Matt innovation is one of the least understood. Is the reason most people say, live in prosperity and wisdom. In the main ingredient in the secret sauce in these innovations is freedom. Freedom to exchange experiment in imagine invest in fail. Liberals have argued that from the 18th century that freedom means prosperity but i would argue if never found the neck mechanism to drive change in which one causes the other pretty innovation is that drug chain, the missing link. Innovation is a child of freedom and the parent of prosperity. Matt, you think you have written a contrarian book in 2020. There seems to be a growing belief. Living standards have been stagnant for decades, both only helps the elites rated and innovation comes from smart planners implementing industrial policy carefully chosen sectors. Matt this is a contrarian book. It is because i said that innovation is the product of free people exchanging ideas freely. And yes we are experiencing innovation although, i do argue first into the book that we are experiencing Something Like innovation famine. Particularly here in the western world. There are areas that we have not been able to get enough going. In the pandemic reminded us of that. They have not been able to innovate vaccines as much as we would have liked. James i think if you ask these days, so many people think that innovation is good. Im not sure as many people as you think innovation is good. They think of disruption, and job loss and ari run wild. But i think innovation is good, we need more of it, no short exactly question from having people would say well we just need more freedom. I think it was a we need more governments. More powerful innovation here the state to work its magic. On the private sector and on science that seems to be where the energy is right now. Matt i think youre right in this partly because people have is sort of topdown view of the world. They think the world is run by people. They dont think of it is being an organic and spontaneous effect of everybody reacting to each other. This event if something happens is because somebody ordered it to happen. And i very much argue that is not the case netbook. Innovation is something apocalypse and inevitably if you allow people the freedom to experiment and try new ideas. And you cant stop it and you cant direct in cant planet. People a tendency to say we must decide which innovations we want and which innovations were going going to get. In which innovations we will subsidize for the public. And i think that is a dangerous tendency. Because the history shows that you cant do that pretty cat suddenly make supersonic flights keep. There are limits two things. You can suddenly the something easily. It will come along instantly. Yes we have been innovating. Somewhere in the world and anyone time. And for goodness, we dont keep doing so, the prosperity will dry up pretty fast. James i think one reason im sure you remember this, is back in the 1980s, there was a concern about the United States, whether japan was going to silly economy of the future. The people looked at how japan lisa we thought with their innovation. Those through key agencies were a lot of people like that who said, we need to do what they do. Maybe they do Free Enterprise. That was they way to innovate. But now we are much smarter we do have very smart people making decisions in governments. It didnt work out so well. Now today, we look in china, very fast growth rate. They hear about advances about ai and become that leader in error ai and airspace anything else you think about plaintiff they seem to be doing great. To think thats one of the reasons that people are skeptical about the dream argument do they have a point. Has china figured out a better way to do innovations. Matt i think youre exactly right. Think people is read japan in the 1980s. Business is coming out because the industry. And then specifically singled out sectors of the future. They invested in them and thats why japan is such an innovative country. That was nonsense. Once you looked and wanted what was happening, it wasnt because bureaucrats were telling people what to invest in and went to event. It was because small firms in big firms, particularly middle sized firms, going out there and trying new things. In developing new technologies and an extraordinary rate. In the same as mistake is being made about china today believe can deny in some areas in terms of consumer electronics, digital behavior and so on. There are some parts of the pack stopped happening in china. To say this because the communist regime and plan to innovate is simply wrong. Given what happens in china. Yes it has a very strong monopolistic and authoritarian political regime. But as long as you dont ignore the communist party, below that level theres a huge amount of freedom. His most directing what the entrepreneurs do. In fact, an ordinary entrepreneur in china decided to do something new. And in the thing in a matter of weeks which in or would take years in the west to go through all of the bureaucracies and regulations. So in that sense, therefore your party that said, china is getting worse in terms of authoritarianism. It is becoming more for freight for a while it was drifting towards democracy. Is been reversed. You will find the chinese bureaucrats will think they can direct and control exactly what happens in innovation and if they do try that, they will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs just like japan, they will no longer be at the front of the packet for very long. Lofgren china being the lead innovator in the world. In the second on microsized and the right is regime. James im going to debate whether china can over longterm, be