kelton2016

  kelton 2016

https://youtu.be/c0qmv8iGB5A
文字起こし 00:00 [Music] 00:03 all right okay all right welcome ladies 00:07 and gentlemen at this new interview have 00:09 room for discussion in three weeks time 00:11 American citizens will be voting upon 00:13 their new president either Hillary 00:14 Clinton or Donald Trump so let me give 00:17 you the three main topics we'll be 00:18 discussing today first of all the 00:20 campaign of Bernie Sanders why did a 00:22 socialist like Bernie became so popular 00:24 secondly we'll be discussing modern 00:26 monetary theory a theory that our guest 00:28 tonight 00:28 today I'm sorry it's not not yet knows 00:31 everything about and we will round up 00:33 with discussion about the fiscal 00:34 policies of Donald Trump and Hillary 00:36 Clinton exactly we will do this with no 00:38 one less than stephanie kelton she's a 00:39 professor at Missouri Kansas City next 00:42 to that she has been working closely 00:43 together with Bernie Sanders senator 00:45 Bernie Sanders as a chief economic 00:47 adviser she has finished her master 00:49 degrees at Cambridge University her PhD 00:50 at the new school in New York and today 00:52 we're very glad that she's here with us 00:54 some practical issues right final 00:56 remarks please be aware to connect your 00:58 questions at Isabel over there or they 01:00 can join us on Twitter using the hashtag 01:02 RFD especially for the live stream 01:04 viewers out there and I think that's we 01:07 have one thing left to do which is 01:09 giving a round of applause for our guest 01:11 today professor stephanie kelton thank 01:13 you professor kellton once again thank 01:24 you very much for being here with us 01:26 today it's an honor one of the reasons 01:29 we have invited you is because we know 01:30 that many students at the University of 01:31 Amsterdam have been following the 01:33 presidential elections in the US and 01:35 especially following the movement of 01:36 Bernie Sanders we were wondering what 01:39 does it like to work with Bernie Sanders 01:43 it's exhilarating it is demanding it's 01:48 inspiring people will sometimes say to 01:53 me well you know him what's he like and 01:55 I will say but you know him too that's 02:02 the thing yeah he is he is exactly the 02:04 same as what you see he is not Bernie 02:06 Sanders in private you know different 02:09 senators and senator Sanders somehow 02:11 different publicly he 02:13 what you see is what you get so I tell 02:16 people you know him and they say I do 02:18 don't I I say yeah you do what do you 02:21 what was your role I mean that you write 02:24 speeches for him what was your role I 02:25 did I wrote speeches I mean I worked for 02:29 him as the chief economist on the US 02:31 Senate Budget Committee and so one of 02:34 the things that I did is on the budget 02:36 committee we would we would have 02:37 hearings on various topics and so you 02:40 would provide some background 02:41 information so that he's well informed 02:43 on whatever the issue of the hearing is 02:46 and opening remarks talking points floor 02:51 speeches op eds I didn't meet him before 02:59 that but I had done some advisory work 03:01 he formed an advisory committee years 03:04 ago something to do with the Federal 03:06 Reserve and I served on that Advisory 03:09 Committee for him right because now the 03:12 well his presidential campaign is over 03:14 right his campaign he quit about half a 03:18 year ago 03:18 are you still any how involved within 03:21 his movement his campaign and now 03:23 campaigning for Hillary Clinton 03:25 I am working with him on another project 03:29 but I don't do work that's related to 03:33 the the work that he's doing to to work 03:36 on behalf on her behalf what project is 03:38 that if I may mmm not known yet I do 03:43 know but nobody else knows nobody else 03:47 knows he has asked me to work to 03:51 organize a European trip for him and so 03:54 he would very much like to come and 03:55 visit a number of for discussion so 04:00 that's something that I've been doing 04:02 for him well that's one of the issues he 04:07 was he was originally hoping to do 04:09 August and when he mentioned August in 04:12 Europe we kind of laughed because at 04:15 that point we both said oh wait a minute 04:17 Europe has these things called paid 04:20 vacations that stuff that he was talking 04:25 about on the campaign trail and 04:27 so it occurred to us that August was 04:29 probably not a good time to try to come 04:31 and visit Europe so now that he's doing 04:34 so much to try to work on her behalf to 04:37 help get senator Clinton elected we 04:40 think after the election sometime but we 04:42 haven't nailed down dates wonderful 04:43 we're looking forward however moving 04:46 over to more on the on the campaign side 04:49 of Bernie we of course know that 04:51 economic factors and social cultural 04:53 factors played a large part in his rise 04:55 but what we're campaign was but any 04:59 strategies that made him so popular see 05:02 that's the thing I don't think that 05:04 there were campaign strategies that that 05:08 drove his popularity I think that and 05:10 this is something I I think people have 05:12 discovered when they went back and 05:14 listened to the speeches that he was 05:15 giving as mayor of Burlington as a 05:17 member of the house before he moved over 05:20 to the Senate I mean this is someone who 05:22 has been remarkably consistent 05:24 I think remarkably prescient in terms of 05:28 the divisions that he saw forming in 05:33 within both the US economy and social 05:37 divisions and so for 30 or so years he 05:42 was talking about the same sorts of 05:45 problems that have only gotten worse 05:46 over the over the course of time and so 05:50 somehow there was just a collision of of 05:53 message and opportunity and it just 05:57 seemed to be the right time Obama used a 06:01 fast amount of social media back in 2008 06:04 maybe the young voters who spread him on 06:07 Facebook no question okay so there I 06:09 definitely agree with you he had a 06:11 really tremendous team in terms of 06:14 digital media and organizing he hired 06:17 some first-rate people it really really 06:20 made maximum use in terms of the the way 06:25 that he funded his campaign that is both 06:28 a testament to the message that he 06:31 brought and to the talent that he hired 06:33 I think and so you know those $27 06:37 donations and the effort to connect with 06:39 young people using social media and so 06:41 definitely now professor Thomas Piketty 06:44 economist Thomas Piketty last year in an 06:47 article in The Guardian he argued that 06:48 the rise of Bernie Sanders with with the 06:51 rise of Bernie Sanders the u.s. really 06:54 entered a new political era and what 06:56 let me quote him he directly linked and 06:59 centers popularity to the rising 07:01 inequality in the US since the 1980s and 07:03 he says from the 1930s until the 1970s 07:06 the u.s. were at France at forefront of 07:08 an ambitious set of policies aiming to 07:10 reduce social inequalities but since the 07:12 presidency of Ronald Reagan both the 07:14 Bill Clinton and the Obama 07:15 administration have failed to respond 07:17 actively to Reagan's tax decrease 07:19 policies now we were wondering did 07:22 Bernie Sanders actually ever consult 07:23 it's almost Piketty 

we were in 07:26 communication with I believe we reached 07:31 out to 07:32 Piketty and had some conversations we 07:34 definitely had conversations with some 07:36 of his co-authors at UC Berkeley 07:38 Emmanuel Saez worked with us on some 07:41 legends alting with us on some tax 07:43 legislation 

now do you agree that the 07:46 main the main factor that he pointed out 07:48 in the article the main facts or a 07:50 foundation for the rise of Bernie 07:51 Sanders was indeed this inequality issue 07:53 or is it overstated I think you know I 07:56 just did an interview before they're 07:58 coming on stage here and I I drew the 08:02 attention to the problem of inequality I 08:04 do think if you forced me to say that 08:06 there was a single issue that at the 08:08 core from which it's like a hub inist 08:10 and spoke system right that it is 08:12 inequality that was central to the 08:14 campaign and the success of the message 08:16 I think so any any facts and figures I 08:19 mean we know that inequality has been on 08:21 the rise since the 1980s what are 08:23 striking figures that you know that you 08:25 really want to get across on the 08:27 inequality issue.

