We are clearly filming tonight so well be very grateful if you could, a. , silence your cell phone, dont want that on the recording. And when we get to q a, please, please, please, line up the audience mic and ask your questions into the mic. Finally, the end of the night before you go by the crisis of good buy the book. And fold up your chair andlift against the back stacks. The crisis of the middle class constitution is his second book. After law in the age of wars and this book is both the highlight of the idea of income inequality in Constitutional Republic republics the first the argument we now need to adapt our con constitution to work against the class inequality. Senator eelizabeth warren said every american needs to read this book. He is an associate proffer of law at vanderbilt. He he was the senior counsel of the United States senate. He was appeared in the new york times; so please join me to welcome him to our staple. [applause] thank you. Id like to thank cspan for covering this event and thank nowyear coming today. We have some empty estates on this side and the front so come on down. Theres lots of space. Dont be shy. Dont be shy. Well be shy. Okay. Well, i expect some of you were a little skeptical about coming to the talk, other book called the crisis of the middleclass constitution. What possibly more could be said about and then you see me and youre probably wondering what could be said by someone who looks like he is 12 years old about this topic. Ill try to take on this huge task. Might call it a uge task and its hard because we know a lot about it. Everyone lived through the election of 2016, and we know a lot of people who are really upset about economic inequality. Both Bernie Sanders and donald trump relied on economically populist rhetoric and got a lot of support we have an data on the shrinking middle class over the last generation. But im not an economist and so i want to ask a different question. Is economic inequality the class of the middle class, the constitutional problem . You might be skeptical of that. The constitution doesnt say anything about the middle class and doesnt say anything about economic equality or inequality in it explicitly. If anything these days the constitution seems like it gets in way of economic combating economic inequality. Take the Citizens United decision which allowed people in corporations to disproportionately influence pock policy. Write thing shrinkle middle class and economic inequality are constitutional problem. For most of the history of issue western political and constitutional thought. To ancient greeks to 18th 18th century, states men were very worried about the problem over economic inequality and if society was divided into rich and poor, the rich would the result would be strife, violence and revolution. The founders of this country knew that hate. They were steep inside history. And they were well aware that economic inequality was a serious source of instability. They knew that if the wealthy took power, they would slowly start to tilt the laws so that youngs outcomes would favor them. It was said when the rich plunder the poor its slow and legal. The people, increasingly angry at Rising Economic and political inequality would responsible but not through some sort of mass uprising. They would look for a leader to help them overthrow the oligarchy. Future broadway sensation, alexander hamilton, did not give up his shop. He said the first tv he federalist papers of those men who have joe turned the liberties of republics the greatest number began theyre career by paying court to those oligarchy, tyranny. In ancient rome there is would a senate for in the wealth and and the tribune of the poor. In england the house of lords for the wealthy and the house of commons for the poor. Call these class warfare constitutions because the build class conflict into the structure of government. There is a check on each other and this creates stability the second solution, first articulated by aristotle that says the best government is a government in which the middle class was bigger than the rich and the poor. And in which, therefore, the middle class would govern. He called this a a middle constitution, call its midding class constitution, hence the title of the book this. Is a cheat because you have a huge middle class, uss as there isnt that much economic inequality so you wont have conflict. That immediates you dont need a tribe bound of the class and dont need a checking system. So the founding generation understood this history and they believed that america was unique, and the hit history of the world because the distribution of wealth here was relatively equal. That septembersy but yourself back the 18th century. You have a sparsely populated country, mostly along the eastern seaboard, some towns,ing a curl few, but the center of the world is we were europe western europe. And they say big differences. Theres no feudalism in america, up like europe. No hereditary aristocracy, up like in europe. Even the richest people here George Washington and many of you have been to mt. Vernon but nothing compared to palaces of the dukes dukes dukes and duchen england. America has vast lands to the west and what that meant was that any white man it was limited to white men could become a Property Owner and have measure of economic independence. Let me read now a few brave conditions. The first is from noah webster, the creator of the deck dictionary and said equality of property is the very soul of a run republic. The people will possess both power and freedom. When this is lost, power departs, liberty expires, and a commonwealth will assume some other form. Second is charles pinckney, was a delegate to Constitutional