innovative entrepreneurial state without being much for your. By now the second managed to to vote. And managed to be an authoritarian country with one playful party. Kelsey also highlight innovative. Think that is not innovative. Were sustainable. That they would have to move slowly towards being a free more open. Matt in the long run, i think it would be right. I think it is simply not possible given the role that freedom plays in innovation as i argued. The ability of the entrepreneur to change his mind change direction to suddenly try it one thing and then another. To do a lot of trial and error and make a lot of mistakes. In the end, for something you and present that will change the world. Given the importance of that, i feel that in the long run, that is not compatible with the regime tries to control things from above. China has been here before. Run a thousand years ago, was the most innovative place in the world. In his and responsible for printing and all those kinds of things. This came about because it was not very centralized regime. It was fragmented. With a lot of autonomy and freedom. And then the mongrels, and after that came the main empire. They were quite the opposite. There were tight centralized of everything. They literally controlled where he could travel in needed a report from everett merchant from how much stock he held in warehouse and regular interval. This was a recipe for killing innovation and sure enough, china sank into a lack of innovation and eventually extreme poverty over the next few centuries. Lesson there is that if you run into an authoritarian regime and get more interested in the lives of ordinary small businessman, then you will stop innovation. James i wonder that if we worry too much about china being a leading technological power and has an authoritarian country and the technological frontier. Those two things are not sustainable and worry about feminine figure on different model. Already in the United States is more talk about policy and we need to be Everybody Knows ai is the future. Everybody knows that biotech is also in future. They may be the is theres not a lot of confidence in United States right now. Every human Free Enterprise is very important in pushing forward that frontier. Matt they dont often quite picking the winners for the government. Go back to 1980s, noise about japan. All of the emphasis was having a policy manufacturer. This is when be absolutely vital and strategic in keeping memory manufacturing on short. He completely missed that memory turning into a commodity, the memory chips. The action was moving to microprocessors and eventually to software. If you go back even further, 19 oh three, the u. S. Government had an enormous amount of money and the time to project to develop the first airplane. And it was five from langley, head of the soviet union and very distinguished astronomer anyone often secret and built an enormous machine. Any date just the parts of the machine and get in touch other people. And it was stanched. Theres humiliation humiliation on the u. S. Government. Ten days later, an island off of north carolina, to bicycle mechanics in dayton ohio, done it completely differently. They tested all of the components separately again and again and again. And other devices, they talk to as many people as a going around the world. They looked at what words do they use when the tunnel experiments. They shared their ideas it with as many people as possible. An important no, no, in an airplane into the air predict and for years, no one would believe them. Number to the u. S. Government and said we really can give you a fantastic technology to use military the u. S. Government said no, weve burned her fingers with mr. Langley. So the governments record in syria is not great. There is some truth in that. But the internet, relied on a lot of sector important evenly came out darker, into the outside world, he needed to go through a huge amount of innovation to turn into what we have now. Like given the beaver the credit to the hoover dam. James you mentioned earlier, forcing of the book you talk about this innovatio innovatio, the desert, and perceived in earlier. Elise you look at the physical government, this sort of downshift and productivity growth which things related to innovation in the early 1970s. It never really rebounded and started light 1990s and you look at all the productivity numbers. We do not see what we saw in the 1950s and 1960s. The highly debated is still debated question. Reading happened. What you think that happened. Sounds downshift and productivity which perhaps in of american brookwood, reading happened there. The productivity downshifted and really came back. Matt i dont really think its quite that bad. I hesitate to get into an argument about the statistics. I think when you take into account the sizes of households in all these kinds of things, to be correct for that. There is still productivity. But you are right, theres not as much as one would expect. We had a period of enormous innovations. And Better Computers and telephones and mobile phones, extraordinary amount of innovation during that period. We wanted flying cars and we got 140 characters. In other words, most of the innovation has ended up being digital and bits rather than actions. And the reason for this is because its emotionless to out and start a new business on intranets. To start an ecommerce. You dont need and ask anybodys permission you just another sergeant doing it. The contrast they want to devise new drug or medical device or a new way of building a bridge, this would be an enormous amount of regular victory progress that you have to make before or not even start. As result, we have