well look I mean when

 08:30 you tell people that the the divide 08:33 between those at the very top and 08:34 everyone else that you know he would put 08:36 things in terms of the white top 1% or 08:39 the top one-tenth of one percent when 08:42 the top one-tenth of 1% has as much 08:45 wealth as the bottom forty percent of 08:48 Americans it is an astonishing figure 08:52 when you say that wealth inequality 08:54 today and the you 08:55 has returned to the levels of the 1920s 08:58 that preceded the Great Depression 09:01 that's astonishing 09:03 because as you said we had done things 09:06 over the course of the post-war period 09:08 leading up to Ronald Reagan to chip away 09:11 at this problem and to begin to reverse 09:14 those trends and then after the early 09:17 1980s we just allowed the problem - not 09:20 just return but to return with a 09:22 vengeance and so now we're facing levels 09:26 of income and wealth inequality that we 09:27 haven't seen in nearly a hundred years.

09:29 now did that did the financial crisis in 09:32 2008 be that actually worsen that 09:35 inequality did that worsen also is that 09:37 really the issue that Bernie Sanders 09:38 addressed is that the velop thing is 09:41 that something that made it even worse 09:42 and therefore the rise of Bernie Sanders 09:44 might be explained it definitely 09:47 worsened things and I think it does help 09:49 to explain why so many people felt a 09:52 connection to that message I mean it 09:54 isn't in the US that you just tell 09:56 people there are a lot of people who are 09:58 better off than you are and people 09:59 immediately get very angry that's not 10:01 the case but what happened in the wake 10:04 of the Great Recession was that you had 10:05 some 16 trillion dollars in wealth just 10:10 be destroyed I mean around six trillion 10:12 in housing wealth right so people felt 10:16 worse because they were worse off and it 10:19 took a great deal of time for the 10:21 majority of people to to begin to 10:23 recover the lost wealth what happened in 10:25 the meantime though is that a very small 10:28 number of people did incredibly well and 10:30 so your question was did the financial 10:33 crisis actually exacerbate things and 10:35 the answer is yes one of the talking 10:37 points that Bernie Sanders used very 10:40 often was that 99% of all the new income 10:44 that was created in the recovery phase 10:47 this is after the economy started to 10:49 improve went to the top 1% so you're on 10:53 the surface you say the economy is 10:54 getting better we're recovering but 10:56 you're literally shoveling all of the 10:59 gains that are you know being produced 11:02 in the recovery to 1% of the population 11:04 and and so yes ok so the inequality 11:09 it's very clear and the financial crisis 11:10 always its role and globalization how 11:13 come that Americans have started to be 11:16 anti globalization 11:17 I mean they were very Pro trade 11:19 agreements free trade etcetera how does 11:21 that play its role in the inequality and 11:23 the rise of Bernie Sanders as well I 11:25 don't know that I would necessarily say 11:29 that Americans were pro free trade 11:31 American politicians were Pro free trade 11:34 trade was not really a big issue and so 11:38 these sorts of deals like NAFTA and 11:40 CAFTA and so forth these were done but 11:44 not usually discussed it wasn't 11:47 something that you turned on the nightly 11:48 news and there were lots of people 11:50 talking heads on talking about the 11:51 latest trade deal in the negotiations 11:53 and what would it mean for the American 11:54 worker 11:55 we just didn't pay a lot of attention 11:56 and the deals got done what happened I 12:00 think is that over the course of time 12:02 again you see an erosion of the 12:05 manufacturing base you were losing what 12:08 we're good paying jobs that came with 12:10 the form of job security 12:12 they came with pensions they came with 12:14 wages and the opportunity for 12:16 advancement 12:18 these were jobs that people got and 12:20 stayed in they were secure jobs you 12:23 simply say actually that while before 12:26 people people were never really Pro 12:27 globalization it's just now that it is 12:29 addressed actually after the financial 12:31 crisis people become aware of it yeah 12:32 well they're aware of it because 12:34 communities have been decimated in many 12:36 cases in many places because of the the 12:40 longer term effects of some of these 12:42 trade deals so you didn't feel the pain 12:44 immediately and it took decades before 12:47 people began to start looking at a 12:50 community that used to be very vibrant 12:52 that now has almost nothing left the 12:54 manufacturing companies have all shut 12:56 down the jobs have gone and and the 12:59 communities are in a really really bad 13:01 place and it was it took someone I think 13:03 like Bernie Sanders coming out and 13:05 saying the reason that your economies 13:08 are in the shape they're in is because 13:11 of these rotten trade deals and then of 13:12 course you had the echoing of that 13:14 argument on the other side coming from 13:17 Donald Trump and so now you've got a 13:19 really strong chorus of voices begin 13:22 to build up around the problems of trade 13:24 and so it's not that people necessarily 13:27 changed their views and became 13:29 anti-trade they just became more 13:31 sensitive to the some of the disastrous 13:35 economic consequences of some of these 13:38 trade deals all right we will come back 13:39 to Donald Trump later in the interview 13:41 maybe it's nice now to have to see 13:44 whether there any audience questions 13:45 this is your time really there are many 13:47 people on the from the topic of of the 13:51 campaign of Bernie Sanders or on the 13:53 issues America is facing such as 13:55 inequality is that you have the 13:57 microphone who has a question for miss 13:59 Kelson yes over here in France oh yeah - 14:07 please keep it concise in short what do 14:11 you think are the chances of in terms of 14:13 campaign finance reform that the u.s. is 14:17 going to be able on a state basis to 14:19 push through an amendment hmm that's a 14:23 good question on campaign finance reform 14:25 this isn't this is something that the 14:29 Democrats they have as part of the 14:31 platform it's something that in theory 14:34 is important will it become one of the 14:39 most important issues that let's say a 14:42 Hillary Clinton a President Clinton 14:44 decides to push in her first hundred 14:47 days I'm not sure I know that for 14:49 senator Sanders and this is probably 14:51 what's motivating the question that 14:53 would have been a top issue for him I 14:56 guess if I'm being perfectly honest I 14:59 think it's probably not likely to rise 15:02 to that level for her I think he's gonna 15:07 have other issues that she wants to 15:09 tackle ahead of that one another 15:11 question yeah please what are you most 15:13 proud of with your work and a single 15:16 impact that your campaign and your work 15:18 with Bernie Sanders did well that's a 15:21 great question what am I most proud of 15:23 I've never thought about that before I 15:27 okay 15:28 I think I I think I know because this 15:31 speaks to one of the early conversations 15:33 that he and I had before I decided to 15:35 leave my job in my 15:36 family and go to Washington DC to work 15:40 with him 15:41 I didn't leave them I just left them for 15:43 a period of time I think that getting 15:53 back to the second Bill of Rights FDR's 15:57 second Bill of Rights which is something 15:59 that no one in America ever talked about 16:02 I mean I in my adult lifetime I never 16:05 heard anybody invoke FDR's sort of 16:08 unfinished business which is you know 16:10 that FDR was arguing that as much as he 16:14 accomplished in terms of Social Security 16:15 and unemployment compensation and you 16:19 know a variety of New Deal programs that 16:22 there was unfinished business that he 16:24 