1
00:00:56,030 --> 00:00:57,970
This is Paul Graham.

2
00:00:57,970 --> 00:01:01,310
He's going to be speaking on inequality and risk.

3
00:01:04,570 --> 00:01:06,050
That was quick.

4
00:01:07,030 --> 00:01:08,290
Hey, guys.

5
00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:12,400
Hello!

6
00:01:13,820 --> 00:01:14,300
Well...

7
00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:22,980
The last speaker in here trained the audience to chant, fuck you, in unison, whenever authority commanded them to do anything.

8
00:01:23,100 --> 00:01:30,460
Then at the end of the talk, everybody said, okay, talk's over, and the guys in the red shirts said, everybody out that into the room, and they just filed out as meekly as sheep.

9
00:01:33,460 --> 00:01:36,260
All right, so...

10
00:01:40,670 --> 00:01:42,530
Are we ready to start?

11
00:01:43,210 --> 00:01:44,510
I think we're ready to start.

12
00:01:44,510 --> 00:01:45,610
All right, let's go.

13
00:01:47,870 --> 00:01:50,830
Suppose you wanted to get rid of economic inequality.

14
00:01:50,830 --> 00:01:52,570
By the way, I have no slides.

15
00:01:55,370 --> 00:01:57,710
Asking is what I do for talks.

16
00:02:00,230 --> 00:02:03,070
Suppose you wanted to get rid of economic inequality.

17
00:02:03,570 --> 00:02:05,870
There are two ways to do it, basically.

18
00:02:05,950 --> 00:02:09,550
You can give money to the poor, or take it away from the rich.

19
00:02:09,970 --> 00:02:12,250
But they both amount to the same thing.

20
00:02:12,370 --> 00:02:15,930
Because if you want to give money to the poor, you've got to get it from somewhere.

21
00:02:16,750 --> 00:02:19,710
And if you take it from the poor, they end up just where they started.

22
00:02:19,810 --> 00:02:22,130
So you basically have to take it from the rich.

23
00:02:22,730 --> 00:02:28,950
There is, of course, a way to make the poor richer, without merely shifting money from the rich to them.

24
00:02:29,210 --> 00:02:36,210
You could make the poor more productive, for example, by giving everybody equal access to education.

25
00:02:36,790 --> 00:02:45,150
That is, instead of taking money from engineers and giving it to checkout clerks, you could enable the people who would have become checkout clerks to become engineers.

26
00:02:45,250 --> 00:02:47,390
Well, that works.

27
00:02:47,750 --> 00:02:51,030
That's an excellent strategy for making the poor richer.

28
00:02:51,330 --> 00:03:01,810
But the evidence of the last 200 years shows that it doesn't reduce economic inequality, because it tends to make the rich richer, too.

29
00:03:02,490 --> 00:03:08,350
If there are more engineers, then there are more opportunities to hire them, to sell them things.

30
00:03:08,630 --> 00:03:19,510
Henry Ford couldn't have made a fortune making cars in a society in which people were all still subsistence farmers, because there would have been no one to buy his products and no one to build them.

31
00:03:19,510 --> 00:03:29,350
If you want to reduce economic inequality, instead of just improving the overall standard of living, it's not enough just to raise up the poor.

32
00:03:29,650 --> 00:03:34,190
What if one of your newly minted engineers goes on to become the next Bill Gates?

33
00:03:34,350 --> 00:03:37,090
Economic inequality will be as bad as ever.

34
00:03:38,430 --> 00:03:39,990
Whoa, dudes!

35
00:03:40,970 --> 00:03:42,470
Yes, go ahead.

36
00:03:44,630 --> 00:03:45,250
Really?

37
00:03:45,250 --> 00:03:46,470
Can people not hear?

38
00:03:46,470 --> 00:03:47,850
Oh, God.

39
00:03:51,950 --> 00:03:54,690
This talk, Inequality and Risk.

40
00:03:54,690 --> 00:03:56,190
Are you guys in the wrong place?

41
00:03:57,310 --> 00:03:58,770
Am I?

42
00:03:58,930 --> 00:04:00,910
I'm where they brought me.

43
00:04:11,130 --> 00:04:12,850
There's been a rescheduling.

44
00:04:12,850 --> 00:04:14,250
That's at 2 o'clock.

45
00:04:14,250 --> 00:04:15,970
This is Paul Graham.