diverted the energy of entrepreneurs and innovators into Digital Innovation rather than real structures. We didnt quite specifically. The Clinton Administration has measures in the 90s, very much were permissive to the farmers. They cleared the undergrowth a way to make it possible for me to Start BuildingOnline Retail and communications. It worked really well. We diverged our Energy Online in the last few decades. Im not sure that is what innovation is going to look like in the next few decades. We might get back to Bio Technologies being the way coming next. The american 2020, is no better in america in 1970. I just cant see the arguments. The quality of life is extraordinary better. People are leaving longer lies in working shorter hours needing better at all of these kind of things. I think we are saying the fruits of innovation. Just are not showing a particularly the productivity statistics. For elsewhere in the world. And in prosperity for the last ten 20 years. James and isolation, the one you gave, the one that peter talks about two. Make it hard to do that sort of real world, adam and innovation and deregulation, is not someone who loves freedom, loves markets, i love that exclamation. In fact the word the limit too much. It is such a comfortable explanation for me. Its so totally informed like my inherent belief. My biases but i love it too mu much. Maybe im missing something. It would be missing something else. Might it be that Government Spending less on investments. Or something happened with schools. It really isnt regulation, some other explanation. Matt is of course. I have to make the point that we saw incredible changes in the transportation credit but almost no changes in communications and then in the 20 century, we saw very little change in transportation but huge changes in computing. I want to show a cartoon of 1958 of what life would be like in the 31st century. The shot of a very oldfashioned moment delivering justice anybodys doing selling doing so the rocket elisabeth. Thats exactly the wrong way around. Using emails over the have rockets on the back of individuals. So get the future wrong in that sense. Was that because of government regulations intervention interference bit hard. In these because get some kind of physical limits that were hard to preach in terms of efficiency of bringing goods and things around on devices pretty to it feel it is not very efficient on a supersonic rocket. I think that some of the reasons why innovation shifts from one sector to another is not about the obstruction of your press things of god. Some of them definitely are. By the way if you havent seen improvements in transports, one of the most spectacular improvements that we have seen in recent yours, is actually is in transport predictions on speed. In safety. If you look at the fatalities in commercial passenger jets, they have gone some gigantic amounts in the last three four years. For million revenue passenger kilometers pretty different from about 3000 a year to about 50 year. Unbelievable change. In 2018 midyear zero fatalities in commercial jets. Thats extraordinary we think about how many were flying around the world, in the millions. Lasting improvements but they arent necessarily showing up in a pocketbook. Other aspects of our lives i think. Click safety. James clinic right right about this for this issue of innovation, what is the wrong and if we think something is going wrong over the past decade. People start pointing out, maybe there is a cultural reason. Though maybe a future oriented or thinking society. How many of our films and books portray an optimistic future. Tell the story that technology can lead to a Better Future instead of a future but ruined planet rai taking over the earth. I did sit down and went right out movies, would be way easier pretty where its all terrible and we should fear the future. Matt absolutely. Ive been complaining about this for years. I cant remember hollywood film which the future is portrayed positively. There might be some but i cant remember one. Or in which business portrayed possibly. An architect, is not really a businessman writing is more of an artist. Theres these strange obsessions with these pictures. By the way theres nothing new. The book a bright new world. Boys been told that the future will be terrible. Im quite passionate about this. Most over 13 years old, with the Environmental Movement just getting started, is very interested in history and i was interested in all of this. I became pessimistic because the grownups were telling me, noel was running out and pesticides are killing us and etc. Etc. And it went on and on and on. On the well is been blessed be elected now, preaching my teenagers. Sunday i will die a poisonous death. So in the 1980s came along we started prospering quite mightily, i was genuinely shocked. Some of the things that are trying to today still a 12 yearold and 14 yearold kids in schools, they are telling you they do for their future. We have stolen your future. Its just not true. Even the Climate Change projections show that we are going to get richer in this century. Maybe not quite so much richer. This was a model site. James i wonder if it. Im sort of worried doesnt matter, the stories we tell ourselves. People seem to be really right that ai is going to take all of the jobs we need robot maybe or somehow slow down technology. Given that we just spent ten minutes talking, that there has been this downshift. Yet the same time, everyone, they will own all the robots. In the rest of us will be living in humble on universal based income or something. I think it matters. Maybe no way did not in the past for some reason, the stories we tell ourselves. Matt i think you