the audience what was a very much conversation a great personal pleasure on the part of myself to have as a guest here on saturday the and nine out of a tenth of november two thousand seven robert ashford robert ashford is a dear friend of mine from way back and he is perhaps the most vital voice in terms of a system of understanding nomics called binary economics here's a co author of a book called binary economics the new paradigm and bob welcome it's so good to see you welcome to our little mini studio and it's so good to see thank you it's just an honor and a pleasure to be here again we've done a number of programs with you but i wonder maybe we do maybe we got a graphic or two we might show but could you share just look into your own background and they're not real and then we'll get into discussing economics and binary can i make what sets it apart in your view from let's just say for want of another term virtually all conventional notions economic theory that informs the political and i would say that sociological pattern spaceship are both fun and i'm a professor of law at syracuse university i went to harvard law school i was an honors graduate there before that i had a major in physics undergraduate and i've always been interested in the issue of economic justice and the questions of the ecology and the well being of human beings in the whole planet so i try to use my skills as a law professor to teach the future lawyers of the world to have a sense of economic justice and what law can do about it what lawyers can do  finance lawyer for the people and i oftentimes teach my students that the highest role of the lawyer is to help people identify and secure their essential rights responsibilities and opportunities in society so when i say it's important to train the lawyers it's important to train the lawyers to train the people people do not have a clear understanding of what their essential economic rights responsibilities and opportunities are in society most people are in a bit of a fog about that it's not their fault because you don't get that kind of learning from the traditional approaches to economics and it's mystified and it's beclouded and our role is to make that understanding more apparent to people so they made an observation that wasn't always apparent to the philosophers and of knowledge in science and that is that we i think in paradigms we think in structures they were paradigm comes from the greek it means example  but it means that we facts aren't just sort of free floating things out there that we come to conclude the facts are determined by a set of rules that govern them and even people who don't know the rules operate  by that notion we have we have rules of perception but the classic example is we used to think the sun went around the earth we did a lot for several for thousands of years because i looked that way and now we know that the earth goes around the sun that was a shift in paradigms it's a different fundamental example of things i tell my students that every morning the sun rises every evening the sun sets you can impair clee prove it it's cross cultural everybody knows it of course but it's a complete illusion illusion built on a false premise and some people say it makes no difference one way or the other but the truth is that if the sun goes around the earth the newtons laws wouldn't make sense and the whole way in which we got to the moon the whole foundation of science could not be discovered it's only when you get the foundation right but then you begin discovering the other issue and the same same thing needs to be done in economics you know it's been observe that from seven hundred seventy six when adam smith wrote until today there have been ten fifteen depends how you slice them scientific revolutions the way we look at science and the physical world hasn't changed but some seven hundred seventy six till today we're still a fundamentally working with the same paradigm of adam smith which says that the role of capital is to make labor more productive and that the distribution of ownership as no fundamental smith didn't disagree he believed in the same idea that capital makes labor more productive and alfred marshall who brought us what we call neoclassical economics that's sort of the economics of the republican party it's the same premise capital capital is not to make labor more productive the role of capital is to do ever ever more of the work so to give the audience a simple idea of how you what the difference is think of the think of a person a board ten boards an hour with a handsaw ok i've done it and one hundred boards an hour with a machine stuff now adam smith never actually saw a machine but in the example that we're given here he would say that the role of capital makes the labor more productive capital is made the labor ten times and that's the theory of economic growth that we have today whether you're a democrat or republican a right wing or a left wing a capitalist or a communist that's the theory of growth that's marvelously important that's got nothing to make the person who's leading the horse more productive ride the horse is doing most of the extra work and if you look at seven hundred seventy six eight hundred seventy six one hundred seventy six two thousand and six do that we get to two thousand seven the difference is not that capital makes labor more productive in that we're working so much more more productively the difference is that capital is doing most of the work and that really is capital doing more and more of the work capital has the capacity to distribute more and more of the income in the concentrated ownership that prevents capital from distributing the income which would never necessarily and officially allow people to acquire w