tv John Tamny When Politicians Panicked CSPAN September 20, 2021 12:11am-1:01am EDT
writer anthony bourdain. not a nation of immigrants in which historian roxxane dunbar ortiz rather a product of settler colonialism and slavery. dunbar ortiz will be our guest live on monthly call-in program in-depth sunday october 3rd. some of these authors have appeared on book tv and you can watch their programs any time at booktv.org. >> so our keynote speaker this afternoon for our event is john tamney. i'm sure many of you know his name. he's executive director of freedom work center for economic freedom but i think for our purposes more importantly i consider him maybe the best financial journalist in the united states today. he knows his economics very well
read which is actually surprisingly rare in his profession. you probably know his writing from forbes and real clear markets. he's written several books including one in 2016 which is interesting on the fed most recent book came out earlier this year. it's called when politicians panic and i think it's the most important chronical of what has happened politically over the last 16, 18 months. it's very important book. i had the opportunity to read it a couple of months ago and i recommend it to all of you and i recommend that you radical will you please to keep up on everything that he's writing and important voice in financial journalism today. john tamney. [applause] >> thank you very much, jeff. let me first say what a treat it
is to be here today. i'd like to point out a few people, joe woodford is in the audience. joe turned me onto hamlet and it was transformative and keeps doing to the people around the country and foundation. thank you very much, thank you to bill brennan for putting on this event for sponsoring it, what an excellent event thanks to all of you for being here and supporting such an important organization. if you came to my office or you came by where i live, you would see books everywhere and what's important about this is they're not there for sure. if you pick them up and you looked in the opening pages, all the blank pages are full of tinny notes and very obviously actually had to add blank pages to the front of the book to add all that i wanted to take down
and so to read a book by me is to see numerous direct references, quotes, but to be more broadly is to see that he's mad a major influence on me and so what a treat to get to speak at an institute event and what a treat to get to know so many of you in attendance who were involved with such an essential organization and it's a big deal for me to get to follow, ryan, mcmacon and jeff, so open to my ideas even when they disagreed with me which further speaks very well. thank you very much for this opportunity. i'm here, of course, to discuss my new book when politicians panicked. the new coronavirus expert opinion and tragic lapse of
reason. i'm very interested in discussing this. talk to other people not just necessarily about my book but to have this discussion. it's essential that we win this argument. it's essential that we influence the narrative because if we don't, if we stay quiet, history books will indicate that a virus caused a global economic contraction. now, the virus had been spreading for months and people had been responding for months. what happened was politicians panicked and in panicking they substituted themselves narrow, very limited knowledge for the knowledge of the marketplace as people and they did so in disastrous fashion which is what happens every time, politicians start biting their nails and put themselves in front of the gate marketplace that is humanity.
so we must once again win this argument. we must discus it, we must talk to people because we don't want history to tell something that's false. and what would be false is that the virus was the source of so much global economic carnage, that the virus was the source of easily the biggest human rights tragedy of the 21st century. and so in talking about this, i think it's important to begin with some of the excuses, some of the justifications used in march of 2020 to explain why the lockdowns were necessary. easily the worst arguments made for the lockdowns were made in march of 2020. many of you remember them, many of you remember the argument made that we have to takeaway your freedom. we have to takeaway your right to work. we have to take away the right
to run your business because if we don't, you the people will act irresponsible that you will get sick and overwhelm hospitals that are not ready for you. have you ever heard of a more absurd line of reasoning? if politicians will not tell you what to do, you will engage in behaviors that will cause you to be hospitalized. that you have no incentive as individuals to protect yourselves that you need to be let around. quite the insult. we know people in our world, justified at first. what brings us to what has to be an even more dense argument that they've made, well, you know, imperial college in england predicted deaths of 2.3 million. they had to take away our freedom, don't you get it?
