>> TAXING THE WEALTHY, FIXING THE LABOR SHORTAGE, AND WHO SHOULD MAKE-- AND MAKE MONEY-- FROM THE COVID VACCINES?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

I'M JOINED BY THIS WEEK'S PANELISTS, CHAD SPARBER FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM CAZENOVIA COLLEGE, AND RICK FENNER FROM UTICA COLLEGE.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THE SEEMINGLY NEVER-ENDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEGOTIATIONS WERE OVER, IT TURNS OUT THEY REALLY ARE NEVER ENDING.

WHILE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AMONG DEMOCRATS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE BILL, THERE'S ALSO A BIG FIGHT OVER HOW TO PAY FOR IT.

IT LOOKED LIKE A "WEALTH TAX" WOULD BE IMPOSED ON BILLIONAIRES, BUT NOW THAT'S OUT.

A CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX IS IN, AND SO IS AN EXTRA 5% TAX ON INCOMES MORE THAN $10 MILION DOLLARS.

SO LET'S TALK TAX POLICY...IS THE WEALTH TAX A GOOD IDEA AND SHOULD IT BE BACK IN?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THIS ALL SHOWS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN COMPLETE DISARRAY AND THEY'RE REALLY LOSING A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CHANGE ON AN ISSUE THAT RESONATES WITH VOTERS.

I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M SOMEWHAT SYMPATHETIC TO THE BILLIONAIRE TAX.

WE'VE SEEN UNPRECEDENTED, AT LEAST IN THE LAST 50, 60 YEARS, WEALTH AND INCOME INEQUALITY AND THERE SEEMS TO BE NO LIMIT ON HOW MUCH MONEY PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN MAKE AND HOW LITTLE TAXES THEY THINK THEY SHOULD PAY.

BUT YOU THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OBSTACLES TO WEALTH TAX THAT MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL, AT LEAST IN THE SHORT RUN.

I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT WE CAN MAKE VERY EASILY TO THE EXISTING TAX CODE THAT WOULD BOTH RAISE REVENUE AND MAKE IT MORE FAIR.

YOU KNOW, FIRST BARACK OBAMA, DONALD TRUMP AND JIB ALL JOE BIDEN SUGGESTED CARRY INTEREST, THE WAY HEDGE FUND MANAGERS ARE ABLE TO LITERALLY EARN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR, AND INSTEAD OF PAYING THE NORMAL TAX RATE MOST OF US PAY BY MAGIC WAVE OF THE WAND BY CONGRESS, THEY REDEFINE THEIR INCOME AS CARRIED INTEREST AND PAY ONLY HALF THE INTEREST RATE.

THE STEP UP PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS PEOPLE PART OF THE INHERITANCE TAX THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO REALLY HAVE CAPITAL GAINS THAT ARE NEVER TAXED.

THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARD MAKING MUCH MORE FAIRER TAX.

>> SO YOU CLEARLY THINK THE TAX CODE AS IS IS NOT WORKING WELL.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WEALTH TAX?

IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAX CARRIED INTEREST ON THOSE HEDGE FUND MANAGERS, WHY NOT ON A BILLIONAIRE LIKE ELON MUSK WHOSE INCOME IS OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

>> IT'S NOT REALLY A WEALTH TAX.

PART OF IT IS TAXING PART OF THE UNREALIZED GAINS THAT OCCUR OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.

AND THAT'S NOT WEALTH.

SO IF YOU TAKE-- >> WHAT IS IT?

>> THAT'S INCOME.

EVERY ECONOMIST WILL DEFINE THIS AS INCOME.

WEALTH IS A STOCK VARIABLE, INCOME IS A FLOW VARIABLE.

IF YOU MEASURE MY WEALTH ON JANUARY 1 AND THEN AGAIN ON DECEMBER 31 AND I HAVE TO PAY A TAX ON PART OF THAT GAIN, THAT GAIN IS NOT WEALTH.