increasingly produced by the combination of capital and that's that's the key the more the broader distribution of capital acquisition the more broadly capitalism quired the more we will soak up  or any of those people the idea that the broader pattern of capital acquisition the process of capital buying itself with the value of its own worth the more broadly capitalist has acquired the more broadly income is distributed the more broadly there's a market for products the more we absorb and profitably employ unused capacity in the faster we grow and and the more we employ technology to solve the problems of the environment all of those things a natural flow of a single observation that is not in mainstream economics today and it needs to be but is basic to your vinery know isn't it since you've been talking about seventy seventy six we've got a chart and maybe we go it's changing his vision labor workers and off on the left of the job would be seventeen seventy six that was the definitely defining year that was the year of the capitalist of the wealth of nations the steam engine was invented then adam it's we want you can see ten percent on this this is lewis carroll's assumption that there were competitive markets and so forth about ten percent of the actual production in the economy say of colonial america or pre revolutionary america was something other than labor labor was incredibly important because we didn't i have much technology we had a hatchet to cut down a tree and so what and then if you go through time you makes an assumption about those import ratios  and you've got increasingly it is something other than human labor and that would include not just the worker on the line that's all intellectual and physical import to the productive process by human by human beings let's say and then he's got an estimate that it's up as you can see on the chart by the time we get to the modern ear those things may have almost like reversed in terms of the reality by which goods and services are actually produced ninety percent of the production is the result of something other than human labor but all of our economic theory which in turn informs all of the political process which in turn informs all of the intellectual training and so for that our universities or a public intellectuals or anything else is all based upon a system that was a stat that was established that is basically the premise behind it is this labor theory value the marxist will do it because they want to or the left will do it because they say we want to let the people get a better labor standing let better living standard by having will good wages for their labor employed to it and the capitalists might some might do it in order to camouflage the fact that all the capital assets are owned by a tiny plutocratic class and getting more through friday cleone and they are the ones who set the template for the world society and we're all in a certain sense some people are rather like service on a feudal estate because they set the template for the university for the think tanks and for everything else and so this is a major part of the basis of a major paradigm shift in does this hold in terms of your perception well this news about your future you back here at least described it and i think the say that the way to help poor and working people is to provide them jobs and welfare and the way to aid in that is to help rich people acquire capital with the earnings of capital so they can provide jobs and welfare for everybody else all our policies if you are a binary economist to say it's fine to provide jobs and welfare but you have to add to that the right for the poor people as well as the rich people the working people as well as well as the existing owners also to acquire capital with the earnings of capital you don't have to you don't have to surrender a plea for jobs better jobs and more welfare but you have to add to that the plea that everyone has the right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital and just as i can distill the economic of that essence of binary k'naan mix is saying the broader more broadly capital is acquired with the earnings of capital the more the more profitably we will employ unused capacity and promote growth just as i can summarize binary economics and think single sentence i can see i can summarize the private property aspects of the law aspects and by saying that everybody needs the right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital so when the audience hears of some pro ownership argument and there are very few pro ownership arguments for example president bush talked about an ownership but when when they don't don't be fools ladies and gentlemen of the audience you have to ask yourself if you're talking about ownership are you talking about giving me the right to acquire capital with the earning of capital letters enabling me to put the if in if you're don't need to acquire capital with the earnings of capital not with the earnings of labor and that was welfare redistribution acquiring if you're not on the billing need to acquire capital with your new capital then you're not doing the binary approach and you're not using the approach that will create the real level playing field and that what that's what needs to be learned and the difficulty is that most people don't understand that someone comes to your office and says i'm hungry i haven't eaten in a day well you buy him lunch that's the welfare approach you give me an immediate system we need that because the system doesn't work to enable everybody somebody comes to have a says i'm out of a job i have and i can't find a job so i help him find a job because you know people know to come in when they're hungry and see i need food people know when they need