that has to be more full hearty argument. the notion that without politicians hand holding, we would go out and engage -- lead us to die. the reality is that the deaths had piled up and we would have figured out ways to avoid the virus or avoid getting sick that politicians would never come up with. what if we said 30 million are going to die. what that would signal that any political force would have made no sense at all. the more threatening something is the more the political force. we are going to engage in behavior that politicians could never dream of to protect ourselves. we love our lives so much but politicians said back in 2020 that we didn't, that they needed to save us from it. no politicians that get us into worst but they actually have the
arrogance to say, no, they needed to save us from behavior that would cause death. and so the excuses defy basic sense but it became dumber and dumber because, see, the lockdowns happened and then they had to justify the carnage so they point to the chinese. well, the chinese covered up the virus, they covered up the spreading virus. if they had just let us know, we could have acted sooner and contained it. oh, my gosh, they must think voters are intensely stupid. wait, the chinese covered it up? how could you possibly cover something up? think of economic terms, most people rely on emotions and make decisions, most follow market signals as they should.
what you cannot deny, china is the second largest market value in the world and those would be american companies. starbucks has 4100 stores in china on the way to tens of thousands, 3100 mcdonalds in china. second largest box office for movie theater and nike and the list goes on and on. the virus had been indiscriminate killer to have chinese people, indiscriminate cause of sickness, we would have known this months before march of 2020 and we would have because u.s. share prices would have been in step endous decline and mother of crashes to reflect the greatest market loss in the world and not the united states.
companies i describe for the most part did. bret baier interviewed founder of fedex, lockdowns were beginning. fred smith had a very important perspective on this because wuhan is a very major economic city in china and as a consequence fedex has a very big presence there. 907 employees and fred said, we've tested all the employees at this juncture, two were false positives and what's important that all of our employees are in good health. this always explains why elon musk was a skeptic, he had a big operation in china. he knew from the employees that the virus was spreading but it wasn't indiscriminate killer. they couldn't lie about these things. you have to report material
information like this and so we knew from the markets that the virus was many things, it was real and foolish to deny its reality but when you're from china, none of them terribly lethal because if it had been, we would have known months before. looking at the smartphones that fit in our pocket, china is one of the most smart-phone dense countries in the world. we just saw a few weeks ago that even out of an economically primitive country like cuba that footage of the protest traveling via the internet made it around the world. does anyone seriously think that the chinese government could have hidden in a smartphone dense country like that massive evidence of people dying and getting sick? good luck, not to mention that we have intelligent services around the world. do you think that spreading somehow would not have been noticed? again, the cover-up -- the blame of china as the cover-up is a
loser excuse that ignores the fact that china was our surest evidence that the virus was real but, again, it wasn't a major killer and it certainly wasn't a major cause of sickness so we knew long before the lockdowns that there was no justification for them. furthermore if it had been lethal in china, the more lethal something is, more threatening and less justification for taking away freedom. and the basis for that is economic growth is easily the biggest enemy the death and disease have ever known whereas jeff alluded to, poverty is the biggest killer mankind has ever known and just to give you an idea of the health meaning of this, it's worthwhile to travel back in time to the 19th century in the united states. in 19th century if you bobbing your femur, you had one in three
odds of dying but if you lived, your only option was amputation and let's be clear, that pain killers back then weren't as advanced as they are today, let's just leave it at that. if you broke your hip in the 20th century, you were going to die. when you were born in the 20th century you had a good of a chance as living. if you got cancer, forget about it, you were going to die but most people never got to cancer, that would have represented healthcare progress and they didn't because tuberculosis and pneumonia, pneumonia was captain of man's death killed you off much sooner than cancer could get to you. if you traveled for the early part of the 20th century, 1910, cancer was still a distant among american killers and it was because once again tuberculosis, pneumonia, yellow fever was the terror of western civilization,
they're all getting us first. world war i was first history of mankind that most people died from gunshots than disease. what change was economic growth? john hopkins made a fortune from the baltimore and ohio railroad and directed 7 million of it to what became johnson hopkins university, the largest donation ever of its kind. johnson hopkins would start the first real medical school, see before medical school was night school, trade school concept that wasn't about saving lives. there's no way to save lives. it was really about protecting people, easing them into their deaths. well, johnson hopkins would be the first place where they would how do we cure what kills us.