Convention and heres what he said the convention. He said america not only very different from theinhabitants of any state were acquainted with the modern world but at distinct from either the people of guest or rom or or rome or aintents. He believed america hat a greater equality than to be found among the people of any other country and thought that equality would continue because, close, the nation possessed tracks of uncultivated land. You believe that economic inequality was necessary to have a republic and that americans were relatively equal and a republic would be possible. Theres good reason to think they might have been right about this, too wasnt just a belief hey had. Two economic historians have done extensive work on economic inequal the founding period, and they found in 1774, on the edge of me american revolution, the top one percent of america took home 8. 5 of national income. Thats the same also it was in 1976. In comparison, today the top one percent take home more than 20 of national income. Huge difference. Williamson and linder clock in late 18th Century America that the most egalitarian corruption of worth than any country in the world. So is relative equality with a backdrop, they didnt make a class warfare constitution. Theres no tribune of the no property requirement for becoming a senator. The framers knew how to write these provisions and debated things like this in the Constitutional Convention and state constitution and rejected them for a federal constitution. And this is a radical change. This is what is deeply radical about our constitution. It is not a class warfare constitution. What we have is a middle class constitution. A constitution that is based on the assumption that america had and would continue to have relative economic equality. Now, over the course of the 19th century the economy changed. Industrialization, urbanization, the closing of free from tier, the shift from agriculture to wage work in factories put pressure on the check in foundations of the constitutional system. During the guildded age, economic inequality was on the rise. Economic power was increasingly concentrated in a small number of robber bare bare barons and people thought it was a threat to constitutionle a system. Theodore roosevelt said there can be no real plate al democracy unless there is something approaching economic democracy. Ill read you a passage from the book to give you a feel for the concern of how the wealthy would corrupt the political system, turning our government away from a republic. This is from the 1880s in 1890s. Marcus daily was determined to stop William Andrews clark. Clark, like daily, was an industrial magnate who opened copper mines, milled, smelters, lumber, banks, retail stores, newspapers, and utilities. What clark really wanted was to win elected office in montana. He wanted the status and power that came with public leadership, partly he wanted to support policies that improve business hold examination harm enemies. When clark for congress in 188 he pasted the names oclocks aniballet, leading to clarks loss in an instance of spectacular fraud. So began montanas war of the copper kings. Over the next two decades copper magnates in montana would engage in the most bulletin at that y cancelled Business Contracts with those who would not support his political aims. Started his own newspaper to compete with clark. They fought over where the capitol would by and they gave away cigars, bought rounds and drinks and sometimes handed out money in the effort to garner support for one city or the other. Clark decided in 1899 that the it was his last best chance to get into the senate and he was willing to pay legislators whatever it cost. The opening bid for a bribe was 10,000 a vote, win many comping in at 20,000 and one rumor of 50,000 for a vote. Clarks son remarked they would send an old man to the senate or to the poorhouse. For his part, clark said, he had never budget a man who wasnt for sale. By some estimates clark sent 431,000 to buy 47 votes in the state legislator and offered more than 200,000 that was rebuffed. Commenting on the corruption mark twain said, he is said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy identified. He has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in montana it no longer has an offensive smell. Senator William Clark took office in washington, only to have investigations open immediately. After hearing testimony from state legislators and even Montana Supreme Court justices, whom clarks agented attempted to bribe the Senate Investigations committee declared clarks election void. In an amazing maneuver, clark resigned and his allies in montana con cried to get the governor out of the state, making the Lieutenant Governor, clark allies the acting governor, chat point the Lieutenant Governor appointed clark to fill the now Vacant Senate seat that clark had just been denied. This was the kind of corruption that was going on in the gilded age. Money buying senate seats, buying politics, shaping political outcomes. When the populist and progressives were worried this would ruin to the constitutional system think end of the republic. And so they tame up with some of the most creative solutions. On the economic side they invented antitrust laws to break up consolidations of Corporate Power and have constitutional amendments to credit an income tax in order to prevent economic power from influencing politic theyd passed the First Campaign finance reform and passed a constitutional amendment for the direct election of utah u. S. Senators. The battles continued through the progressive era and the new deal. But after world war ii the idea that economic inequality was a threat to our