believed that all Americans had a right 16:26 to health care that all Americans had a 16:29 right to an education that every 16:33 American should have a right to 16:35 guaranteed employment these were 16:37 fundamental rights that he wanted to 16:40 pursue right as part of a second bill an 16:42 economic Bill of Rights and I remember 16:44 talking with Bernie Sanders on the phone 16:47 before I decided to go and and do this 16:50 work for him and he asked me you know if 16:53 you were me what would you do that was 16:55 sort of an interview question and I said 16:57 well what do you mean if I if I were you 16:58 what would I do 16:59 senator Sanders you or maybe I'm running 17:02 for president you and he said well both 17:04 and I said second bill of rights and 17:08 that became something that he went on to 17:11 talk a lot about and that has now become 17:15 a part of the conversation and Americans 17:17 are beginning to ask the question why 17:20 don't we have what every other country 17:22 major country on earth has in terms of 17:24 education and health care 17:25 that's real proud of that on those 17:28 policies such as a free education but 17:31 first maybe breaking up the banks 17:32 because that's a widely recognized topic 17:35 a response to the financial crisis 17:37 breaking up the banks imply according to 17:39 Bernie Sanders well I think it's fairly 17:43 straightforward what it would imply is 17:45 downsizing the size of the behemoth that 17:49 we call Walsh 17:51 that his belief is that the financial 17:54 system has is too big and if it's too 17:57 big to fail it's too big to exist and if 17:59 it's too big to regulate and too big to 18:03 operate and too big to manage for these 18:05 CEOs that seem not to know what's 18:07 happening in different departments of 18:10 their own corporation then you've got it 18:12 you've got to break it up and make it 18:14 smaller you got to make it safer so what 18:16 he wanted to do was just simply 18:17 reinstate glass-steagall or a modern 18:20 21st century form of glass-steagall that 18:23 separates the riskier behaviors from the 18:26 more traditional safe banking functions 18:28 and you know yeah and he would always 18:31 point out that the the firm's that were 18:33 - considered too big to fail before the 18:36 crisis are bigger now than they were 18:37 before we bailed them out because they 18:39 were too big to fail very practically 18:41 because I believe that he proposed in 18:43 his during his campaign that those banks 18:46 where once he would become president 18:48 that those banks would be broken up 18:50 within two years just very practically 18:53 how would it look like a banks such as 18:55 GP Morgan for example how do you break 18:57 up such a bank is well is that is that 18:59 difficult to do how would it be realized 19:01 so one of the things that he talked 19:03 about was appointing someone to be 19:05 Treasury secretary who would take 19:08 seriously this problem and whose job it 19:11 would be to draw up a list of financial 19:14 institutions that are people refer to 19:17 them in the US as systemically important 19:20 other people like Bernie Sanders would 19:23 probably refer to them as systemically 19:25 dangerous right and so you draw up a 19:28 list and then you put in place a set of 19:31 criteria that the banks themselves have 19:34 to figure out how they're going to meet 19:36 the criteria and so you're not 19:38 responsible for going in and saying you 19:40 you must lose this part of this division 19:42 you must lose this segment of your 19:44 workforce you're not going to do this 19:46 anymore 19:46 you tell them what are the things that 19:48 we're going to permit financial 19:50 institution to engage in and they figure 19:52 out how to break themselves up and 19:54 that's the way he wanted to go about 19:55 that that was the act he proposed in 19:57 2015 yes but if you leave it up to those 20:01 financial and those legal experts 20:03 couldn't 20:04 to a certain well they will trick you 20:06 and they will go around you're breaking 20:08 up and they will find a way to stay 20:10 connected those divisions you want to 20:12 break up well I I definitely agree and I 20:15 think he would to that financial 20:18 institutions are cunning that they're 20:21 going to look for ways around 20:22 regulations that you're not going to be 20:26 able to to regulate and prohibit all 20:29 behaviors that you would like to 20:31 eliminate in the financial system but 20:33 look if you if you tell banks that they 20:37 cannot do certain things and if 20:39 securitization is one of those things 20:41 you can make loans but when you make a 20:43 loan you have to do proper underwriting 20:45 and you better do proper underwriting 20:46 because you're going to hold on to that 20:48 loan you're not going to slice it up and 20:50 then repackage it into some derivative 20:52 and then start trading these things so 20:54 that the average duration the time that 20:57 you actually hold a loan after making it 20:59 is less than 30 days you have no 21:00 interest really in ensuring that that 21:02 borrower is a good creditworthy 21:04 borrowers or so you will make the 21:06 promise that the banks will need to go 21:07 back to the originate and hold model 21:09 instead of and disturb you see a videos 21:12 etc those no longer would be okay how 21:17 would Hillary go about breaking up the 21:19 bank she addressed more debt Frank Act 21:21 section 121 I believe and not the 21:24 legislation of Bernie but it's the 21:26 difference between a dodd-frank act 21:27 which also states something about 21:29 breaking up the banks and the 21:30 legislation Bernie proposed in 2015 well 21:33 I think the key difference is that 21:35 Bernie believes that you can identify 21:36 banks today that are too big to fail and 21:40 need to be broken up whereas the 21:43 dodd-frank legislation and this 21:45 provision that you're referring to says 21:47 that certain banks have to come up with 21:49 living wills they have to tell you in 21:52 the event that something were to go 21:53 wrong again in one of these major 21:55 financial institutions this is the way 21:58 that we we intend to deal with that 22:01 right so I suppose the answer is that a 22:07 Hillary Clinton is more trusting of the 22:12 ability of the financial institutions to 22:15 do a good bit of policing of them 22:17 selves and that unless and until 22:20 problems emerge there's no reason for 22:23 immediate efforts to break thank you so 22:26 don't Frank argues that you have to draw 22:29 up a plan in case of a bankruptcy and if 22:31 that's alright then you can just go on 22:33 as yes there's nothing fundamentally 22:36 wrong with a very large financial 22:39 institution clear okay another proposal 22:43 that was widely discussed by the by the 22:45 Bernie Sanders campaign and also in the 22:46 news and in other parts of the world was 22:47 this free college tuition right he 22:51 proposed a free college tuition now just 22:53 to clarify this just meant public 22:56 college tuition right no Ivy League's no 22:58 Harvard now I was wondering like 23:04 couldn't that lead to even a bigger 23:06 public/private divide or a bigger income 23:09 divided between higher classes and 23:11 middle classes I read an article when it 23:13 said for example the middle class 23:15 students it was predicted that middle 23:16 class students were more tentative to go 23:19 to free public universities while they 23:21 would rather well before they would you 23:23 used to go to private universities and 23:25 that would kind of push out the lower 23:27 classes from those public universities 23:29 what I'm sorry you're gonna have to do 23:33 those pushing out of the lower classes 23:35 again exactly so you have once the 23:38 public colleges are made free at this 23:40 moment it was predicted by a couple of 23:43 economists that middle class students 23:47 who would usually go to private 23:49 institutions would now decide to go to 