How to watch Apple CEO Tim Cook’s MSNBC interview with Kara Swisher and Chris Hayes on Friday

How Complete Beginners are using an ‘Untapped’ Google Network to create Passive Income ON DEMAND

The show starts at 8 pm ET / 5 pm PT.

Recode and MSNBC team up again on the next episode in our “Revolution” series on tech and the future of work. Recode’s Kara Swisher and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes’s full interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook will air on Friday, April 6, at 8 pm ET / 5 pm PT on MSNBC.

“Revolution: Apple Changing the World” was taped in Chicago and focuses on innovation in education, Facebook’s data privacy scandal, the future of work in the age of technology and much more.

Watch Apple CEO Tim Cook’s interview on MSNBC, online and on Twitter

If you subscribe to a basic cable package, turning your TV to MSNBC on Friday, April 6, will get you to the broadcast. You can also access a livestream through NBC’s website with a cable login and password.

You can follow Recode’s Twitter account for live coverage of the show; follow #RevolutionCHI to join the conversation. You can also follow Kara Swisher on Twitter during the broadcast for behind-the-scenes analysis and insights.

On the show, Swisher and Hayes talk to Cook about technology’s role in powering learning for the next generation of students and workers, including how to teach code across the U.S. and also how it impacts the future of job creation. The interview was taped at Lane Tech College Prep High School in Chicago.

Here’s a preview:

The “Revolution” series from MSNBC and Recode features townhall-style conversations with the audience examining the impact of technology on many aspects of the world today including business, politics, science, health, jobs, climate, culture, education and more. The series includes one-on-one interviews and panel discussions with a range of thought leaders from corporate executives, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to journalists, government officials and academics.

Our first episode featured an interview with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Recode – All

Cash For Apps: Make money with android app

Full transcript: Chris Kirchhoff, formerly of the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley office, on Recode Decode

How Complete Beginners are using an ‘Untapped’ Google Network to create Passive Income ON DEMAND

Flying cars could be in our future.

“I’m from the government, I’m here to help.”

On this episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher, Christopher Kirchhoff, a former partner at DIUx, the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley office, talks about how the Defense Department is trying to be smarter about technology.

You can read a write-up of the interview here or listen to the whole thing in the audio player above. Below, we’ve also provided a lightly edited complete transcript of their conversation.

If you like this, be sure to subscribe to Recode Decode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts.


Kara Swisher: I’m Kara Swisher, executive editor of Recode. You may know me as the general in charge of the Militia Etherege, but in my spare time, I talk tech, and you’re listening to Recode Decode, a podcast about tech and media’s key players, big ideas and how they’re changing the world we live in.

Today in the red chair is Chris Kirchhoff, a former partner at the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley office DIUx, which stands for Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. What a name. It funds private companies in exchange for commercial products that can solve national defense problems. He’s also a visiting technologist at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Chris, welcome to Recode Decode.

Chris Kirchhoff: Thank you.

When I met you, you were working for Ash Carter. Is that correct?

I was.

Explain this DIUx because I think it’s really interesting. The CIA has an innovation unit here, all kinds of government agencies do, but Ash was a real technophile.

You have to give him credit for his vision. Back in …

He’s defense secretary under President Obama.

He was, but in 2001, he was merely Professor Ash Carter at the Kennedy School of Government, and he wrote an article that said the rate at which commercial R&D is growing is quickly going to surpass what the federal government, the Defense Department, spends on R&D. And so, less than a generation from now, the Defense Department is going to have a real problem. It’s going to be out of touch unless it pivots to private R&D.

He wrote that article in 2001. Of course, fast-forward, and 2015 he becomes secretary of defense and one of his first initiatives is essentially making that pivot happen. So that’s where myself and three other partners get launched out here to Silicon Valley.

So explain how you got here, because we had Ash on the show when he was defense secretary. It was a great show. And he had some really interesting stances on a lot of things. Encryption, he parted ways with President Obama on that issue, all kinds of issues.

But what … how did you get to do that? And talk a little bit more about the background of getting it out … hadn’t been out here, which has been that defense has been very involved with tech but in a different way.

This is peculiar history where Silicon Valley and the Pentagon have been tied together in lots of ways for a very long time.

Yeah. The internet, for example.

Right. Going back to Stanford in the ’60s, actually, there is this incredible deep history out here of federal funded innovation that has really helped commercial firms flourish. But that, interestingly enough, has died out a bit. There’s definitely been a gap, particularly in the last 15 years, a gap that we were in part designed to fill.

What was your background?

Yes, I was minding my own business working as a national security aide in Washington. I was going to Security Council at the time and I had known Ash.

That’s not a small thing.

Yeah.

What were you doing there?

I was the director of strategic planning. So I was in charge of the office at the NSC that is supposed to look into the future and worry about what you can afford next.

Okay. How did you get the skills to acquire to do that job?

Crystal balls. No, I studied technology policy in college and then I got my PhD and then started off in Washington and national security. It turns out there’s a whole lot of technology challenges in national security. I ended up working quite extensively for all the years of the Obama administration on different tech issues.

Through that I had a chance to work for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and worked very closely with Ash Carter before he became secretary, and as a result, when Ash thought about forming this office, he realized that he would need a combination of people to help run it, that the office has to of course know Silicon Valley, you would need to know Washington and the military. That’s an awful lot to ask of one person. So he decided to create a partnership through me and together with three other people with very different skills. I was sort of the Washington guy sent out.

Right.

This is actually a problem, because at the time I had five suits and one pair of jeans, so I had to go buy a bunch of jeans. But I moved out here a couple of years ago.

So, what was your charge? You had studied just tech policy. What were the challenges you were looking at at the National Security Council? Give examples for us.

Sure.

This is intelligence on our challenges we face for the government.

The National Security Council is a fascinating place to work, first of all, but 90 percent of the folks there are worried about what’s on fire today or what’s gonna be on fire tomorrow. That of course is appropriate and necessary. So knowing that they decided to create a small office that was trying to figure out what would be on fire five years from now, that office has kept on going. In fact, the person who took my desk, believe it or not, was the one who wrote the deep state banker memo and then got fired.

Yeah, thanks for that.

So now I know my …

Was there a deep state?

Yeah.

Did you find one in the drawer?

I actually I got a deep state sweatshirt made.

Okay, good.

And I was wearing it out here in Silicon Valley.

Who thinks of these things? Anyway, so you were there at the NSC … and what were you doing? What were you looking at? Like, what’s going on, whatever crisis had happened at that time?

Yes, I was looking actually at a technology … Tech is throwing national security a huge curveball right now because you have all the scary things that we all know about — missiles and nuclear technology from other nations — but then you have other kinds of commercial technology coming online.

So you have really cheap microelectronics, those microelectronic power drones. People can put grenades on drones. There’s all kinds of examples of emerging technology primarily coming out of the startup world, coming from Silicon Valley, in essence. Now, there’s a huge opportunity to a lot of this technology from a national homeland security standpoint, but there’s also a huge risk.

Right.

So we looked quite a bit at that topic.

Okay, what about the Russian involvement in the elections? Was that something you all weren’t paying attention to?

You know, one of the people who was supposed to speak at my White House farewell in August of 2016, couldn’t make it because she had to go to a very important meeting, which I later find out it was on that topic.

On that topic. Right.

So there were definitely a small number of people that were working on that.

So, you were there at the NSC and then you were dragged out here, essentially.

No, it was fantastic. I threw my golden retriever in the back of the car, drove over the Potomac, threw my BlackBerry out the window and came out to the land of, you know …

You do have BlackBerrys still there? Only place that still has Blackberrys, Washington, D.C.

What was your idea to come out here? Because again, a lot of agencies have representation here in Silicon Valley and opened up offices.

They do. I mean, it’s pretty small, though, to be honest with you. So In-Q-Tel is a strategic investment firm that you referenced earlier that works for the intelligence community. Then you have a couple of other representatives running around, but the playing field is really pretty open. There’s not too many people here that ingest a lot of technology and get it working in the federal government. We wanted to come out here, actually spend money, actually buy technology, pilot it, and then if it worked, use it at scale in the department.

Right, and back in the department, DARPA is doing that too, correct?

Yes. DARPA is one of the neatest parts of the federal government. It was a privilege to …

The D … Defense, what is it?

Advanced Research Projects Agency, we have to have acronyms. We’re DIUx and they’re DARPA.

DARPA has a very unique mission, which is to do really risky moonshot-style R&D. So if they’re trying it …

Like Mach 10 planes and things like that.

Right. It probably won’t work, but if it works it’ll be amazing. So they invented little things like the internet and the Stealth and all the sensors that made precision warfare work. That’s DARPA.

DIUx had a very different mission, which is to say there are some awesome off-the-shelf technologies being produced today, whether it’s a cybersecurity software suite, whether it’s a robotic ship, whether it’s a drone, whether it’s a new kind of data from commercial satellite, and you can use that today. You don’t have to do anything further to develop it. So our office had a very distinct mission from DARPA, which is to buy technology that’s available right away.

And when you talk about buy, what was that? How much money did you have to do this?

Well, I’m proud to announce that the office has just crossed the billion dollar mark in just under two years of making investments in tech.

This is already making investments, a billion dollars in investments.

Right. This is not making investments in the Silicon Valley venture capital way of buying equity, this is actually buying technology from companies, piloting it. And then there’s a really neat superpower the office has that Congress gave the department, which said if you do a technology pilot and you buy it a certain way you can immediately — and it works — you can immediately allow anyone in the department to buy that technology and scale them.

Without having to go through …

Without having to re-compete. Which is like … this is like the Holy Grail of federal acquisition and we’re privileged to be able to use them.

Give me examples of what … you get out here and what are you … how do you introduce yourself? Again, Silicon Valley doesn’t do a lot of business. It does defense business but not as much as you might imagine.