450 of it was directed toward healthcare studies matching doctors and scientists would capital so that they could find cures to that which use today readily kill us and all of a sudden people who used to die once were living. people were suddenly able to die once, die twice or three times. what used to kill them was no longer killing them because they had access to advances born of economic growth even in 1950 the biggest line item on hospital budgets was bed linens and it was because they didn't have answers whereas more and more what can easily kill us, we can come up for answers for. this is important in consideration of where the debate went. let me stress in writing when
politicians panicked. i made sure to read "the new york times" every single day and i did because i wanted to check against my passion from day one against the lockdowns. i wanted the other point of view to moderate mine and what you find is that when you read deeply into the new york times they report and so you read deep in alarmist headlines and the times kept reporting something that was interesting consideration of what david brooks, the columnist said, the spread of the virus is a stain of the united states and national embarrassment and all these other things. the newspaper kept reporting routinely that those who died with the virus over 40% of them the deaths were associated with very old, very sick people. that's not to minimize very old, very sick people but it's a way of saying if anything the virus showed the immense progress of health care in the united
states, people are dying of old age. does everyone realize what a concept that is. people never lived into old age but now we do and it's because economic growth has been matched with doctors and signtists on the way to curing things that used to kill us and so when we needed economic growth most because politicians said the virus is a big threat to our health and ability to live, they quite literally chose economic contraction, historians would marvel at stupidity which brings us to anthony fauci. [laughter] >> not fair to laugh. it was not meant to be a laugh one. it was not. from the works of everyone in the room, most of you remember the aids scare and it was a real scare. anthony fauci first came to prominence back in 1980's and famously as i point out in the
book put a paper in 1983 saying that aids was a disease that could be passed around within households and people being around each other. turns out he was wrong, that he was wrong does not indict him. science is all about doubt and learning from presumptions that turn out to be true, what indicts anthony fauci is he didn't recognize the limits of knowledge, that knowledge rarely ages well. to be fair, it wasn't fauci. england national health service, they put up signs in 1980's saying that one and five brits were going to get aids for which there was no cure. many of you remember the television book dynasty and you remember the episode when rock hudson made out with linda evans. he died soon after it and there was a great scare among people that linda evans had gotten aids.
how little we knew which is the point. it's why free people aren't just essential because freedom is a virtue. it's not just essential because they produce the economic growth that creates cures for that which used to kill us. free people arguably most important when a virus is spreading because they produce crucial information. as jeff said earlier, you wanted 330 million kind of competing with different ideas. .. .. we know from new york of may, 2020, that maybe it doesn't work and two thirds of those hospitalized in new york sheltered in place, but you also
need people like my only occasionally exasperating wife who in her defense she delivered a child march 1, 2020, and to suddenly be walking down the street and someone would be walking past and she did jump off the sidewalk to my rage was enlist for a brief time, but you need people like that taking big precautions for when i would return home she would make me wash my hands to her because she was nervous and you need people like that-- you need people taking precautions to find out what you get any also need people like me. for me, the highlight of my day during the lockdowns was going to the grocery store. [laughter] i loved being around people so much that i would purposely forget things at the grocery store so i could go back. [laughter] you need people like me, people who are skeptical of what's happening.
you need people like my science denying parents in southern california, 78 and 80 who had grown up with polio and a lot of things that they thought were truly scary and they said we are not going to stop living our lives because of expert opinion. we will continue. they figured they were reasonably healthy and they were going to continue living as they did to the extent they could and so did their friends. you need people like that. most of all, you need young people. you need those young people hitting every bar and every party in making average-- making out with everyone they can. they are the most important precisely because they reject expert opinion. [laughter] that's not because experts are always wrong, but you need a control group. you need a group that says we are going to do the exact offset of what the experts say because from then you find out what really causes the virus to spread.