23:51 public universities or public colleges 23:53 because it would be free therefore that 23:55 would create friction with the lower 23:57 classes and we lost our competition 23:59 based extra competition basically for 24:01 the free public colleges and it would 24:03 kind of push the people with the lowest 24:05 incomes so for example only two-year 24:07 colleges I see what you're saying 24:10 so we I don't recall that specific issue 24:15 being a concern of ours look most of the 24:18 public colleges and universities that 24:20 I'm aware of and by that I mean all of 24:23 them are concerned with finding more 24:26 students today the problem is not so 24:28 there's in a sense if you like excess 24:30 capacity 24:31 in public colleges and universities why 24:33 because after the recession what 24:36 happened is massive numbers of young 24:38 people decided to go back to school and 24:40 and not just young people right so 24:43 enrollments swelled but as the economy 24:46 has begun to recover the reverse has 24:49 happened and so now we have in the sense 24:51 started hemorrhaging students at public 24:53 colleges and universities there's plenty 24:56 of capacity there for us to absorb 24:59 students and so the competition probably 25:02 won't be an issue 25:03 looking at Hillary Clinton and her 25:04 proposal of free public universities she 25:07 proposed that public universities within 25:10 their home states could offer free 25:13 courses to students that are in at home 25:17 state and have below bomb 25:19 I believe 125 K incomes the children of 25:23 those of course it's this shift towards 25:25 the left for me Larry Clinton really due 25:28 to Bernie Sanders I think the specific 25:31 plan that you're referring to is 25:33 definitely a result of the campaigns 25:36 working together through the process of 25:39 putting together a platform her taking 25:42 on board some version of some of the 25:45 things that he was pushing for including 25:46 minimum wage and yes she doesn't go 25:50 quite as far as he did but as he likes 25:53 to say and he's out campaigning for her 25:56 and they did an event recently in New 25:57 Hampshire and the event was specifically 25:59 on the college education proposal it's 26:02 it's gonna cover about 85% of the total 26:07 u.s. population that he would have 26:09 covered you know 100 percent so it gets 26:11 very close and I'd say yes it's 26:14 definitely a result of influence his his 26:18 plan would cost around seventy five 26:21 billion euros a year how is he plans to 26:23 finance that well Jenna we're back to 26:26 talking about Bernie Sanders proposal so 26:29 what he was proposing is if I recall the 26:33 numbers it was around so I'm not sure 26:35 your number seems a little high I think 26:37 we were looking on the website of Bernie 26:38 Sanders oh I thought we were at seventy 26:40 billion a year 26:41 okay u.s. $75 26:44 oh I'm sorry thought you said your us I 26:46 thought you singers so so his proposal 26:50 was to to quote pay for the college 26:55 education with a with a tax on what he 26:59 called Wall Street speculation so in 27:01 other places you would call it a 27:03 financial transactions tax within the 27:05 economics profession we might call it a 27:06 Tobin tax but it is a very small tax 27:10 applied to transactions in financial 27:13 markets the purchasing of bonds and 27:17 stocks and derivatives and I guess not 27:19 the weight of Hillary's trying to solve 27:21 this this issue right well I don't know 27:24 exactly whether she has drawn a line 27:26 item from a revenue source but she says 27:29 she talks in more general terms about 27:31 making sure that we don't ask the middle 27:34 class to pay for this that we that we 27:36 will ask the rich to pay their fair 27:38 share and that's what everything what 27:39 was the reason that that Bernie Sanders 27:42 who decided to make such a well link 27:45 line between Texas on speculation and 27:48 free public university what was the 27:51 reason for that like way why why 27:53 couldn't you just say well I will get it 27:55 for example from increasing taxes in 27:57 general why was it is it because it 27:58 sounds quite populist right to say like 28:00 we will just take it from there 28:01 from the speculators and it's a really 28:04 interesting question it's and my answer 28:06 to your question which I'll give is 28:09 going to be based on the time that I 28:11 spent in Washington DC and so this is 28:14 you know the Bernie was ranking member 28:17 of the is ranking member of the Senate 28:19 Budget Committee and I think there is 28:21 just such tremendous pressure in DC and 28:25 especially when we talk about the budget 28:28 to figure out pay-fors for everything 28:31 and knowing that you're gonna run for 28:33 president you put forward a big 28:35 ambitious program like this or the 28:37 infrastructure or any number of other 28:39 ambitious things he wanted to do you get 28:41 out on television and what is a very 28:43 first question every reporter asks you 28:46 did you say it how are you gonna pay for 28:49 it it's the first question on 28:51 everybody's lips and so I think that he 28:53 believed that it would it would be 28:55 unsatisfactory 28:57 for a candidate to simply say well we'll 29:01 find the money there you know those at 29:03 the top aren't paying their fair share 29:04 that it was in a sense more responsible 29:08 to say with greater precision where the 29:12 revenue was going to come from now 29:14 whether whether that suited served him 29:17 well I don't know because you know 29:19 you're sort of in in a sense damned if 29:20 you do and damned if you don't because 29:22 he did pay for everything and you ask 29:24 him how are you gonna pay for it and he 29:26 had an answer every single time for 29:29 every line item on the agenda he could 29:32 draw a line and tell you where the 29:33 revenue was gonna come from and then 29:34 what was the great criticism then of the 29:37 math doesn't add up and and it's it's 29:39 all pie in the sky and you can't pay for 29:41 what are you talking about I just told 29:42 you where the money's gonna come from 29:44 for every single thing so it's very 29:47 specific and has helped and probably I 29:50 just want to ask if there are any 29:52 audience questions on that policies of 29:54 Bernie Sanders we just discussed a 29:56 breaking of the bangs and free bit 29:58 public universities but maybe some 29:59 others thank you a lot of the issues 30:05 that were discussed have disappeared 30:08 again like tuition health care all of 30:11 these things are not being discussed 30:12 anymore do you feel that it's kind of 30:14 trumps fault or is it just that it's not 30:17 interesting not hot enough anymore today 30:21 well I guess they've disappeared from 30:25 the headline television coverage of the 30:28 campaign but they're they've definitely 30:31 not disappeared in the sense that she's 30:34 no longer pushing for some of these 30:36 things as I said they were together in 30:38 New Hampshire just a couple of weeks ago 30:40 and the focus of their appearance there 30:44 was on the on the college tuition free 30:46 making public colleges and universities 30:48 tuition-free so that's still on the 30:51 agenda in the sense that it's something 30:54 that she's trying to do to motivate 30:57 voters and to rally people around a 30:59 positive economic agenda but the 31:04 coverage doesn't reflect that and that 31:06 is a problem 31:07 second question maybe a quick question 31:09 before yeah over there 31:15 first of all thank you for being here 31:17 today to share perspectives with us I 31:19 have a question about free trade you 31:23 refer to the long-term effects of 31:26 various free trade deals on communities 31:30 in the US and it actually reminded me of 31:33 a similar situation actually here in the 31:36 Netherlands because the province here in 31:39 the Netherlands Groningen it once had a 31:41 whole grain Imperium and that was pretty 31:46 much