Yeah, no. I mean, it doesn’t do business with the government really at all.

There’s always people around, the Beltway Bandits.

And for good reason. So, if you’re a startup, your business plan says there’s a thing called …

Your drone startups.

Right. There’s a $ 25 trillion dollar consumer technology market and my tech is going to sell great there. If you go to an investor and you say there’s this teeny federal market, they have to file a lot of paperwork to get into and they don’t tell you for 18 months if you’re in or not. We want to focus on that, you know you don’t get funded.

Right.

So we knew that if we came out here with the regular tools the government uses to buy technology, we’d fail. We knew we had to find a different set of tools and we did. And because of those new tools, we can get a contract in about 30 days from start to finish, rather than 18 months.

Right. So, give me an example of once … you get out here and how do you introduce yourself? And then I wanna know what you invested.

Yeah, no. “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.”

“I’m here to buy your technology.” It feels like an episode that David Duchovny should be in. But what was … you kind of look like David Duchovny … anyway, how do you approach this world? Because it’s done in a very different way here.

Yeah, we were lucky to partner with a number of folks that are of the Valley and have a network of relationships here and have run startups and then CEOs at tech companies and have been executives and know their way around far better than I do. So we were able to use them to help us navigate the rollout here. We did that by first coming up with a particular challenge that we wanted to work on, somebody in the military would bring us a hard problem and they were doing it with an actual real-life mission that they figured commercial tech might be able to help with.

Give me an example.

Okay, so maritime surveillance. Right now, it’s really expensive to take airplanes and fly them with sensors looking, for instance, for boats carrying drugs. Wouldn’t it be amazing if, instead of flying 737s with military gear on them, we could take low-cost drones put the same surveillance packages on them, either on the surface of the ocean or in the air, and perform the same mission for much lower costs?

The group that brought that particular problem to us then caused us to go and do some market research to ask the question among the folks in the venture capital community and technologists we know. “Does anybody have tech that might be relevant to this problem? If so, put us in touch.” And then we ran a competition and we had an open bidding competition that anybody could enter. We found some firms had great tech. We were able to move forward in that particular case with the tech pilot.

So they can then sell that directly to the government.

Right, and there’s some additional benefits. I mean obviously the Department of Defense market is not a small one. So, particularly for a startup, there’s real opportunity there, but we provide some additional benefits too, that has been important for startups. We have things like test ranges that are really easy to get on. So if you’re a flying car company — and we work with a couple of those — we can get you on …

Get the flying cars, but go ahead.

You’re welcome in our test ranges in a hurry. That’s a great asset the department has.

Similarly, we can get your user feedback really quick. So it was a great example of one of the technologies that we deployed to Afghanistan with some troops, they were able to get the engineers some real criticism about what wasn’t working, which caused three iterations and the tech that made it much better that allowed the company …

What was the tech?

The tech actually was an amazing communications device. It was a mouthpiece, made by a company called Sonitus, and it allowed hands-free two-way communication using a bone conduction technology.

Near your ear.

Pretty wild. It vibrates your jawbone in such a way that causes the eardrum to vibrate. So imagine you’re on a patrol in Afghanistan or jumping off an airplane or a helicopter. There’s lots of noise. You’re having to grab a walkie-talkie or grab a microphone, which is not great because — or put headphones on to hear — because you’re wanting to keep track of your area, what’s going on around you. So this technology is just a little retainer-like thing that you clip onto your teeth, it proved to be really useful to troops on patrol.

Did they buy them then?

They did, actually.

So let’s get into the procurement issue because … and then we can get to more of the things the defense department needs going forward. The procurement is they design things very specifically. We always get story after story about that, that they design a toilet in a way … when there’s a commercial toilet industry that’s fantastic. They’ve designed in a certain way, they need to have it. It creates enormous costs. It’s out-of-control costs and all these Beltway Bandits take advantage of the situation and know how to work the system. And then there’s all the people that are revolving doors and military people into military contractors, blah, blah, blah. Because they buy everything, the military buy’s everything.

I know that’s certainly true.

Yeah.

But that comes from a particular history, right, which is if you’re going to, if you’re going to buy a nuclear submarine you can’t exactly go on Amazon.com and find 45 vendors.

No, not today. Maybe tomorrow.

Maybe tomorrow.

But they get it there faster.

They sure would. The result of that is the government system — particularly the defense acquisition rules — are set up to deal with companies where there’s often only one vendor. So that raises the question of how do you get a fair price for the taxpayer.

Right.

And the way that you get a fair price is your list out 45 pages of specifications for the toilet seat, and you say you must meet them in a certain cost, and that’s how we know we’re getting a fair deal for the taxpayer.

Right.

That works okay for a nuclear submarine. It doesn’t work as well for gear that’s much more commercially available. That’s where the problem exists, because we don’t need a drone company selling drones on Amazon.com today that could be used in military mission to fill out 65 pages of technical specifications where their drones should be.

How did you push back within the administration … the way that defense firms set up for that? Because you’ve got all these people. How do you create that situation? What’s the impetus for doing it?

Well, we got really lucky because in our corner we had Ash Carter, Secretary Ash Carter, who really believed in this mission and said, “I want you to find a way to do this, and if anybody tells you you can’t do it, you bring it to me.”

So we did the first thing you always do in these situations. We took a lot of lawyers to lunch and we discovered a very obscure provision of law, called other transaction authorities, that actually had to do this for advanced technology.

You get to work outside the federal acquisition rules quickly, you could just sit down with companies, you get to share information. It had everything we were looking for. Shockingly, very few people in the department were using it. Why? Well, it was obscure, not too many of the contracting officers or lawyers were trained in it. But after taking enough lawyers to lunch, we found a couple that were willing to work with us and agree that this would be a perfect fit.

What you were doing.

And we, as a result, became one of the first groups to use it widely and to use that special provision I referred to earlier, which allows you to go from pilot to production contract without re-competing.

Without re-competing.

When we get back we’re talking to Chris Kirchhoff. He was a former partner at the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley office DIUx, which stands for Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, it’s been funding private companies to the tune of a billion dollars in exchange for commercial products that can solve the national defense problems. When we get back we’re going to talk more with Chris about what those problems are and what are some of the things that he got done when he was there.

[ad]

We’re here with Chris Kirchhoff, a former partner at the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley office DIUx, which stands for Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. It has funded private companies in exchange for commercial products that solve national defense problems. He’s now a visiting technologist at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics.

Chris, talk a little bit about what … some of the things you were looking for when you got here. You mentioned a few, that problem in Afghanistan with an earpiece, essentially. Name some other things that you guys invested in, and how did you … how did you find … you did searches for them, all kinds of research to find them. Who did you focus on? The big companies? The Googles? Or did you go to the smaller startups in what you were looking for?

Yes, we actually started first by talking to different units in the military and asking them, “Hey, what’s your hardest problem these days? Is there something you think we could do to potentially help?”

And we went from there to doing market research and asking the question, “Is there tech somewhere out in the tech world that might be relevant?”

The big surprise, I think, is showing up in Silicon Valley you’d expect cybersecurity software, software in general, to be a huge part of your portfolio. But actually it turns out most of our deals, many more than software, has gone towards hardware, which I think reflects a huge shift in the Valley here towards hardware itself that was a real surprise.

So a couple examples of projects we’re really proud of. One actually, funny story. Eric Schmidt is the chairman of the Defense Innovation Board.

Yes, he is.

Took his band of innovators around the world.

Is he still that?

He is, yup.

Explain the Defense Innovation Board. We don’t need to explain Eric Schmidt.

Right, so the Defense Innovation Board is a group of folks from outside the department, each of whom have really deep expertise in an area of tech, and they travel together essentially as a bunch of consultants who visit different commands around the world and look at what they’re doing and then make suggestions for maybe how they could be doing things better.

And so the story here is I think representative of the kind of insights they’re able to have. They toured the air operation center in Qatar. So this is the war room, if you will, that’s prosecuting in the air war.

We have most of our forward bases are — correct? — in Qatar.

Right.

It’s in the news lately, recently.

Yes. So if you’re trying to prosecute an airstrike in Iraq, in Syria, this is the operation center that does that.

Eric noticed there are these three or four captains doodling on a giant white board and they were … they had all these numbers and symbols and he said, “Well, what on earth are you doing?” They said, “Oh, we’re planning tanker routes. It’s one of the hardest things to do is to get enough refueling tankers in the right orbit so that they can link up right with aircraft to refuel them as we’re getting ready to do airstrikes.”

Eric said, “Well, there’s a thing called software. Why are you still doing this manually?” And they said, “Oh, well we actually have software that does it but it’s awful, it doesn’t really work. So the three of us just take 60 man hours every day to do this. And it’s a real pain because if one thing changes that we’ve got to go do it all over again.”

The math. It’s like they’re in “Hidden Figures.”

Right. So Eric shook his head and said …

Recalculate those Moon trajectories.

And then he turned to DIUx and said, “All right, you guys fix this.” So we did. We sent some of our Air Force guys forward with iMacs. They set up shop. They actually knew how to code. In less than really three months they built a prototype app that allowed the same programming to occur automatically in seconds.

Who had built their first one?

A defense contractor had built their first one and there was a refresh scheduled and we met them, they said, “Don’t worry. The refresh is being worked on now. The initial version should come in 2020, 2021.” We were of course astonished at the length it time …

Timing, and of course we are.

Well … we were proud anyway to send a very small number of folks forward, and in just under $ 2 million.

The fact that they messed up Obamacare just makes … I had an argument about Obamacare with someone and they were like, I said, “Well, you know Tinder makes all these matches, it’s all matching, it was all you had to do was matching, Tinder makes all these matches every day, millions and millions of matches.” And they said, “Are you comparing Obamacare to Tinder?” And I said, “No, Tinder works.”