46
00:04:18,810 --> 00:04:20,990
It's all on the website.

47
00:04:25,660 --> 00:04:27,220
Okay, guys.

48
00:04:27,220 --> 00:04:35,180
I was supposed to talk today, and then they switched me to yesterday, but they didn't tell me.

49
00:04:35,180 --> 00:04:44,740
So, I look on the website yesterday to find out where the hotel is, and I'm astonished to discover I'm supposed to speak four hours before my plane arrives.

50
00:04:46,240 --> 00:04:48,940
So, they put me in this lot today.

51
00:04:50,280 --> 00:04:52,700
I'm also not even in the printed thing.

52
00:04:53,940 --> 00:04:55,220
I'm on the website.

53
00:04:55,220 --> 00:04:56,480
There's a description of the talk.

54
00:04:56,480 --> 00:04:58,800
Let me tell you what the talk's going to be about.

55
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:01,600
Sorry, what?

56
00:05:02,840 --> 00:05:04,000
What's the talk about?

57
00:05:04,100 --> 00:05:07,520
I'll tell you what the talk's about, and you can tell me.

58
00:05:07,540 --> 00:05:10,400
Well, actually, you can decide if you want to hear it.

59
00:05:11,380 --> 00:05:13,380
What did the abstract say?

60
00:05:14,180 --> 00:05:21,960
The abstract was about, where's the right place to hack the connection between power and wealth?

61
00:05:24,460 --> 00:05:30,240
Alright, so if that sounds interesting, there is no hardware component to this talk.

62
00:05:36,120 --> 00:05:37,740
Out you go.

63
00:05:39,980 --> 00:05:42,160
No, no, no, I totally understand.

64
00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:45,660
Believe me, I feel the same way you guys do.

65
00:05:53,090 --> 00:06:03,330
After these guys all leave, I'll tell you all the secret behind-the-scenes stories of the creation and launching of the internet worm of 1988.

66
00:06:05,390 --> 00:06:07,010
Just kidding.

67
00:06:10,150 --> 00:06:12,050
Robert would kill me.

68
00:06:16,500 --> 00:06:17,560
Alright.

69
00:06:18,840 --> 00:06:20,560
Let's start again.

70
00:06:20,960 --> 00:06:24,040
I feel like what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

71
00:06:24,940 --> 00:06:28,600
And in the speaker department, this is definitely one of those experiences.

72
00:06:31,380 --> 00:06:33,660
So, inequality and risk.

73
00:06:33,660 --> 00:06:35,620
Does everybody remember where we are?

74
00:06:35,960 --> 00:06:38,980
I'll start somewhat over.

75
00:06:40,220 --> 00:06:41,120
Alright.

76
00:06:42,660 --> 00:06:44,260
Bill Gates.

77
00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:45,760
That's right.

78
00:06:49,900 --> 00:07:03,180
If you want to reduce economic inequality, instead of just improving the overall standard of living, it's not enough just to raise up the poor, because what if one of your newly minted engineers goes on to become the next Bill Gates?

79
00:07:03,380 --> 00:07:05,400
Or maybe in this case, Larry Ellison.

80
00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:08,320
Economic inequality will be as bad as ever.

81
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:18,240
If you actually want to compress the gap between rich and poor, it's not enough to just push up on the bottom, you also have to push down on the top.

82
00:07:19,020 --> 00:07:21,920
So, how do you push down on the top?

83
00:07:22,180 --> 00:07:26,800
Well, you could try to decrease the productivity of the people who make the most money.

84
00:07:27,300 --> 00:07:35,260
You could make all the best surgeons operate with their left hands, force the most popular actors to overeat, and so on.

85
00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:39,700
But, this approach has implementation difficulties.

86
00:07:40,580 --> 00:07:52,980
It seems like the only practical approach is to let people do the best work they can, and then, either by taxation or by limiting what they can charge, to confiscate whatever you deem to be surplus.

87
00:07:53,920 --> 00:07:58,020
So, let's be clear what reducing economic inequality means.

88
00:07:58,020 --> 00:08:00,860
It's identical with taking money from the rich.

89
00:08:01,380 --> 00:08:07,720
When you transform a mathematical expression into a new form, you often notice new things about it.

90
00:08:07,720 --> 00:08:09,600
So it is in this case.