destroyed because the Netherlands 31:49 open yourself up to trading grains with 31:52 the United States and this whole 31:53 thriving community kind of got wiped out 31:56 trading community so I just wondered 31:58 because there's this whole whole whole 32:01 range of expectrum of views on how to 32:03 deal with field free trade there's some 32:05 people that feel these deals should not 32:08 be signed at all and then the other side 32:10 you have people that feel that the trade 32:13 deals should take better account of the 32:17 interests of middle-class or trade in 32:20 our communities so the question 32:22 basically is what is the view of of 32:26 Bernie Sanders where does he stand 32:29 within the spectrum of views on free 32:32 trade where does where does Bernie 32:35 position himself so he he will often say 32:38 that he is not against trade he's not 32:41 anti trade what he what he tries to 32:44 describe is something that looks more 32:46 like fair trade where the deals are not 32:49 written in the interest of you know 32:53 mega-corporations and against the 32:55 interests of the workers who end up 32:58 producing manufactured goods and and so 33:01 forth for trade so where he stands is 33:04 somewhere between two extremes but 33:08 definitely with the greatest sensitivity 33:11 toward the working people and the 33:14 impacts of these trade deals on that I 33:16 mean look at the end of the day if 33:18 you're importing goods and services this 33:21 is a benefit to the country because in 33:23 real 33:24 imports are a benefit and exports are a 33:27 cost because the exports are the things 33:29 that your people are making and 33:32 producing and then sending to somebody 33:34 else to enjoy right so in a real sense 33:37 exports our cost and imports are a 33:39 benefit the problem is that so many 33:42 countries are in a race to try to get 33:45 their net exports to be positive 33:48 everybody wants to be generating demand 33:51 by exporting to other countries which is 33:54 to say you want to import demand from 33:56 somewhere else in the world because you 33:59 don't have enough demand being generated 34:01 domestically to employ all of your 34:02 people so you become increasingly 34:04 reliant upon the rest of the world to 34:07 create demand for the things that you 34:09 produce because that's how you create 34:11 growth and employment opportunities at 34:13 home but everyone can't do that I mean 34:15 this is the problem right that if every 34:17 country decides that it's going to 34:20 become more and more reliant on the rest 34:23 on its trading partners to buy their 34:26 goods well it's not gonna work right 34:28 somebody has to import for somebody else 34:31 to export right so I think what we need 34:33 are better domestic policies to create 34:37 employment and demand at home so that we 34:40 can become less reliant on other 34:42 countries as we try to import demand and 34:45 I think that Bernie understands that 34:47 very well which is why he had such an 34:49 ambitious economic program for domestic 34:51 employment right very interesting 34:54 there's also another topic we've talked 34:55 about the economic policies of Bernie 34:57 now and we've taken a couple breaking up 34:59 the bank's a free public tuition now it 35:03 might be interesting to focus on your 35:05 theory that you're an advocate of the 35:07 modern monetary theory and before we do 35:10 that it's interesting to ask a question 35:12 to the audience and support you pay 35:13 attention now in the Netherlands and 35:16 also in other countries actually it's 35:18 often heard that governments cannot 35:20 spend more money than it receives 35:22 otherwise it will run a budget deficit 35:24 in the long run so who believes that 35:26 this this concept also applies to the 35:28 United States so that governments in the 35:31 long term cannot spend more money than 35:34 it actually receives who believes this 35:37 theory 35:38 this sounds like a logical theory high 35:39 up your hands yeah if you agree with 35:42 this so a government cannot spend more 35:43 than it receives so depths will go up 35:46 constantly all right well that's almost 35:49 half half I would say it looks like the 35:51 right side was more agreeing with the 35:54 statement now your theory miss Kelton 35:57 actually says the contrary it argues 36:00 that LMT 36:02 governments are actually able to run a 36:04 budget deficit right how does it work 36:06 you quickly explain quickly disabused 36:12 this audience of and I'm impressed that 36:14 fewer than half so this is a smart 36:17 audience look the the simplest way to 36:23 say this and I'll say it with with the 36:26 caveat that I hate saying it this way 36:28 but you're not giving me time try we'll 36:31 try if we all had a printing press in 36:34 our basements would we worry about 36:36 spending more than we take in and the 36:40 answer is clearly not and the defining 36:44 characteristic of a country like the 36:46 United States is its sovereign currency 36:49 is the fact that that governments like 36:52 the u.s. like Canada like the UK like 36:54 Australia are the issuers of their 36:58 currency they have if you like a 36:59 monopoly on the creation of the currency 37:02 in the United States the US dollar can 37:04 only come from one place and that is the 37:06 u.s. government it cannot come from 37:08 anywhere else if I try to create the US 37:10 dollar I better not get caught when I do 37:13 it right because it's called 37:14 counterfeiting US currency can only come 37:17 from the US government and the only 37:19 reason that any of the rest of us have 37:21 any of the stuff that we walk around 37:22 with is because at some point the US 37:24 government put more into the rest of the 37:27 economy then it took back out and so 37:29 we've got a problem with this term 37:31 deficit spending and it's a label with a 37:34 pejorative that people very anxious 37:36 because we've been told 37:38 year after year that there's something 37:40 wrong with a government it's doing it's 37:42 behaving badly it's fiscally 37:43 irresponsible to run budget deficits but 37:47 if you stop and think about it 37:48 all it means to say that the government 37:50 is running a deficit 37:52 is that it's putting more money into the 37:54 rest of the economy than its taking out 37:56 so if I run a budget deficit and I'm 37:58 government I put in a hundred and I take 38:01 out ninety okay now we label that a 38:03 deficit I have run a deficit but guess 38:06 what 38:07 somebody got 10 somebody in some other 38:10 part of the economy is now holding ten 38:13 that they wouldn't have otherwise had 38:15 what does it mean when I run a budget 38:17 surplus people say the government should 38:19 be in surplus no deficits be responsible 38:22 collect more than you spend okay let's 38:25 try that I'm gonna run a surplus I'm 38:27 gonna collect a hundred in taxes now I'm 38:31 gonna spend ninety so I have a surplus 38:33 but what is the rest of the economy have 38:36 the rest of the economy has the deficit 38:39 because balance sheets have to balance 38:41 and so we we're so accustomed to 38:44 thinking in terms of the government 38:47 being irresponsible 38:48 when it does this thing called topping 38:50 up the rest of the economy with money 38:52 that we sort of forget that that's 38:55 exactly what happens when you end up 38:57 with a trade surplus if the rest of the 38:59 world decides to spend more money buying 39:02 your goods and services then you spend 39:04 buying theirs they put in a hundred 39:07 buying your stuff you only spend ninety 39:10 on their stuff what do you call it you 39:12 call it a trade surplus how come you use 39:16 the word surplus when the rest of the 39:18 world does it but you use the word 39:20 deficit when I do it you're ending up 39:22 with ten either way it has the same 39:25 macroeconomic effect in terms of the 39:28 financial assets that you get but we've 39:31 we've labeled these things in a really 