a job they know that but they don't know that they can come in your office and say by the way just the way the rockefeller's in the duponts acquire capital in the gates's and the and the buffets acquire capital with the owners of capital so to do i need to technology that will solve the ecology brown's people don't know that that possibility exists and that's what needs to be taught ok that's really i wonder if i could back up a little bit in the discussion and go back to mr newton i'd like to let mr newton off the hook right when he this state of knowledge that was available or the evolution of knowledge in the development of things in the alteration of the realities was such that it was very difficult for let's say to go back to primitive man to be able to get an understanding of things that we come to understand so that as things that van things new new realities become available to our consciousness to our knowledge and so we should be a little bit easier on the people who like mr newton or mr ptolemy or whatever set up those things  also we might go apply that to people who are responsible for our historically and there did institutions as you're saying if it is virtually all of our economic theory that would include all of the political candidates for the current presidential election all of the universities all of the institutions they were all related with all the media all the media virtually the entire world if they were formulated within a certain for want of a better term the ontological reality of that has become fundamentally altered and so forth then i think it's possible for us to not get all exercised about them as being something evil or something people are used to being in conditions but the conditions change and if that's the case then that's what we have to do dialectic that they are evil or that they're bad or there's something and so much of the political dialogue or the discussion because people get their identities by those those moved to show that we're there and that's something that that's upset people get very upset when  there is a lot of confusion let me just say one thing about in order to clear of what we've been said right now the word capital is used in three at least three different ways and it's important for the audience in order to arm themselves to equip themselves to understand their rights need to understand that one use of the word capital is physical can on land and machines tools structures inventions of various sorts that's the way smith and mar keynes use the term capital that's one word another and that if you're if you know about accounting that's what's on the left hand side of the balance sheet and there's another word it's called financial capital that's the facts in the bonds that are issued as claims ownership claims on the real capital that's on the other side of the balance sheet so when when when somebody talks to you about economics ladies and gentleman and they say capital you say well wait a minute you mean real capital or do you mean financial capital never let anybody talk to you about economic theory or finance or or property rights or economic justice or economic policy or ecology or any issue of this sort without saying wait a minute do you mean physical capital which is on the left hand side of the balance sheet or do you mean financial capital which is on the right hand side of the balance sheet in almost every company except a bank which in which there's some reversals of that but it's a fundamental capital in itself of itself does not do work physical capital does work and that's one distinction and one is on the left hand side of the balance sheet which is a real asset in financial capital is simply a claim do information environment and in a classically coming into patently a patent is legislated capital and that certainly is a by the way there's nothing new about the information environment except a matter of degree the first pre the first human that took up a stone or a or a or a scrape began doing something with the tool it was a knowledge worker there's nothing new about knowledge workers do not be mystified about that ladies and gentlemen there's nothing new it's simply a matter of degree but what knowledge does do once you invent something is that i was you to create real physical instruments that embody that knowledge the automobile is an embodiment of knowledge but the automobile does its own work the truck as its own think of capital making labor more productive the first thing capital does is it makes me places labor exactly and that means occur again as we learn it we're places labor and therefore it creates leisure for the people who own the output of the capital but not for the others that the second thing the capital does are you almost never simply replace the work of labor with the work we had let me can you use capital you get vastly more productive power we can't compete with horses or trucks for h the idea that capital substitutes for labor is only at less than a half truth capital vastly supplements the work of labor with him now the third thing capital does this got nothing to do with rate we labor replacement capital does work that labor can never do you know ladies and gentlemen that a farmer and ever grew an apple all a farmer can do is help a tree grow an apple so this idea that farmers grow apples is pure homocentric hubris there's a capital works without labor areas tell people you think that capital doesn't do its own work try living without your washing machine for a change i can tell you that capital that was tons and tons of work without labor and you might say well it takes a person to press the button but the that's right that's right and the sixth thing capital can do is distribute the income available to purchase its