what is the behavior most associated with getting sick with a dying, yet when we needed the information the most, politicians locked us down and in doing so blinded us. same with businesses. it's not unreasonable to speculate that a company like disney with very good access to capital markets might have locked down its parks anyway. just because brand risk associated with becoming a super spreader, they may have closed and things it down appeared again, they had the access to capital to do something like that where small businesses didn't necessarily have that kind of ability to basically pay for a shutdown. good. you wanted businesses trying all sorts of different things and some restaurants to say we will charge full price at 6:30 p.m., half price at 4:00 p.m., half price at 10:00 p.m. and you wanted others to say we wouldn't have it limits because people will respond to a crowd by may
be avoiding a crowd. you wanted businesses that are miracles for succeeding to come up with ways to meet the needs of a customer base that had clearly changed, but instead we had the very people that gave us the dmv and the post office deciding what businesses could do. [laughter] making it even more encumbrance about. think about this, politicians and experts said that they are humans who had driven all economic and personal and cultural progress were suddenly a menace to one another, so they wanted to separate us from one another. their solution was we will pick and choose the businesses you can go into. we will basically shoehorn the businesses rather than allow come one and come all. so, it didn't make sense based on the argument we should be separated from one another, but also when you locked down
businesses, when you limit their ability to innovate you blind them and most of all you blind the most important business, your largest one to reopen. again, history will marvel at the abject stupidity of the political class and expert class that this is what you get when you substitute narrow knowledge for that of the marketplace, which brings us back to dr. fauci. as all political types do and that's what he is, he's a baseball fan and he loves the nationals and so imagine fauci going to a national game next year full crowd and let's assume something many wouldn't agree that fauci was the smartest individual in the stadium ticket that may well be true, but let's also agree that fauci's knowledge would be a microscopic fraction of the combined knowledge of the stadium. what i just described for you is
the free marketplace. markets work and they work brilliantly precisely as they combined to decentralize knowledge. remember it's not that the soviet union didn't have experts. they had brilliant people. it's not that north korea people don't have experts now, but whenever you substitute the knowledge of the few for the marketplace you get crisis and so this is what we get. politicians and experts said unless we take away your freedom , unless we lock you down , there is going to be a crisis. what they did not see given their scarily limited knowledge and what they are describing is the prices they were about to create for us because any time you political knowledge narrow for the marketplace, crisis is inevitable results. you think about what this meant, not just for the u.s., but think about the rest of the world. never again allow yourself to be
told by someone on the left that we care more about poor people. this had to be the biggest injustice for world tour that we have ever seen and we-- at least in modern times. the u.s. took a break from simple economic reality to shut things down and run from the virus as though it's going to fall asleep. the rest of the world according to the "new york times" 285 million people around the world were rushing towards a starvation as the rich people in the developed world decided they would just take a break from work for a time. in countries like el salvador they started putting up white flags on their shacks and huts. that's a signal there's a starvation going on here. that's what we did when we stopped working in the united states and put tens of millions out of work, suddenly missions around the world dry up and
people around the world starve, not to mention the hundreds of millions around the world who rush back to poverty because when americans stop producing and they stop working, jobs around the world start to vanish that brings us to the job loss in the united states. people know the numbers, tens of millions of jobs lost when politicians said some of you are no longer essential, some of you businesses, how you spend your lives building it's no longer essential and not convenience. imagine that. i mean, i'm a writer so luckily my work was not taken from me. i can't imagine what i would do without my work. but, i got to continue doing it and i think the people around the u.s. for whom work is the anti- mating feature in their life, what gives them dignity and pride and suddenly they are told you can't do that anymore. you are a lethal menace if you continue to have a job so we
will give you $1200 for your trouble. have you ever heard of something more insulting than that? have you ever heard of something more insulting by what they told businessmen, don't worry about that, we just have to shut you down for a time as about market share, which is so hard one can so easily be regained, we will just give you a check for your trouble. that brings us to the basic truth that this can never happen again. how we have to make sure it never happens again is an argument that many of you probably won't agree with. i think it's very dangerous that we make statistical arguments against the lockdowns, even though the statistics may supports our skepticism. once we make statistical arguments about well, the cdc said 90% the associated with-- once you do that, what you are
saying-- what you imply is there's a way-- rate of death that allows politicians to take away our freedoms. no, no, no, they should never take away our freedom and first of all we should never allow them to. never ever again give up your freedom so cheaply as we did this time. and in making statistical arguments we are setting the stage for future lockdowns because one thing we know is that pathogens are part of life and because they are there will be more viruses and if we take-- make statistical arguments we are setting it up by where experts say this time it's different, this virus is going to hit young people. well, again the more threatening a virus more essential freedom-- never give your freedom up ever again. see what it did. let's win this argument now so we never have to again. thank you very much. [applause].
