 12 horas en Argentina estamos ahí pleno mediodía GMT-13 pero sabemos que nos están bien decidiendo de muchos lugares distintos a la vez así que ahí ya ya casi estamos en parece porque ya tenemos a dos de nuestros panelistas ahora en escasos segundos los vamos a estar sumando will be adding them because this one will be conducted in English as soon as we have okay there we go we have yaron brook here we have yoga normal so please to have you here with us I was speaking a little bit in Spanish as you know most of the audience probably following us in Spanish right now but I'll keep switching we are just waiting for two of our other palace to join here we are waiting for Deutro McCluskey and for Axel Kaiser who I'm sure I'm sure are about to join as I was saying we're gonna have del laberinto se sale por arriba la innovación como herramienta del progreso y el bienestar y en inglés we title it a little bit easier it's innovation as a tool for progress and prosperity it doesn't have the labyrinth in the image but it can be quite understood I guess that we should be starting just to be respectful and mindful of the people are already connected we'll have McCluskey and Axel as soon as they connect we have yaron brook he's chairman of the iron run institute host of the yaron brook show always live on youtube he has authored many books but maybe once that we mentioned free market revolution how iron runs ideas can end big government also equal is unfair americas misguided fight against income inequality and in pursuit of wealth the moral case for finance together with don walkings he has an MBA and a PhD of the University of Texas at Austin we already have Johan Norwell with us here today he has authored so many books that is it is quite hard to list them all you probably have already in defense of global capitalism one of his main best sellers translated to a multitude of languages I guess it's over 20 already maybe even 25 of the languages in which you can read in defense of global capitalism progress ten reasons to look forward to the future you have now his newest and latest book open the story of human progress a title that I love and that I like Johan Norwell is also senior fellow at the Kato Institute and he writes on globalization entrepreneurship individual liberty he has been diffusing and promoting the ideas of liberty throughout the whole world we have Deira McCloskey joining us here today she's already connected you can see her there on the screen I'm just doing the short presentations I love just presenting Deira our dear profesores our dear profesora in Spanish she's distinguished professor emerita of economics and of history and professor emerita of English and of communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago train at Harvard in the 1960s as an economist she has written 20 books and some 400 academic articles on economic theory economic history philosophy rhetoric the statistical theory feminism ethics and law she took for 12 years of the University of Chicago in the economics department in its glory days days as she says but now describes herself and this is I love reading this quote I just love it and she keeps changing it and updating it she describes her so as a literary quantitative postmodern free market progressive Episcopalian ex Marxist midwester woman from Boston who was once a man not conservative I'm a Christian classical liberal that's the updated quote we get on Deira and the presentation Axel Keiser is I think Axel Keiser is joining the earth there we have Axel Keiser here on the screen as well Axel I was doing the presentations in English we can do them in English with you in Spanish I guess in German you speak so many languages you are a globetrotter you'll decide in which language you want to present when it's your turn so you have Axel Keiser he's written many many books I'm going to say titles in Spanish although we could say them in English as well el Chile que se viene la fatal ignorancia la miseria del intervencionismo la tiranía de la igualdad junto a Gloria Álvarez el engaño populista el papa y el capitalismo y su libro más reciente la neo inquisición tiene su podcast mental morphosis I'm how I pronounce it in English and correctly the pan and the game they're on the world presidente del director de la fundación para el progreso singer fellow abogado doctor por la universidad de Heidelberg en Alemania tenemos realmente un panel absolutamente genial so I'm going to to say a rest we only 85 minutes of the time that we have it's going to be five minutes each which will amount to about an hour you go in turns I'll do this alphabetically and then if we have time we'll try to tackle some questions maybe some questions from the audience we'll start with Aaron Brook then we'll go with Axel Keiser then Deidre McCluskey and then Johan Norweig that's in alfabetic or so so please to have you all here with us Aaron it's your turn it's your 15 minutes so please to listen to you and to pay attention to what you have to share with us today thank you Garrett thank you for inviting me on this prestigious panel title the innovation is the source of economic progress and of course that's exactly what the source of economic progress ultimately is it is the entrepreneur it is the entrepreneur applying his mind to solving problems in the world out there it is the entrepreneur not only coming up with ideas but actually executing on those ideas taking those ideas and making them a reality making them a reality in other words making them turning them into a value a value for the people a value that other people are willing to invest in a willing to buy into and that activity that activity is what generates ultimately generates jobs it generates economic production it generates consumption ultimately it is the source of growth and prosperity that the world see sadly we take this idea of innovation and economic growth for granted but we do so we do so and we take great risk by doing so for it is it is the engine that drives the drives our future if we look at it the importance of economic growth I mean it's it's weird going before Deirdre because you you know you expect to have Deirdre set up the context of the great enrichment and then we all we are riff on that and and assume she's going to do that but if we look into the future if you take economic growth for example and if you assume that the economy is going to grow 2% a year for the next 40 years then and issues if you assume low income let's say a $20,000 $20,000 a year income grows at about the same as the rate of economic growth of real economic growth then that 20,000 will turn into in terms of real terms will turn to 40 something thousand dollars over the next 40 years I mean that's nice everybody's doubly better off the double you know and certainly for family it's making $20,000 a year $40,000 a year is a big improvement but if on the other hand you assume that economic growth is now growing at 5% a year that is 7 times that means that $20,000 a year income now is $140,000 a year now there's no poverty there's no issue of poverty if everybody if they if the lowest income out there is making $140,000 a year then inequality will still exist but poverty will not and you've solved many of the problems that people complain about constantly economic growth solves those problems get rid of those problems if it's robust and of course a 5% economic growth is I believe more than possible in the world in which we live so the question really is I think the question is for every country in the world today what does it take what does it take to generate that economic growth or in the context of what we're talking about today what does it take to get people to innovate to get entrepreneurs to get innovation to get new technologies to and that ultimately grow the economy what is it what are the components that innovation requires well if we look at at places where innovation happens let's take Silicon Valley today what is what is interesting about Silicon Valley what makes Silicon Valley take right why is innovation so robust in a place like Silicon Valley well Silicon Valley is a place it's a culture that it's that that celebrates it celebrates risk-taking it celebrates failure failure from which people can learn not failure for the sake of failure but failure as a