output and that's why the more broadly capital is acquired these instruments doing more and more the work the more they distribute broadly incomes of the the goods and needs of the human population due to technological productiveness is increasing the percentage of the world population that might be able to be seen to be haves as opposed to have not this through time and that you think we have a large capacity to provide goods nothing of this and that is not being utilized because the system that we've inherited does not let let  us do what it is we have the capability of doing in terms of providing human need i do believe and it could be drawn and that would be part of a context where you might be able to have a new alteration in economics without going through the process of redistributing you don't need a pennyweight where the real a new life productive capacity is an issue it's a very important issue and it's almost never really talked about the first of all it's important to recognize it's a fact question yeah that's not a value  well it's also a fact and historical trend if you say that there are greater number it's easier now to manage if you or i think world can provide for everybody then it would have been in fifteenth century we make new discoveries we make new capabilities we have technological and every day robert there's are another revolution coming in and we don't use b l o to try to don't employ it yet but we have a system in place that won't let us do collectively to benefit the human society and the ecology because we are in thrall to institutions that were formulated with a different reality coming out of his theory back to living mr you know off of the hook the people that were tied into  that's that's the first thing to recognize is the fact question is not a value question you can love it or hate it but either we do have unused capacity we don't that's the first thing or could be the same as capability i would call it the same we have but it's now but it's important to recognise t and the total plant and equipment as the nominal and they say that the kept capacity then use capital capacity and they take the unemployment rate and that's the labor going to pass and that's a static notion once you recognize that we have the capacity to make more capacity we could we today could make many many more plants and they don't do any said don't do it you know we're a minute or so so now this is a fact question and i believe that we have a vast huge unutilized capacity for i also believe ladies and gentlemen if you're concerned redistribution and government involvement which is not the binary approach we used to have plaint we had passenger trains going to the country without passengers freight trains going to the country without freight full of people looking for work the essence of unused capacity even in the static sense so what we had that didn't but i'd say we have if you want to feed and clothe and shelter the world today with the capacity we have you could come much closer to it than we do i think we have more unused capacity today but today unused capacity is a politically undeniable fact the right wing doesn't want you to know but i knew less and utilize productive capacity i want you to think that markets are nearly perfectly efficient except for government meddling and that the only way you can help peter is to take  ownership they tied into this through labor imported labor union organizing find jobs and all of your political organizations will say what we're going to do is well jobs for people to do things to get income through their labor practices i think if they're committed i think it's a very complicated answers to why it's you know the first person to propose that the earth goes around the sun was a greek egyptian name during the ship in greek name for starters in the third century a d you're quite sure we have a little greek makes you think that there's no other way to think about them over yet and yet and they don't remember mrs thatcher saying there is no alternative tina principle to bring in reaganomics so the dominant paradigm makes you think that there's no other way of looking at something and the the other thing is you think you're still perfectly free to think for yourself so that's that's a part of it but there is also the illusion that capital makes labor more productive it is an illusion there's also the sense of needing to aggrandize and make holy work because you can't acquire capital with the earnings of capital because you're excluded then you need to amplify the argument let's try more pay for less so there are many complicated let's talk a little bit about that work ethic it's in virtually all the ethics there's something to avoid parasitism as it were but now as lord keynes argued in that letter to his grandchildren nine hundred thirty which is about now we are going to be confronted he said with a thing he can hardly see we're going to be confronted with technologically induced massive unemployment that the technological systems are going to be productive beyond outsourcing they're going to be they have to displace the labor process they're going to have overwhelmingly productive lose go so used to set employment wonderful if you can afford it yes right and the point is you can afford unemployment if you are capital owners that's right there are two ways today we're everyone's accountable on are you going in for higher levels level of unemployment from people to do what they want to do rather than what the masters of all of the capital assets set as a template and everyone is to use the analogy are like service on a futile to state a futile state owners in this case being our banking plutocratic class now there are basic rule is this folks one percent of the people own