At the time it was funny, but it was … the expenses were enormously different between what government was charged in terms of software and what you could get almost off the shelf. There’s no shelf to get it off anymore, in fact. You know what I mean? It was a shocking inability to just use software on the fly.

But this is a great way that Eric and the innovation wars were able to contribute, but they know other ways of doing things.

Right.

And the process can not only make the U.S. military more effective, but save millions even billions of taxpayer money.

What I find shocking is that they haven’t updated this. That’s the part I don’t get, when businesses have … when consumers have … But, anyway that’s another rant I can make later.

So can you … you had the defense, the board, that Eric was on. Right?

Mm-hmm.

And then what you did was you would go around and do this all around the world?

Right. We work closely with the Innovation Board. Ash Carter also founded, there’s something called the Defense Digital Service, which is a bunch of programmers that work on IT issues.

Special ones, and every agency had those. They were moving those into every agency.

Well, that was the ambition at the end of the Obama administration, but as we know, science and technology in the current administration is a bit more challenged.

They aren’t there. It’s okay, you can say it, there’s nobody working there. But that was the goal is to put people in each agency to redo their IT.

And that actually brings up one of the bigger lessons that I’ve always taken away from my time both in government and out here, which is there is such extraordinary talent out here and there is no way we are going to get them to apply for a civil service job.

Right.

Right, and so we need to find some kind of way to get folks out here that are ready to take a year or two of public service and kind of like the Peace Corps, send them in.

Yeah, that’s what they’re trying to do. I was just with Chris Madell in Washington.

But let’s get back to the things you guys did. What else did … A billion dollars is a lot of money. That’s a pretty fair-sized VC fund, for example. What other things did you do?

Yeah, so we did a couple projects with flying cars, which I think really will be …

Explain that please.

The future of, yeah, military transportation. So right now we use helicopters to get around the world. An aircraft investigator once described to me, a helicopter is a million parts flying closely in formation.

That sounds great.

Wouldn’t it be great to move to an electric-powered vehicle with the same range that has one moving part, is silent. So we’re experimenting with different ways to deliver those troops …

Explain flying car. How do you conceive of it? Because I know Larry Page is working, a lot of people are working on flying cars. What does that mean?

Yes, I think there’s … personal air vehicles are of course, as people around here say, an industry of the future, that’s certainly true. So our question …

VL … vertical lift and take off.

Our question is how can we use this prototype technology to do military missions better? And it turns out there’s enormous opportunity both for delivering troops and special forces into denied areas. There’s also great possibilities for resupply, all of which right now are being carried out through much …

Through helicopters.

Right.

Right. Explain how it flies, if you’re talking about a flying car, how it’s different than a helicopter.

Yeah. Well, it’s a large drone, essentially, and because it’s electrically operated you have far fewer number of parts than you do in internal combustion engines, so your rate of engine failure is much lower. It’s fully autonomous. The range, actually, is pretty impressive on certain companies’ prototypes.

So what you have is actually something that’s very close to being operational, something that we can almost …

Just like a Tesla of the sky.

Exactly.

And does it look like a helicopter? Does it look like a …

It looks like something out of a “Batman” movie.

Right. Which one? I mean, it has four copter … they have a propeller, correct?

Yeah, there’s a few different designs. But yeah, they all look like a cross between something out of a “Batman” movie and “The Jetsons.”

Okay, and so you would fly those … fly these cars — and they’re not hovercrafts because that’s a whole different area of … people aren’t looking at that?

They can hover, right, which is useful for resupply. But yeah, they can do all kinds of things. So, it was our mission to ask the question if, gosh, you could potentially use these. And how ought we be planning to use this future technology?

Well, everyone put up their hand for that one, right? Like regular people want a flying car. Or everybody wants a flying car, presumably.

That’s true, but it’s much more likely that the military will start experimenting with them first.

Right. First. So, they would do them in missions, in resupply, in night missions, anywhere a helicopter goes, correct? Right now.

Right.

Right. Then it would not have to do a lot of maintenance and difficulty.

And you can do things, too, like to segregate a squad. Right now, we’ve put a lot of people typically in one or two helicopters. That’s not great for all kinds of obvious reasons, so wouldn’t it be nice to have 10 or 12 aerial vehicles carrying the same number of people that will not be nearly as vulnerable.

And easier to move, less dangerous to crash and things like that. All right. So how much money do you put into it that, and who’s making those?

Well, the same companies that you probably know about are making them, and this is again an example where the Department of Defense can actually play a role helping these companies on their commercial path.

It’s where they want them, right.

First of all, we have a small amount of money to spend and many of these companies are so capitalized … our money is peanuts, but we also have test ranges that they can go tomorrow and fly on.

Explain these test ranges. They have places where? In secret installations? Or where?

There are secret test ranges. Most of them are not, and a couple of them are actually very close to the Bay Area. So DIUx has set up a couple test ranges, one for flying cars, another actually for drones and anti-drone technology. Which is another real issue on the battlefield.

Right.

How can we stop a missle or other foreign adversaries from using drones to disrupt …

Right. Grenades, or look at us. They can do almost anything, correct? Poison or dispersing … and we could use the same, presumably. I’m sure we have.

Sure.

Yeah. So drones is another one. What other things did you find?

A lot of …

By the way, it was in a “Homeland” episode, they had a drone and then, all right, shot it down.

If only it all worked like “Homeland” or the movies.

Where Carrie saves everything.

I made some great investments in cybersecurity and cloud software, and some undersea and sea-surface technology.

Okay, explain the undersea.

Well, it turns out one of our great advantages militarily is our undersea technology. But at the same time there’s been a lot of progress made on the commercial front. Different kinds of submersibles and robots that can operate in new ways. So that’s another great example of startups out here that have developed a technology that is for a different purpose altogether, but actually it’s quite relevant for military missions.

So this is submersibles to spy … that’s what submersibles are for? Presumably.

You can do that. You can conduct ocean surveillance. You can monitor temperature conditions, which are really important for other Navy missions. There’s a whole bunch of things you can do. Again, these are … DIUx is after broad classes of technology that can be transformational in many ways.

Beyond the submarine.

Right.

Then give me one other. Outfits. Clothes. Exoskeletons.

Outfits. Yeah, sure. So we’re … right. Wearables, it turns out, is another great place that there’s a heck of a lot of innovation going on right now on the commercial market.

Imagine you’re on an infantry squad and you have a mission that involves getting miles away in tough conditions. Dehydration is actually one of your biggest enemies. Imagine having a wearable sensor that would allow the squad leader to know when one of his or her soldiers was in danger of dehydration. Little things like that can make an enormous difference.

That’s a great idea, yeah. And what about exoskeletons and things like that? Were you involved in those?

We have not done any exoskeletons, but that again is another great example …

Carrying and lifting.

Right.

They’re using them in factory lines now.

They certainly are. Which is a whole nother area of potential innovation, of what technology are we using in modern factories that could also be used in defense factories.

Right. Right. That are being used. Do you find the defense people very open to all this, what you are bringing to them? Or did they think there’s this weird group of guys out in Silicon Valley …

Yeah, it was, to be honest, pretty mixed. The Defense Department is …

Big.

Big. Really big, actually, and also very tradition bound for good reason, because it turns out that mistakes in war are costly and you remember them.

So we really did have, I think, a challenge to prove to people that commercial tech could actually be durable enough and good enough to perform — and in cases even outperform existing military technology.

Right. Then when you … what would you say your most successful thing is? When we get back we’re going to talk about what the big challenges are going forward. But what would you think your most successful investment in your tenure was?

To be honest, I think it’s just showing that it can be done.

Right. You can have an innovative, nimble group.

Right, so taking six Air Force programmers and a couple iMacs and for under $ 2 million in literally eight weeks coming up with an app that revolutionized how the air war is fought. That caused a lot of folks across the Air Force to notice and ask the question, “Well gosh, I have this problem too. Could you send some of your guys my way?” Strangely enough, cultural change, I think, is going to be our biggest lever, if you will.

Right. And now what happened in the Trump … do they even know you’re there? Did they know you were there? What was the … what happened after Mattis, I guess?

Yes. Secretary Mattis was very kind with his time. He comes from a background of playing an incredibly transformational role in the Marine Corps so he gets transformation, and he came out last summer and spent a day and a half here in Silicon Valley. I think he’s very enthusiastic about our mission. Sees the logic, sees fit and wants to grow.

And continues to support it.

Yup.

Continues to … how many partners are here now?

So, we are a couple … Those that started have just moved on and we’re in the process of putting a new leadership team in place.

And that will be the same amount of people doing these investments?

Roughly, and in the office we started with 12 and we’re now almost up to 70 or 75.

You’re located where? In your usual …

Yeah, headquarters is down in Mountain View on Moffett Field. We have a office in Boston, teeny office in Austin, Texas, then a small office also in the Pentagon.

Great. We’re here with Chris Kirchhoff, who just left the Defense Department or I guess Innovation Lab almost, in Silicon Valley, DIUx, which stands for Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. Who came up with that, Chris? Anyway, when we get back, we’re going to talk about where things are going in defense and what will be happening in the near and far future.

[ad]

We’re here with Christopher Kirchhoff. He’s a former partner at the Pentagon Silicon Valley Defense Office, DIUx, which stands for Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. How did you come up with that awful name? I like DIUx but the rest …

I know. Well, first of all, we had to have an acronym because if we didn’t have an acronym they would not start the office.

Cool.

We figured X was kind of cool, but I definitely wouldn’t turn to the Pentagon for some really …

Yeah, how about Wakanda? So now you’re a visiting — I’m gonna get to Wakanda — visiting technologist at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. So let’s talk about where the challenges are that we face from a defense point of view going forward. I assume you look at, obviously — I’m joking about Wakanda, but I’m not — this idea of how we think about innovation, how we incorporate it into our defenses.