republic large largely dep avid from the national con conciousness. The knee dealers largely won the bat. Over whether the federal government was constitutionally able to act in the national economy. Fight over Economic Policy shifted from being a constitutional debate to being just a debate about regulation and policy. The second change is the cold war. From the found through the 19th century 20th century, people who came to america, the founders and the weaves images afterwards, left aristocraciy and monarchies to come to a republic. They knew it was a difference. After world war ii the contrast shifts and now the question is capitalism versus communism. In in that con contrast fears of communism cut against the equality any american tradition. The third is that we entered a period of prosperity that economists called the great compression. Gdp was up, median incomes were up, americas middle class grew. We regulated finance, securities and exchange commission, glasssteagall, we had imposed taxes at pretty high rates and invested in our people to get them into the middle class. Sent a generation to college through the g. Bill. Encouraged home ownership, we invested in infrastructure which crated jobs and growth and put into play programs that would help the poor. Medicare, medicare, head start. Economic inequality was less on an issue. Now i know some of you have been probably thinking from the very start, but what about women . What about africanamericans . How can the story im telling possibly coexist with reality of deep inequality across these groups i distinguish between two traditions. The first is the one i have been talking being. The middle class constitution and for there to be a republic you have to have relative economic equality in the Political Community. But this leaves open a very important query. Who is in the Political Community and that has been fiercely contested, including eventually contested in our history. But over time we can trace a tradition, the tradition of inclusion, and is expanded the Political Community in country to include women and minorities. I think the key thing to think about is what happens win the two traditions intersect. When you expand the Political Community it books necessary for all becomes necessary for all new members of the Political Community to be able to join in the middle class, or else the republic cant succeed. Throughout our history, statesmen understood this. After the civil war, for example, the reconstruction republicans fought not just for emancipation and Political Rights but also for 40 acres and a mule for an measure of economic independence. Ill ready you a brief bit from thaddeus stevens, a pennsylvania congressman, one of the leaders of the reconstruction republicans and he had proposed a bill confiscated the estates of the top ten percent of rebel planters and redistributing that to the free slaves of the south. Heres what he said about his proposal. Without this, this government can never be as it has never been a true republic. It had more of the features feaf our stockcracy than democracy. It is impossible that any practical equality of rights can exist where few thousand men monopolize the whole property. The number of small proprietors the more safe and stable the government. After his death one colleague said of his views, he knew that a lannen laded sayre strong contractsy and a landless class and he would abolish both. The aim of the reconstruction republic republics would to ling the two together, including the middle class and economic equality. We also forget that this was a key part of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s the march on washington with the march for jobs and freedom. Economic and politics. What i think is important about this today is you have to understand that as we have expanded the Political Community, we have to make sure that everyone has a part, chance to join the middle class. And this is achallenge because once again in an era of increasing economic inequality thats why this is a constitutional probable emt because the constitution wasnt designed for a society of inequality. Designed for a society of relative equality. Looking the long history of republicans i think we republics we have a couple of options. The first is we can try to realign this mismatch of economic equality and our constitutional structure, just by abandoning economic equality. We can say we want to be an Unequal Society and we can embrass the class warfare approach. Give up on being a middle class nation. What would that mean . We would probably have to change our constitutional structure at a root level. Might need one house for the rich and one for the poor, resurrect the tribune of the blessed from rome and theres a professor the university of chicago who thinks we into do just that. These are outlandish ideas and probably unlikely to be implemented. And probably even undesirable itch dont think we want to be a country that has fixed economic classes. The second option is that we have to rebuild our middle class. We have to reshape our economy and make our politics more democratic. A lot of things to talk about. Raising the minimum wage, organizing workers and ion unions and Political Movement and political reforms from voting to campaign finance. The bottom line is we have to do these things not for economic reasons, not just because theyre important little tweaks to our system. We have to do these things because what that risks the very core of our constitutional system, what it meaned to have a republic. And heres the think. The founders would have ordinary this. They knew they were building a constitution on top of a set of economic functions and they knew that some day