have automation still stops on his novel idea. Spiriva more than 200 years. It is the wrong all along. They said for this. The automation is going to kill jobs. Nearly 1960s, the u. S. President ial Commission Look into the inevitable mass unemployment that was when come about as a result of the introduction of computers into factories. It did not happen. We have more people avoid than ever before. I should say before the current crisis. And that is because what innovation does is it creates new jobs and opportunities. In the prosperity in which consumers levees News Services from other people. It will always be things we want other people to do for us. But is also worth considering i think, we are sharing out and working as hard. If you take someone in the early 20th century when Life Expectancy was less than 60. No such thing as a retirement. Most people at school for 14 or 15 went straight into the workforce. The average workweek was about 60 hours. He did not get much holiday. They were spending 25 percent of their entire life i work. The rest was sleeping writing. Our church are something. Today less than 10 percent. And its quite probable that the lien retirement have the life will be five days away, and the working eight hours everyday. So one third of every day. In taking normal holidays. And someone pretty is less than 10 percent of their life to be spent at work. So for 10 percent of your lifetime you can earn enough to support life to give other people a living. That is what technology and automation is done for us. And we shared that pretty equitably. But parents worry about automation and Artificial Intelligence taking jobs, is a surprisingly sort of upper middleclass worry. In other words, the reason we are going so much about it at the moment is because in the past, and just farm laborers were losing their jobs. Factory workers. Now its lawyers and doctors for Goodness Sake might be automated preventively three. [laughter]. James this idea the robots are not take all the jobs. At the same time as we think, in my view im not nearly enough innovation. Whenever i read about european economy, they seem to be desperate to have more Technology Companies and bigger Technology Companies. How many white papers i have seen about the entrepreneurial innovation deficits. Now in this country, and these big Technology Companies are pretty innovative. I have mixed views about them. Imagine peter earlier talking about amending the government is not at all of the innovations we would like. In silicon valley, they thought wasnt big enough. The reason we dont have flying cars is because all they want to do is modify consumer services. Many over is great but its not the flying part. Matt i think think from europe silicon valleys been a spectacular success. If you are grumbling over there, the fact that you got facebook and amazon and google in your backyard, and delivering extraordinary benefits online shopping, whatever it might be. Who would a bit of that in europe. Europe has failed to produce a company like that. China has produced kind of these Big Companies. We cannot do it in europe. Because we have a very centralized regulatory system tries to tell Tech Companies was new. Why pick fights. All of the time in europe. Constantly trying to google them facebook down the bank. So so true they were desperate tenure not pretty think that is myth. Talk about it a bit. We introduce policies that dont get right. Part about britains successful entrepreneur, james dyson. He invented a bag list ite accu. Vacuum. And he said that all vacuum cleaners must be tested for their energy usage and this was published in not allowed to use a certain amount of power. Little vacuum cleaners must be tested without dust. He said was is is all about. You mean. How do you test effectively without dust pretty ventured out that the big german white goods manufacturers who made vacuum cleaners who had eggs in them did not what the regulations in favor dysons project is tested big horsepower. So they been designed to increase the power usage when it did not want to have to reveal the fact. It is quite different the regulations us were in the room. To designate courts. Advantage against him. Dyson to freedom of information act find out what their lobbying the court and sure enough, doug of a treasure trove. He appealed anyone his appeal. The regulations were struck down. That is the kind of straitjacket with the european innovators have to work for inept by the way is little reason dyson was one of the leaders of the campaign for brexit. He wanted us to join the world and use world standards. Have a competitive open free trading system. This for planning to do next year will more fully of the european union. James one of my concerns about the sort of enthusiasm about industrial policy the United States is that they assume that we will have these very smart independent selfless bureaucrats and a department of innovation of technology and what they want to call it. Based purely on science and technology, these decisions, technologies and companies to fund. But i think history of politics is that that is not going to work. There will be lobbying of the government. Some might get help and those that are, forget about making the wrong decision. I think it would be hard for them to make the right decision much less if they were influenced by policy. Matt things like relations, but also intellectual property system and things like occupational licensing has created barriers that help the incumbent businesses dont help insurgent businesses. This is an increasing problem in the u. S. And also an increasing problem in the uk we need to find ways of encouraging Small Businesses to come along. Big businesses