This doesn’t seem to be an administration that’s super interested in science and technology. That science and technology office is not staffed. It hasn’t been staffed. It was a new thing with President Obama, but the Office of Science and Technology has always been there for half a dozen administrations, I think. And it doesn’t … I don’t think it has a head yet, does it? It doesn’t. No, it does not. Which is like frightening in a lot of ways. So can you talk about what our challenges are now in the near term without science advisers at the White House?

Yes. I was really impressed …

I’m assuming the different agencies still are interested in science, some of them.

Yes. No, that’s certainly true. So the United States is in this peculiar predicament right. We’re 4 to 4.4 percent of the world’s population. We still command a quarter of global GDP. It’s why we have nice houses, nice big screen televisions, all that.

Our challenge going forward is our economic competitiveness. How on earth can we keep generating so much of the global economy with so few people? And if we’re going to be successful at this we’re going to have to make sure the leading part of our economy, the part of our economy that’s most dynamic, that tech sector really succeeds. The tech sector at the moment, if you haven’t noticed, is producing crazy, wild, disruptive technology and that technology will not be successful without the government clearing the road for it.

100 percent.

So what I worry about most now is whether that road can get cleared. Whether there are enough people out here in the tech sector talking to people in Washington about what needs to be done.

Which they’re not. Right. So talk about the areas. I mean, I’m assuming AI, robotics, automation, infrastructure, self-driving, all kinds of things like that.

Yeah.

Or is there more? I mean, cybersecurity.

No, it’s all these things and …

Non-hackable elections.

Wouldn’t that be nice? These things are all important, and one of the greatest challenges is just with people, because the people that tend to know the most about these technologies are not employed in Washington. They’re employed far away. That creates a challenge to begin with. How on earth do we get the people that know the most about the technology talking to the people that are in charge of writing regulations?

So let’s start with that. There was a big push by the Obama administration to get techies to come for short amounts of time and they fixed Obamacare, they fixed a lot of things, they moved in and fixed things. Now they’re really having a hard time recruiting anybody, correct?

They are, and that’s something I worry about a lot. We did this big review in the White House that looked across radical merchant technology.

This is Obama’s …

Right, and where would … It just completely turned upside down the mission of certain federal agencies and departments. The Department of Treasury, for instance, it regulates money.

Right.

Something kind of important, and it also turns out is the biggest bank for the government. It clears a lot of payments for federal agencies. So blockchain is going to be something that completely changes the Department of Treasury’s mission. So we asked the question, “Well, how many people are there today in the Department of Treasury that have enough expertise to participate in a peer conversation about blockchain?”

I would say zero, probably.

That was the answer, actually, and it’s not a surprise because the Department of Treasury doesn’t have a DARPA. They haven’t been recruiting for PhD cryptographers. But, it turns out they need to.

Yeah.

And desperately.

Well, they’ve got a Goldman Sachs banker running it who has a kind of unusual manner — I think we can be kind, that’s a kind way of putting it — who doesn’t seem interested in that. Correct? I mean that’s … is that where it comes from, the top in the Department of Treasury?

I think on the tech issues it has to come from the top because if you’re going to get people in the department you’re not through the usual means, right? Get them involved in the top of the policy conversations. You’re going to have to be the one that opens that door.

Right. And these are the departments, presumably, involved with regulating the blockchain. Which they won’t be able to regulate at some point because it’s unregulatable on some level of its being created by not them, or being monitored by not the government.

And you can just imagine if you were to walk across to each building in Washington and ask people there, “What do you do and how is it likely to change in the next five years based on what’s being invented in a garage somewhere?” Boy, there are some real challenges that we’re going to face going forward.

So Treasury, blockchain and what else? Let’s go through them. Blockchain …

I think blockchain and other technologies are …

And then cryptocurrency.

Right. That, of course, impacts the intelligence community’s mission. It also impacts, believe it or not, the development mission. Blockchain is going to revolutionize how a lot of development takes place, whether it’s land titles or new financial technologies to the developing world.

Similarly, the Department of State, there’s this thing called digital now that turns out it changes how we communicate. Almost every department or agency across the government is facing some real curveballs, and the curveballs are coming fast and most of them are not equipped with the kind of people or the kind offices …

Explain what challenge the Department of State faces.

Well, the Department of Defense is lucky because it does have places like DARPA that are part of it. That attracts top commercial talent, that are the best of what they do, and they can …

These are big challenges.

Right, they can look around the corner and say, “Hey boss, there’s this thing that you ought to know about called stealth technology.” Unfortunately, the Defense Department is one of a few parts of the government that has an advanced technology shop like that. And that’s because 30 years ago nobody thought advanced technology was relevant to, say, diplomacy, but it certainly is today. So I think we face a real transformational challenge of how do we re-engineer the State Department to have in it some technologists that can think about how diplomacy might be different going forward?

So how would you … what would they need? What are the issues they need to focus on?

Right. So a lot of the State Department’s mission is reporting and communicating. That, of course, has completely changed. But a lot of the State Department’s mission also is American values. It turns out, our values are actually bound up quite a bit in our technology, and our technology is the kind of mobile phone operating systems that we create and the kind of internet we advocate for.

These are all deeply technological areas, and again ask the question, how many of your scientists are there today working at State?

Zero.

The answer is small.

Small. And that’s everything … I mean, they operate around the world, has to have some technological element.

There’s this funny story. I think there’s something like 140 foreign governments that have a presence here in Silicon Valley. Until last year, the State Department didn’t have anybody here.

Who do they have here?

They had one person who I think got fired.

Oh, okay.

Or sent along, when the administration changed.

Right. Okay. That’s not good. Another department, name another one. Education. Oh, good God.

Yes, so education is not something I personally looked at, but I mean, there again … Look, ed tech, the revolution going on at ed tech. Does the Department of Education have a DARPA-like appendage that is imagining what the future of ed tech is?

No.

And how that will affect American education policy?

Right. So through every single department, and our government, they have to be thinking about … what about this idea that they were gonna … I mean, I know that Chris Liddell and Jared Kushner were pushing the Office of American Innovation. Pretty much everybody quit it. I think a lot of people that were on these different business councils have left over, I think it was Charlottesville.

How do you get Silicon Valley reengaged then with the government, or this government at least? You have a president who seems entirely uninterested in science and technology and in fact is hostile to it.

These are … the past months have not been kind to those who care deeply about this topic. But I think it’s just crucial to step back and notice that, as a nation, this is our future. This is the one thing we cannot afford to get wrong.

So why are we affording and getting it wrong?

I think a lot of people in Silicon Valley are still sort of pretending that what happens in Washington doesn’t really matter to them. And I think a lot of people in Washington just don’t have easy ways to get the knowledge they know they need.

How do they get … because it really is, you gotta convince people, tech people, to come there. These people have jobs everywhere and are easily available to them here and across the world, really. How do you entice them to come to government?

I’ll give you one great example we found. In the U.S. they have something called the Global Development Lab that’s all about technology innovation and global development.

This is where?

USA.

Okay.

It was run, actually, by a former Apple employee named Ann-mae Chun, and she, within that lab, had the operational innovation team that was the team design to get to “yes.” So it had people from the legal department, from the HR department, from the contracting department, and whatever problem was brought to that team, “Hey, how do we get this Silicon Valley executive in for a year? How can we do this contract faster?” They were given the charge of coming up with a way to do it.

So they actually hired a tech recruiter. Imagine that, the government hiring somebody who is an expert in recruiting technologists with skills.

I can’t believe we’re saying, “Imagine that.” It’s like 2018 at this point.

Right. I mean, you would think, right? But it turns out that the bulk of the government, of course, is governed by the Civil Service Act, whose history goes back to the age of the telegraph, it was designed originally to staff the Post Office. Great at providing general administration, not so great at bringing in tech skills for term tours.

Yet, despite that, every department agency generally has a couple hiring authorities in the books, that if leadership says, “Hey, go do this,” you can get people in.

So what do you imagine … because I see other governments moving very heavily into technology within the government sector. And I’m sure they’re not ever as perfect as any of them. They’re all large bureaucracies so you’re going to fall prey to that. What are the biggest issues that our country faces, do you think?

I think one of the … again, going back to the importance of people, you can sit around a table in Washington and not even know that technology is in the middle of the issue you’re trying to solve if you don’t have somebody around the table that can see it.

So if you don’t have a tech team … I mean, if you have a lawyer in the room and an economist in the room, everybody in Washington has got their lawyer and their economist. But if you don’t have your technologist, you don’t even know what you’re missing. So I think that’s the first and probably the most fundamental part of the solution.

And then of the issues, what do you think the most critical thing is that we have to focus in on?

I think we’re at a moment where technology is probably a part of almost every major issue in one way or another.

Terrorism.

I think you can’t any longer say, “Oh well, here are the four issues that technology is a part of and the 12 that aren’t,” and then divide your staff that way. And that’s part of the challenge. This is different than it was even 10 years ago.

So you have to have a technologist at every juncture of governing.

It’s totally ordinary to have a lawyer and an economist on your staff, in fact they have career paths that are set up to support that.

Right, but not for technologists. All right, so what are you doing at Harvard? I want to finish up. What are you studying?

I’m having a ton of fun 20 years after I was a freshman. I got involved in public policy. There’s a little corner of Harvard called the Institute of Politics, it’s a living memorial to JFK. I’m teaching a seminar on the topic of “Public Leadership in a Technological Age.” So whether you’re a computer science undergraduate or somebody studying government — or classics, for that matter — what ought you know about technology, about how it’s produced, about how it’s governed. You can be a future leader on this issue and get ready to join the conversation after you graduate.

And what is your one main thing you tell them? That you have to …

Yeah. Right. Ask not what you … no. So, we get together and we host a bunch of speakers from tech, also from tech policy in Washington. We’re looking for ways to get internships through so they can actually go experience what tech is. And what we tell them is that there definitely is a role, whatever educational track you’re on, to be able to learn more. Whether you’re a computer scientist that … Harvard just debuted an ethics and computer science course this semester. Something that turns out was kind of relevant.