THAT CANE GAIN IS INCOME.

IT OCCURRED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

WE ALREADY DO THAT.

THOSE OF US THAT OWN MUTUAL FUNDS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO PAY TAX ON SOME OF THE UNREALIZED GAINS FROM MY MUTUAL FUNDS.

SO WHY NOT A BILLIONAIRE?

>> THERE IS 614 BILLIONAIRES IN THE UNITED STATES.

11 OF WHOM LIVE IN ARIZONA SO KUDOS TO THE SENATOR FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO TAX SO MANY OF HER CONSTITUENTS.

SO A WEALTH TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN TERMS OF YOUR IMPRACTICAL KIND OF ISSUES, RIGHT?

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU HAVE TO DIRECT TAXES PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE STATE.

GIVEN THAT BILLIONAIRES ARE CONCENTRATED IN PARTICULAR STATES THIS PROBABLY WOULDN'T FLY, WHICH IS WHY I THINK SECRETARY JANELL IT YELLIN' SAYS THIS ISN'T A WEALTH TAX BUT TAX ON UNREALIZED GAINS.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO FLY IN THE SUPREME COURT SETTING OR IN THE COURTS.

I THINK THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE REASONS THIS ISN'T HAPPENING IS BECAUSE-- YEAH, IT'S A TAX ON THE WEALTHY.

>> I HAVE TO PAY-- I PAY TAX ON UNREALIZED GAINS AND I PAY TAX ON WEALTH THROUGH MY PROPERTY TAX.

CORRECT?

>> STATE-- THAT'S NOT FEDERAL.

>> OKAY.

>> I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,-- LET'S TAKE AN EXAMPLE.

THE FRB PROBLEM IS HERE.

I HAVE $10 BILLION WORTH OF NET WORTH.

NEXT YEAR IT BECOMES 11 BILLION.

IF I DON'T SELL THE ASSETS AND I KEEP HAVING THEM, RIGHT?

WHAT I CAN DO IS ACTUALLY BORROW MONEY AGAINST THAT $11 BILLION AND JUST SPEND ON CREDIT SO YOU ARE, IN FACT, USING THAT AS AN INCOME LIKE IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT IN ECONOMIC TERMS, IT IS THE WAY, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE GENERATING INCOME.

SO THERE IS A CASE TO BE MADE.

BUT I AGREE WITH CHAD.

IT WOULD GET INTO HUGE LEGAL HURDLES BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SEEN AS A DIRECT TAX WHICH HAS BEEN PROPORTIONALLY.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE VERY CAREFUL TO CALL IT AN INCOME TAX.

BUT IF IT IS TARGETED IN A CERTAIN WAY, BUT I DO THINK THERE IS A LOOPHOLE WHERE PEOPLE CAN KEEP BORROWING AND NOT PAYING ANY INCOME.

>> SO IT MAY NOT PASS CONSTITUTIONAL PLUFTER IS WHAT YOU ARE-- MUSTER BUT CERTAINLY SOMETHING SEEMS NOT RIGHT IF YOU CAN BE A BILLIONAIRE AND PLAY THE CODE THE WAY YOU JUST DID, BORROW MONEY AGAINST IT AND NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY INCOME TAX.

>> WHAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED IS WHO IS GOING TO MANAGE THIS.

WHO IS GOING TO LOOK INTO THIS AND THAT'S THE I.R.S.

AND THEY HAVE FLOATED IDEAS WITH ANY TRANSACTION OF $600 IS GOING TO BE ACCESSED BY THE I.R.S.

AND YOU REALLY ARE GETTING INTO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AT THAT POINT WHERE THEY'RE ON FISHING EXPEDITIONS TO LOOK AT PEOPLE.

I AGREE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

THE CODE-- THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OVERHAUL WITH THE TAX CODE, BUT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ON HOW IT'S DONE.

>> OKAY.