mechanism by which we learn grow improve explore it celebrates exploration trial and error it celebrates science and technology it celebrates the mind and applying the ideas of the mind in reality freely it celebrates thinking out of the box and not having limitations on our thinking and our ability to execute on those thoughts so if we look at Silicon Valley it has a particular kind of culture a particular kind of set of ideas that drive it that involve this idea of exploration and trial and error failure risk-taking Silicon Valley is also a place that to use a Johann Nobergs terminology it's a very open place it's a place that celebrates immigrants that where half the startups right half the startups of Silicon Valley have one immigrant at least one immigrant founder it's a celebrate it's a it's a place that celebrates connection not just immigrants working in the valley but the ability to to cooperate across countries internationally on a global scale it's a place with color that encourages collaboration communication connection across an entire the entire globe I mean we have today you know we have today a a world connected like it's never been before like it's never been in the history of mankind a world where we can instantly communicate with everybody I'm right now in Lisbon I think you're on isn't sweet and maybe in Washington who knows where you're on is the address might be at home in Chicago axel might be in Chile you're in Argentina I mean it's pretty amazing and we can do this like that but a culture that celebrates this that that embraces it that embraces the fact that we can we can in a sense leverage 7 billion minds for the sake of solving problems in the world is a culture that is going to celebrate and embrace innovation and growth and lastly of course one needs the freedom to explore one needs the freedom to connect one needs the freedom to engage in thinking outside the box and then acting on one's ideas we need we need a political system that's relatively free and again if you look at Silicon Valley one of the advantages Silicon Valley has had over the last 40 years and advantage they fear is probably going away soon sadly is that it is being relatively unregulado that it is being left alone that they don't have controls you know it's amazing that almost every profession in America today requires a government license in order to practice it almost everything you know doing nails and and braiding hair and and but but the one profession that probably affects our world more than any other that that is responsible for airplanes flying in the sky to the running of our electric utilities to the fact that we can communicate right now and that is programming isn't it amazing that the bureaucrats have not gotten around to licensing programmers Amazon and Google and Apple hire whoever they want or you know you can have a college degree or not you can you can train yourself or you can train in some boot camp for programming and yet I don't want to give anybody ideas but yet the government has not gotten its hands on on on licensing and regulating programming and yet programming is behind software is behind almost every activity we engage in in the modern world so that freedom the fact that there's no licensing the fact that companies are free to hire whoever they want the fact that there's no review board I don't know the equivalent of an FDA for software programs right imagine that you had to submit your software program to a government bureaucracy that approved it or not as we do with drugs vaccines and other things has allowed for massive exploration is allowed for the creation of products and none of us would have imagined 5 10 certainly 20 30 40 years ago so at the end of the day it is freedom that that a lot that makes possible makes possible this the innovation and as a consequence economic growth and again freedom depends on a particular set of ideas in a particular culture freedom depends on a culture the respect I think fundamentally to values to values that that the enlightenment respected and I think as a consequence we saw the great the great economic progress the great innovation it's not an accident that what we got and again as did was written extensively on it's not an accident that we got what we got in the 19th century it was set up by a cultural shift before that I'll focus on two values you know the two values that I think are the most meaningful in coming out of the the enlightenment and those are the the the idea of reason idea of reason as man's means of knowledge the idea that everybody has reason that all of us are capable of taking care of ourselves of thinking for ourselves of of innovating discovering science technology engineering or not professions for some elite unique group of people almost everybody in the 18th century or many people in the 18th century became enamored with Newton's laws and then the new science was coming about and they could understand it they could actually figure it out it wasn't something that you needed some kind of superpower or to be a philosopher king in in in Plato's terminology it was something that the common man could understand and therefore if they could understand that couldn't they apply their reason to what profession they chose couldn't they apply their reason to who to marry to to who their political leaders should be and to starting their own companies without permission and without without asking for permission so that idea that we each have a mind is a crucial idea that the enlightenment brings back after hit it you know it had been dormant for a very long time that idea of all of us having the capacity to reason also leads us to the value of the individual the individual could take care of himself so these two ideas reason and individualism the individualism ending itself as a moral end of himself the idea of the pursuit of happiness I think is crucial to it is that kind of culture that produces freedom and is that freedom that incentivize and leaves alone the great innovators to make to produce to build to create and to give us the kind of progress that that has benefited us so much and can benefit us so much in the future so much of what I think needs to be done to create this el mundo de innovación y progreso es la educación. Es sobre enseñar los valores y enseñar y cambiar la cultura en maneras que apoyan innovación, progreso y libertad. Gracias. Gracias, Aaron. Gracias por estar tan en tiempo. Es también perfecto, no solo la alucción, lo que dices en el tiempo. Vamos ahora con Axel Keiser, estamos en orden alfabético, Axel es un gusto tenerte con nosotros. Imagino que lo harás en español, pero podrías hablar en cualquier idioma que quisieras seguramente un placer tenerte acá en el Congreso de Liberalismo Cultural. No, gracias por la invitación. Lo haré en inglés porque tenemos este panel distinguido y no quiero que les muese mi presentación. Aunque he aprendido mucho de ellos, es muy bueno verlos a John y a Didry, por supuesto. Es un gran placer y a Aaron también. Y creo que vamos a concluir muchos problemas aquí. Hablo en Chile, ser un miembro de una familia germana, y siempre ir a Alemania y ver el contraste, la diferencia entre una sociedad desarrollada y una sociedad desarrollada. Y la sociedad desarrollada, siempre me preguntaba, ¿cómo es posible que Alemania estuvo mucho más avanzada que en Chile, digamos, en los años 90. Y esta es una pregunta que hasta hoy es realmente una de mis obsesiones. Puedes mirar a Suizirland, por ejemplo. Mi hermano joven vive en Suizirland ahora mismo. Suizirland es como una ciudad en el medio de las alfas, no es muy especial, es hermoso, pero no tiene recursos naturales. No es un país muy grande, tiene, no sé, 8 millones de personas en habitación. Y suizirland es la más innovativa en el mundo, creo que es el índice de innovación global, entre 132 países. Y tiene 20 novelas y ciencias. Y nosotros en Latinoamérica tenemos una gran extensión de las alfas, tenemos recursos naturales, como no hay ciencias para ellos, es casi unlimited. Tenemos 700 millones de personas, y tenemos 3 o 4 novelas en las ciencias difíciles y no estamos en los rankings de la innovación global, básicamente, no existimos. Y eso merece una explicación. Y no puede ser el hecho de que las personas suiz, o suiz, o de Dane, o de Germán, o de