conditions would change. Ill just end with a quote from the father of the constitution, James Madison, who thought about this problem over the course of his life, and in 1829, he sat down to compare the availability of land, the ability to move west, with the estimate for population growth, and he thought that it would be 100 years before america really had to confront the problem of inequality. Heres what he said when that happens, quote, the institutions and laws of the country must be adapted, and it will require for the task all the wisdom of the wisest patriots. Think what we need today are wise patriots who can help reform the system so we can preserve our republic. Thank you. [applause] im happy to answer questions. We have a mic in front. Questions, often have a question mark the end. So that be terrific. Just say your name. Caroline. This isnt exactly what you were talking about but it gill with time for other people to think of questions. I always thought the middle class what the modern thing. It wasnt in ancient times. Ancient times was like the odd desy. Aristocrats and lives. We didnt get a middle class until we had industry. How did air to the come aristotle come up with this . What do we mean by middle class. A lot of the time when people say the middle class, what they want if give me a fixed dollar amount. Well, thats a hard thing bus in every society and every country, even the same society and same country, across time, that completely changes. Inflation, prices, so dollar amounts are very difficult. I define middle class as saying to not the very rich, not the very poor and thats continue throughout history and you see people talking about this in these terms. For aristotle, its Pretty Simple to say there can be a rich and poor and there could also be people in me middle. The think that air aristotle he doesnt talk about the middle constitutions and the reason why he says is, well, this would be the best kind of constitution, middle constitution, but when we look around, we just dont have any societies that are mostly middle class people. Here its all rich and poor. So it was very theoretical. People talk about the rich and poor but recognize theres a middle but the middle emerges at different times and places inch florence theres a writer who identifies a change that happened in politics leading to rise of what he called the mediocre. It means the middle. The in between rich and poor. And so theres a sense of that, too. James harrington in england in the 17th century, recognized that there are these people in the middle. In 18inch 18th century, you see people in the middle, the middling people and somewhere in between the wealthy and the poor. The middle class itself does tame prominence in Victorian Era as a phrase but the basic idea its pretty consistent throughout the political thought of the centuries before that. Thank you. Let me thank you for a very interesting talk. I have a few questions. Im from the caribbean so im from a different i come from a different angle. I was somewhat surprised that you declared obviously the american constitution to be a kind of middle class constitution, right . I mean, im sure you know the rising of the great Political Writer who pointed out how the constitution was written in the United States. Mostly by people to protect wealthyinterests. A lot of want and opportunity to people to get in. But it was written basically to protect certain interests, and the issue becomes arent those interests really now coming the chicken is coming home to roost. Thats the first question. The second question is that obviously i mean, we talked to me and let me do that for miss, right . Could be but you have to make sense between, income equalization, between 1945 and 1980. Right . In europe, i grew up in europe, i mean, i saw i remember one day walking from to my home and it was something i was maybe 19, 18, im thinking theres something wrong in this society. Something is coming apart, and its telling me to get in the bus, im going to squeeze, im like leave me alone. Im thinking, dont bother me and it came to me what happened. That basically what you had in these societies and western societies, was the largest solidarity mechanism starting to fracture and break apart. The working class moving up. And they didnt have much relationship as their fathers had with the working class. So they didnt feel this need for social that was so the issue is, obviously, suggesting to institutions have to walk in a certain way, at certain time, to get once you get the Supreme Court packed with rightwing people you have a political system packed by increasingly right wing peeping we know Hillary Clinton won by three million votes, but the guy losing the election, hes still president. So, the system itself is a huge problem. So, the issue is, and the issues you put forward are also seem to me to demand demand mach more radical redistribution of wealth and income. Much more economic democracy. How do you think about these issues and do you see any move this is not only the United States. France, dutch, how do you see this playing out and do you have a lot of optimism . Thank you. Tanks. Great questions. On the first question, little background. About a century ago there was a historian named Charles Beard and he wrote a book about the constitution, very famous book and he argued the constitution was design bid thank you founders to rid rig the system to serve theyre own interests and showed the different interests of the particular people the Constitutional Convention and so on, trying to link that up to outcomes of the constitution. This thesis, which really sticks with us, i think a lot of people in the historical imagination actually decisively debunk