Yes, very.

But if you look at the curriculum on the whole, it’s certainly not built with the idea in mind that we’re in the business of producing leaders that have to be able to grapple with technology policy.

Absolutely. All right, Chris, this has been really interesting. If you … if I had to worry about one thing — I really do like the idea of a flying car — but if I had to worry about one thing and I know you’re not, you don’t want to pick one. What is the thing that you think that government needs to focus most strongly on in the tech area?

Sure. Well, I had a chance to work on Ebola, on the White House Ebola task force.

That’s not coming back, is it?

Well, the thing is we’re kind of changing the world in the wrong way, right? So we’re deforesting, we’re … roads and air travel everywhere and when we deforest, we create these things that scientists call ecosystems where species clump together that normally don’t and it turns out that’s basically creating the world into a giant petri dish for emerging infectious disease.

So I actually worry the most, to be honest, about pandemics, I’m kind of in the Bill Gates camp on that one, when it comes to security.

I’m with you on pandemics, you know I’m obsessed with pandemics.

Do you have any Purell in the office? We should probably …

I have a lot.

Good.

I’m a pandemic obsesser.

Thank you so much, this has been very depressing. But we do need technologists in government and this administration really needs to focus on it, but I’m not … I have to say, I’m not very hopeful about that at this point. But we can always hope things can change.

Anyway, this had been Chris Kirchhoff. He’s a former partner at the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley office DIUx, which stands for Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, which is still operating here. It funds private companies in exchange for commercial products that can solve national defense problems. Thank you, Chris, for coming.

Thanks for having me.

Recode – All

Cash For Apps: Make money with android app

Full transcript: Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes on Recode Decode

How Complete Beginners are using an ‘Untapped’ Google Network to create Passive Income ON DEMAND

His new book advocates for providing “guaranteed income.”

On this episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher, Chris Hughes, the co-founder of Facebook and former owner of The New Republic, talks about his new book, “Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn.” In it, Hughes argues that working people should receive a guaranteed income, paid for by the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S.

You can read a write-up of the interview here or listen to the whole thing in the audio player above. Below, we’ve also provided a lightly edited complete transcript of their conversation.

If you like this, be sure to subscribe to Recode Decode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts.


Kara Swisher: Recode Radio presents Recode Decode, coming to you from the Vox Media podcast network. Hi, I’m Kara Swisher, executive editor of Recode. You may know me as someone who plans to get rich by selling bulletproof armor for Teslas, but in my spare time, I talk tech, and you’re listening to Recode Decode, a podcast about tech and media’s key players, big ideas and how they’re changing the world we live in. You can find more episodes of Recode Decode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Play Music or wherever you listen to podcasts, or just visit recode.net/podcasts for more.

Now in week three of my horrible cold, which is giving me this very scratchy voice today, still, we have in the red chair Chris Hughes, one of the co-founders of Facebook. He’s also the author of a new book called “Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn.” It argues that working people should receive a guaranteed income, sometimes called Universal Basic Income, paid for by the 1 percent like Chris himself. Chris, welcome to Recode Decode.

Chris Hughes: Thanks for having me.

So, tell me about … and let me go into your background first, because this is a big topic, and the joke I made at the top about bulletproofing your Teslas was from a quote that Robert Reich just gave at an event, where he said, “You’re either gonna have to do something like Universal Basic Income or” — to the rich — “or you’re gonna have to pay to bulletproof your Teslas.” You know, so we’ll get into a really bad situation of haves and have-nots and like Brazil or some countries where the rich have to insulate themselves using security, or South Africa or somewhere else.

So, I wanted to explain that it’s not a joke but it’s a very serious issue. But first, let’s talk about your background. Can you give everybody a quick synopsis of your history?

Happily. I’ll try to give the Cliff’s Notes version. I grew up in a little town, Hickory, North Carolina. It’s at the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, used to be a …

You’ve barely lost the accent, but you have.

I did a little bit.

I can hear it.

Well, that’s part of the story, actually. I grew up there, my mom was a public school teacher, Dad was a traveling paper salesman, but then I got a scholarship to go to a fancy boarding school, Phillips Andover, up in Massachusetts. And it was there where …

Nice. That is a fancy boarding school.

It is indeed. It was there where I lost the accent and then later got a scholarship to go to Harvard and met Mark Zuckerberg, freshman year. We ended up roommates sophomore year, started Facebook in February of 2004, the rocket ship took off and my life changed pretty dramatically.

I ended up wanting to write the book in order to partially tell my story and be clear that the financial reward that I got from three years’ worth of work at Facebook was entirely disproportionate to the time and effort put in, but to also make the case that my story, which is nothing but … You know, the only thing we can call it is a lucky break, is unfortunately not that uncommon in the economy today.

No, now, you are unusual …

That a small group of people … I might be extreme but I don’t think my case is actually that unusual, a small group of people are getting very, very wealthy while everybody else is struggling to make ends meets.

Yeah, extremely wealthy in some cases. What did you … after Facebook, you left relatively early?

I did. I left in 2007 and went and worked for President Obama.

Right, like digital stuff.

Back in the early days of the campaign, I had the title of Director of Online Organizing, which pretty much meant trying to not just build a community online but create a movement that was willing to take the campaign into their own hands, not just sort of the hub-and-spoke traditional model of those campaigns, but instead people standing up to organize events and raise money, knock on doors, make phone calls and using the internet to power …

Which was early on. I mean, this had been tried by … Actually, the right wing was very good at it. The conservatives were very good at it way, way, way back, but this was one of the biggest efforts to do this, an important part of his winning.

Yeah, it was a transitional moment in politics in so many ways, but I think the biggest shift was not so much in technology. We had a social network called barackobama.com The technology was good but it was in the expectations that the candidate at the time and that the campaign around him was interesting, specifically saying, “You know, we’re not going to try to lock down the message and just us, three or four at the campaign headquarters in Chicago, are going to figure it all out. Instead, we’re going to open it up and quite literally enable anybody to write anything on our website barackobama.com.”

It was a symbolic moment but it mattered because it invited people into the campaign, to participate in a way that previously they hadn’t really been asked to, and it was symbolic of a lot of other changes. So we ended up raising tens of millions, hundreds of million by the end, of dollars through the internet, had tens of thousands of grassroots events. It was an important moment.

What got you there? How did you get there, you just liked Obama?

Well, it was back in 2007 and …

Way back then, that’s so long ago.

I know. It’s not that long ago, but politics has changed so dramatically, this really feels that way.

I was working on some of the political products at Facebook and so, one of the people that I got to know was this guy Reggie Love, who was President Obama’s body man, as they’re called, and …

That’s an unfortunate term, isn’t it?

Anyway, sorry to say that word, but he was his assistant and he just went with him anywhere. We started having conversations, just like we were doing with other candidates and officeholders, on how to use Facebook. It became clear that Obama was going to throw his hat in the ring and then I talked to a few of the other people. I did really believe in Obama’s story himself and the promise that he offered. Initially I just took a leave, but the leave turned into a permanent move.

Did you miss doing that, leaving Facebook?

You know, I had mixed feelings about it, but my experience was really different than Mark’s and Dustin’s. I mean, Facebook was a mission in and of itself for Mark, and for me it was a company that I enjoyed being a part of, growing. I learned a lot, it was exciting, there were all kinds of challenges, but it was clear to me early on that Facebook was not my life’s work. It was going to be a chapter, and it turned out to be a very important chapter, but I felt, particularly in 2007 when George Bush was president, we had all kinds of what I view as unfair economic policies, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a time when I was really hopeful that the country could change the corner.

Well, you had money and means and you had skills.

Yeah, at that point I moved to the campaign and was paid I think $ 65,000. Facebook stock was all …

No one feels badly for you.

No, no, no, I know, I’m just being clear. I talk in the book about when I actually sold some stock and didn’t make money and what a massive change it was, but in that period the move from Facebook to Obama was about the mission.

Yeah, you were at a startup, it was a startup, people forget. Yeah, absolutely. So, you did that, and then afterwards had done a range of things. I’m sorry to go back in history but people find your background interesting.

It’s fun.

So, you then went on to buy a publication, you did a lot of things, your husband ran for office.

He did, yeah. After Facebook went public in 2012, my husband and I made a commitment to give away the vast majority of the money that we made and to invest that money in causes that we believed in. I started investing in, really, multiple things, and on the one hand I started the journey to cash. That is how I sort of ended up writing the book today and talking about guaranteed income and universal basic income.

I also bought a magazine called The New Republic and decided to invest there because I believed two things. That the journalism that The New Republic had done for decades, nearly 100 years at the time, was incredibly valuable, important to the world, important to democracy and also deserved, in 2012, a bigger audience than it had historically had. I talk a lot in the book about my experience there because on the whole there are more things that I regret than …

Yeah, a little rocky.

More than a little rocky.

Those are real grumpy — I’m being polite — those are super grumpy journalists. I lived in Washington, I know those things.

Yeah, but I also came in guns blazing.

Yeah, you did. I know better.

I came in with the kind of expectation that if you invest a lot of money and you bring together smart people and you set really ambitious goals, you know, you can reach them. That’s what the first two experiences of my career had taught me. Between Facebook and the Obama Campaign they taught me that the impossible was actually a little bit more possible than one might think.

What was the big problem? You write about it, but what do you think the big issue … what’s your big mistake and that big mistake? I think it’s a group of people that doesn’t like the internet in general. Most traditional media, in my experience over the years, has been resistant.

Well, I think …

Or grudging would be [a better word].

If I were to do it all over again, I would take a different approach. I would not come in and say the kind of journalism that The New Republic has historically done is necessarily made for an audience of tens of millions of people. I came in really thinking that we could and should open it up to a much broader kind of audience.