Francia, o de las personas en Estados Unidos o en Corea, porque todas estas son entre los top 10 países en el índice de innovación global. No puede ser el caso de que son, de alguna manera, genetically mejor, y son smarter y más creativos. Y esa es la razón por la que se están creando todas estas tecnologías y todo este progreso. Porque tenemos mucho de Europa y de la descensación europea en Latinoamérica y eso no puede ser la explicación. Así que, voy a intentar una explicación diferente, y ya habéis hablado de esto. Y creo que el principal problema en Latinoamérica y otros países, es que todavía estamos en el framework de las sociedades de la sociedad de envío. Y aquí estoy basando mi argumento en el trabajo excelente por Helmut Schöck, en envío como una teoría de comportamiento social, donde él argumenta que las sociedades de envío son realmente un obstáculo para todo tipo de progreso, y también para la civilización, cuando es, por supuesto, una forma extrema de institutionalización de envío. Y para la innovación. Él dice eso literalmente. Y así, envío se convierte en una teoría de comportamiento social, porque él dice que es mucho más universal que lo que las personas creen. No es algo que vas a tratar con tus psicólogos, como si tuvieras algún otro tipo de personalidad o algo así. Es una fuerza social. Nos comparamos todo el tiempo con otras personas. Y es también parte de la naturaleza humana, para sentir envíos. Y aquí, la respuesta para correctar eso es, por supuesto, la cultura. Puedes tener cultura con historias, o con historias, o misos, o religios, o tal. Están muy efectivos en civilizar este instinto, esta pasión, lo que John Stuart Mill said es el más antisocial y malo de todas las pasiones, es envío. Y él fue correcto. Y puedes tener otras culturas, y también Schuches ofrece algunos ejemplos de esto, envío es básicamente la regla general. Y son muy primitivos socios. Hay socios, por ejemplo, como algunos tribos, como el Navajo, no tenían ni una niña, ni un concepto de la oportunidad, ni un malo. Todo sucedió porque alguien más era malo y hizo algo a vosotros. O si vosotros fuiste suceso, no tenías la noticia de un personal marido o suceso, fue porque lo robaste a alguien más. O hiciste algo malo, o algo de magia o tal, para ser mejorado. Y así, envío tiene este efecto paralizado de personas, porque, por supuesto, hay miedo. Si viviste en una comunidad muy envío, estarían retaliando, de alguna manera, y van a apanar a vosotros o confiscar su propiedad, o incluso robar a vosotros, como lo sucedió a muchas personas acusadas de witchcraft. Hacemos, como si estuvieras enviando, básicamente, personas sucesivas, personas hermosas, acusadas de ser witchers, y estarían cerrados a algún punto en la historia. Y así, creo que hay fuertes narrativas igualitarias, como los que permanecen en Latinoamérica. Y están reenforzados por los discursos de algunos sectores de la iglesia catholic, muy influenciantes en nuestra región, como la de Pope Francis, por ejemplo, tienen mucho que hacer con Envy. Esto también es uno de los argumentos de Schöck. Y eso explica, en mi opinión, por qué la intelectual hegemónica en Latinoamérica está en el lado de egalitario. Y no estoy hablando de un tipo de egalitario escondido, como lo explicó a nosotros. Esa fue la quita de prosperidad. Estoy hablando de el tipo material de actualidad de egalitario, el tipo socialista de egalitario. Y esto es el sentido común en Latinoamérica, incluso si tenemos un progreso en diferentes países, otros países han destruido themselves, como Venezuela, por ejemplo, y ahora el país más libre en Latinoamérica es Chile. Bueno, no estamos muy bien. Estamos regresando a este tipo de pensamiento primitivo, argumentando que el suceso de los pocos, que no es verdad, porque todo el país ha estado preparado en Chile en los últimos 30 años, pero hay pocos ricos y son malos, y tenemos que atacar a ellos y a las instituciones que les ayudan a ser sucesos. Por lo tanto, los pocos tienen que ser transformados para ser más egalitarios. Y en el último ranking de libertad económica, hemos subido 14 lugares, de un año a el siguiente. Entonces, y aquí es, de nuevo, lo que Jorn dice. Hay una relación fuerte, si lo dices, con la libertad del mundo index y la innovación del index de innovación. Entonces, necesitas, a un lado, necesitas esta cultura de individualismo que es la oposición de una cultura de envío, donde el tribal es un tipo de colectivismo y la conformación de la norma es la regla. necesitas individualismo y necesitas, por supuesto, instituciones. Necesitas libertad económica. Si no tienes libertad económica, ¿cómo vas a spreading innovación? O sea, puedes tener una inventación, una nueva tecnología, pero si no tienes la protección de la propiedad de protección, si no tienes los mercados open, si no tienes eso, ¿cómo vas a hacer esta nueva tecnología útil para todos? Es muy difícil. Y eso explica, en mi opinión, dos cosas. Una, por qué las más personas en Latinoamérica que son tan inteligentes, tan cualificadas y también tan difícil de trabajar, no necesariamente con los grados de buenas universidades, ellos salen de nuestro continente, de nuestra región. Ellos van a los Estados Unidos, a Europa, principalmente a los Estados Unidos. Es toda la historia de las personas que están ahí. No es lo que televisión muestra a las personas que llegan a la frontera con los Estados Unidos en México, no. Estos son las personas desesperadas, porque no tenemos las instituciones y no tenemos la cultura necesaria o la cultura requerida para crear prosperidad. Pero también tienes personas muy cualificadas, que van ahí con habilidades y luego se convierten muy fuertes. Entonces, ellos son estos países, no porque somos recursos naturales, o somos muy buenos, por supuesto, muy buenos. En esta región, no es como todos, están intentando hacer su vida imposible, pero nos gusta la institución, la frecuencia económica y, sobre todo, creo que nos gusta la cultura de frecuencia, individualismo. En realidad, hay una ranción que se ha hecho un índice de individualismo. Y está siendo mezclado y, por individualismo, entendemos lo mismo, las personas procurando sus propias, y eso ha sido aceptado y incluso encontrado por la sociedad. No ha sido hinderado de alguna manera, o principalmente. Y si lo take a look at that, es también fuertemente correlado con el índice de innovación global y la frecuencia económica en el mismo tiempo. Entonces, estas cosas van a la mano y a la mano. Para concluir, si podría decirle un poco de palabras sobre Chile, una experiencia que todos conocimos, un tiempo muy prospérico durante los últimos cuatro años. Pero siempre hemos tenido este problema. Y creo que en el resto de Latinoamérica es el mismo. Las personas están afueras de no conformar a la norma de pensar para ellos muchas veces, porque eso te envió una parte de la herida. Y no es una cultura muy fuerte en términos de individuos, somos más un tipo de cultura colectiva, donde lo que el grupo dice es más importante que su propia pensando. Y así, necesitamos, para innovación para prosperar, también este corregimiento. Necesitamos corregir a las personas que están willing to risk to take the cost of challenging opinion, the majority opinion and live with this in it's not easy. Y, of course, we need to change culture so that more people are willing to think for themselves. I think one of the great periods of innovation or at least intellectual flourishing was the renaissance. And we all know Erasmus of Rotterdam who wrote is in praise of Foley and basically he was saying just that if you want to really move forward, you cannot be afraid of what other people think so much. And it's the same that Abraham Maslow said when he was thinking about or writing about creative personalities and it is what Kant said in his writings on the Enlightenment, when he said you have to have the courage to think for yourself and to act according to your own conclusions. And we can criticize Kant for other reasons. But I think he was right on that on that point. And if we don't change that, I fear that in Latin America we will be in the same position we are right now in the next 50 years or maybe even the next 100 years. So cultural change is the answer. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Axel. This is already shaping to be a really delightful panel. You are all linking together the things that you are saying. And now we are going to get Diedra McCloskey, la profesora Diedra McCloskey toca ahora. And I'm wearing my arm Smith tie because I know what she likes doing whenever someone says arm Smith. That's why I decided to wear this one. Ah, that that's exactly right, Diedra. So the floor is yours and please, we are all eager to listen to what you have to say. Yeah, on this panel with my old friends and and my my courageous friends. I have a comfortable position in the United States, although I do fear for the future of the United States. Si Trump es reelected. But you others are pioneers in a way that I am. I'm not. I'm simply a theorist. I I of course agree with my colleagues on virtually everything. There to where we're sworn all of us to the truth. Y en that on that theme, I would like to quarrel slightly with the two previous speakers in their emphasis on the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment strictly speaking was was an elite occupation. And although it's very nice and certainly the Scottish Enlightenment is my great enthusiasm. Yo creo que el énfasis de la razón tiene su detalle. Este es el punto que Hayek hace. Él habla del lado de la libertad del enlightenment, que es el liberalismo, y el lado de la razón del enlightenment, que tendrá a topar el plan social a lo que le llamó constructivismo. Así que, mi amigo Joel Mokir, un historiador económico, habla de la ilusión industrial, y habla de la ciencia, pero no es ciencia y ilusión, pero, después de todo, las grandes tiras, como el emperador Catherine en Rusia, fueron ilusiones. Es el liberalismo que es la quita, y creo que todos, básicamente, concluimos con esto. Es la idea de que deberíamos tener una sociedad con no esclavos, no esclavos, no esclavos a husbands, no esclavos a pocos, no esclavos a sus maestros. En los 1880s, en Montana, una persona, tengo que decir, una persona naiva, una europea que viajó, y le preguntó a un hombre libre, quién era su maestro, la idea de que todos deberían tener un maestro, y el hombre dijo, no se ha nacido, y esa actitud, esa ideología, es lo que llamaría liberalismo. Y el otro nombre que uno puede pensar en, liberalismo, esta nueva idea entero, en el siglo XVIII, nacido en Norte-Western Europa, en Holland, en England y en Scotland, es adultismo. Todas las otras filosofías políticas pueden pensar en los conservadores. El conservador piensa que los pocos son malos, y, por lo tanto, los que deberían ser governados de arriba, o la persona de la izquierda, socialista que piensa que los pocos son malos, malos o malos, y que, por lo tanto, deberían ser governados de arriba. Los liberals no piensan que deberían ser governados de arriba, sino que deberían ser governados de arriba. Y una sociedad de adultos, de los adultos fríos, es una de las que todos nosotros aquí, creo, es la que sucede a los humanos, al menos en el siglo XVIII, que es la que sucede a los adultos fríos, que es la que sucede a los adultos fríos, al menos es la que sucede a los hundas de asesoridad de todos nosotros. Todos nosotros, por los cientos de años, somos homos, sapiens, y nuestras ancestras. Antes de eso, somos hundas de asesoridad, y un grupo de hundas de asesoridad no es un tránsito, no son hundas de personas en un chico, es naturalmente egalitaria, como podemos ver en los ejámenes de hundas de asesoridad de asesoridad, que... que... que sobrevive. Es una agricultura que... esa invención gloriosa de... animales homesticos y... plantas de homesticación que es tan importante en la historia humana, que hace para la jerarquía, y hace para las maestras, y... maestras, y... hundas de asesoridad. Y... estoy... muy estupido por lo que Axel dice, sobre la... la importancia crucial de evitar la inviación, o, tal vez, es un mejor palabra, porque, como dice, somos todos inviados un poco, pero como hundas de asesoridad, nosotros intentamos controlar nuestra inviación. Hay un... hay un sonido de Shakespeare que habla de esto. Él dice, oh, me gusta, algún hombre, figura y algún hombre de inteligencia, y algún hombre de esto, algún hombre de eso, y desde que los sonidos son los pulmones de amor, él fina con decir, pero luego creo en ti, y todo este inviado que tengo, se mueve. Lo que tenemos que hacer, es pensar en otros. Tenemos que pensar en nosotros, de la inviación. Y aquí me emphasizes la ideología, como nuestros amigos y enemigos, las personas de la izquierda, podrían llamarlo Ethics, podrían llamarlo Rhetoric. Y quiero evitar la palabra que todos mis colegas, por lo tanto, han usado, Cultura. El problema con la cultura es que sugera algo que no puede ser cambiado. Los germanes tienen una cultura, mientras los latinos americanos tienen otra cultura, y mi Dios, es hopeless. Pero después de todo, incluso la cultura germana no es algo permanente, y puede cambiar. Por lo tanto, cuando piensas en la ideología, o incluso Ethics, y por lo tanto, cuando usas la palabra, usas la palabra Rhetoric, en la que siempre estoy estando, que es muy irritante. Puede cambiar en un idioma, digamos en inglés. Puede cambiar muy rápido. Después de todo, la cultura germana fue en estos 12 años, de un cambio radical en la ideología, y en el Rhetoric, pero después de la guerra, se ha convertido en una satisfacción más satisfecha. ¡Liberal! Yo también estoy estando en esa palabra. ¡Democracia! Y aquí, aquí haré que lo que necesitamos no es más de nosotros los heridos y los precios, aunque me admiro a mis colegas que hacen esto, y no me importa que yo hagan esto, pero lo que necesitamos, que es mi alarma, lo que necesitamos es que los artistas y los jornalistas, los filmáneos, los músicos rock, los filmáneos de advertir imágenes, y así así, eso es donde las personas tienen sus ideologías. Si no, a su madre, a su madre, que, por cierto, es otro punto, la filosofía política desde que Machiavelli ha posibilizado un adulto grón como acto en las políticas cuando y las mujeres no olvidan que todos estuvimos a los niños, así que la educación es importante, pero si pudimos persuadir los filmáneos para dejar de proteger innovación, como lo llamo, como evils, podríamos echar control de la enviación. Gracias. Muchas gracias, Pedro. Me imagino que no te interesa no te interesa no te interesa No me interesa que he escuchado ahora mismo. Empecé a pensar, ¿qué puedo añadir? Me siento un poco como cuando he hecho ese error malo hace varios años de ir a un gym para hacer un ejercicio en un hotel en Island, Reykjavík. Empecé a hacer algunos ejemplos simples, y luego me noté que el próximo a mí fue Clint Eastwood. Y pensé, ¿qué puedo hacer que no lo haya hecho? Que no es capaz. Así que veamos lo que puedo hacer. Creo que lo que puedo hacer es intentar poner esto en un poco más de la discusión política ahora mismo y explorar el elemento de sorpresa que creo que es lo que hace el superior liberalismo cuando hablamos de innovación. Porque ahora mismo no estamos intentando vendernos innovación. Pero ahora todo el mundo le gusta innovación, incluso los progresivos y conservadores que usan para desplazarlo por tradiciones undermales o reuniones de trade. Y una razón es la rivalidad geopolítica con China. Hay este nuevo Tug of War, o un Tug of War con China sobre las tecnologías de la ciencia y los modelos de el futuro que van a tener. Y la derecha y la derecha dicen, al menos cuando escucho a ellos en Europa y en Estados Unidos, que estamos en innovación. Pero es importante dejarlo al mercado. Necesitamos más innovación. Y los progresivos tecnológicos que los individuos y los negocios van a desplazarlo espontáneamente. Y por eso es todo el raje con la política industrial, los precios, la fundación de misión orientada, la idea parece ser para desplazar a China, lo que significa, que tenemos que imitar la política industrial y la innovación orientada. Y a mí, parece que no entienden la natura laberentina de innovación. Porque si utilizas las innovaciones en la próxima, ya lo habrás hecho, ya lo habrás pensado. Y entonces, ya está ahí. Lo que hace que las tecnologías innovativas y las formas de organización tan revolucionarias, es que añaden algo nuevo, algo realmente nuevo que no pusimos antes, algo unexpected, unpredictable. Y lo que estoy intentando hacer en mi nuevo libro, Open the Story of Human Progress, ahora traducido en español, abierto, en Sanchez