>> we have agreed to have questions and answers. please raise your hand and wait for microphone so we can get the audio and we ask for short questions of john tamny. anyone have a question? >> you are all convinced, aren't you? no need. >> i agree pathogens-- pathogens will always be around, but what about the threat of biowarfare, what is your take away on a subject with the current crisis? >> good question to a clear i don't presume to know much about the biowarfare angle, but it always-- my dad had always said
to me that if it's so easy to spread something that could kill off people, wouldn't they have already done it and so i kind of feel like there's all sorts of scary things out there. there's always scary scenarios that we can imagine, but i think it's easier said than done and my concern always is there's always some really terrifying scenario that politicians use to take away our freedom. one of my favorite ones was, well, we have to shut down flights because the virus is a spreading. for once, can it be that something might be out there that's potentially threatening us that does not aggrandize government? why does government always get to grow in response to alleged threats to us that we are too stupid to take precautions on our own here there are all sorts of potential scares out there, but i think is-- as humans we
are pretty wise and i'd rather leave it up to that. >> i guess this is a question table. the fifth amendment prohibits the taking of private property or test for public without the payment-- without due process and without just compensation. that seems to have been the first casualty of coronavirus. what do you recommend in terms of protecting those rights, given that we walk away from them at the slightest threat of a crisis or of some public harm? >> it's a great question, and i actually-- jeff and i were talking about this, chapter 17 "when politicians panicked" and experiment all chapter when i talk about constitutional implications. i feel as you do.
there is a taking. i talk to business owners who basically said i woke up one day in my business was no longer mine to run. yet, i have had a lawyer say it's not a taking thing and then i have had other lawyers libertarian types assay states have police power and everything i don't know the answer to this, but i feel like there was a property-- all sorts of property rights violations that work. furthermore, i would add and yes, what i'm going to add is easier said than done, at some point we just have to resist. i take you out to carlsbad, california. early january, and the share, finally the business owners out there just put up signs, we are in peaceful protest and basically they realized either we can go out of business or we can start serving our customers again cure they basically gave a big middle finger to the political class and i just think
we have to take energy from this and recognize they can't arrest us all. we need to support the businesses that want to stay open. we need to stand guard around them whatever it takes, we need to embarrass clinical types who would take away the rights for someone to run a business so i bring you also to california. look at last july 4, it was a beautiful thing july 4, 2020. no fireworks shows so, the people of the state basically put on their own big fireworks show and we could see it on the internet to the left said net neutrality would basically vanish. americans are the wrong people to take to lockdown. we are truly the wrong people. never forget who we are. we dissent from the crazies, the people who love liberty so much they crossed oceans and borders to get a taste of this and so we are the wrong people to do this to, but we have to remind
politicians that we are the wrong people to do this to. [applause]. >> i think you made such an excellent point about not making statistical arguments, but how do you talk to individuals who value to post security over freedom, you know freedom is not one of their objectives. >> it's a great question all of you speaking to a group that may be at some time had someone say put your mass gone or how selfish that you aren't wearing a mask. as jeff said earlier we are kind of the minority, aren't we? my reaction has always been wait a second i'm not being the selfish one. if you are really fearful of me being out in the world spreading the virus, then go home. don't force your fears on me. the selfish people are the ones
who basically wanted to take away the freedom of others so they could feel secure. so, we need to feel secure in making that basic argument here i don't think anyone here is saying that iressa didn't exist. i don't think anyone-- i would disagree heartily with anyone here who said people shouldn't be allowed to lockdown. what we are against is forced where everyone had to go with a one-size-fits-all solution. that would be my one disagreement with the jeff. agreed with you on states rights, everything. i love your optimism about more states rights that there were different responses, but i have a slight tweak to that. what if donald trump had remained a strep breasts impossible to get along with donald trump and this is important from a states rights perspective. what if trump had reacted-- had stuck to his guns away to second