Big ideas should have big …

Exactly, and I think at the end of the day I was maybe the last to learn what everybody else already knew. The New Republic had been a small kind of magazine.

Artisanal, we would call it artisanal.

Yeah, we had 35,000 subscribers and that wasn’t because … You know, it was because there’s a community of people who are politically minded, culturally curious, literary, etc., but that community is relatively small.

Maybe. We’ll see what Laurene Jobs does at the Atlantic, they’re doing a kind of conversation.

Yeah, well, the Atlantic has a different tradition, the New Yorker has its own. You know, each of these institutions are artisanal, they make up a category. But so rather than swinging for the fences, I think the institution would have been better served, the people I worked with would have been better served and the values behind it would have been better served if we had made more modest investments. If we’d said, “Yes, we’re going to have a good website that is in line with the values of the day, but we don’t need the best award-winning iPad app guys.” Like the slickest kind of technology content management systems, we probably don’t need to create a custom one from scratch, as we ended up doing. These kinds of things …

You’re the internet guy. Someone there called you a terrier to me.

What’s that?

Terrier.

What does that mean?

I don’t know, don’t ask me. I get those … I’m sorry, everyone in … There’s a reason I left Washington, and a part of it was the extreme distaste for the internet no matter what, even if it was a relatively good idea.

Look, you came in with … you did come in with guns blazing, and those people, no. When I was like, “No, no, no, Chris, stop, these are not the …” It’s like when Pierre Omidyar went into Intercept, at first there was like, “Oh, they’re real grumpy over there,” but it’s like, Laurene Jobs is making investments. There’s all kind of internet people making … Jeff Bezos — the Washington Post — seems to have done a very good job of that.

Absolutely, but just one last point on that. I do think it’s important, though, to recognize that the kind of journalism that all of these institutions do is really a public goal.

Absolutely.

And this idea that the market … We have to find robust, for-profit kind of sustainable models for this journalism, maybe we will. There’s a scenario where we don’t and that doesn’t mean that it’s not important to support it.

Well, you have ProPublica.

Exactly, you do have ProPublica and Texas Tribune, you have some …

Yeah, you have rich people backing these things.

Exactly, and when I started … I see you sort of rolling your eyes a little bit. My initial response was a kind of skepticism, “Is that really sustainable?” But on the other side of my experience, I think that is in many ways the story of a lot of the high-quality media in the country.

The New Republic had not really ever turned a profit. It was technically a company but it was really … I mean, I have a line in the book, it was a cause dressed up as a company — and I think we culturally need to get a little bit more used to the fact that even if Jeff was losing an immense amount of money at the Washington Post, I still think that the journalism is important to …

Yeah, well, it’s interesting because … We’ll get to that, because you’re talking about rich people paying for something like universal income too. There is a duty of public service and maybe that’s the way it’s going to be paid for and everyone should stop bellyaching over it, you’re right. You know what I mean, on some level. So, what’s your relationship there now? None? Or you sold?

No, I sold the magazine to Win McCormack in 2016.

Well, that’s a name of a person who should own The New Republic. Sorry. Win McCormack?

Yeah.

It’s a perfect name. You have a good name but it’s not as good as Win McCormack.

Not quite as austere, right?

Yes, yeah. So you have had nothing to do, or do you imagine going into other journalism-type things? You had an interest.

Yeah, and my interest is still real. I’m focused on specifically income inequality. I have come to believe that where the most opportunity lies is in making the case for cash and specifically for guaranteed income for Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, so that’s what I’m most …

Well, we’re going to talk about in the next section. I just want to finish up with you, and then your husband ran for office. You go from one thing to … he didn’t win.

Well, that was him. That wasn’t me.

Yes, but you were involved in it.

Yes, it turns out we are married.

We are married, and didn’t win. Is he going to run again or is that it?

I don’t think so. He’s focused on something called Stand Up America, which is an organization that tries to channel a resistance to Trump’s agenda. It’s quite the understatement that the energy that the resistance has cultivated over the past few years is in need of organization, so what they do is connect the dots, and on Facebook, on Twitter, email, text message, I mean, you name it. It’s trying to make sure people are aware of what’s happening, particularly when it comes to the Russia investigation but across the board, and then translate that enthusiasm and energy into boots on the ground, door knocks and eventually, hopefully, into electoral victory.

Votes will be the thing. I just had an interesting interview with Cory Booker and I’m going to be talking to Chuck Schumer later today, but I think votes would be the thing that everyone needs to focus on beyond … and how to get people to actually step out and vote. That’s pretty much it.

Yeah, absolutely.

It’s just an understatement of how difficult that is, but it’s the only thing that’s going to change anything.

Then you move to this, this book and what got you interested in the income inequality. A lot of people out here, Sam Altman’s interested, there’s an experiment in Oakland, I think there’s one in Sweden. They’re all over.

We have one in Stockton.

Stockton, California, so talk about that. Your group has one, you are what?

My interest in guaranteed income actually started around 2012, and I came in through the international door to start. So my husband and I came into this immense amount of wealth, we made this commitment to give it all away, and so the first kind of …

And you could have done a lot of things. You could have done a lot of … like a family foundation.

The first kind of question is this like, what’s the most effective thing that you can do?

Right.

And so it seems like an easy question. It’s actually an incredibly complex one, and so we went on a journey — and I have a chapter in the book that narrates a piece of it — to think about where are we going to get the most bang for the buck? How can we help people in the way that is the most effective? And particularly from an international perspective.

I looked a lot at different things and ended up finding Michael Faye and Paul Niehaus, the two co-founders of an organization called GiveDirectly, and made a first gift of $ 100,000, which was literally texted to people living on less than a dollar a day in Kenya, and began a journey myself. And, so I came to the immense amount of evidence that cash is the most effective thing that you can do to improve health outcomes, education outcomes and lift people out of poverty.

So, giving the poor money is the way to make them not poor?

Indeed, and I learned that initially through the international lens, but then here, domestically, what I discovered is that we actually already have the world’s largest cash transfer program. It’s called the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s called a tax credit, but what it actually is is a lived experience of … it’s a check that tens of millions of Americans get and it lifts more people out of poverty than food stamps, housing vouchers and unemployment insurance combined.

Now, it needs to be modernized, I would argue, for the economy that we live in today, not just the income inequality that we have but also the income instability that the gig economy has introduced. At the end of the day, though it’s once a belief that I had because of the empirical evidence that shows the effectiveness, and one that I feel like is a moral case, I believe that the best way to respect the dignity of people and embrace their freedom is through the most fundable thing.

Simple thing.

Through cash and the ability to chase their own dreams or figure out their own futures.

Cash or some kind of money. So, you got interested in it through that, just by giving?

Initially, and then …

What did you try with that concept? Because again there’s lots of … I’m assuming you get like pecked to death all day of what you should give to and how you can help people.

Yeah, and I mean my husband and I give to an array of causes, it’s not just Cash International. LGBT rights is another thing that’s important to us, we were active in the fight for marriage equality, but particularly when it comes to income inequality and ending poverty. When you’re on the hunt for what’s the most effective thing to do, one of the things that I’ve learned is that sometimes the best solution is the simplest. Of course we need more and better education, of course we need more small businesses to create good jobs.

We’ve spent decades thinking about those things, investing in those things, and we should think more. However, sometimes we overlook the most powerful tool or the most powerful weapon in the arsenal and in many ways the simplest, and I think cash can be that. So my hope, though, is to take the conversation a little bit out of speculating about whether robots are going to take all the jobs in 2040 and driverless car and situate it in the here and now, because income inequality has not been as bad as it is today since 1929.

Wow, that’s amazing.

Since the year the Great Depression began. I mean, the top 0.1 percent — not 1 percent, the top 0.1 percent — owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. And so anybody who says, “Well, that’s just the way the economy works.” No, we have chosen the rules that structure this economy and we have the power to choose different ones, and I think a guaranteed income should be at the center.

All right, we’re going to talk about that more because it’s loaded with so many different things, politics with everything else, when we get back. We’re here with Chris Hughes, he is one of the co-founders of Facebook but his new book is called “Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn It.” We’re going to talk more about that and other issues when we get back.

[ad]

We’re here in the red chair with Chris Hughes, one of the co-founders of Facebook but he’s talking about income inequality because of his new book “Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn It.”

We just talked about his background and how he got to this topic. Let’s talk some more about that because there’s so many things hanging off of income inequality. There’s all kinds of efforts. Talk first about your efforts that you’re doing in Stockton. How do you approach it? Because again, there’s lots of different thoughts about this and some people think it’s … I met someone the other day calling it communism, like, you know what I mean like, okay, yeah, kind of.

I think of it as capitalism with much better guardrails.

Okay, something like that.

The group that I co-run is called the Economic Security Project and what we are trying to do is convene a bigger, broader conversation about how a guaranteed income can work in America. There are a lot of people who are interested in UBI, how might this actually evolve, and there are a lot of people who want to think about what we can do in the next three years, what can we do in the next five years, so a shorter time horizon than …

This is to solve inequality problems right now?

Exactly.

Whereas there’s possible job loss, we’ll get to that.

Exactly. So what we do is we convene a network of academics, policy makers, technologists, artists, all of who are talking about, “How do we attack this?” And as part of that we move money. One of the things that we’ve done is work to support Mayor Michael Tubbs, who is the mayor of Stockton, California. For those of you who are listeners who don’t know, he’s 27 years old, he’s the youngest mayor of a major American city. He’s African-American from a city that is incredibly diverse. He’s the first African-American mayor there in generations and he is committed to exploring how a guaranteed income can work for Stocktonians in the here and now.

This is beyond payments from the government?

Specifically, what we’re doing is supporting a demonstration of the idea that will provide an income to some members of the Stockton community. The community itself will decide who exactly, how much money, the duration, etc. Community meetings are beginning this summer and disbursements are likely to begin in fall.