bid historianed in 1950s. They went back through all thed and showed that beard was wrong. So on the specific claim that the constitution was rigged by the founders to serve their own personal interest there isnt much too that. The broader claim is a very powerful that the constitution was rigged by people to try to establish a more aristocratic form of government. If we think about the constitution that way is why didnt they rig it more . And just think about that. The whole history of governments before that included things like property qualification for members of upper houses, like the senate, even the house of representatives. You can imagine designing a system that way. The 1780 constitution of massachusetts, the longest standing constitution in the history of the world, written by john adams, had property qualifications in it for the governor, the senators, it was deeply ahis to thattic, these designs were debated widely throughout the colonies in the time and rejected. That is a radical change. And the reason they were rejected theres a number of reasons some are practical. How to design these thing but one thing you see consistently in the reports and the notes from the Constitutional Convention is them referring to the people who were absent the Constitutional Convention, and thats the people. And they knew what the people wanted and the knew what the people believed which was that this actual i. E. Squall and they couldnt rig the system nor without running afoul of what the people would accept and realitiy wanted. So the founding generation, who ratified the constitution, when they were embracing it, were not embracing a document they thought was rigged. You decent see people who are federalists making the argue. This is a great constitution because it entrenches the elite and will overthrow all the power of the people. That not what they say. They say this a great constitution because every aspect of it draws, some directly some indirectly, from the people. And there was seasons at the time that was real constraint, real thing that people believed. And so that is why they didnt rig it more. Thats the way we should think about it. The baseline isnt how we think about democracy today. The base line for them is liking at 2,000 years of history and look the European Experience and its a quite radical document. To your second question, how should we think about the change wes need today . There are lot of things, and we could good into these, im sure, being in washington theres many policy experts in each area. But we talk a lot about things like the minimum wage,a way to lift wages up. Contributing, taxes, transfer program, and also frontenthings to do one scholar calls predistribution, how the economy runs so it generates more equal distribution of wealth, and antitrust for the progressives was one of the ways they thought about this and the idea here is if you have a nation of Small Business owners, small proprietors, you have not a massive concentration of wealth in the few. You have it distributed across everybody. So antitrust is about that and when you look at whether its a louis bran dice, they talk about its extension shall to break up consolidations of power to preserve the constitutional system. After speaking i found myself sort of thinking throughout, what happens if we take this interpretation and sort of flip it on its head. I heard the argument advanced that a certain amount of inequality is good in a society. In the argument theres incentive and economic driver and having the opportunity to move from one class to the other and having another class is what provides that it incentive. Im curious how you approach that, perhaps the other alternative would be not that equality was presupposed in the framers of the constitution but rather that inequality was presupposed and was accepted to be a good thing or a certain amount, what is too much is a large field for debate. Similarly i recall being in Elementary School being taught how our own legislature mirrors the roman republic, upper house and lower house. So im just curious what your thought process in terms what happens when you take the argument and flip and look the mirror image and think about what inequalitys role is. Great. Thank you for the question. To start with the second part, thinking about the roman case, ill just stress that, again, the key difference between our system and the prior systems is that it doesnt build in class directly into the structure of government. This is a hard thing to tell in some cases because we think of the senate maybe as roman and the house of commons. The radical thing that James Madison explain inside federallest papers is that our actually you see this throughout the debates on the ratification of the constitution is that our statement system of separation of powers is not about balancing check classes. Its the citizen uses. The president , the legislature, and the whole idea is its not about classes and why say why would it ever be about classes . We dont have classes here that we would need to check against each other, and that is something that you see said in these debates. On the broader question about inequality, the idea that theres perfect equality certainly. There was not perfect equality at the time of the founding. Far from it. Big differences. But the differences are not a extreme. There are not huge extreme level outside see in europe or see today. I think that is the idea. Theres got to be a range that is broad and one thing ill say about this is how culturally this is important. So you talked about the need to spur people to act. But the other side of this is what it takes to have a virtues citizenry and itsdithat are skeptical of commerce