are not good in innovation. Look at kodak. They actually invented digital photography. Do look very efficient and they didnt want to disturb their monopoly and film. Likewise nokia became the big mobile company in the world. Enormously Successful Company then was so invested invoice and didnt see the data Rosen Company and they didnt want to know about it. I was taken over by apple and ended up sold for repentance. Some years later. We need to allow small entrepreneurs to challenge the big ones. As a big thing you need to do. Printing water take on these big organizations. And if it was a department of innovation in washington, very soon youll be hearing from the Big Companies and not that Small Companies if we are not careful. James had a question about china. You think it is necessary for a country to have some big external threat to sort of like of a country safe we need to innovate with her and is spending more and researching getting rid of bad regulation. Or do we need to have that threat or two people to send of being, it was for the money. Politicians dont want to spend the money is to long term thinking or bring about the destruction of innovation. Some people sort of welcome now that we have china to revise a soviet union. Now we have this new external threat and we can talk about innovating again thanks to china. And obviously war. Do we need that. Or is another way to persuade people. Need innovations to be the heart of government policy with others doing a lot more or a lot less. Matt the classic example of the government and its failure to be sufficient when confronted by a rival that appears have overtaken them in the technology league. The u. S. Government saw sputnik in the air and other my goodness, we need to revolutionize the way we do our work and we need to catch up etc. Actually the response that is a lot of military spending is one for must delivered something. It was found to be denims really, it wasnt really changed america. It was bubbling along the Semi Conductor in Small Companies like that in california pretty sure some of them have links to the Defense Department and Stanford University is on. It misreads history think it is because they put a satellite into earth orbit for america to the above and became immensely successful leader. Technological leader predictable about the role of the Second World War that it may. And with the exception of nuclear weapons, i suspect not developed in the 40s have been worried the germany might be developing them too, with the exception, technologies that we often think about having been accelerated by warfare, actually were not. The computer antibiotics, he just engine, these were developed moment for the more. In the case of the computer, at least the ingredient technologies were developed before the war. The amazing year when these ideas come together 1737. This is because of the work, all of the projects going to secrecy. Now they were doing is calculating the projections of artillery, not trying to do anything else. Its was not the war and is the computing is able to share ideas again and get going again. So actually think the war retarded the development of that technology. Where as we often think of it as accelerating it. Im a bit of a skeptic about geopolitics plays a part in innovation. 1930s were very desperate time america. Huge unemployment misery. And yet it was a time of Great Innovation from nylon to radar or whatever it was pretty theres also some things developed in the decade. A country doesnt need think threaten before it does in the innovating. James to think this could be in the moment of the United States and other advanced economies because of the pandemic. Because of the economic shock that we will be into focus a lot more making our country more efficient in getting rid of regulations that will stop people from innovating. I think it is a positive scenario. I also worry about us becoming more so first, sort of retreating and worrying about immigrants and worrying about trade it is kind see going both ways. What you think. Matt i think im an optimist. I think this will turn into a moment where we see nearest entrants seriously need for innovation. If you look at what is happening with us couple of months, in terms of stripping away the requirements take months to approve a new medical device. All sorts of rules and rags that were extremely slowly implemented. Killing entrepreneurship by taking too long over decisions. All sorts of things have changed that respect. We have seen just how damaged we work blends overregulation. So for example, diagnostic test and it is a deterrent a lot of innovators to take so long. And we havent had ready and waiting for the enemy. This sort of pointofcare and dna diagnostics machines but frankly we couldve invented a decade ago i do think we have had a wakeup call but the fact that it is painless is not painless disciple innovation by regulation and slow decisions. Invite bureaucrats. That said, i do also agree with you that we do possibly face the threats of shutting down the World Economy world trade for example. It would be disastrous trade war would be. The whole point in somebody produces and patient summarize in the world. Units and bad luck, i cant have it. We dont say that about neighboring towns. Why should be saying that about our neighboring countries. If for example, the first vaccine is developed not in america but in another country, for this disease which you really like to feel that is just bad luck. And americans are not going to get access to pretty forethought. It is true for vaccines were not every other innovation. But we are connected. Trade does have to be done equitably and are aspects of trade like trading on