to learn from these mistakes. but capitalism allows to learn from. with big government you don't learn from the new mistakes. you double down because that is the only way to operate and i think that idea of granting
capitalism isn't just letting some obscure market to take care of things it's capitalism and powers people. it becomes an essential component. >> it's interesting i think that the word capital and capitalism makes it sound like you are capitalizing on something that makes it sound bad instead of good. talk more about the freedom of choice and power to the people, your freedom, your choice, your work, your choice, transparency those are the main tenants of it and how you can bring that to certain governments and entities
and ideas and problems and one of the things i didn't talk about in the book because they wanted to try to stay focused, i had in the previous draft talked about something like social security and how you can bring free-market tenants to social security because obviously if you agree we should have a safety net but let's empower people instead of paying my money to the government, sticking in and i owe you, which by the way is just like other people they don't put anything in the government, what if when we put they put in their behalf we have that money. even if it was mandated by government, they were not in control of the money, we were in control instead of the government i owe you, you could invest in the market and the creation opportunities and then
maybe you take a portion of the employer piece and use that on those that are not working so we have that little bit of social safety net but they still have that creation opportunity and they can pass it on then you just take the government power and control out of the equation because there's no reason why they should be managing that money. you just try to accomplish the social safety net they can still mandate it but we still have that ownership and empowerment so to me that is a great example of a place that you can bring the free-market principles to something that we feel like it isimportant from a social standpoint and have that object of meant in a better way. >> one question and i don't know if you have a good answer if someone wants to get this type of information and learn more about it, is there a data source just in california which is
where we are located to learn more about these issues? >> so, which issue because obviously the economic issue you can go into the database and do those. which set of issues? >> actually, there is a project that is sponsored by harvard in conjunction with the hamilton project that's called open something. i don't remember what it's called but if you type into your search engine small business closures, you will get the project pretty quickly that shows the only thing i would tell you about the data and this is one of the things that kind of drives me crazy people will understand what constitutes the small business, the numbers are high. they are showing nationally that we have between 35 to 40% of all
small businesses closed. i told you at the top of the hour that we had 3.2 million. i don't think 10 million of them had closed. i think that either employer owned businesses which would make it around the 2 million that is more accurate or the consumer businesses are still trying to get in contact with them like where are these numbers coming from but it's definitely not somebody with an agenda that is trying to push that big number look at it with a grain of salt but there are organizations like this that are tracking. we have employer businesses but you can reach out to me.
to try to point you in the right direction did you just discover that? >> i use that in the book in a couple of places and it is specific to the platforms, so it is a proxy for the subset of the small businesses. it is an interesting proxy to show the group what that looks like. it is another great group that has five to 6 million small business owners on their platform. they do multiple surveys, so they get around 3500 or 4,000 respondents. but again the findings are horrific like 35% of small businesses don't think they can
pay their rent. >> the fact that they are all so consistent in terms of whatever the number might be. >> the biden white house has come out and said more than 4,500 businesses. but even if it were only that, like 400,000. that is like the number of big businesses that exist in this country. that is staggering. we have never had anything like that in history. a. >> we have used up a whole hour so just this last time you did a fantastic job. it's a wonderful book. purchase it online, small bookstores today. also to emphasize if you could visit research.org for the next webinar on tuesday july 20th with of the former california supreme court associate justice and retired circuit judge, that
is a mouthful, dennis rogers brown and then the associate justice so we will have a wonderful webinar at the pacific research. again, thank you so much for coming for this fantastic conversation on an important topic. >> thank you so much and thank you for the small platform of business advocacy. as i said before this book is important not for me, it's not my story but it's the story of the economy and more broadly, the little guy. it isn't getting enough attention so we need to make sure that these stay front of mind or we are going to end up with that legislation that moves us further toward central planning. i appreciate the how uso