about fifty percent of the wealth ten percent own ninety percent and that leaves ninety percent scrambling for the rest and most people have a negative net worth so yes numerically speaking there are lots of  small and middle class capital owners but they don't own much new york stock exchange boast boasts that it has about fifty five million stockholders but the average tackle there is forty six year old male has about a fifteen thousand dollar didn't get your father you can as that is what they call a viable capitalist right so it's a little bit like that river that's fifteen miles wide but mostly an inch or so you have to look at that and you have to recognize that wealth is concentrated there almost all capital choir capital the other thing to recognize about unused capacity that's important here today to pronounce picks one aspect of those that worry about the ecology when i do two cars but we have for most ecological problems there's a green way of doing it that people cannot afford which is itself an example of unused capacity that's another one and so the second the second thing they recognize when we talk about unused capacity let's talk let's get into the big league you know the you don't want lawyers spending time with you when they give you a bill on trivial points let's get to the big league america three thousand lot of them around as there are and that's unethical yeah so so let's when you look at america's three thousand largest companies you're looking at most of the productive those leopards are eating us with alarming regularity i believe and we finally get to the point where extending our consciousness through technology much of that being led by political war making capability the money all goes to the war on tra what's going on in pakistan look what's going on in the middle east look what's going on now in terms of the ancient hatreds coming to the fore with no visionary leadership about how to address fundamental issues that confront the evolution of human society and so forth only the old paradigms being reified and so forth if the weapons were to be unleashed apparently it's only modeling possibility but apparently it means there would not be if they would be unleashed like guns of august there would not be a single human being left alive on this dance or reality in terms of the evolution of events on this planet or not that's not on the negative side we could talk about the positive side as the inverse of that negative scenario but what is your thought on that large issue of how this wealth of art technology is because i have to say substantially reduced if we come to peace with technology and coming to peace with technology is enabling people to own a share of that's the way to and as a way to know one another thing i'm always concerned about giving the audience handle on this some people do know about microcredit there's mohammad yunus who got a nobel prize wonderful thought for microcredit and that's the idea if you give a woman in bangladesh a loan to buy a sewing machine that before she has no access to the loan to buy the sewing machine and therefore she was selling your labor at marginal very low value whereas if she owns the machine the combination of her labor and capital increase or later living standards will pay back the loan and might mohammed yunus and that system has has proliferated and there are even those that are getting involved that i think i'm not so altruistic but that idea now that's what i would call the local breeze of capitalism and the interesting thing is about binding going on mixes it always gives you the ability to ask sharp questions and i would if i could represent the woman in bangladesh and she's my client i would say  can help you a little bit in the local bridge but you know i'm going to observe something that rockefeller's the deponents bill gates warren buffett is not interested in that investment has it's not a it's not a cutting edge investment they would be more interested in not only the garment industry every rich person in america every rich person america has a diversified portfolio of america's three thousand largest companies if that's what the rich people are interested in then you warren working people when you think about jobs and welfare think about how i might acquire a diversified portfolio in america's companies well the truth is the people who hold those gates those gatekeepers are not taught the economics that i'm able to teach at syracuse university they're not taught the economics that a few of us understand from the binary point of view since oh then i thought that they don't see the profit motive they don't see the profit motive they don't see the distributive consequences they don't see the benefit of this so in a sense we have it's a two step process we have to teach common man and woman mary and john q public who may know a great deal about x y or z but this we also have to weights with the redistribution if you are not a full capacity you can make paul richer without taking from peter which destroys the whole left right argument as being totally irrelevant to the economic potential  that's right one thing i want to back to the thing and we go back to aristotle saying it will have to be slaves to support to fuel it well until and unless the loom learns to weave their loom maybe learning to weave now we could have a dozen ways we were able to have a world now i'm back to the positive side of that metaphor the my suggestion is and it seems to go on heard and everything is that there's been a qualitative change in one of the better term the ontology of the reality it's all invisible it's not seen so far but buckminster fuller made a trend i want to just make a quick mention we'll get back to the binary and everything but he made a trip