What does it generalize, I know that the community is deciding this, but there are standards right now growing?

Yeah, one place to begin the number, a lot of people talked about is $ 1,000 a month, others talk about more … in the book I call for $ 500 a month, making the case that modest amounts of money can really have out-sized impacts and go even further. The idea, though, is to invite more people into the conversation and move us out of just the realm of theory, might this be a good idea, into the practical, the here and now.

We have lots of research already from up in Alaska, where they have a small guaranteed income from the Earned Income Tax Credit. The Cherokee in North Carolina have a guaranteed income and not to mention the international stuff and so, yes, we need more evidence. And we’re hopeful that that will emerge, but the real focus is on the storytelling. And Tubbs himself as a leader has already just, in announcing this in the work that he’s doing, brought so many more people into the conversation both in Stockton and nationwide.

Who gets the money in your … That’s going to be decided, but in general who gets it? The poorest, correct? Or not? Or working families?

In Stockton, it will be decided by Stocktonians.

It’s not me that’s going to get $ 1,000. It’s not wealthy people. Or is there a level or should everybody get it?

In the book, I make the case that the best way to start with a guaranteed income today is $ 500 to everyone who’s making $ 50,000 on down. So, it’s a little bit different than a UBI. It’s inspired by the exact same values of cash, no strings attached, to achieve financial stability, recognize the dignity and freedom of each individual, but it’s a more modest place to begin. I make the case that we can and should do this through a modernization of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Which goes to what level of people?

Right now, this is part of the problem. It’s so complex, you know, the people who get it, it depends on how old you are, how many kids you have, whether or not you’re married, what state you live in, what your wages were like. And, so what ends up happening is that people get, in many cases, quite a lot of money, between $ 500 and $ 6,000 a year, but because it’s not predictable, you don’t know where it’s coming, when it’s coming, how much you’re going to get. It doesn’t provide the fundamental financial stability, which in my view is …

Which is covering rent or?

That’s the problem that I see this is really trying to solve in the here and now. I mean, we know that jobs in America have already come apart. That is what the effects of automation and globalization in particular have done. All the jobs in the past 10 years that we’ve created, 94 percent of them are part-time, contract, temporary, seasonal. They’re the kinds of things that … Yeah, unemployment is near a record low, but the jobs that are out there are not providing the kind of 40-hours-a-week benefits …

Yes, and it’s going to get worse.

Sick leave, retirement benefits. And it’s very likely to get worse.

And then the elimination of some jobs with some of these technologies you’re talking about, some very … especially around automation, especially on self-driving, we don’t know, nobody knows.

That’s the threat that looms, right? Lots of people have predictions, but in some sense … My argument is, we don’t know exactly where the future is going to go and should have a conversation about where it might lead, but we already know quite a lot about what’s already happening to jobs and we need a guaranteed income to stabilize the lives of Americans who are working hard.

What if you’re someone that’s arguing against it, what is your argument against it?

The arguments I hear most often …

What’s the best one that you’d make if you were against it?

The one that comes up the most often is education, particularly in personal context for me. People say, “Well, you came from a middle-class family, a small town in North Carolina, you got a great education and you did super well for yourself, isn’t that just what we need more of?”

“You drag yourself up,” you drag yourself up from a modest background, right?

That’s the argument that a lot of people make. You know, on the one hand, of course we need better education. There’s no question that education in America, we’ve invested a lot of money in it and have seen some benefits but not enough and there’s an important argument to be made for more education.

But what I think we’ve often overlooked is that … Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who’s got a … Let’s say you’ve got a high school [diploma], you’ve been working in a minimum wage job. You want to go back and get retrained for really any kind of job. Right now, we say, “Well, clearly we just need more educational opportunities.” That person, though …

I’ll use this specific example. I was in Ohio last summer talking to people who were specifically in this position. They were working in minimum wage jobs, they wanted to get all kinds of retraining. You begin the conversation like, “Okay, but why aren’t you doing that?” So, first off, where are you going to go? Community college. The closest community college is 45 minutes away. You got to pay for the gas to get there and the tuition, yeah it costs $ 8,000. Well, you can get financial aid, it’s going to cost you $ 1,000. Mind you, as the backdrop, none of these people have savings. You know, half of Americans can’t find $ 400 in the case of emergency. Just from the beginning, you got to find $ 1,000 to pay for their education.

Now from there, if you’ve got kids, you’ve got to figure out childcare. How are you going to pay for that when you’re at school? And then if you’re working in a job already, you’ve got to make up for the lost hours and lost wages that you’re not going to have when you’re already living on the brink, how are you going to do that?

And then, even assuming you can figure out all of those things, when you show up for your class at 8:00 pm there’s an immense amount of evidence that shows that if you’ve already been working a full-time day, you’re exhausted and the likelihood of you being successful in that is quite low.

So my view is, of course we need more education, but let’s not overlook the power that cash has to open up the opportunities to be able to take advantage of the educational opportunities we create.

What about the current push by the Trump administration of, “These are lazy people and they have to work for their money.”

I think that’s preposterous. Not only does that not …

It’s out there in …

It’s a cynical argument that people make.

Of course it is, it’s awful and it’s cruel. Wow, cruelty from this administration. It’s cruel, it’s flat out cruel.

Yeah, absolutely. And I think it’s premised on perpetrating a myth. Specifically it’s this myth of the Welfare Queen, which was authored by none other than Ronald Reagan but is still permeating.

Lee Atwater did it.

Well, in the Reagan era.

Yeah and let’s give credit to Lee Atwater, who has died but frankly deserved a lot of credit for that.

It’s a myth that has been really problematic and really destructive. It’s racialized in the sense that it conjures up this kind of idea of people who just hang out and live on the … Now, of course, the evidence doesn’t show that. If you look at labor force participation rates for African-American women, for instance, and you compare those to white men, guess which group works more?

African-American women.

African-American women. So the data shows that that is not true, and when you actually get out there and talk to working people, you know, it doesn’t take much to actually see that that’s not true. But it’s a cynical kind of story that it’s in the interest of a lot of people in power to continue to [promote].

But that’s what they’re pushing right now around all kinds of things, is that you have to work to get welfare, you have to demonstrate that you can’t … It is never leaving our society, this concept of the lazy poor.

I am hopeful that we can turn a corner. It’s not going to evaporate tomorrow. I don’t want to overstate the case here but I do think that there is a generational shift that’s happening and specifically if we can broaden the definition of work that we use to really recognize what work is.

It’s sort of similar to what happened with marriage. In the marriage fight for LGBT people, for a very long time there was an argument about legalizing same-sex marriage as if it was like another kind of marriage, this thing that’s over here that’s different. And then when the movement shifted and started making the case that no marriage … What is marriage fundamentally about? It’s fundamentally about love and commitment, and love is love and marriage is marriage and we need to make sure that the definition of marriage matches love and matches the time that we live in. The definition of marriage quite literally has expanded over time to recognize the kind of marriage that my husband and I are in, for instance.

Similarly, with work, when we talk about work all the time, clearly a mom or a dad who’s staying home with young kids who are under … particularly if they’re under 5 or 6 and not in school, they’re working and we use the word “work” to describe what they’re doing. Similarly, people engaged in elder care, if you’ve got an aging parent at home, you’re working. And I make the case in the book that students, people involved in education, those people are working, too.

Of course.

If we can expand the definition of work to recognize what people are doing, what you end up with is recognizing the role that virtually every American is playing in society.

Except the people that are doing most of that work are people of color, women are doing two jobs, raising the kids, and we’ve got an issue of around white men essentially that don’t recognize that this is work.

And, they’ve been historically excluded. Like right now, I was in Jackson, Mississippi, three weeks ago meeting with a lot of young African-American moms who lived in public housing and right now many of them were … in fact, all of them were sufficiently poor that they needed the safety net kinds of benefits. Right now, our safety net says what you’re doing at home taking care of your kids? No, no that doesn’t count. You got to go over to Burger King and get a $ 7-an-hour job — and mind you for every $ 7 that they make they’re docked about $ 4 or $ 5 of government benefits that get reduced, so their actual per-hour earnings become quite small. In order to qualify for a whole host of benefits because that’s real work, but the work that you’re doing at home doesn’t count.

Well, there are those who say you shouldn’t have kids. It goes on, it’s a deeply ingrained racism and everything is …

I think it has to change and I think we have to start somewhere. This is going to be a long-term kind of fight because it does tap into big cultural questions. Again, I don’t want to overstate the speed with which this may happen, but I do think it is similar to something like the fight for marriage equality, which over the course of decades we did see a generational and cultural shift.

For the most part, for many. Although still there’s so much retrograde stuff going on.

Not for everyone, yeah.

You know, Chris, only gay people want to get married and go into the military, I don’t know if you know that. No, I wanted to go in the military, I did, I wanted to do both.

So once you start this in place what do you hope to … What is the goal? Is it to show success, show what … Or just watch how it works?

Well, I think we can start in cities and states and build a sense of momentum.

Everything is happening in the cities and states that matters.

Most things are happening in the cities and states, although I do think that … I can talk a little bit about the opportunity, too, at the federal level. In my view, we should begin today like what Mayor Tubbs is doing in Stockton. You could also do this at a state level, it will be a more modest size, a few hundred dollars a month, but we can begin now and see how it works, see how it changes the lives of people who are getting it. Again, we have a lot of evidence already to know but specifically …

How is it changing, people feel a little more relaxed, they can do …

People certainly feel more relaxed. The recipients of cash assistance specifically through the Earned Income Tax Credit, the kids do better in school. They stay in school for longer periods of time, they do better on tests. Health outcomes improve, people are hospitalized less often, there are fewer complications in pregnancies, people who receive the guaranteed income from the Cherokee as they grow into adults have fewer mental health issues.