39:33 unhelpful way that causes us to love the 39:35 idea of one and hate the idea of the 39:38 other and so the point is can the 39:40 government continue to do this in 39:41 perpetuity can they do this year after 39:44 year the answer is yes after all Britain 39:47 Britain and the US have survived their 39:50 entire existence almost always running 39:53 budget deficits surpluses are very 39:55 uncommon and not only are they uncommon 39:57 they tend to lead to fairly bad outcomes 40:00 in the US case the most recent time we 40:03 had a budget surplus was during 40:05 in Clinton Bill Clinton's turn in the 40:08 late 90s and early 2000s the u.s. ran 40:11 budget government budget surpluses now 40:13 we hadn't done that for decades and 40:15 decades and decades okay we've been 40:16 running budgets or deficits for for 40 40:20 years prior to that all of a sudden the 40:22 government goes into surplus and what 40:25 happens at the same time is that the 40:26 private sector ends up running these 40:28 massive deficits now private sector is 40:31 you and me right we're we're the 40:34 households and the businesses in the 40:36 economy we just used the dollar we don't 40:38 issue the damn thing and so when the 40:41 rest of us try to go on spending more 40:43 than we make 40:44 year after year it's called leveraging 40:47 up it's called households taking on 40:50 increased leverage increased risk and 40:53 what we ended up with was a financial 40:54 crisis okay I think I think empty is 40:57 clear in the sense that you that those 40:59 depth levels that are currently 41:00 increasing are in the niche won't cause 41:03 a bankruptcy especially in countries 41:06 that have their own printing press now 41:07 for the euro Europe mainly and all the 41:11 euro countries don't have this printing 41:13 press anymore so is that the the main 41:15 issue you think with the euro that we 41:18 can no longer have those deficits 41:19 because we are restricted it's can 41:22 preneur since we don't have a fiscal 41:24 Union controlled by the European Central 41:26 Bank yeah so these country all of the 41:29 countries that adopted the euro gave up 41:31 their sovereign currencies and adopted 41:34 what amounts to a foreign currency here 41:36 within what we call the euro zone is 41:40 that the fundamental difference yes it 41:42 is is their default risk now associated 41:45 with the bonds that are issued by 41:48 governments in the in the euro zone that 41:50 doesn't exist in countries like the US 41:52 or the UK yes there is it's a 41:54 fundamental difference that exists now 41:57 in countries that tax borrow and spend 42:00 in euros where the country itself has 42:03 become a user of the currency no longer 42:05 the issue or the fiscal Union next to 42:07 this monetary union be the solution it 42:09 is part of the solution yes I mean you 42:11 hear people now talking about a variety 42:13 of things including the importance of a 42:16 banking Union 42:18 and other things but absolutely this did 42:21 the decision to take monetary power and 42:25 put it at the supranational level to to 42:29 give the ECB control of the currency but 42:32 to leave fiscal authority at the 42:34 individual member state level is 42:37 something that's just unprecedented 42:38 right I mean we have a currency union in 42:41 the u.s. we have 50 states we all use 42:43 the US dollar but we don't just have a 42:45 Federal Reserve for all 50 states we 42:49 also have a Treasury for all 50 states 42:51 and so we have a transfer Union as well 42:53 yeah now what would we just talked about 42:57 the free public education could mmt be a 43:00 way to finance this this initiative by 43:02 just letting the government run a budget 43:04 deficit very practically like it's such 43:08 an example for example free public 43:10 education could MMT be a way to find to 43:15 finance this project well I wouldn't 43:18 think other way actually a different way 43:20 to say has it been tried in practice 43:22 this mmt theory okay so here's a great 43:25 question I'm really glad that you asked 43:27 it because mmt isn't something that you 43:29 try or don't try it's a description of 43:31 how things already work so what what 43:34 I've tried to do in my scholarly work 43:35 and a number of other academics who 43:37 contribute to this literature have tried 43:39 to do is to explain that this is already 43:41 the way government finance works we're 43:44 not making a proposal to change the way 43:46 we finance spending so for example the 43:49 Iraq war okay how did we pay for the 43:51 Iraq war and the answer is we pay for it 43:53 exactly the same way we pay for 43:55 everything Congress goes in and 43:58 authorizes the spending and so what it 44:00 would take to get for example free 44:02 college is for Congress to go in and 44:05 authorize the spending and if you had a 44:07 piece of legislation that was as we call 44:08 it a clean bill which didn't include 44:11 these pay-fors and where are you gonna 44:12 find the money we just say here's a 44:13 proposal we're gonna spend 75 billion a 44:16 year providing college tuition at all 44:20 public colleges and universities to 44:21 anybody who wants to go if enough 44:23 members raise their hand and vote for 44:25 that legislation it triggers the 44:28 payments the payments just happen by 44:31 virtue of 44:31 the authorization to spend and then you 44:34 get whatever revenue you get and at the 44:36 end of the fiscal year you find out 44:38 whether you had a surplus or a deficit 44:40 okay okay I think that from Krugman and 44:42 Stiglitz also to Warren Buffett and 44:44 actually Donald Trump they all seem to 44:45 be in agreeance with you that those 44:48 deficits and those debt levels won't 44:49 cause a bankruptcy so let's focus on 44:53 other other points of debate at this mmt 44:56 theory such as inflation if you say that 44:58 you can constantly spend if you can get 45:00 that aggregate demand up can you keep 45:03 control of inflation that's the key 45:06 question this is the key question so 45:08 what I would emphasize is that that a 45:11 country like the u.s. is not revenue 45:12 constrained yeah you have a monopoly 45:14 over the currency so you're the only one 45:17 who can issue it you're never gonna run 45:19 out you're never gonna be forced into 45:20 default you can't go bankrupt take that 45:22 question off the table then the question 45:24 becomes what you just raised what are 45:26 the limits and the limit the binding 45:29 constraint is inflation if you try to do 45:31 it all if you say we're gonna have three 45:34 trillion in infrastructure investment 45:35 this year we're gonna educate the whole 45:37 population free of charge we're gonna do 45:39 this we're gonna do that we're gonna 45:40 have health and we're gonna do it all 45:42 tomorrow or next year or in the next 45:45 three years you may be putting such a 45:48 strain on the limited resources that you 45:50 have on the on the steel on the 45:53 manufacturing capacity of the countries 45:55 on the labor force on the supply side of 45:58 the economy that you end up just driving 46:00 prices up and so that you have the power 46:03 of the purse does not mean that you have 46:06 the power of the purse to use as 46:07 liberally as you want without 46:08 consequence and the consequences 46:10 inflation so I used to listen to the 46:13 chairman of the budget committee who is 46:14 a Republican and he would often say 46:16 deficit spending is is evidence of 46:20 overspending that's what a deficit is 46:22 and I would say no evidence of 46:25 overspending is inflation right hey 46:27 that's how you get evidence of 46:29 overspending the deficit is just the 46:32 difference between what you put in it 46:33 and what you subtract so this means that 46:34 we deficits still according to Mt United 46:38 they will never be so big that we have 46:41 tremendous I mean hyperinflation 46:43 wouldn't be the cause right it will be 46:45 we'll be the deficit will never be