91
00:08:10,300 --> 00:08:19,660
Taking money from the rich turns out to have consequences you might not foresee when you phrase the same idea in terms of reducing economic inequality.

92
00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:25,920
The problem is, risk and reward have to be proportionate.

93
00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:35,620
A bet with only a 10% chance of winning has to pay a lot more, in fact, somewhat more than 5 times more, than a bet with a 50% chance of winning.

94
00:08:35,940 --> 00:08:42,360
So if you lop off the top of the possible rewards, you decrease people's willingness to take risks.

95
00:08:43,480 --> 00:08:54,740
Transposing into our original expression we get, decreasing economic inequality means decreasing the risk people are willing to take.

96
00:08:55,400 --> 00:09:02,220
There are whole classes of risks that are no longer worth taking if the maximum return is decreased.

97
00:09:02,420 --> 00:09:12,840
One reason high taxes are so disastrous, as the English found in the 1970s, is that this class of risks includes starting new companies.

98
00:09:13,700 --> 00:09:16,720
Startups are intrinsically risky.

99
00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:19,420
That's just what the deal is.

100
00:09:19,420 --> 00:09:25,240
A startup is like a small boat in the open sea, one big wave and you're sunk.

101
00:09:25,440 --> 00:09:38,280
A competing product, a downturn in the economy, a delay in getting funding or regulatory approval, the loss of a big account, a patent suit, changing technical standards, any one of these can sink you overnight.

102
00:09:39,020 --> 00:09:44,700
It seems like the odds of a startup succeeding are a little worse than 1 in 10, which is not very good.

103
00:09:44,700 --> 00:09:58,100
Our startup paid its first round of investors 36x, which meant, with current US tax rates, it made sense to invest in us if it seemed like we had a better than 1 in 18 chance of succeeding.

104
00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:03,400
That's probably roughly how we looked when we were a pair of nerds operating out of an apartment.

105
00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:08,660
If that kind of risk doesn't pay, venture investing as we know it doesn't happen.

106
00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:14,160
Now, that might be okay if there were other sources of capital for startups.

107
00:10:14,440 --> 00:10:23,960
So, for example, why not just have the government or some almost government organization like Fannie Mae be in charge of supplying venture capital for new companies?

108
00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:26,560
Well, I'll tell you why that wouldn't work.

109
00:10:26,740 --> 00:10:34,960
Because then you're asking the government or almost government employees to do the one thing they're least able to do, take risks.

110
00:10:35,700 --> 00:10:42,960
As anyone who's worked for the government knows, the important thing in the government is not to make the right choices.

111
00:10:43,300 --> 00:10:47,980
It's to make choices that can be justified later if they fail.

112
00:10:49,220 --> 00:10:53,120
If there's a safe option, that's the one a bureaucrat will choose.

113
00:10:54,000 --> 00:10:57,660
But that is exactly the wrong way to do venture investing.

114
00:10:57,800 --> 00:11:02,440
You want to take the most risky choices you can find if the upside looks good enough.

115
00:11:03,580 --> 00:11:07,820
VCs currently get paid in a way that makes them focus on the upside.

116
00:11:07,820 --> 00:11:10,260
They get a percentage of the fund's gains.

117
00:11:10,260 --> 00:11:19,840
And this is what enables them to overcome their understandable reluctance in investing in a company that seems to be run by a pair of college students.

118
00:11:20,700 --> 00:11:25,260
If VCs weren't allowed to get rich, they'd behave like bureaucrats.

119
00:11:25,260 --> 00:11:29,220
Without hope of gain, they'd have only fear of loss.

120
00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:32,760
And so they would make the wrong choices.

121
00:11:32,760 --> 00:11:42,580
They'd turn down the nerds in favor of the smooth-talking MBA in a business suit because that choice would be easier to justify later if it failed.

122
00:11:43,880 --> 00:11:53,300
Even if you could somehow redesign venture funding to work without letting VCs get rich, there's another kind of investor you really can't do without.

123
00:11:53,380 --> 00:11:56,260
The startup's founders and early employees.

124
00:11:56,800 --> 00:11:59,340
What they invest is their time and ideas.

125
00:11:59,340 --> 00:12:11,100
But these are equivalent to money, as you can tell from the fact that the VCs, if forced, will grant the same status to sweat equity that they do to the equity they've paid for with cold cash.

126
00:12:11,800 --> 00:12:17,720
The fact that you're investing time and ideas doesn't change the ratio between risk and reward.