de la Cruz, es que estoy intentando explicar que la innovación no viene de las personas inteligentes, de los planos, de los blueprints. Se trata de experimentos, tríal y error, feedback, adaptación, y nuevos experimentos, nuevos tríal y error, nuevos feedbacks, y muchos fallos que hacen mucha gente y que hace mucho tiempo. Y es por eso que la innovación se habla de cómo les gusta la innovación. Cada realmente innovación tiene resistencia de los más elites y de los más personas que encuentran la nueva idea imponente o imponente o peligrosa, porque les matan sus trabajos. Entonces, cuando estudias la historia tecnológica, las personas no les gusta todas las cosas que ahora creen que son los más grandes triunfes de su era. Más personas a misquote de Blackadder, más personas no reconocen y aprecian la innovación, incluso si se pinta purple y danza naked en un gran piano cantando, la innovación es aquí de nuevo. La innovación es muy difícil, es muy difícil. En los 1750s una mujer magia, Jonas Hanway, fue el primer hombre a llevar a la estrella a las calles de la calle de Londres. Y crees que hubo monumentos en honor de la mujer que resolvió el problema interno de vivir en Londres sin darse de la reina. Incluyó un ridículo, la gente le daba abuso a él, se pareció chica, se pareció feminina, algunos incluso le acusó a él que fue bastante apuntado para un hombre ingleso. Y las personas más agresivas eran los coches, los taxis de la día. Ellos apelto a Hanway con rubro y uno even tried to run him over these covered wagons that kept passengers dry. So the umbrella they feared meant creative destruction. It would take their jobs. But Hanway bit of an eccentric and the umbrella was probably also a pretty decent shield against all that rubbish. So he persisted with this open carry of umbrellas for 30 years. And slowly but steadily Londoners began to ask themselves why they should be soaking wet when Hanway was nice and dry. Eventually of course London became the city of umbrellas. But it took 30 years for the umbrella in London of all places. Even though it didn't take many tweaks to the basic technology people resisted it anyway. And the point of this story is that whatever innovation you look at when you begin to study the history of it people initially throw rubbish at it. It was a similar thing with everything from the spinning Jenny, the steamboat and the bicycle to the credit card, biotechnology and the internet. They were all once considered worthless or impossible or dangerous. And it takes a very long time to perfect the technology and smooth out the wrinkles so that people really appreciate it. It's valuable in their lives. So the reason why innovations happen in liberal societies and everybody else just imitates what happened there is that liberalism protects the eccentrics as they struggle to adapt their technologies and allow them to try it out for a sufficiently long time that consumers and society at large begin to see the point. All innovations are acquired tastes. And that is why authoritarians can't do it no matter how hard they try no matter how smart just look at basic great innovations like the personal computer that was developed in the 1960s and 1970s in capitalist countries not in communist countries why was that, why wasn't the PC invented in the Soviet Union they were pretty good when it came to imitating the atomic bomb the Soviets sure knew about the possibility of a personal computer through industrial espionage and their own researches because they also had eccentrics in garages they could do it but they just didn't see the point and the ministry of radio technology settled the matter once and for all by declaring there is no future in personal computer and now we know that they were wrong but the key question that I think explains why liberalism is superior is would you really have made another call at that time because the general idea at that time in the 1960 seems to be that the PC was a novel way of sorting library cards in fact there was an early US offering for the consumer market in 1969 a kitchen recipe computer in which you could store and read recipes on a monochrome screen it weighed 100 pounds and it came at a cost of $70,000 in today's dollars but then it also came with a built-in cutting board so you could deal with all the vegetables and the meat there I don't know about you but if I were in the Politburo and heard about this I'm pretty sure that I would also have said oh yet, that's just western decadence we should devote all our resources to important stuff like steel and wheat and tractors and nuclear bombs and you know even small Americans thought so as late as 1982 the conservative intellectual William F. Buckley Jr. said the Pulitzer Prize belongs to the man who reveals what the PC is good for and even business people thought so the founder of the digital equipment corporation declared there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home and I dare to say most of us would have thought exact thing and that's why the decentralized free markets in open societies are superior because there the few crazies who believed in the PC could continue to experiment even if we thought them crazy and they had a multitude of competing investors they could approach not just one ministry of radio technology and they could also find excentric consumers that no plan really took into account who found uses for it that even the inventors had not foreseen could be a rich man who just thought of it as a status symbol hackers who picked it apart just to see how it worked or kids who just wanted to play video games so then came an ongoing experiments of trial and error of feedback of adaptations and new experiments that eventually revolutionized even though the majority thought that they were all crazy so it's not that we are smarter than socialist planets it's that there are more of us with more freedom to experiment and make mistakes and learn and therefore make progress and it looks chaotic it looks weird jaron mentioned silicon valley now we all know that progress came from there but as late as in 1988 you could read in harvard business review that the u.s. defense department cia the national security agency the national science foundation the white house science council most year businesses thought they all agreed that u.s. entrepreneurs were losing out quickly in the global computer market because the u.s. had no overarching plan it suffered from fragmentation extreme entrepreneurialism and that would not be possible to use to sustain large scale investment needed and in harvard business review they actually wrote that only economists moved by invest and failed to apprehend the problem a conservative politician like newt gingrich said that the future of the computing industry belongs to france because they now have a government plan with the minitel system that will now show the way and the u.s. will be left behind in the dust now we know that excess entrepreneurialism and what seems like chaos to those who are not involved to those who want a plan that's what creates great progress and my conclusion is this should really inform present day discussion about industrial policy and this whole idea that we have to become like china to beat china well first of all industrial policy did not make china rich grass roots markets village enterprises private businesses and export processing songs did everything important happened outside of the plan and it was unexpected to the planners unexpected even today in xiaoping as very norton recently documented in china's economic policy industrial policy is new in china it only appeared in 2010 and it only became really prominent during chijin ping so it did not create china's progress and it'll be a terrible failure because authoritarians are open to everything they like everything they already know that they want but they're always close to everything they find worthless impossible or dangerous but sooner or later you'll run out of other people's ideas to imitate and then that the worthless impossible and dangerous things that's the only place to find the new ideas by nature innovation is a surprise and surprise exactly what anti liberals do not like so i worry about china's future but not about china taking over the world because the very authoritarianism that makes