think that that trend is that there are a higher percentage of the population of the world could seem to be have through time because our technological productiveness and he said that we had approached the point where there were and you could say have have not many can bring up a little chart we got it for free in a quick bob ok this is his chart and he said by the time we got to the first world war there were maybe ten percent of the world population would realistically be able to be seen to be have you have to have a definition of terms what it means to be a have is that power  needed i don't know ok take it off there anyway and he said by the second we're got to twenty and he said that we were on a trend along the trend along the destructive line where there are higher percent of the world population could be seen to be apt not the reality it's not the reality it's the capacity unutilized capacity the capability we have nano technology all these things that are developing now and so to where he said that in his reckoning from one hundred fifty two we were approaching a major crucial point in the evolution of consciousness where there would be in reality terms the reality in the sense of kept capability more haves and have nots on planet earth for the first time in the evolution of universal conscious that we were in a sense transcending in terms of our capability material scarcity as an ontological reality and that in the context in which all human history unfolded and all are as the traditions were in place that's another major toilette data transformation that may be characteristic of the time in which we find ourselves and make possible things that were not possible back in previous previous eras that's what i'm saying part of married i'm sure just wanted to get that in you or if you want to put on the board you might want to put on that other chart if we can principles apply on a larger scale to get past the tradition what is needed in order to bring it right by and i can i can take the few minutes to try to explain this is fully explained by the way in my in the book with rodney shakespeare b economic some new paradigm it's fully explained and we can't do it full justice now but i just think it brings us back to the part of the discussion that has the woman in bangladesh acquiring the sewing machine but how do we enable her to acquire a diversified portfolio in erin in a diversified portfolio and let's say the world six thousand or eight thousand largest companies is that issue now with this chart shows that are six major institutions that exist today and one of the top left shows a single corporation or you could think about of those america's three thousand largest companies all in that box so you can think about it there's a world six to seven thousand largest residential real estate we could any any is a trust one of the things that rich people use they use trusts in order to isolate themselves from liability the corporates agent itself as it is a is a limited liability and city and then  industrial allies capital i can tell you that the rich people love insurance mechanisms they also use directly and indirectly government reinsurance different kinds that government really use that you know that we have an example of that in the f h a that was low and yes but there are others but there are other things that governments do to insure the risk of loss really insuring the capital currents industry and they could be expanded to guard again investment that's a very rich people you think ahead and that be allowed in a crapshoot kind of venture kind of mentality if this is going to be responsible for the distribution of income large if you decide it has to be more in other ways to buy policies that protect and i can tell you that protectionist policies are an example so we have that finally we have the central bank central bank isn't about him protecting the process by which capital acquires itself with the earnings of capital what do we limit credit to the woman who owns the capital to i'm able to to buy a sewing machine or can we let her benefit by these very same six institutions that help the rockefeller's in the department so why should we do so and  if the technology is increasingly responsible for direction as lord keynes argued about and then we get down to things where everybody is arguing over you know like mr mr nixon said we're all  hundred seventy two you know what we are now something along the lines of friedman and schumpeter things and they don't have an alternative you're trying to bring an alternative bring an alternative and we have more you might say that we're not in the nomic department have turned right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital and what it will do will distribute income broadly through the productive process support the profitable employ of the vendors capacity promote growth and give people a way to earn without working to supplement their labor wages and to supplement any welfare benefits or they did and that's that should be on the table to do this guy couldn't hold no one no additional generation of student should graduate without that understand we don't need this chart now we to go back to go back to the offset chart that's something that we've got and in the book in your literature and so forth we've got it on our site they can go to the complicated a lot of people would like to understand that but what we need is an alternative i just want to get a plug in for one book where what if we're not keynesian now what as we were you know in the thirty's forty's and fifty's and that's are what are we all now what is the eco the prominent out of the old paradigm the prominent  what the future requires it would seem to me and the binary notion that you bring up does