WHAT ABOUT SINCE THE WEALTH TAX AT THE MOMENT APPARENTLY IS OUT ANYWAY, BUT THE GLOBAL CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX IS IN.

SO WHAT'S THE BRIEF PRIMMER ON THAT?

>> 200 FIRMS.

THAT'S THE ESTIMATE IS THAT THAT'S A TAX THAT'S GOING TO TARGET 200 FIRMS SO WHETHER YOU THINK THAT NARROWNESS IS A GOOD THING OR BAD THING IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE, I SUPPOSE.

BUT IT'S REALLY THE ISSUE OF AMAZON, RIGHT?

AMAZON DOESN'T PAY TAXES.

WELL AMAZON DOES PAY TAXES BUT PEOPLE ARE UPSET HOW MUCH TAX AVOIDANCE THEY ENGAGE IN.

IT'S USEFUL TO UNDERSTAND HOW AMAZON AVOIDS PAYING TAX.

THEY MAKE PROFITS AND TURN A LOT OF THOSE PROFITS INTO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS, PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT, MORE CAPITAL.

SO IT'S REAL INVESTMENT THAT'S GOOD FOR GENERATING INCREASED INCOME FOR THE ECONOMY OVERALL.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAX THESE FIRMS IN THAT WAY, YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT IT IS GOING TO DISCOURAGE SOME OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ACTIVITY.

>> BUT THE REPORTING PROFITS TO ONE GROUP AND THEN WHEN THEY TURN AROUND TO THE I.R.S., SO THEY BRAG ON HOW MUCH THEY MAKE IN PROFITS.

BUT THEN THEY TURN AROUND TO THE I.R.S.

AND IT'S LIKE, WE'RE RUNNING A RUMMAGE SALE HERE.

WE ARE NOT REALLY MAKING ANY PROFITS.

SO WE NEED SOME CONSISTENCY THERE.

ARE THEY MAKING PROFITS?

IF WE HAVE A CORPORATE INCOME TAX, BASICALLY IS AIMED AT TAXING PROFITS AND AMAZON ANNOUNCES TO THE WORLD, LOOK HOW GREAT WE ARE.

WE ARE EARNING ALL THESE PROFITS.

PLEASE INVEST IN US AND THEN THEY TURN AROUND AND PLEAD POVERTY TO THE I.R.S., THERE IS A PROBLEM.

>> AND CORPORATIONS AS WE'VE SEEN, ARE SQUIRRELING AWAY MONEY IN TAX HAVENS.

THAT'S WHY 136 COUNTRIES, IN FACT, A VERY BROAD BASED COALITION OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE COME TOGETHER SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS COMPETITIVENESS OF THE RACE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM, RIGHT?

YOU HAVE THE LOWEST CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX TO HAVE ALL TRANSACTION CORPORATIONS PUT THEIR MONEY THERE.

THAT 15% GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX IF WE CAN PASS THAT LEGISLATION IN THE U.S. WOULD BRING IN A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF MONEY.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE MORAL OUTRAGE TO SAY THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING GOOD.

>> AND THE FACT THAT IT IS 200 COMPANIES, I MEAN IS THAT EVEN RELEVANT?

OKAY.

IT'S TARGETED BUT IF THEY'RE NOT PAYING, THEY'RE NOT PAYING.

>> WE NEED TO MOVE TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

WHAT'S BEING CALLED THE "GREAT RESIGNATION" IS UNDERWAY.

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE QUIT THEIR JOBS.

AMERICA HAS 10 MILLION JOB OPENINGS, BUT ONLY 8 MILLION PEOPLE ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WORK.

ANOTHER 7 MILLION ARE APPARENTLY SITTING IT OUT.

WE ALSO HAVE AN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IN CRISIS.

SHOULD WE INCREASE LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO GET WORKERS TO FILL THOSE JOBS?

>> YEAH, SO ABOUT 14 MONTHS AGO WE WROTE AN OP-ED PIECE FOR THE L.A. TIMES SAYING IF YOU WANT TO HELP THE AMERICAN WORKERS, YOU HAVE TO BE MORE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION.