healthy animals and diseases that we have to be quite careful about. There are other aspects where we should encourage is much pretrade as possible so that we can get access to the ingenuity of people all over the world. James why do in a raters innovate. There is a lot of discussion lately about these very wealthy entrepreneurs. When that is just for you on moscow google, seashore, there innovators that created these companies that seem to be finding very valuable things. But they didnt need to become billionaires. They need to become billionaires. It would be just fine if there were a lot less wealthy. If we had big wealth texas. Really wouldnt affect the amount of innovation. When you look at the visitors, do you think thats true. Why dont people, what are the inventive and innovate. Matt human beings are ambitious. In the ones who make big success and want to make the bigger success. I think it is in the nature of human beings. If you look at people like Thomas Edison or just basecoat evening, you find certain common themes. One of them is run lead to less ambition, extremely hard work but another one is just a tolerance for failure. I think it is a key ingredient. , edison was constantly trying things that did not work and he knew that trial and error was the way that he was going to solve most of his problems. So when he was looking at material to use for the elements of a level. Twenty of the people around the world, they also invented lightbulbs independently. And then they would go from a toilet and then they would say i found when. He kept going. Kind over 5000 different types of plant material until he settled on a japanese bamboo the mated particular good, so that his level lasted longer than other peoples. That is what marks the great entrepreneur than other people. I talked to jeff about this. It is very clear in regards trial and error is a key ingredient. He wants to make mistakes. And he dead. With the history of amazon. Its have disasters. But a series of successes as well. And eventually very big success. Hes on record as saying, not trying a lot of different things, then youre not point to 60 the role of trial and there is a crucial ingredient in these peoples lives. Just keep trying things and you will eventually 60. I expect to get the right the first time and having discouraged by a failure. James tennessee today, results in failure if there are ready wealthy. Im elon musk, hopefully tomorrow is space launch although, and when it does not work, a problem with his autonomous cars, thorough problem with one of his face charges, a lot of people just, they love it speaking about the United States, and the uc that in the United Kingdom as well. And they want to see the failure. Matt anyone who succeeds in the uk, is automatically targeted by the media. Your longing to find in success. In a regular luck, surely they get a few backs pretty here we find far worse over here. And he is a general problem around the world and we resent success. Can be ready bad in some countries. Im not pretending that we should feel sorry for these guys, if not billions. We dont need to waste 70 on them. It would be nice if occasionally the country like yours or mine like a good oldfashioned engineer builds up a business is a heroes and someone who is singing a song providing war for some of these 14th century things that we worship instead. The real heroes of the world of the people who did the innovations. By the way, it isnt always about money again my favorite story in my book, is about mosquito net impregnated with insecticide. Says changed the face of Malaria Control spectacular late. This decrease is a millions of lives print is incredibly simple lowtech technology. I tracked down where it came from. I didnt know who invented it. 1983, much of wrench and bid some of these scientists, a lot of very controlled experiments to see the mosquito nets prevented mosquitoes to uc were there hiding insecticides, and zero turnbulls in the nets. And turnout in impregnated net is very good. Ensuring mosquitoes even if it has holes in it. Eventually think its an asian picked up on this and took his simple lowtech solution around the world billions nets have beens distributed and they have same millions of lives. Nobody has made a penny off of it. Lets hear it for the innovators. They do change the world for the better. James you mentioned edison. Im guessing not very much time spent in that typical american school. Talking about how we got from there to here. People making 2 day to getting really are. The most people would say, i know, they need coal discovered oil, maybe we exploited, which is a wealth of other countries for something so that story broadly is not understood. In the other great inventors throughout history. Matt i feel this is terribly important think we teach far too little but the history of technology and invention. These two. We dont anymore. This probably motivation for writing this book. Write down a lot of stories. The story of the wright brothers. Thomas edison. Stories of failure as well as success. Stories about people tinkering with machines coming up better machines. Think of much more interesting when he battles, stories about falling in love. two. Opening books are the kind of stuff inventions and technology is what really change the world. James some time to talk to a 12 yearold 14 yearold, you think of a story that maybe they have heard of medicine. Where you tell them i think you should hear the story. Matt until the story in the book about a rather remarkable woman, she was a rich literary person in early 17 hundreds london. She went off as the wife of the ambassador. And while she was there she has no women who in the empire, she discovered