china seem threatening to us is the same thing that holds it back and puts a limit on its innovation and its ability to take over the world my conclusion is that in order to beat us china has to become like us thank you thank you so much yohan and that was an entertaining brilliant exposition as well we have 30 minutes ahead of us to try and engage in a discussion with the four of you together which has been taking place in a way because you all have been going back and forth with some of the points that you have mentioned i'm just gonna try to thread a few of them and feel free to join in i will open your mic so all of you can chip in as you feel like it i'm going to to go to yaron's point because i like the example of government licensing which i guess if someone from government is actually watching this they might get that idea instead of the opposite if they have been listening to yaron at the very beginning i would also like to retake and rework axl's idea on envy which was touched upon afterwards i could not help forget about jose ingenieros in argentina y yohan yohan idea de innovación de experimentos y tránsito yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan yohan Me gusta mucho la énfasis de Axel en Envy, creo que realmente es, por suerte, un vehículo que conduce a los estadísticos y a las personas que apoyan a los estadísticos y veas a los políticos clave utilizando ese Envy. He definido Envy como la patria del buen para ser el buen que es asistir a las personas por sus virtudes, asistir a las personas por su suceso, asistir a las personas por lo que han hecho. Y veamos eso a través del board. He estado en London hace unos días hablando con un grupo de estudiantes de la escuela, y he mencionado el nombre de Jeff Bezos. He solo mencionado su nombre. Y inmediatamente hubo un paro en el audiences. Jeff Bezos, según ellos, es el gran explorador, tiene mucho dinero, todo el expense de otras personas. El mundo es un juego zero, es el modo en el que se ve. Y lo que realmente es dirigir eso, no es mucho el Envy de los niños, porque creo que tal vez son muy jóvenes para ser enviados. Pero es el envio de los intelectuales, que han tomado estos niños. Es realmente intelectuales que dirigan este envio. Y a punto de acceder, si vamos a tener un envio asistido, tenemos que tener cuidado a la generación de intelectuales que son dominantes en Latinoamérica, que son dominantes a través del mundo, que están enseñando a estos niños, a los nonsons. No puedo pensar en muchas más beneficiosas de nuestras vidas, especialmente durante la Covid-19, que son Amazonas y Jeff Bezos. Y el injusto de la manera en que ellos tratan a él y de la manera que él es observado por los elites intelectuales. Es justifico. Focusing on teaching how these are all win-win relationships and how much value all of us get from the great entrepreneurs and the great innovators in the world showing the benefits that each one of these kids gets because of the idea. And as Johann said, how many people would have invested, how many of us would have invested if Jeff Bezos had come to us in 1990 something, whatever it was and said, hey, I want to sell books online. Yeah, great. And you're going to make a lot of money doing that. And hey, my dream is to sell everything online. It was just, none of us would have done it and yet. So it's, you know, it's defending them against the intellectuals and replacing the intellectuals ultimately is a big part of our mission. Well, I'm right today actually today and yesterday I'm engaged in a short back and forth with a marxoid journalist in England for the magazine Prospect which I occasionally contribute to and we each get 300 words to answer each other and we're now into, I have to answer his last absurdity and he's really vigorously angry about Jeff Bezos and then he's got these very primitive marxist ideas about surplus value and so forth. So that makes the point that it's the attitude towards the entrepreneur as much as the existence of the entrepreneurs themselves. I think that most cultures have genetically speaking, I suppose as many potential entrepreneurs as any other culture maybe there's some minor genetic variation from one group to another but what really matters is the attitude as you say of the opinion leaders and I think the only way to defeat the opinion leaders the status of opinion leaders is to make fun of them I'll bear to Mingardi and I just wrote a short book against Mariana Mazzucato who's a fashionable industrial planner and she thinks that innovation is not surprising as our colleague said she thinks it's easy and he's perfectly right that surprise is the whole point of innovation if it's not surprising then it's already been invented and it earns the normal return on normal behavior so anyways the attitude of the surrounding society that changes Thank you Dizra Actually I don't know if you want to add something to that Yeah We just published your book with Mingardi and it's being very successful and it's so important because she has become the new hero of the left and we could have a very far left president being elected in December so it's really a great contribution so thank you for that and it brings it back to the point of innovation and of course you are absolutely right and you are on with the argument of the intellectuals and the second hand dealers and all this is so important we have seen that Mingchila is again a laboratory to prove that theory because this country basically has experienced this regression because the public sphere was completely polluted you know wealth creation entrepreneurship and all these things in the late 90's and we started speaking more and more about equality and redistribution in the 2000's and then at some point it was oh the country is so unfair and just it's horrible you have these wealthy people like Jeff Bezos by the Chilean version who are not going to the moon by the way but you know they hit them I think that's a recipe for the sassar but here comes a very crucial point when it comes to NB there is no way you can get rid or tame NB by destroying the object of NB so so if you try to let's say ok we are going to be much more equal we are going to introduce punitive progressive taxation and you know wealth taxes and all these things there is no way going to reduce the discomfort caused by a society that has embraced NB so it's an illusion and basically when you really analyze Marxism Socialism in a sense what they were trying to say is look we are going to make everyone equal so we can get rid of this evil passion that's NB and we can all live in a world of brotherly love basically which is nonsense it's not understanding the root of the problem it's a very naive approach at the same time it's a form of rationalized NB because you project all this hatred towards people who are better off and it has never worked it never brought social peace in Chile it's again another example we are much more equal and we are you know really punishing people and people are even angrier than they used to be and then it comes and this is my final point then it comes this problem of guilt which is the other side of the coin because they are wealthy rich people they start apologizing and so they somehow validate this NB's drive of the intellectuals and others and they say let's see see how these people are apologizing because they are social sinners and that's the worst thing because in the end these very successful people I mean the same successful people who are being attacked by NB by apologizing made the problem much worse for everyone and of course they take their wealth away to the US or Switzerland or whatever and in the end the people who suffer most from all this are poor people so that's the very sub part of the story of the intellectuals or politicians who are preaching NB so I think as Zidra said it's about the rhetoric we have to dramatically change that and make people understand that this is not a serious sum game otherwise can I just make a small point here which is that NB is insatiable look so suppose we equalize all incomes well then some people are more beautiful than others let's see how to solve that IS will break their noses and scratch their faces some people everyone here is smarter than I am you all speak more languages than I do so here here Axl will solve the