127
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:24,080
If you're going to invest your time in something, you'll only do it if the payoff is proportionate to the risk.

128
00:12:25,800 --> 00:12:30,340
If large payoffs aren't allowed, you may as well play it safe.

129
00:12:30,340 --> 00:12:39,720
So, for example, most people who start startups do it with the hope that as a result, if it pays off, they'll end up much richer than they were before.

130
00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:55,360
So if your society has some kind of policy designed to prevent anyone from being much richer than anyone else, then unless your startup founders were before the only poor people in the country, your economic policy is going to be tending to prevent startups from even happening.

131
00:12:55,980 --> 00:12:58,760
Like many startup founders, I did it to get rich.

132
00:12:58,760 --> 00:13:02,860
Not because I wanted expensive things, but because I wanted security.

133
00:13:03,340 --> 00:13:10,400
If I'd been forbidden to make enough from a startup to do this, I would have sought security by some other means.

134
00:13:10,460 --> 00:13:16,840
For example, by going to work for a big, stable organization from which it would have been hard to get fired.

135
00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:25,980
Instead of busting my ass in a startup, I would have tried to get a nice, low-stress job in a big research lab or tenure at a university.

136
00:13:26,240 --> 00:13:30,000
That's what everyone does in societies where risk isn't rewarded.

137
00:13:30,020 --> 00:13:40,880
If you can't ensure your own security, the next best thing is to make a nest for yourself in some large organization where your status depends mostly on seniority.

138
00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:42,800
So it's interesting, actually.

139
00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:49,820
You'll find in societies you either get economic inequality or a world where seniority counts for a lot.

140
00:13:49,820 --> 00:13:51,940
You'll always get one or the other.

141
00:13:55,250 --> 00:14:00,550
Even if we could somehow replace VCs, I don't see how we could replace founders.

142
00:14:00,550 --> 00:14:04,910
VCs mainly contribute money, which in principle is the same no matter where you get it.

143
00:14:04,910 --> 00:14:06,610
Founders contribute ideas.

144
00:14:06,610 --> 00:14:08,530
Those are not interchangeable.

145
00:14:08,970 --> 00:14:16,790
So let's rehearse the chain of arguments, because I'm heading to a conclusion many people will have to be dragged, kicking, and screaming towards.

146
00:14:17,230 --> 00:14:19,950
I've tried to make every link unbreakable.

147
00:14:20,090 --> 00:14:24,230
Decreasing economic inequality means taking money from the rich.

148
00:14:24,230 --> 00:14:31,090
Since risk and reward are interchangeable, decreasing potential rewards decreases people's appetite for risk.

149
00:14:31,090 --> 00:14:33,670
Startups are intrinsically risky.

150
00:14:33,930 --> 00:14:39,870
Without the prospect of rewards proportionate to the risk, founders won't start them.

151
00:14:39,870 --> 00:14:41,990
Founders are irreplaceable.

152
00:14:42,030 --> 00:14:46,950
So eliminating economic inequality means eliminating startups.

153
00:14:47,610 --> 00:14:50,610
This argument applies proportionately.

154
00:14:50,610 --> 00:14:55,290
It's not just that if you eliminate economic inequality, you get no startups.

155
00:14:55,290 --> 00:15:02,310
To the extent that you reduce economic inequality, you decrease people's appetite for risk.

156
00:15:02,470 --> 00:15:05,210
And that seems bad for a lot of people.

157
00:15:05,210 --> 00:15:09,530
New technology and new jobs both come disproportionately from new companies.

158
00:15:09,530 --> 00:15:19,010
In fact, if you don't have startups, you'll find, just as if you didn't have any more children, you wouldn't have any established companies either after a while.

159
00:15:19,290 --> 00:15:23,770
It sounds benevolent to say we ought to reduce economic inequality.

160
00:15:24,450 --> 00:15:27,650
But when you phrase it like that, who can argue with you?

161
00:15:27,730 --> 00:15:30,130
Inequality has to be bad, right?

162
00:15:31,330 --> 00:15:41,110
It sounds a good deal less benevolent to say that we ought to reduce the rate at which new companies are founded, and yet the one implies the other.

163
00:15:42,390 --> 00:15:52,410
Indeed, it may be that reducing investors' appetite for risk doesn't merely kill off larval startups, but kills off the most promising ones disproportionately.