that they were given the kids very small doses of smallpox. And she eventually died of it and she was terrified that her children type a small box. So she brought this with the call the grafting back to prison and tried to persuade people that this was a good thing to do. She directed her own children inoculated them through the vaccinated mythology. She was almost killed by the model. She was savaged by the medical establishment. As irresponsible and dangerous. How dare an ignorant woman bring this idea back. Something similar happen in north america around the same time. The notion of vaccination from meter. He set out to vaccinate 300 people in boston. In the mall went after him. He had to hide for 14 days in the closet. Or he wouldve been killed. But in fact saving lives. I think that is a good story to tell people read and iran bind them that innovation is often unpopular. Its often very important. James this is on the policy advice portion. Our conversation i ask you forget about world leaders. States and cities, theyll want more innovation, they want to have the citys beauty. What policy advice would you give National Leaders about being more innovative previsit deregulation, as it is financially new dollars on r d. He policies. Matt actually argued one of the things we should be doing is buying out patents. Because they get in the way of innovation instead of helping it. And you see when the expired. Three d printing expired recently read the buying patents prematurely. I would love to see reform so theres less easy to get credit they do less harm. I also think the government should try prices more. They can dangle price confirm a problem and clear people and trying to tackle it. Not way you not specify which team your backing. You reach the goal like. Ellipsis. And the price is not have to be a large sum. It could be future contract. The Gates Foundation is in this quite well recent years. And offered huge from work for something that can produce a vaccine. It was still a lot of children in developing worlds. It was a lump sum, the contract to produce virus in certain price. So they could be rewarded for doing so. Instead of giving grants and subsidies to people to do specific things, having that to committees to decide what they should be doing, i think i would set up a price, but the uk has set one up for resistance. Anyone who can find a good solution to this will get a large reward at the end. So this of them that we try which is much less specific and trying to pick a technology. Smug gnostic about how people are going to reach these rewards. James and finally, i wonder if you could do something that hollywood has failed to do. One of you could tell me about an optimistic future 20 or 30 years from now. And as a future i would live in. I hope to make it. With my children to be involved in nets. Look at that future look like. If we continue to push forward and technological frontier. Matt in three years time, i will be 92 years old. I fully expect to be living quite comfortably and probably and all persons home. But with much Better Technology help me do that pretty that is available today much better message. I hope to be on a drug which left slowed down punches the symptoms of my aging because of my aging. So i will be deteriorating fast. Although i will expect to die before him hundred. Not expecting life extension to go much beyond that. But at the same time, mckee naturalist and i will fully expect, and i am confident that by then we will have Larger National parks, less of the planet devoted to growing food. Shrinking at the moment. And we have more force, more wildlife, love saved not only many of the species that are going extinct but brought them back to an abundance. My life, as seen 5000 in 1960s to 80000 alive today. All because of technological improvements like agriculture. Also in cultivation. She is the other thing that i want to see i am 92 years old, is that we have used gene editing to bring back some of the extinct species that have gone extinct. I would like to see flocks of passenger pigeons flying around in north america again. We could do that. See if im not right. [laughter]. James matt, thank you for having the conversation. And again that new book. Matt ridley how innovation works. Thanks a lot. You are not virtual author program. Discuss the formation of George Washingtons president ial cabinets. Heres a portion of her talk. They didnt get enough credit for being politically savvy and for having skills and really actively involved in the president ial process. As a sort of mentioned it with the leadership, is getting into a really big personalities. They were loud, arrogant, they had their own admissions. In their own ideas on how to see things including charles who famously brought in his pack of houses. As a dog lover personally think it is nice but anybody knows sounds is that they can be quite loud. It was really a sorrowful boisterous environment. In manage all of those personalities. Any certainly had fewer people that he had a manage in a small space. But anyone has seen him those that hamilton and jefferson really did not like each other. They really do not get along. So that management was crucial. The other management was so important, washington was stunning in every single action he was taking read and the other thing from home correspond with the secretaries how to interact with congressman. I responded to an average person on the street. But sort of social events take place. Someone who is capable of managing these details managing the people beneath him, was crucial when youre talking about governing structure that isnt in the constitution and isnt passing legislation. We will be joined to make commentary on