THAT WAS A DIFFERENT POLICY REGIME, RIGHT?

TRUMP WAS STILL PRESIDENT.

THIS WAS BEFORE VACCINES.

BUT THE LOGIC OF THE WHOLE PROCESS REMAINS THE SAME.

SO FIRST POINT, I AM GRANTS AND NATIVES TEND TO DO VERY DIFFERENT KINDS OF JOBS THAT DON'T COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER VERY DIRECTLY, IN FACT COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER IN THE PROCESS.

SECOND IMMIGRANTS TEND TO BE VERY ENTREPRENEUR AND HIRE LOTS OF AMERICANS THROUGH THE COMPANIES THAT THEY START.

THIRD, THEY STIMULATE NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND GENERATE LOCAL DEMAND THAT HELPS LOCAL ECONOMIES.

THE FOURTH IS THAT THEY LOWER THE PRICES OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE; THINGS LIKE CHILD CARE AND ELDERCARE AND FOOD PREPARATION AND THAT SORT OF THING.

AND THEN FINALLY, CAPITAL AND TECHNOLOGY ADJUST REALLY QUICKLY TO PREVENT WAGE LOSSES IN THE WAY THAT PEOPLE MIGHT FEAR THAT THEY MIGHT OCCUR.

IMMIGRATION IS SOMETHING I COULD TALK ABOUT ENDLESSLY SO LET ME BRIEFLY THEM SAY, YEAH, IMMIGRATION WOULD HELP EASE A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS.

>> LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

>> I HAVE A CONCERN BECAUSE PART OF THE ISSUES RIGHT NOW IS A LACK OF TRUCK DRIVERS.

WOULD IMMIGRATION ADDRESS THAT?

>> I THINK IT WILL.

I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT-- I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH CHAD HERE.

FOR ALL THOSE REASONS HE POINTS OUT, IMMIGRATION DEFINITELY WOULD HELP AN ECONOMY GROW.

THIS GREAT RESIGNATION COINED BY ANTHONY KLAUS, A GREAT ECONOMIST, HE SAYS THAT EXPERIENCES AFFECT HOW WE BEHAVE IN THE LONG-TERM.

AND THIS PANDEMIC HAS CREATED THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR WOULD CHANGE OVER LONG-TERM.

THEY'RE QUITTING.

THEY'RE RETHINKING WHAT THEY CAN DO AND IN THE MEANTIME, I DO THINK IMMIGRATION WOULD DEFINITELY INCREASE THE ECONOMY AND I DON'T SEE WHY TRUCK DRIVERS, WHO ARE IMMIGRANTS CANNOT DRIVE TRUCKS.

>> WELL, I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF IMMIGRATION.

I AGREE, CHAD, THAT IN GENERAL IT IS VERY BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY.

BUT I THINK THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW IS ONE, FIRST, IT'S GETTING BETTER ON ITS OWN BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THE SEPTEMBER UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS AND IT APPEARS WE HAVE FIVE MILLION FEWER WORKERS THAN WE DID IN FEBRUARY 2020 RIGHT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.

AND TWO MILLION ADDITIONAL UNEMPLOYED SO WE ARE DOWN TO MAYBE THREE MILLION OR SO PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO BE OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE.

AND I THINK PART OF THAT IS A RATIONAL DECISION.

WE STILL HAVE COVID WITH US.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPROMISED, PEOPLE WHO FEAR, YOU KNOW, I THINK AS WE GO THROUGH AND INCREASE VACCINATION RATES, GET BOOSTERS, HAVE KIDS, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT NUMB SHRINK SMED THE OTHER THING THAT IS VERY INTERESTING, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF OUTPUT WE WERE PRODUCING IN FEBRUARY 2020 WITH FEWER WORKERS.

THAT'S A SILVER LINING CALLED PRODUCTIVITY.