because they thought while destroy virtue and one important thing about the middle class gives everybody a measure of being similar to each other and a measure of economic independence and both of those of things, they thought, developed the kind of virtues that were needed for people to be equal citizens in 0 republic. So i think thats another we way of thinking about this is a different world ask different considerations. Virtue is the forefront of their minds. Good evening, joel heller. The examples you gave for the idea that at the time of the founding of america was prim missiles it on the idea of quality had to do with Property Ownership do you have any examples aside from that, that show this idea of economic equality was kind of built into the system and also do you think Property Ownership still needs to be part of the conversation today when talking about restoring the middle class . So, most of the founders talked quite a bit about property. The reason is because property was the primary mode of wealth at the time. And there whereas was a lot of lap, property available in america. So property is core. You see i throughout the writings of every one of the founders, maybe the most famous is jefferson, who says when he gets rid of the entail, a way to link property to your descendents over time. If you watch Downton Aberdeen Abby the first was about the entail, making property law professors giddy with delight. So what eversaid is when he tried to get rid of the entail and he, quote, hailed the axe to the sued to aristocracy because property distribution was the key way it would develop. So thats a big part. But there is a sense that there were other people at the time of the founding that werent just farmers. There was a of artisanal labor but the economy send won the made between europe and america was stark. The wealthiest merchant in america hat wealth levels of 50,000 british pound compared to in london, where the wealthiest merchants were around 800,000 pounds. So the factor of ten plus in thinking about just the differences among merchants. So even in the case where we arent talk can but just farmer and Agricultural Land there were stark differences between america and europe. Im wondering about the role of political populism in relation to inequality, historically, special especially in the present situation. Populism should be a process that society goes through to react to rising inequality. Historically can you say that it typically works that way and if that is true, again that now we have inequality, rising inequality, we also have rising populism and hope for the future. You see populism throughout American History and now and it comes in waves, comes often at times of fear of inequality, fear in the changing economy. The jacksonans are populist as a time when theres big changes in commerce, one scholar called the period of the market revolution, the expansion of commerce in the 1820s, and Jackson Union populism is in part a reaction to that. In late 19th century during the gilded age you have the pommist and a group of people that we consider a poppist with a small p, the knights of labor, the farmers a alliance, trying to change the nature of the economy, doing antitrust, income taxes but in fact the populist in that period actually created man of the 20th center goals. The eighthour work day, for abandoning child labor and food the phrase phrase equal pate for equal work, referring to women. This is in late 19th century. There was a strand of populists that tried to unite africanamericans and White Working Class people in the south even, and they organized them, they pushed hard to try to link across race in order to push back against what they saw as a planter aristocracy that was keeping doubt both race us. That evident failed, obviously. But there was a lot of populism at different times to push back against this. One thing i think is most striking i found in researching the book is how many times change happened because of real grassroots actions. It required leaders. Also a leader, Teddy Roosevelt and others, but there was massive mobilization on the ground. One example is the United States passes a Corporate Tax in 1895. This is partly response to to panic of 1893 and the massive depression that followed, and people get organized. Theyre angry, theres marching in the streets, violence. And this is an element of populism that leads to economic change. Im not advocating for violence but the idea that people who are really engaged can push political actors to be responsive to their needs is an important one ask drove a lot of the progressive changes both on the economic side and on the political side. My name is bonnie and you spoke about aristotle, talking be the great middle class, also it was at that time. I as recall he wrote about having serious doubts about a democracy because he said the democracy leads to tyranny, and what was important to him was education, and that the educate people would be the ones to be in hierarchy, they ruling hierarchy, the benevolent ruling hierarchy. So you havent said anything about education. You talked about property and kind of an equality of wages and everything. What this connection with education, since were mindful of the fact that the current person who is sometimes sits in the white house says, i just love uneducated people because they vote for me. Your thoughts . So education. Well, multiple ways to think about education in the context of the system. The first is you might have a link between education and the middle class or the education some economics. So some people think define the middle class based on education and that gets back to the conversation earlier howl we think about what is the