164
00:15:52,990 --> 00:15:57,150
Startups yield faster growth at greater risk than big companies.

165
00:15:57,550 --> 00:16:00,930
Does this trend also apply within startups?

166
00:16:00,930 --> 00:16:04,290
Are the riskiest startups also the ones that pay off the most?

167
00:16:04,290 --> 00:16:06,730
I mean for everyone, not just for the investors.

168
00:16:07,110 --> 00:16:09,170
I suspect the answer is yes.

169
00:16:09,170 --> 00:16:18,190
And if so, that is a chilling thought, because it means if you cut investors' appetite for risk, the most beneficial startups are the first to go.

170
00:16:20,870 --> 00:16:24,630
Well, not all rich people get that way from startups, of course.

171
00:16:26,630 --> 00:16:32,710
What if we let people get rich by starting startups, but taxed away all other surplus wealth?

172
00:16:32,710 --> 00:16:35,070
Wouldn't that at least decrease inequality?

173
00:16:36,370 --> 00:16:38,030
Less than you might think.

174
00:16:38,150 --> 00:16:44,310
If you made it so that people could only get rich by starting startups, people who wanted to get rich would all start startups.

175
00:16:44,570 --> 00:16:49,870
And that might be a great thing, but I don't think it would change the distribution of wealth a lot.

176
00:16:50,230 --> 00:16:53,130
People who want to get rich will do whatever they have to do.

177
00:16:53,330 --> 00:16:57,470
If startups are the only way to do it, you'll just get a lot more people starting startups.

178
00:16:57,470 --> 00:17:05,570
That is, if you write the laws very carefully, more likely what you'll get is a lot of people doing stuff that can be described on paper as startups.

179
00:17:06,410 --> 00:17:11,070
If we're determined to eliminate economic inequality, there's still one way out.

180
00:17:11,330 --> 00:17:14,470
We could say that we're willing to go ahead and do without startups.

181
00:17:14,610 --> 00:17:16,290
What would happen if we did?

182
00:17:16,690 --> 00:17:20,410
At a minimum, we get lower rates of technological growth.

183
00:17:20,710 --> 00:17:30,510
If you believe that large companies could somehow be made to develop technology as fast as startups, the ball's in your court to explain how.

184
00:17:31,030 --> 00:17:40,050
The good news is, if you can come up with even a remotely plausible explanation, you can make a fortune writing books and consulting for large companies.

185
00:17:41,090 --> 00:17:43,170
Okay, so we get slower growth.

186
00:17:43,170 --> 00:17:44,630
Is that so bad?

187
00:17:44,910 --> 00:17:51,550
Well, one reason it's bad in practice is that other countries might not agree to slow down and jog alongside us.

188
00:17:51,550 --> 00:18:00,270
If you're content to develop new technologies at a slower rate than everyone else, what actually ends up happening is you don't invent anything at all.

189
00:18:00,770 --> 00:18:04,250
Anything you might discover has already been discovered elsewhere.

190
00:18:04,390 --> 00:18:10,730
And the only thing you can offer in return is cheap labor and raw materials.

191
00:18:11,130 --> 00:18:14,790
Once you sink that low, other countries can do whatever they want with you.

192
00:18:14,990 --> 00:18:28,470
Install puppet governments, come and pacify you, siphon off your best workers, use your women as prostitutes, dump their toxic waste on your territory, all the things we do to poor countries now.

193
00:18:29,270 --> 00:18:35,170
The only defense is to isolate yourself, as communist countries did in the 20th century.

194
00:18:35,370 --> 00:18:40,230
But the problem then is, you have to become a police state to enforce the isolation.

195
00:18:41,790 --> 00:18:48,150
Eliminating economic inequality means eliminating startups, and to the extent you do that, you're hosed.

196
00:18:48,350 --> 00:18:53,730
I realize startups are not the main target of those who want to eliminate inequality.

197
00:18:53,830 --> 00:19:00,990
What they really dislike is the sort of wealth that becomes self-perpetuating through an alliance with political power.

198
00:19:00,990 --> 00:19:07,610
For example, the construction firm that funds a politician's campaign in return for government contracts.

199
00:19:07,610 --> 00:19:17,830
But if you try to attack this type of wealth through economic policy, it's hard to hit without destroying startups as collateral damage.