that 46:47 high so it will be like we have 46:49 experience now well I can't imagine 46:51 maybe max10 I don't know I can't no look 46:56 deficits got to almost 11 percent of GDP 46:59 in the US during the financial crisis 47:03 right so we had these unprecedented 47:05 unprecedented over the course of the 47:07 last hundred years or so right massive 47:09 but our problem was deflationary 47:11 pressure not inflationary pressures so 47:13 again it becomes a question of what are 47:16 the capacity constraints and because we 47:17 were so much underutilizing labor and 47:20 capital at that point that we didn't get 47:22 inflationary pressure now 47:23 could you get inflationary pressure 47:25 because the deficit gets too big 47:27 absolutely if the private sector is 47:30 already doing enough in terms of 47:32 spending plus any demand from the rest 47:34 of the world to put you close to full 47:36 employment and then you try to achieve 47:38 big ambitious fiscal programs on top of 47:42 that you can generate inflationary 47:44 pressure now can you get to 47:45 hyperinflation probably not no evidence 47:48 that that's ever happened anywhere in 47:50 the world okay not that hyperinflations 47:53 never happened but being as a 47:54 consequence trying to get to full 47:56 employment yeah okay I think that's 47:58 clear on mmt but just any audience 48:00 questions on this topic of Monomoy yeah 48:02 I already thought so yes so central to 48:08 mmt I think is fired money that it's 48:10 good finally fired money because you can 48:13 play with the deficit I was wondering 48:16 how do you explain the sort of at the 48:18 moment we started using a truly fired 48:21 money based system was also more or less 48:23 the same moment that the financial 48:25 sector started being on par with the 48:27 real economy and started growing out of 48:30 proportion so why did this gold standard 48:34 yeah like that well like the amount 48:37 based system we had previously so how do 48:40 you explain the coincidence of this 48:42 happening more or less at the same time 

48:43 so I don't think they happen more or 48:48 less you'd have to be pretty generous 48:49 with the use of more or less at the same 48:51 time we've had a fiat money system for 48:57 virtually the entire time that we've had 48:59 money system globally which is David 49:02 Graeber would say is something like 49:03 5,000 years brief brief periods of time 49:07 in which there was a commodity money 49:09 system but through the great arc of 49:11 history we've had a fiat money system if 49:15 you like what gave rise to the increase 49:18 in the financialization of the economy 49:20 as a whole I would argue has to do with 49:23 changes in the regulatory framework not 49:26 changes in the monetary system itself 49:28 and so you unleash the ability of the 49:32 financial system to grow exponentially 49:34 by deregulating the financial industry 49:37 not by changing from a gold standard to 49:40 a not fixed exchange rate system.

the 49:43 currency system we have right yeah okay 

49:46 clear I see one more question over there 49:50 please I was just wondering about like 49:55 spending more than like running a 49:58 deficit basically how do you think like 50:00 to downplay it a little bit like if I 50:01 would have a friend who would spend keep 50:03 spending more than he would earn I would 50:05 never lend him money 50:06 in the long term how do you think like 50:08 the international financial system would 50:09 react to the u.s. constantly spending 50:11 more than they earn well right now 50:14 they're reacting to it with historically 50:17 low long-term interest rates and no 50:19 inflationary pressure look as I said you 50:22 you're right to be weary of your buddy 50:24 who keeps coming back to you and saying 50:26 I overspent this month can I get another 50:28 hundred I just I'm a little short I'm a 50:30 little short at some point you're gonna 50:31 say this clowns never gonna pay me back 50:34 right I'm not lending any more money to 50:35 this guy but if you're lending to the 50:38 United States government again what is 50:40 the promise so if I put a hundred in and 50:43 I take 90 out I've run a deficit okay 50:46 I left ten dollars ten billion call it 50:48 whatever you denomination you want in 50:50 the US economy now that's just cash 50:53 sitting there unless I decide to waive 50:55 this US Treasury bond around and say who 50:57 wants to buy this this is an 50:59 interest-bearing asset this one isn't 51:02 this is just cash and people say I would 51:04 like to buy that Treasury bond okay 51:06 because it's default risk-free it's 51:09 highly liquid it's 51:10 and it pays me interest and so somebody 51:12 swaps me the tan I put in for the US 51:15 Treasury now this is a really safe asset 51:18 the question is what would cause people 51:20 to not want to do that why would anyone 51:23 begin to worry about the risk of holding 51:26 US government debt all I've promised to 51:28 do at some future date is give you back 51:32 US dollars now can I run out am I gonna 51:34 run into a problem make him good on that 51:37 obligation and and my answer is no and 51:39 again it goes back to the fact that I 51:40 have the monopoly on the issue of the 51:42 dollar your buddy doesn't have the 51:44 ability to create the currency and the 51:47 only ability it's the only place that 51:49 can come from so when that bond matures 51:51 and every year and every month until it 51:54 does I'm gonna meet the interest 51:55 obligation by paying dollars and at the 51:57 end I'm gonna pay the premium by paying 52:00 more dollars is this a risky proposition 52:01 and my answer is it is not a risky 52:04 proposition 52:05 is it a risky proposition in the 52:07 eurozone it is it is now and that's the 52:10 fundamental difference clear now that we 52:14 have discussed the LT theory I think it 52:15 works out five minutes now almost in 52:20 three weeks there will be presidential 52:21 elections Hillary Clinton Donald Trump 52:24 it will be very interesting to go very 52:26 quickly into that we have ten more 52:29 minutes 52:29 Donald Trump has proposed for example 52:31 that he is he's proposing to spend 52:34 trillions of dollars over decades on 52:37 public infrastructure on health care on 52:40 education food those vast amounts of 52:42 spending fits within the MMT theory they 52:46 would write well again it's not a theory 52:48 if if we had President Trump and he had 52:57 a Congress that was willing to work with 52:59 him on a program like this and he said I 53:01 want to spend trillions of dollars and 53:03 Congress said we want to spend trillions 53:05 of dollars to do and somebody drafted 53:07 legislation to do all these things you 53:09 just mentioned and enough people raise 53:11 their hands and say I vote yes it gets 53:13 done it is a theory yeah it isn't a 53:16 theory it is how government already 53:18 finances everything it does Congress 53:21 authorizes the spending and 53:23 he's just a description okay but it's a 53:24 description of how it works okay then 53:27 maybe what do you believe that is the 53:30 most surprising or scary economic policy 53:34 that Trump has proposed mass deportation 53:39 okay not economic this so it's it's it's 53:42 it's mainly well that is economic you're 53:44 talking about 11 million workers in the 53:49 labor force that it would be I guess the 53:52 supply side wouldn't be able to cope 53:54 with the MMT but okay 53:57 looking at protectionism then for Donald 54:00 Trump how does it how close is he to 54:04 Bernie Sanders on the protection is on 54:06 the free trade side how would you say 54:08 Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump actually 54:10 how close are they 54:11 they're often compared right like a 54:12 moment Trump is is trying at least 54:15 that's what we read in the news 54:16 don't Trump is trying to persuade 54:17 previous Bernie Sanders voters to vote 54:19 for Trump relevant for Hillary so in 54:22 what