the virus is no big deal, but oh, by the way, those estates that think it's a big deal they have the right to lockdown, but guess what, anthony governor so foolish as to take away businesses and jobs with virus mitigation strategy will have me in his or her state everyday of the month right up to election day. i'm going to embarrass you for doing something so abjectly. imagine if trump acts like trump and still does and he still presidents' day, but what's more important is this would have kept him from doing what was so damaging, which was signing a $2.9 trillion care is act. i reject the notion that there were states rights you see, if there is no federal response and trump said what does the federal government have to do with us, the only answer to this is not to lockdown and safer-- states to lockdown conveys consequences for doing so.
once you do that california's lockdowns end in march, 2020. florida realistically never gets to lockdown because remember they didn't do this until april 1. texas was march 31. the federal response subsidized immense cruelty from governors and mayors, so yes, there were different state reactions, but what we didn't see or city and state reactions if the federal government stays out of the way. >> what do you do about corporations and educational institutions that are insisting on vaccination as a condition of employment? >> it's a great question.
a long time supporter paul mcadams ran a very successful banking company. he's always told me when you get a call from the federal government, when you get a call from a regulator, you are really in a tough spot because if you disagree you will get a call the following day saying we don't like the looks of your balance sheet we are going to do something. and then there's the argument that businesses feel forced to force vaccinations because they are afraid of the federal response. no doubt that is true, but i would much prefer if corporations were the ones mandating or non- mandating vaccinations. if my employer says that's a condition of your employment, find. and they are making an economic decision if. i may disagree that i have the right-- the problem is when politicians force a
one-size-fits-all. so, while i would like to think corporations wouldn't force this, i think that's a better place for there to be discussions about vaccines. let a thousand flowers bloom and let different corporations try different things. schools, kind of the same idea. if a private school, that's the condition of going there i suppose that would certainly be a better answer than national politicians. >> i think we have time for one more. >> would you say that you are optimistic about the near future or more pessimistic. i mean, is there a silver lining to the senior view or should we brace ourselves for just more of the same? >> i'm very optimistic. first of all, i'm off domestic based on what jeff said. while i think they're less states rights at work then
perhaps he does, i love his point that america saw different reactions in cities and states across the country so maybe you can see that. so, that's a source of optimism. i'm also optimistic because i saw americans start to revolt. that makes me optimistic for sure. after which, i can't not be optimistic about the united states. never ever bet against the united states because anything that you think is bad today-- it was much worse in the past. show me the time in life when you would like to return to the 1970s when it was illegal to own a phone and you had to run it from the government's preferred novelty, when 60s, vietnam war, was that a break time, the 30s, 40s, the only constant in american life's
progress so i can't not to be optimistic and even more so when you consider capitalism is getting quicker and quicker and outrunning politicians in ways that they can't begin to imagine so i refuse to not think that to be jealous of the young people in the room, what i would give to be your age because what you will enjoy, the living standards you will witness will make some of us older people in the audience as if we are around to see it be staggered by its grandeur. never, never bet against the united states. we are full of the most remarkable people on earth and that didn't change with these lockdowns. [applause]. >> john, what you make of the incredible censorship we see from facebook, youtube and players of the like especially in medical narratives that are not part of the mainstream