200
00:19:18,390 --> 00:19:21,690
The problem here is not wealth, but corruption.

201
00:19:21,770 --> 00:19:24,510
So why not go after corruption directly?

202
00:19:25,030 --> 00:19:31,810
We don't need to prevent people from becoming rich if we can prevent wealth from translating into power.

203
00:19:32,090 --> 00:19:36,510
And there has been progress on that front.

204
00:19:36,510 --> 00:19:48,550
Before he died of drink in 1925, Commodore Vanderbilt's wasteful grandson Reggie ran down pedestrians on five separate occasions, killing two of them.

205
00:19:48,690 --> 00:19:56,570
By 1969, when Ted Kennedy drove off the bridge at Chappaquiddick, the bag limit seemed to be down to one.

206
00:19:56,890 --> 00:19:59,570
Today, it may well be zero.

207
00:19:59,730 --> 00:20:02,770
But what's changed is not variation in wealth.

208
00:20:02,770 --> 00:20:05,930
That's as bad, or as extreme, as ever.

209
00:20:06,070 --> 00:20:09,770
What's changed is the ability to translate wealth into power.

210
00:20:09,790 --> 00:20:12,650
Rich people can't get away with as much, he assured.

211
00:20:12,950 --> 00:20:16,850
How do you break the connection between wealth and power?

212
00:20:17,270 --> 00:20:19,210
Demand transparency.

213
00:20:19,710 --> 00:20:25,390
Watch closely how power is exercised and demand an account of how decisions are made.

214
00:20:25,570 --> 00:20:29,230
Why aren't all police interrogations videotaped?

215
00:20:29,230 --> 00:20:38,930
Why did 36% of Princeton's class of 2007 come from prep schools when only 1.7% of American kids attend them?

216
00:20:39,050 --> 00:20:43,350
Why did George Bush make it harder to see previous presidents' papers?

217
00:20:43,750 --> 00:20:45,110
Why does the U.S.

218
00:20:45,110 --> 00:20:48,210
so often put Israel's interests before its own?

219
00:20:48,590 --> 00:20:52,230
Why don't government officials disclose more of their finances?

220
00:20:52,230 --> 00:20:54,490
And why only during their term of office?

221
00:20:54,490 --> 00:20:56,390
Why not for 10 years after?

222
00:20:57,110 --> 00:21:05,510
A friend of mine who knows a lot about computer security says the single most important step is to log everything.

223
00:21:05,810 --> 00:21:11,950
Back when he was a kid trying to break into computers, what worried him most was the idea of leaving a trail.

224
00:21:12,410 --> 00:21:18,810
He was more inconvenienced by the need to avoid that than by any obstacle deliberately put in his path.

225
00:21:19,270 --> 00:21:24,970
Like all illicit connections, the connection between wealth and power flourishes in secret.

226
00:21:25,350 --> 00:21:30,190
Expose all transactions and you will greatly reduce it.

227
00:21:30,190 --> 00:21:31,510
Log everything.

228
00:21:31,510 --> 00:21:38,570
That's a strategy that already seems to be working and it doesn't have the unintended side effect of making your entire country poor.

229
00:21:38,870 --> 00:21:44,450
I don't think many people realize there's a connection between economic inequality and risk.

230
00:21:44,450 --> 00:21:47,210
I didn't fully grasp it until recently.

231
00:21:47,210 --> 00:21:57,810
I'd known for years, of course, that if one didn't score in a startup, the next best alternative was to get a cozy research position somewhere where they couldn't fire you.

232
00:21:57,810 --> 00:22:01,330
But I didn't understand the equation governing my behavior.

233
00:22:01,790 --> 00:22:10,990
Likewise, it's obvious empirically that a country that doesn't let people get rich is headed for disaster, whether it's Diocletian's Rome or Harold Wilson's Britain.

234
00:22:11,430 --> 00:22:15,310
But I didn't until recently understand the role that risk played.

235
00:22:15,870 --> 00:22:21,650
If you try to attack wealth, you end up nailing risk as well, and with it, growth.

236
00:22:21,990 --> 00:22:29,510
If you want a fairer world, I think you're better off attacking one step downstream where wealth turns into power.

237
00:22:30,710 --> 00:22:33,110
Thank you for listening to this talk.

238
00:22:33,110 --> 00:22:35,090
Sorry about the circumstances.

239
00:22:35,390 --> 00:22:36,330
Thank you.