question all of that and it's not if i'm not mistaken you're teaching up in serach use but this idea is never mentioned and the people who were not wanting to see this new paradigms emerge even though the censors there's a broader group called the institute for for pluralist economics and i went to a conference and then i presented some binary binary stuff and tried to get a paper published they they publish x y or z also but they don't they don't this point they do they don't have any reference divine or economics i asked them whether that was anything in there anything in the papers i decided to publish would alert people to the notion that it's important to enable people to acquire capital with the end of the capital no response and these are the dissenters these are the people who supposedly take exception but i answered your question neal classical economics  you can't be a fiduciary you can't be you can't run a company profitably from the management point of view you can't determine government policy when you hold technology constant skills constant face constant point what i'm getting at beyond is it's a good book she's a real scholar she's worth reading in the room and you're reading get in touch with her i would suggest but what she said is she takes some flak as she calls it a couple of engineers from the progressive community because she believes in a mixed economy not a socialist economy where we do away with private property and that mark has left this party they do have said why has the left been so blinkered by the labor theory of value wanting to get some better wages for people or something from being able to see because you're a great deal intellectual talent in those quarters and they seem to be blinkered behind this idea of the labor theory of value without being able to get involved with the thing  division of a binary world of distributing income increasingly to greater numbers of people in terms of the way it's actually being produced by linking them to the reality why do you think the progressive part from the conservative community why do you think the progressive community is so blinkered to being able to think about something new as a way to challenge in fact really the system that's in place and i don't how to date and must be qualitatively transformed if we avoid the near the negative side of  the destruction of our species to allow for a system that is in keeping with what the future required to realise human liberation ecological well meaning and justice in the universe why are they so blinkered i don't think there's a single answer that question i will say that having debated with people on the left that the left many people on the left believe that it is a moral virtue to distribute the surplus that is created by capital and labor together and without regard to which is making the bigger contribution it is a virtue distributed the surplus of capital and labor through wages and welfare and it is counterproductive to want to buy them and that i get i'm always trying to talk to the men and women of the audience the boys and girls for the give them a fresh look you probably have never heard of the term the right to acquire capital with the earnings of capitalist probably a term you've never heard and again with the earnings of capital is that is that jointer that has to be there to divert ownership say what you mean with the earnings of capital so we probably never heard that before but i would suggest to you that if you think we think the twentieth few that's the logic of it and find that's the logic of corporate finance and the be the socialist country the communist countries that's most of the communist countries were seeking to establish a legal system that outlawed the right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital so ask yourself whether your education has been fair to you however old you are right now having never heard of a right call the right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital for the way whe that issue when that issue moved and shaped the political dynamics of the twentieth century august twentieth century what we're looking for is a pattern that will be able to effectively shape the pattern of the twenty first century we need a system is understood its intellectuals in a sense are falling out of the job i would say particularly the progressive elate intellectuals are not providing an effective alternative they should have something that can and certain in their own interest of the plutocratic class an oysterman a sense on their own for card call them at their own game and give them a challenge that will force them to think about something new that they will be able to go along with in the end on their own terms like we're going to lose mr newton and i are in our thinking and so forth they did things that were there they were responsible of time always we run out of time with this egg and your pleasure to read the perceptions robert ashford major voice for the economic way of thinking that is something that should be on the think tank of every and the gender of every think tank and university in this country  destined to become so i think in the big good when there has to be public support behind this idea as an alternative to traditional ideas that are being trotted out all the time and are not adequate what the future requires bob thanks for being in a visionary position in that regard thank you for viewing will become back again tomorrow thank you very much for margaret borgia's and paula paula here paula gloria helping us put this together when we come back again tomorrow bob drive very care get very safely back home and said of small things that's where the real changes come ok thank you for viewing thank you folks go to black i think you know