problem that you are much more intelligent than I am by pounding nails into your head until you forget how to speak English I mean that's it's hopeless whereas we know how to make a country better off economically we know how to do it as we've said but we don't know how to achieve this ultimate equality thank you Lidra Yohan would you like to add something to this discussion or take it some place else well you know I agree with what you've said I'm like the gym visitor going to the machine after Clint Eastwood but I would like to add one reason for this under appreciation of innovation I think Axl's point about NB is a very good one and I think it's closely tied to the idea that the world is a zero sum game and the others are there for dangerous but I would add another reason why I think that instinctually we have a fear of certain innovations and why we pelt innovators with rubbish because as Tidry pointed out our prehistory is pretty long it's not that we lived like this for a very long time and in our past you know most of the time history has many good points but it was also nasty brutish and short so it made sense to be suspicious about potentially dangerous new things and creative eccentrics in your midst who came up with strange new ways of doing things that was dangerous because innovation is risky most of the time it fails now we live in a rich society and then we can afford those failures but people who live on the margins might not be able to afford any risk so if the tribal lands barely feed you someone suddenly comes up with a different way of using the seeds and wants to rotate the crops in an unfamiliar pattern is that a good idea or should we just chase him out of our group because he might result in us starving all of us and even when innovation succeeds it was impossible for most people to link its use to that particular creative individual nowadays it's also difficult but obviously but sometimes we do notice those eccentrics in our midst but say that you just picked up your first finely shaped hand axe in human prehistory no matter how happy you are about this acquisition it wouldn't give you an understanding of the value of innovative individuals or that particular homo erectus that came up with this particular design more likely we just reinforce the value of imitating your neighbor and do exactly what he did all the time and I think we still have that with us anyone who comes up with strange new schemes is a bit of a danger to us and at least we don't really appreciate the value that they create yeah that's true but this is the great value of in axolio yeah I mean or today in silicon valley for example people have a great appreciation and they don't fear innovation in America over the last 200 years we generally with some exceptions had a positive attitude towards innovation this is where ideas really can change cultures where education and intellectuals can really have an impact if we live in a healthy society that defines civilization to some extent in this sense civilized places where innovators are at least respected or provided the room to grow and to innovate and to create and we were not afraid of them so while certainly history is filled with this fear and in a sense the deterministic suspicion of innovators we can overcome that fear and we have our success as a result of overcoming that fear and the real question part of the question is what does it take what does it take in terms of people's understanding what does it take in terms of the kind of liberal society that we create what does it take in terms of shaping and changing the culture to make it a pro growth pro innovation where people are excited about innovators where people don't pelt them people congratulate them and thank them and we see a little bit of that in America with everybody waiting for the next iPhone or waiting for the next great thing that Apple comes out with and the excitement of first users first adapters if we could export that attitude we would go a long way to kind of changing the culture and changing the world Thank you Yaron actually you were going to say something Yeah you know it's very hard to defend for instance Jeff Bezos going to to space when people tell you oh you could have spent that money helping poor people who are starving so that's an emotional argument we heard that everywhere it was in Latin America it was in the US everywhere and I've been hearing this since I was at the university you know all these people doing this innovation well maybe it turns out that these missions end up saving the human species like in 500 years or 1000 years who knows you know it's like having thought about the right brothers why would they do that like all the time and energy and money spent there like how wasteful and immoral so that's crazy I wanted to ask you guys a question if Garrett asked me do you think that government has any role to play at all I don't mean like planning like for instance or property rights of course government has to secure property rights we all agree on that but for instance Luigi Zingales argues that you need a safety net so that you know taking risks innovating and doing things like this where you can fail is less costly so you encourage more people to do that you think that's a sound argument do you agree with that is there any role that government has to play other than securing property rights and liberties in terms of innovation maybe funding like universities which are doing research or things like that do you think that is there any role for government to play but there is the point that innovation is unpredictable and there's no reason to think that people in Washington are better at it thinking historically our ancestors I think the ancestors of everyone here took tremendous chances moving to the new world or you know taking immense chances and they didn't have a safety net but on the other hand remember we all have a safety net called the family so it's a kind of a blindness I have to say again it's kind of a male blindness to suppose that the only safety net available is from the state thank you Dijuan Dijuan please yeah absolutely they have voluntary safety nets friends, family all kinds of other institutions that can provide safety nets but I think if you take a historical perspective think of the great innovators of the 19th century how much innovation happened with no government involvement no government funding of basic science Edison didn't get a dime from the government and of course no came to America was an entrepreneur in a sense they came to a place they didn't know the language they didn't know anything about the world and there was no safety net going back to Europe was not exactly a safety net but that's they achieved it so there's a certain mentality of being spoiled that today we have to have some basic standard of living in order to innovate I mean really tell that to the kids even today to pick up this stuff they've learned to program by themselves at age 12 or whatever and they go to Silicon Valley and yes they have their family safety net there but they start from scratch and how many founders start companies with the saving accounts with friends and family money so no I don't think and I think it's very dangerous too that once the government gets involved in things like basic science and basic research universities and so on that of course they pervert it and distort it you see that with stem cell research you see that with the debate about climate change you see that with COVID think of all the suspicion of science that currently exists around COVID because it became politicized because the government had any role in vaccine development and in what treatment is a good treatment what treatment is not as soon as the government gets involved in these kind of issues it creates more problems than it solves imagine if the government didn't fund university basic research you know people like Jeff Bezos who really care about science who love science I mean a lot of that wealth would be going I think into those kind of places but government crowds it out so saying all basic research today is funded by government therefore they have to is a lack of imagination I'd like to to connect another thing that you all mentioned before and I think Johan was also thinking about it because he