MOST ECONOMISTS BELIEVE PRODUCTIVITY GAINS ARE WHAT DRIVE LONG RUN QUALITY OF LIFE AND IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR ECONOMY.

SO WHILE I THINK, YOU KNOW, FIXING OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO, I DON'T SEE A HEWN CRISIS RIGHT NOW.

I SEE ONE THAT, AS THE PANDEMIC WINDS DOWN HOPEFULLY, THE LABOR MARKET AND THINGS LIKE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION WILL GET BACK TO NORMAL.

>> THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE A COUNTRY OF IMMIGRANTS, YOU KNOW.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE.

WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING ISSUES OF WHATEVER THOSE ARE.

IT IS IMPROVING.

BUT INSTEAD OF SAYING WELL LET'S BRING IN PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO WORK FOR LESS MONEY, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES.

>> THAT'S A GREAT POINT RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS A CRITICISM YOU HEAR OF IMMIGRATION AND LEGAL OR ILLEGAL THAT THESE WORKERS LOWER THE COST OR THE WAGES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY HERE.

IS THERE ANYTHING TO THAT?

>> IN SHORT, NOT REALLY.

I MEAN THAT'S SORT OF THE LINE THAT IMMIGRANTS STEAL AMERICANS JOBS AND THE MORE LAYMAN'S TERM THING IS THAT IMMIGRANTS DO JOBS THAT AMERICANS DON'T WANT.

I DON'T LIKE LAYMAN'S TERMS.

I WANT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT BUT IT'S A SIMPLER WAY TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PROBLEM.

BUT I DO WANT TO THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT SOMETHING INTERESTING RELATED TO WHAT RICK SAID ABOUT SORT OF THIS GREAT RESIGNATION OR SOMETHING.

AND HERE IS A QUOTE FROM CNBC.

IT SAID IN AUGUST, RECORD BREAKING 4.5 MILLION WORKERS QUIT THEIR JOBS.

THAT AMOUNTS TO 3% OF THE TOTAL WORKFORCE AND IT'S THE HIGHEST QUIT RATE ON RECORD ACCORDING TO THE B.L.S.

I SAID AUGUST.

THAT WAS AUGUST 2019.

NOT 2020.

SO THIS IS BEFORE COVID STARTED.

AND SO IT MAKES ME WONDER LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE MARKET?

I'M NOT CONVINCED IT'S TOTALLY A COVID EFFECT.

I THINK IT COULD HAVE AMPLIFIED THINGS.

BUT REALLY THIS COULD BE A CONTINUATION OF A TREND THAT WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND YET.

SOMETHING ABOUT THE AMERICAN WORKER THAT IS SAYING YEAH, I DON'T LIKE MY WORKING CONDITIONS.

I DON'T LIKE MY WAGES.

I WARRANT TO DO MORE LEISURE.

I DON'T KNOW.

>> LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION AMONGST MALES HAS BEEN GOING DOWN AND THAT IS A WORRISOME THING.

SO-- AND YOU ARE RIGHT.

IT WAS GOING ON BEFORE COVID.

BUT, AS YOU SAID, COVID AMPLIFIED IT BUT I'M SEEING SIGNS THAT, AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE ARE GETTING BACK TO THAT 63% PARTICIPATION RATE, WHICH, AGAIN, IS LOWER THAN IT WAS MAYBE... >> LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION IS GOING DOWN SEPARATE FROM COVID AND PRIOR TO COVID, WHAT ARE PEOPLE DOING?

>> IF YOU BREAK DOWN THE DATA, YOU SEE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS SERVICES INDUSTRY.

AND THIS IS WHY I WAS MENTIONING THE BERKLEY ECONOMIST AND THEY WORKED ON THIS.

IT IS SAYING THAT ACTUALLY THE EXPERIENCE EFFECT OF LONG-TERM RECESSION OR PANDEMIC CAN CREATE LONG-TERM EFFECTS IN BEHAVIORS.