sense are the similar economically 54:23 well I would say the the similarity is 54:27 pretty narrow and I and I think it's on 54:29 messaging more than substance for sure 54:32 for sure so what he saw what he 54:35 witnessed was Bernie tapping into a lot 54:39 of anxiety with respect to how people 54:42 feel about about trade and the impact on 54:45 their communities and he you saw him 54:48 having a lot of success and he started 54:51 with that message and but look Donald 54:54 Trump is talking about you know raising 54:56 walls and and imposing tariffs and doing 55:00 all sorts of things that Bernie Sanders 55:02 never in a million years would have 55:05 thought to bring up because it was an 55:07 anathema to him so different ways of 55:10 going about restructuring trade deals 55:13 now both of them are talking about 55:14 renegotiating trade deals going back and 55:17 not going forward with TPP so there are 55:19 some similarities there but but Donald 55:22 Trump seems to think that he can 55:23 strong-arm his way into reversing 55:26 decades-long 55:29 loss of jobs in manufacturing and so 55:32 forth and I think Bernie Sanders is much 55:34 more realistic about it 55:36 it would be to actually come up with 55:38 policies to attract back and as jobs in 55:43 the manufacturing all right maybe 55:44 quickly on Hillary Clinton then what I 55:46 surprised you the most on the shifts 55:49 towards the left what is most what did 55:51 Bernie Sanders what was his main policy 55:55 that he actually got Hillary to the left 55:57 on what policy was that I would say to I 56:03 think on minimum wage they man you know 56:06 she she was never where he was in terms 56:09 of how how high she wanted to go with 56:12 losing the minimum wage in the US he was 56:14 at 15 she was at twelve fifteen dollars 56:18 an hour made it into the Democratic 56:20 platform and so that that was a pretty 56:23 substantive victory there and I think on 56:26 college he's he's absolutely delighted 56:30 to see her now pushing to make public 56:33 colleges and universities tuition-free 56:35 for families making less than one 56:37 hundred and twenty five thousand so 56:38 those two seemed to me to be pretty and 56:42 and on TPP the reversal on PP as well so 56:46 do you think she will actually stick to 56:47 the TTP agreement will she actually stay 56:50 on not trusting that and not letting 56:52 that go to Congress or do you think she 56:55 actually flipped around and come back on 56:57 that free trade deal issue yeah we have 57:01 seen we have seen her speech last week 57:02 it was refilled by WikiLeaks right in 57:04 which he advocated in Wall Street's that 57:07 she was actually very much Pro free 57:09 trade agreements while in the campaign 57:12 in the previous month she has been 57:13 campaigning against those free trade 57:15 agreements so what is your what should 57:19 be coming back on that promise when 57:25 Bernie is here in a few months I hope 57:28 not is my it was my initial answer 57:32 you're right to say that she has 57:34 fundamentally been more favorably 57:36 disposed to free trade agreements she 57:39 has voted against some but she has voted 57:41 for a number of free trade agreements 57:43 and of course her husband as well with 57:46 NAFTA and so forth look I think that 57:50 it's reasonable to think that she hopes 57:55 that TPP could get through because where 57:57 she takes office and then she doesn't go 58:00 for it what she said was that it did not 58:02 meet it no longer is the gold standard 58:05 that she once thought that it was that 58:07 it has some problems and that she no 58:09 longer supports it now can I imagine a 58:12 scenario whereby those problems are 58:14 worked out as the language has changed 58:17 in very subtle ways and that it becomes 58:20 a gold standard again yeah I can imagine 58:22 yep I can imagine that happening final 58:24 audience questions maybe on Hillary and 58:26 Trump over there went over there in the 58:29 back you should come a bit forward and 58:30 if you ask a question first over here 58:32 Mike the gentleman where's the 58:34 microphone let's see very quickly yes do 58:43 you believe in the existence of some 58:45 lobbies that would try to get someone 58:47 where that comes with such a big change 58:49 of power do I believe in the existence 58:53 of lobbyists that would try to get off 58:57 power someone that comes with so much 59:00 change what lobbyists actually get 59:04 Bernie Sanders of power is what I can 59:07 lobbyists get him out of do you believe 59:09 in the existence of lobbyists who tried 59:12 to get him off power because he comes 59:14 with such change I've never heard that 59:20 contemplated before the idea that there 59:22 are people actively lobbying to limit 59:27 his influence is my question is if you 59:31 believe that they could exist such a 59:34 strong lobbyist 59:35 well I think there's there are clearly 59:37 very strong lobbyists who have armies of 59:41 individuals who are trying to limit his 59:45 influence in terms of the policy change 59:47 the change that you're talking about but 59:50 I don't think that they go directly 59:51 after him they go after the agenda the 59:54 things that he's fighting for and 59:56 they're very as you well know they're 59:58 very powerful and they can definitely 60:02 prevent 60:04 from happening that he would like to see 60:06 happen are they working hard to prevent 60:08 him from getting through legislation 60:11 that would push us closer to a 60:13 single-payer system for example yes 60:15 absolutely 60:16 all right thank you for your question 60:17 Isabelle we have to go to this this 60:19 gentleman because we promised him first 60:21 and he raised his hands I'm sorry you 60:23 can maybe miss Kelton has one or two 60:25 minutes after the RFU so you can ask her 60:27 okay first it's been argued that Bernie 60:30 Sanders would stand a better chance 60:31 against campaigning against Trump in the 60:33 presidential elections how do you judge 60:36 that argument or how do you stand on 60:37 that well it's not something I haven't 60:43 thought about I'd love to see the 60:47 polling nobody's done it right now well 60:51 probably it's Pryor sure but the 60:54 question that a lot of people are asking 60:55 is the one that you just asked which is 60:57 if he were the Democratic nominee today 61:00 where would he be relative to Trump in 61:03 the polls I think he would be doing 61:06 extraordinarily well I think that the 61:09 third party that the third party is 61:11 getting something like 11% of the total 61:15 vote depending on the poll 11 to 13 or 61:17 so percent substantial and many of those 61:20 third party voters are people who were 61:23 once supportive of senator Sanders so 61:27 you throw this into the mix it would be 61:29 nice to have the the data to provide 61:32 sort of a affirmation of what I believe 61:37 to be the case but I think he would be 61:39 doing extremely well okay I think we 61:41 have run out of time so final questions 61:43 will it be Hillary Clinton or Donald 61:45 Trump in three weeks time it will be 61:47 Hillary Clinton and will she actually 61:49 surprise Bernie Sanders supporters with 61:51 being more on the left scale of the 61:54 spectrum you know I think that it 61:56 depends what happens in the house and in 61:59 the Senate and you believe in her good 62:02 intentions I do you do okay well at 62:05 least it's a positive note to end with 62:08 before we start thanking miss Kelson I 62:12 would like to thank you very much for 62:13 attending this interview it's good to 62:15 know that from next week on we will 62:18 new interviews for room for discussion 62:19 from January on so you can if you're 62:22 interested for example in interviewing 62:24 miss Kelson or maybe Bernie Sanders 62:26 within a few months then please supply 62:28 center cv+ motivational letter to HR at 62:32 safe at door now for now I would like a 62:35 very very warm applause for professor 62:38 [Applause] 英語 (自動生成)