mentioned the cleanies with anecdote twice I mean cleanies with one of those filmmakers I guess we all like in the room and not only his movies because of their artistic quality but also some of the messages that he tries to convey Didra when you were talking about culture you were talking about the artists and you were talking about the musicians and everything so what do you all think we should be doing on this front I mean Jaron being the iron run institute of course you agree with that iron run loved those kind of cultural objects and the way that they could convey a message but I would like to listen changing culture changing the cultural atmosphere is both possible as Didra pointed out culture is not something that's fixed Max Weber didn't just talk about the importance of the Protestantism to capitalism he also had to explain why China and India didn't develop and couldn't modernize so he wrote books about that as well Confucianism it means it's impossible to build modern society now when China and East Asia has grown rapidly every new modern Max Weber explained that's because they're confusions and it's within that belief system it's easy to create modernity no every old belief system that has come down through the ages is a mixed bag of so many confusing aspects so you can emphasize different aspects depending on economic incentives and depending on the cultural atmosphere surrounding you so it can be changed and as Jarron said it has to be changed because it's not that the engineers and the entrepreneurs are gonna do this forever if everybody pelt them with rubbish if we can take the sense of hope and for innovation and belief in novelty from Silicon Valley and transfer it to the rest of the world then we would have solved the problem of people going hungry and being poor because then we'd live in another kind of society so that's what we have to do we have to explain these things we have to do novel research and hand dealers in ideas and doing documentaries and articles and talk at campuses and try to encourage others to go into advertisements and the movie industry and other things to talk about don't take this civilization for granted because it depends on what people do and what people think I was speaking this afternoon yesterday at at a college and the indignation when I said that inequality in the world has gone down was palpable they were really annoyed of course it's obvious it's gone down because China and India have improved yeah and so I think this point about movies and literature and music is an important point I think cultures don't change in one direction it starts with intellectuals it has to have the feedback mechanism of the artists and you see that in European history would there be an enlightenment without the renaissance to what extent do the artists and the intellectuals feed off of each other and emphasize the ideas that ultimately led to liberalism and I think that what we need to say is more artists and musicians and all these things the challenges that they have to be good and I see a lot of libertarian or whatever artists and it's pathetic so first you have to be a good artist then you can infuse it with your ideology and again we have to be careful not to centrally plan that aspect of cultural change and our job is to educate as many people as possible with the right ideas and let those with talent and motivation rise up and take over Hollywood and the rest of it but they have to be good first Jaron, please remember that you mentioned the importance of failures to broader there are lots of failures even when it comes to I'm with you I agree I agree with that but I think that we face a huge challenge because let's say you are a new a young libertarian filmmaker and you want to make it into Hollywood so the chance is that they are not going to take you like they are not going to because you have such a you know such a homogeneous groups of the way they think and their world view and their narcissism to some extent and they believe to be morally better than everyone else and so it's very hard that they will open doors for you and at the same time if you are a libertarian or a classical liberal and you want to do a career in that you would say no I rather don't try it because the barrier for me is so high I will probably not make it and so you have a self-selection problem as well of people saying no they are never going to take me if I say the market is good and things like that maybe Clint Eastwood can get away with some things that are very much against the prevailing world view in Hollywood but most people, younger people wouldn't be able to do that I don't know how to fix that the same with universities although you Axel you Axel are a counter example of your own point because my moves are so good so Yaron, Axel, Diedra, Johan we are getting to a close we still have like four minutes if you'd like one last minute to leave one final thought we'll go in alphabetical order Yaron, your last minute today I just say yes it's going to be tough Axel to get into Hollywood and do it but it's something that somebody with the right kind of ambition and the right kind of talent can achieve and once somebody breaks through they set a model for others and people start believing that it's possible there's also the opportunity today of alternative media technologies creating opportunities for artists to get their ideas put there into the world in ways that didn't exist in the past so I'm more of an optimist when it comes to ability to change the culture it is a cultural battle it is an educational battle and yeah it's an honor for me to be on a panel with so many people working so hard to achieve exactly that kind of cultural change Axel, one last minute today yeah, I wanna thank you all for this fascinating conversation and I agree with Yaron's point, it's hard but it's not impossible we have to imagine that impossible it's possible nor to make it happen I think that's Max Weber at some point he said that or wrote that and yeah like let's have courage I think that's what we're lacking everywhere, we are only a few exceptions and I know Yaron, Joan and Didry we all do what we can but I think we all are not in the majority or anything we all know people who could contribute much more to the cause of freedom and the defense of civilization than they are currently doing and people who even agree with us it's not like they don't agree with us and so I would invite people watching this show especially young people to be courageous and to speak out and defend freedom love passionate, love freedom because once you are indifferent to freedom you end up losing it Didry, one last minute I would simply add one sentence to that which is that as you say Axel it's surprising that we don't get more support from the business world because it's their ox as we say in English that is being gored so that's all Johan, one final minute Yes, thank you so much it was great fun, let's do this again sometime when it comes to the ideas and the this revival for industrial policy on both the populist nationalist right and on the left I would just urge everybody to remember Bastiaz insight that there are things that are seen the little trick that they're always doing the Mariana Mazzucatos of the world is that they point to look this American state subsidized a biotech cluster and it was a success look we should do this more well yes but 49 American states subsidized biotech clusters to try to make it happen what happened to the other 48 and why aren't you looking into that so we also have to look at this little trick that they're doing the graveyard of past industrial policies that they're not very proud of today do you remember Quero, the European search engine that the French government and the German government started Jacques Chirac, the prime minister said that this would give us power over tomorrow and millions of dollars of taxpayer money no, you haven't heard of it because it's a complete failure look at that graveyard as well and not just at what they are trying to show you I want to thank the four of you Yaron Brooke, Axel Kaiser Deidre McCluskey, Johan Norbert you have been all delax speakers today it was a great panel and I think that the audience enjoyed it as well immensely so thank you to the four of you for joining us today