SO THE PREDICTION IS THAT THIS KIND OF RESIGNATION IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, EVEN AFTER THE PANDEMIC.

PEOPLE ARE RETHINKING WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR LIVES AND WITH THEIR JOBS.

>> REASSESSING.

>> AND I DON'T THINK THERE IS A LABOR SHORTAGE IN THAT SENSE.

IF WAGES DO INCREASE AT A MORE HIGHER RATE, I DO THINK PEOPLE WILL PICK UP MORE JOBS.

>> AND IF THE IMMIGRATION WERE TO INCREASE, OF COURSE, THERE IS LONG-TERM EFFECTS THERE.

IMMIGRANTS-- >> WE ALSO-- PEOPLE ARE FEELING A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE THE HELP THAT THE GOVERNMENT GAVE DURING THE PANDEMIC WAS SUCCESSFUL IN, AT LEAST MAKING PEOPLE NOT FEEL SO DESPERATE SO THAT THEY HAD TO RUSH OUT AND TAKE THE FIRST JOB THEY COULD FIND.

AND SO I THINK THERE IS A BENEFICIAL ASPECT THERE AS WELL.

AND PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO TABLING THEIR TIME.

ONE THING THAT WAS BEING BLAMED WAS THE EXCESSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AND IT APPEARS NOW THAT THAT HAS ENDED, WE ARE NOT SEEING HUGE CHANGES IN THE NUMBERS.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT WAS TO BLAME EITHER.

>> NO, I THINK THE REASSESSING THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE, BEING HOME WITH FAMILY AND PUTTING PRIORITIES WHERE THEY SHOULD BE.

>> BEING HOME WITH FAMILY AND REASSESS IS GREAT BUT YOU STILL NEED INCOME IN ORDER TO LIVE.

>> YEAH >> THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY MERCK SAID THIS WEEK IT WILL ALLOW OTHER COUNTRIES TO MANUFACTURE ITS PROMISING NEW COVID DRUG, DURING THE PANDEMIC.

THIS COULD POTENTIALLY LOWER THE COST OF THE DRUG, MOLNUPIRAVIR, FROM ABOUT 700 DOLLARS FOR A COURSE OF TREATMENT TO JUST TEN DOLLARS.

THIS SHINES A LIGHT ON PFIZER AND MODERNA, WHICH DISTRIBUTE THEIR VACCINES BASED ON COUNTRY'S ABILITY TO PAY.

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT TAKE LEGAL ACTION TO FORCE THEM TO TRANSFER THEIR MRNA TECHNOLOGY TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS TO ENSURE ENOUGH VACCINE GETS PRODUCED FOR EVERYONE?

>> LET'S GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.

IT'S THE GOVERNMENT THAT PRODUCES VACCINE, RIGHT.

SO LET'S LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

GOVERNMENT PAID ABOUT, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PAID $19.3 BILLION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

MODERNA A LITTLE KNOWN START-UP THAT NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT GOT $6 BILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND U.S. TAXPAYERS HAVE A SUSTAINED LONG-TERM ROLE IN VACCINE RESEARCH.

THE GOVERNMENT ENSURED THE COMPANIES AGAINST THE RISK BECAUSE THEY SAID WE ARE GOING TO BUY THIS.

THEY'RE STILL SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THESE TRIALS.

SO LONG STORY SHORT, IT'S NOT MODERNA THAT DEVELOPED THE VACCINE.

THAT'S HALF TRUTH.

IT WAS DEVELOPED WITH TAXPAYERS MONEY.

SO AS A RESULT, I DO THINK IT IS THEIR OBLIGATION AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE THIS LICENSE, GLOBAL VACCINATION SUPPLY CHAIN.

THERE ARE LOTS OF FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD AND THEY CAN PAY MODERNA A LICENSE FEE.

BUT IF WE ARE-- IF WE WANT THE GLOBE TO OPEN UP, IT'S A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, RIGHT?