middle class. Theres another idea that we have, largely 20th century idea, but theres an element of it in the 19th century, too. That education is the best, maybe the only way to move forward into the middle class theres a book called the race between education and technology, which suggests that education is the way to stay ahead of technological changes and still be able to be successful in the new economy. So we can think about education on the economic side of the ledger. On he political or constitutional side of the ledger, a number of people throughout our history believe that education was very important for having a virtuous citizenry, for having citizens who understood their dutiesies and responsibility in society to education was a key component and thought at education was important for uniting us as a people. So many of the founding generation advocated for a national university, James Madison said he thought it would help bill social harmony. So an element of bringing people together. In the 19th century you see the land grant principal which iran hmmve Economic Opportunity and there to help build an educated citizenry. So i think education plays a role in many of these different dimensions, and is an important one. Ill just add one other thing how education can and experiencal and lead to virtue. In the gilded age peered the populist, many of them thought that the answer to the problems of their period the creation of the corporation that was a big innovation where they are gloopiers, shareholders and then wage workers was not socialism, it wasnt national ownership. It was creating cooperatives and the idea of the cooperative was that the workers would both be owners and workers and also share in governing the and that would train them in the process of making hard choices, learning how the institution ran and these would be the kind of virtues good for the education of a middle class person and a citizen who has to deliberate on national questions where there are tradeoffs and real challenges. So there was different kinds of ways to think about education in that context. Last two questions. I was a bit disappointed for you not bringing up scandanavia, with their establishment of equality. Hard taxation, welfare system, how we can put such a thing with the only thing americans think about is reducing taxes. I think thats very important point. Welfare. I believe that a lot of americans think welfare system is useless thing. And you did not mention welfare. Just want you comment on this. Yes. So, when we talk inequality theres a few Different Things we can and should talk about. One is the difference between the well, lets we have three categories, the poor, midding, rich. There was a period of time in our history where the biggest divide, the biggest problems were between the poor and middle and the period of the great compression, the period of world war ii, laid 50s, early 60s, there is would another love poverty in america, desperate poverty and there was a big divide between the poor and middle even though we real till live equal as society. A lot of policy thing helped solve the problems. I mentioned in the talk, medicare, medicaid, head start. Programs of the Great Society were hugely important in eliminating poverty. Another problem we should talk about is the difference between the very rich and everyone else, and that is actually more where today there is a problem. We see a greater and greater share of the wealth going to the wealthiest people in our society and that is the thing that leads to the possibility of oligarchy and aristocracy we have been talking about. Theres an important component to play the lowest end but the moment i think some of the biggest threats to our republic come from the threat of oligarchy more than anything else. Thank you very much for coming. Im sterling. Im looking forward to read ing your book. What is is the impact of technology on wealth inequality. Since theres a microphone i cant help myself. March madness is going on at few basketball playered that will go on to to pros and make an incredible amount of money. The difference between George Washington and now, as i see it, one of main differences is technology. So, my question is, the impact of technology on wealth inequality. A lot of things that impact inequality, and im not an economist so i wont pretend to choose which ones or the most important or rank them. But technology is got to be part of the story here and the reason why is we have become more productive through technology, but when that happens, people lose jobs. And the question is, can people good back and get retrained or reskilled or get other jobs. A great example of this is in most states one of if not the number one job is driving, driving trucks especially. We now have selfdriving cars. In a few years we may have selfdriving trucks, and that will be a lot of people who lose their livelihoods over a technological innovation. That has great promise in a variety of other regions. Fewer accidents. More productive for people being able to drive all night long. The machine can drive all night long, doesnt need to sleep or take breaked. Theres a challenge how to deal with a world of increasing technology and fact that some people will be very deeply impacted by this and we see that all over america, that its very, very hard to figure out how you can retrain or reskill four the new jobs in future but thats one of our big challenges and thats the core part of what miami today, when i talk about wisest patriots, anything to think about need to think about, how to confront this and try to solve. The. [applause] i messenger ted start ill hang out here and sign some books and come on up. Well do that right now