propaganda cracks. >> my reaction is i refuse to be a victim. our site has always been against affirmative action and so facebook wants to limit what is on its side, that's its property and if twitter wants to do the same thing, as we have always felt, i believe, is that if they discriminate against you, they are creating an opportunity. they are creating a market opportunity. what does jeff pay sales always at your margin is my opportunity? if you discriminate against a certain size of the marketplace you are creating an opportunity for someone to fulfill that unmet need. what did rupert murdoch do? he didn't act like a victim, he started fox. no whining here peter no complaining about what facebook does not allow. personally i i think facebook was essential and without it and twitter think of how limited our access to information would have been. do we get all we want ccks i don't know but we have more
access to and more broadly that gives us the reason to start something new. [applause]. >> thanks a million to john tamny and we appreciate you all coming out and taking time to spend your saturday with us. good to see a lot of you. thanks a million for coming. goodbye, now. [applause]. >> weekends bring you the best of american history and nonfiction books. condo tv afterwards, former south carolina governor and congressman mark sanford reflects on his political career and discusses the future of the republican party in his book "two roads diverged" and he's interviewed by former pennsylvania congressman charlie
dent and historian roxanne dunbar in her book not a nation of immigrants argues america is not a nation founded by and for immigrants, but rather a product of secular colonialism and slavery. watch book tv every weekend and find the fall schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> the steamboat institute of colorado instill-- recently hosted senior contributor at the federalist to discuss china's plans to become the world's number-one superpower and how other countries can stop it. >> mostly the frustration, and frustrated because for four decades president nixon invaded china. for four decades the u.s. foreign policies to china was largely a failure. largely a failure because it was
based on illusion, this need to understand what the communist party really is. okay? i will explain that. the misunderstanding is a man, as long as we economically engage with the communist party based on this hamburger theory, basically means you go to mcdonald's and people will change and the regime will change so for the longest of times it's not just the united states, for almost the all western democracy with this allusion that as long as we engage with the communist party economically, eventually they will become more like us and they will be more open. they will embrace the democracy. well, this-- by now, we realize that it's an illusion. not all of us realize and that's part of my frustration. not all of our politicians recognize that.
some of them continue advocating for the wrong policy. i'm not saying economic engagement was a bad idea because myself i was the beneficiary of the economic engagement. i grew up with food rations and i remember everything was rationed and limited supply. my parents used to have to get up at three or 4:00 a.m. to stand in long lines outside the grocery store to get cooking oil or sugar so i remember the first time i went to the mcdonald's thanks to the opening economic engagement, hamburger theory. i went to the mcdonald's in opening beijing and i remember the only thing i got was a apple pie. took me 20 minutes ticked apple pie was only this big and the reason it took me 20 minutes is because i savored every bite was i never had something so sweet and tasty. i mean, now i stay away from them because i want to stay fit, but back then i didn't care.
to me, it was not freedom of liberty, it was apple pie inspired me too someday go to the places where you can eat as much sugar as she wants. so, i may beneficiary of that economic engagement so economic engagement itself is not wrong. it's not a wrong policy appeared what we did wrong and when i say we, i mean, american government and business, what we did wrong was we assumed that unconditioned economic engagement would somehow change behaviors. we forgot who we are really dealing with, the two character of the communist party. >> to watch the rest of this go to speak-- c-span2.org. here's a look at some books being published this week.
in peril, the "washington post" bob woodward and robert costa report on the transition between the trump and biden administration's. former fda commissioner and physician scott godley offers lessons we can learn from the covid-19 pandemic in "uncontrolled spread". in van about, cnn anderson cooper and historian catherine howell provide history of mr. cooper's mother's family that annabelle's, once one of the wealthiest families in the country. also published this week, jessica norvell explores the possibility of eliminating unconscious biases in the end of the bias. in the contrarian, bloomberg businessweek tech reporter max chapman looks at the life of silicon valley investor in entre nous or peter teal and university of virginia history professor caroline jenny recounts robert e lee's surrender to the union army in ends of war. find these titles this coming week wherever books