SO WE SHOULDN'T THINK IN TERMS OF NATIONAL OR LOCAL TERMS, RIGHT?

SO SUPPLY CHAIN MEANS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO TO WORK, RIGHT?

SO IF THIS VACCINE IS AVAILABLE MORE, THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND U.S. ECONOMY WILL DEVELOP.

>> I HATE TO SOUND LIKE AIM DEFENDING THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES BUT YOU DESCRIBED HOW WE ENTERED INTO THESE AGREEMENTS WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

WHY DIDN'T WE ANTICIPATE THIS PROBLEM?

I MEAN THE ISSUE OF THE PRICE OF DRUGS IN LESSER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

SO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD THE ABILITY TO PUT INTO THESE CONTRACTS CRITERIA FOR WHICH-- OR CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WOULD HAVE TO TRANSFER SOME OF THIS KNOWLEDGE TO COMPANIES IN THESE LESSER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND CHOSE NOT TO.

NOW THE QUESTION IS WHY.

DID THE U.S.

NEGOTIATORS, DID WE ONLY CARE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DOSES THAT WOULD BE RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES?

OR DID WE GIVE IN TO THE NEGOTIATORS FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES?

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE THAT THIS WAS AN OVERSIGHT.

SO AGAIN, I SEE THE PROBLEM, BUT TO SAY NOW, OH YES, THE U.S.

PAID FOR THIS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THIS TECHNOLOGY FROM THEM.

WE COULD HAVE PUT THOSE THINGS INTO THE CONTRACTS THAT CALLED FOR EVERYTHING FROM THE NUMBER OF DOSES PER VIAL TO THE DOLLARS THEY RECEIVED, SO I THINK RIGHT NOW, THE ONUS IS ON THE GOVERNMENT TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY DIDN'T DO A BETTER JOB OF NEGOTIATING WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

>> THESE ARE ALL GREAT POINTS, BUT WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL WHAT WE DO WITH THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND WHAT PRECEDENTS WE SET WITH FORCING COMPANIES WHO HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT PRECEDENTS WE SET.

>> YOU HATE TO DEFEND THE PHARMACEUTICAL-- I'LL DEFEND THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

THEY'RE GREAT!

I MEAN I LOVE AMERICAN BIG PHARMA, WHY?

BECAUSE THEY DEVELOPED THE VACCINE QUICKLY AND I WAS PRETTY HIGH UP IN THE QUEUE TO GET IT, RIGHT?

THAT'S A WONDERFUL THING.

IT'S KIND OF THE RESULT, THE MRNA VACCINES, THE REASON WE ARE ABLE TO DEVELOP THEM IS A LONG HISTORY WHERE WE OFFER PATENT PROTECTION FOR THE INNOVATIONS.

WE ALLOW THESE COMPANIES TO PROFIT FROM THEIR DISCOVERIES.

AND SO THOSE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT LIKE BEN SAID.

DO I THINK WE SHOULD REVOKE THOSE?

NO!

OF COURSE WE SHOULDN'T, RIGHT?

AND I THINK WE ARE TOUCHING ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD DO, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BUYING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THEN LICENSING THAT OUT TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS OR PERHAPS BUYING THE VACCINES DIRECTLY FROM PFIZER AND MODERNA AND DISTRIBUTING IT TO POORER COUNTRIES BECAUSE CERTAINLY WE DO HAVE A SHARED INTEREST IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SO FORTH.

BUT THERE IS A WAY TO DO THAT THAT PRESERVES THE INCENTIVE.

>> EVEN INCENTIVIZING OUTSOURCING.

>> WE HAVE TO LEAVE THAT RIGHT THERE.

I WOULD LOVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS MORE BUT WE HAVE TO GO TO OUR As AND Fs.

WE'LL START WITH YOUR F, CHAT.

>> OKAY.

SO MY F GOES TO INATTENTION TO CHINA.