240
00:22:45,360 --> 00:22:46,820
That was hair-raising.

241
00:22:46,820 --> 00:22:47,960
Do we have any time left?

242
00:22:47,960 --> 00:22:48,860
Are we done?

243
00:22:48,860 --> 00:22:50,900
Are we done?

244
00:22:50,900 --> 00:22:51,860
We are done?

245
00:22:52,820 --> 00:22:54,820
We have two minutes left.

246
00:22:54,820 --> 00:23:00,280
Should anybody have any questions about this talk that was obviously so enthralling, by all means, let me know.

247
00:23:13,630 --> 00:23:18,150
The question is, why do you want to reduce economic inequality in the first place?

248
00:23:18,310 --> 00:23:22,790
Well, actually, I'm saying you don't have to.

249
00:23:23,030 --> 00:23:26,050
But a lot of people seem to think that it's a really bad idea.

250
00:23:26,050 --> 00:23:33,830
I mean, it's one of those things you see in newspaper stories, not as a statement, but as an axiom underlying the story.

251
00:23:33,830 --> 00:23:39,370
They say inequality has increased, as if this were ipso facto bad.

252
00:23:39,730 --> 00:23:41,650
I think it's not necessarily.

253
00:23:51,140 --> 00:23:55,420
If government control can't result in growth, how do I explain what's happening in China?

254
00:23:55,420 --> 00:23:59,460
What's happening in China is the government has a lot less control than it did in the time of Mao.

255
00:23:59,460 --> 00:24:01,500
That's why China is growing faster.

256
00:24:02,040 --> 00:24:02,700
Yes?

257
00:24:19,370 --> 00:24:22,030
Oh, okay, that's an interesting question.

258
00:24:25,070 --> 00:24:30,570
I think what you're saying is, should you have this sort of wild west economy where everybody can do what they want?

259
00:24:31,010 --> 00:24:33,690
Or would it be better to have some kinds of protections?

260
00:24:49,280 --> 00:24:54,820
How much is an acceptable level of damage to startups in order to reduce economic inequality?

261
00:24:54,820 --> 00:24:55,720
I don't know.

262
00:24:55,720 --> 00:24:56,440
I don't know.

263
00:24:56,440 --> 00:25:03,720
I just discovered this equation relating these two things.

264
00:25:03,920 --> 00:25:09,380
You yank on the bed sheet here, and someone on the other end of the bed gets their covers pulled off.

265
00:25:09,700 --> 00:25:16,300
People yanking on the economic inequality end of the bed sheet don't often realize that it's attached to all these other things.

266
00:25:16,400 --> 00:25:18,440
But what's the right relationship?

267
00:25:18,440 --> 00:25:19,820
God only knows.

268
00:25:19,820 --> 00:25:24,280
It's enough for me to point out that this relationship exists.

269
00:25:27,280 --> 00:25:28,260
All right.

270
00:25:28,260 --> 00:25:29,100
Yes?

271
00:25:47,610 --> 00:25:57,670
Well, for example, I think bloggers have put a little bit of a fire under government that didn't used to be there before.

272
00:25:58,190 --> 00:26:05,950
If everybody demanded more, asked more hard questions of politicians, that would be a good thing.

273
00:26:05,950 --> 00:26:07,790
Is everybody going to do it?

274
00:26:07,810 --> 00:26:08,770
No.

275
00:26:08,770 --> 00:26:13,410
But, you know, these things might change slowly in the right direction.

276
00:26:21,940 --> 00:26:23,800
Would the politicians just ignore you?

277
00:26:23,800 --> 00:26:25,060
Well, they'll try.

278
00:26:25,920 --> 00:26:27,860
But look what happened in Northern Ireland.

279
00:26:27,860 --> 00:26:37,520
I just read recently that an analyst looking at what was happening in Northern Ireland said basically the people got tired of the violence and the politicians were forced to go along with them.

280
00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:41,240
That bumper sticker, if the people leave, the politicians will follow.

281
00:26:41,240 --> 00:26:42,900
I definitely agree with that one.

282
00:26:44,160 --> 00:26:44,760
All right.

283
00:26:44,760 --> 00:26:45,600
We are done.

284
00:26:45,600 --> 00:26:46,600
Thank you very much.

285
00:26:46,600 --> 00:26:48,580
Sorry about the strange circumstances.