RECENT WEEKS WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT A MASSIVE DEFAULT-- A LOT OF DEFAULTS IN THE CHINESE PROPERTY MARKET AND LEARNED ABOUT JOINT CHINESE-RUSSIAN NAVAL EXERCISES 10 WAR SHIPS CIRCLING JAPAN AND THE COMPLETION OF A CHINESE HYPERSONIC WEAPONS TEST.

SO COLLECTIVELY THESE ARE MAJOR THREATS TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL STABILITY.

WE SHOULD BE WORRIED.

WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED.

WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS.

>> ANIRBAN, YOUR F, PLEASE.

>> MY F TO THE BIG PHARMA JOHNSON & JOHNSON AVOIDING THE BURDEN OF 38,000 LAWSUITS THAT THEY SOLD TAL TALCUM POWDER WITH ASBESTOS.

IN ORDER TO AVOID THE LAWSUIT, OR MITIGATE THEM HAVE CREATED A NEW SHELL COMPANY CALLED L.T.L.

MANAGE MANY AND DUMPED THE LIABILITIES IN IT AND MADE L.T.L.

FILE FOR BANKRUPT SKI TO LIMIT THE PAYOUT.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A DRUG DEALER WITH A SHELL COMPANY PRETTY MUCH.

>> BEN, YOUR F. >> MY F TO HAVING LIVE ROUNDS ON A SET OR NEAR A SET OF A MOVIE PRODUCTION.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR THE SHOOTING DEATH OF THE DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY ON THE SET OF ROSS THIS PAST WEEK.

BRUCE LEE'S SON BRANDON WAS KILLED ALSO ON A MOVIE SET BACK IN 1993.

BOTH CASES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BLANK ROUNDS.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASONABLE EXCUSE TO HAVE LIVE ROUNDS IN OR AROUND A MOVIE SET.

>> RICK.

>> MY F GOES TO NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE AFTER A LENGTHY INVESTIGATION INTO THE TOXIC WORKPLACE CULTURE WITH THE WASHINGTON FOOTBALL CLUB, ROGER GOODELL, COMMISSIONER OF THE NFL ANNOUNCED THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT WOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC.

RECENT WEEKS BETWEEN THE JUST RESIGNED HEAD COACH OF THE LAS VEGAS RAIDERS SHOW HOMOPHOBIC AND RACIST EMAILS AND SUGGEST THAT THE PROBLEM WASN'T ISOLATED WITH THE WASHINGTON FOOTBALL CLUB BUT PERVASIVE ACROSS THE NFL.

>> WE HAVE TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE AS.

>> BY THE TIME YOU WATCH THIS EPISODE, PRESIDENT BIDEN WILL HAVE MET WITH POPE FRANCIS IN ROME.

A BIG DEAL FOR CATHOLIC AMERICANS.

INTERESTED TO SEE IF THE POPE WILL BE PERSUASIVE IN CONVINCING THE PRESIDENT THAT SOME OF HIS POLICIES ARE OUT OF STEP WITH CHURCH TEACHING AND CONVINCING U.S. CARDINALS FROM REFRAIN FROM DENYING BIDEN THE EUCHARIST.

>> WEST AFRICAN NATION OF CAPE VERDE AND THE CONSERVATION GROUP PROJECT DIVERSITY FOR DOING AMAZING WORK ON BRINGING BACK NESTING OF LOGGERHEAD TURTLES.

>> MY A TO MICHAEL J.

FOX FOR HIS EFFORTS TO FIND A CURE FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE, DIAGNOSED AT 29, HE HAS FORMED A FOUNDATION THAT HAS RAISED $1.5 MILLION TO FIND A CURE FOR IT.

>> MY A TO NICHOLAS CRISTOF AFTER FOUR DECADES OF A REPORTER COLUMNIST OF "THE NEW YORK TIMES," HEAD BACK TO OREGON TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR.

>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER," HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