There’s a lot of evidence about the effective care. And all this, by the way, is domestic, we don’t even have to go to the couple of hundred studies that exist internationally that show all kinds of other benefits, you know, domestic violence rates go down in many cases and all of it.

It’s intuitive, at the end of the day, if you have a little bit more financial stability in your life you’re able to live one step or two steps back from the brink. We’re not talking about so much money that everybody wins the lottery and we’re like all just, you know, hanging out, putting up our feet, whatever the worst images are that the critics conjure up.

Lazy, eating Cheetos. Cheetos is always involved.

So there’s a lot of evidence. Developing more of a track record at the city level and at the state level and then I do think long-term at the federal level. You know, we just saw a tax bill that got passed at the end of last year, which gave massive cuts …

That was Rich People’s Universal Basic Income.

Giving massive cuts to the 1 percent and to corporations and doubled down on what I consider a debunked theory of trickle-down economics. We’ve been doing this for 40 years and median wages have not meaningfully budged, and yet …

The rich get richer.

The rich get richer and they made a decision to double down on that. Now I think that there is a movement already growing to repeal and replace that law and to rethink it. And I do think that there’s an opportunity to put a modernized Earned Income Tax Credit, which essentially provides a guaranteed income for working people, at the center of that kind of bill.

Now, whether that will happen in 2021 or, I don’t know, 2025, I mean, who knows? So many things can change, but the cynicism that’s permeating our culture about change in Washington and at other levels is the biggest hurdle. We have to begin to think creatively and begin to organize on these ideas.

You know about Sheryl Sandberg’s, I think with the College Track people, giving them cash because they need it for rent. She has a thing where she’s giving away the people who are on College Track. They get money so they can pay the rent, they can do summer internships they couldn’t afford. She’s just giving them money like she …

This is a similar concept, because what happens when they go to college through College Track, poor kids don’t know how to dress, they don’t know how to network, they can’t take summer jobs that are easy. Sometimes their parents rely on them and so the concept is give them cash to pay for those things and give them an extra comfort.

I don’t know that much about it but from what you describe it seems to make a lot of sense. I do think people often ask, again, why is it that cash is so … I was on financial aid in college. Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Muscovites, they dropped out and I was out here that first summer when they decided to stay here and I went back, and a lot of people say, “Well, do you regret that decision?” Because on paper it was the wrong decision from a financial perspective, and to be honest it wasn’t even ever really a decision for me because …

You had to go back.

Because the idea … I mean, if I were to be here, what am I going to do? Work at Starbucks all day and then come home to work at Facebook marketing? I guess I could have, but I was at Harvard and was the first of my family to have that kind of opportunity and so … Anyway, my point is this, a lot of people in college now have a guaranteed income and it comes from their parents — and my kid one day will have that too, so I’m in that category now — but a lot of other people don’t. We have a responsibility to even the playing field and to counteract how those generational cycles …

That was very important about your own experience there. They could afford to be startup people in a different way.

We’re here with Chris Hughes, he’s one of the founders of Facebook. He is very interested in income inequality with his new book “Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn.”

The changing workplace, are you worried about … You’ve benefited from technology financially and have been part of the technology sector for part of your life. Are you worried about job loss or things like that because that could stress this system even more?

I am. Alot of people are convinced that artificial intelligence is going to create mass technical unemployment.

Well, it’s combined automation, there’s a whole bunch.

It’s automation, it’s artificial intelligence, exactly.

Economics, self-driving.

Exactly, it’s a combination of multiple trends. There are a lot of economists who think that’s crazy and I talk to a lot of them, too. Jason Forman, who played a prominent role in the Obama administration, has particularly carved out a play saying, “You know, in the long-term this is unlikely to happen.” I’m concerned about it but I also don’t … I’m not in the class where I’m here saying, “It’s going to happen, it’s a fait accompli, it’s a done deal.” It may or may not.

But what I do think the trends are very clear about is the increasing fragmentation of jobs already, and it’s the gig economy that is indicative of that — the Lyft drivers and Uber drivers — but it’s also the worker at Starbucks who can only get 25 hours and who doesn’t know next week if she’ll get 10 or 40.

Or when.

The idea that you need to be able to plan, planning is made very, very difficult.

That’s very important.

You’re constantly stressed if you don’t know you’re going to be able to make rent. Yeah, you have a job, you have some hours, but if you’re not going to get enough then you’re constantly living on …

You’re in a constant state of instability.

I worry about the wholesale job loss, absolutely, but I’m also personally really intent on making clear that wherever you fall on whether or not that’s the future or not the future, we already need a guaranteed income.

I think it’s interesting. Marc Andreessen is a big proponent of this, that in the end it will be like farming to manufacturing and we’ll have more jobs than ever.

The reason I’m so interested in it this past year — we’ve done a special on MSNBC about it, we’re going to do a lot more of them — is because he was saying, I said, “The blacksmiths, what happened to them?” and he goes, “I don’t care what happened to the blacksmiths,” and I was like, “Yeah, but they had families and something happened, something not good happened to those people.” Did they retrain?

There was social unrest during that whole period, there was enormous social unrest with the farming to manufacturing economy, and we forget because we’re a national of perpetually forgetting our history. It’s happened several times, these shifts in technologies, really.

And people make the argument, too, around not just retraining but mobility. Well, yeah, the blacksmiths of today, they should just move to where all the jobs are.

Who’s going to teach them? I just want to know who’s going to retrain …

The average move across job lines cost over $ 5,000 and half of Americans can’t find $ 400 in case their car breaks down, so this idea that you’re just supposed to pack up, turn off the lights and magically move to a place where housing alone is probably five times as expensive as where you were before, it’s crazy.

I think I want to get to the idea of this 1 percent, not just the fragmentation but the wealthiest concentration of wealth moving higher and higher up to a smaller and smaller amount of people. Because I firmly believe there’s a group of people at the top who have benefited from the future. At the very top, the obscenely wealthy love the future, they will be able to change, they will be able to afford it, they will be able to teach themselves, they’re interested in teaching themselves.

Then there’s a vast group of people in the middle who like the future, are scared of the future, and this group on the top is not pulling them up and presumably they would pull the ones below them up further, but there’s no pulling up by the wealthy here. Here’s you saying that the 1 percent should pay this. We’ve just had a tax cut where the 1 percent got paid. What do you imagine this … why the 1 percent doesn’t have this duty to take care?

In San Francisco, it’s the same thing. You can see the streets right now and it’s hard living here with people doing drugs on the streets, you are like, they’re lying on the streets doing drugs in front of my house. This is not good as a taxpayer and you feel badly for feeling that way too, but most people don’t feel badly about thinking about people in that way.

Well, I think a lot of the people that I talk to are cognizant of a sense of responsibility they have to other people. It’s in San Francisco, it’s in New York. I’ll paint with a broad brush and then I’ll be a little more specific about what I mean. I think that there is a sense, particularly amongst people who have been successful in technology, that the rewards that have come are very much historically unique.

I mean, we’ve never lived in a time where 20-year-olds are able to go from zero dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, before. Royalty is like the closest thing, hundreds of years ago, and so that is … I do think that there’s a widening sense that something is happening in the economy that makes that possible, and it’s happening at the exact same time that everybody else is having a hard time making ends meet.

That middle group that you’re discussing, those folks have not gotten a raise in 40 years but the cost of living is 30 percent higher. I do think that there’s increasingly a sense of responsibility. Now that’s probably more on the left than on the right, but my hope is to appeal not only to a sense of moral responsibility but also a sense of pragmatism. And by that I mean what we know about what creates long-term economic growth is that consumer spending is the biggest driver of that, and if you put $ 100 in the pockets really of anybody in your description there, anybody in the middle or at the bottom, they’re going to spend most of that money on whatever is most urgent for them: Housing, health care, education.

You put $ 100 in the pockets of the 1 percent, we know it goes into a bank account. It goes to work in complex financial moves but it’s not part of the productive economy. There was a study that the Roosevelt Institute did last year that modeled out, if you give $ 500 for guaranteed income to every American, what would happen to the economy? And the model shows that over the next eight years GDP would grow by 7 percent.

Based on just that amount.

Based just on that amount. And so my argument is that I think in the long run a guaranteed income is good for everyone, certainly for the middle class and the poor who need the funds the most, but it should also be good for …

The producers, the wealthy.

For the wealthy as well because it creates a kind of broad-based economic growth.

Just specifically to talk about the pay for a moment. I think tax rates on income of $ 250,000 and higher should come into line with their historical average of 50 percent. That’s where they were for much of the 20th century, for the decades after the Second World War really up until 1980 ,that’s in line with where they were. And it just so happens that that’s the period when economic growth was not only the biggest but also the most broadly shared and we had plenty of innovation, plenty of smart people starting all kinds of new companies. The idea that if taxes were higher on that income that we wouldn’t have started Facebook, that’s just not true.

It’s nonsense.

And the way that that would play out is because it’s income above, if you’re making $ 300,000, which in some parts of the country definitely makes you wealthy but not, let’s say, a part of the winner-take-all. What you’re talking about is a few more like $ 7,000 more in taxes to fund a guaranteed income. If you made $ 10 million, well, what we’re talking about is your tax bill would be $ 1.5 million higher than it is today, and it is my view that that is more in line with where our finances should be in. We can and should ask the members of that 1 percent to be footing the bill, to make sure that everybody else can enjoy the economic opportunity …

You’re with a group of people in tech who talk about that but I deal with a lot of people from Wall Street and stuff like that and I am always astounded by the continued greed of incredibly wealthy people.

I think it’s short-sighted. I think in the long-term it’s …

I would agree. I was talking to someone who is enormously wealthy, really, they were driving me crazy and I finally said, “You know, you’re so poor all you have is money.” Like, “I don’t know what to say.” He was so insulted. He was like, “Why could you say that to me?” I’m like, I just, “You’re so poor, I just don’t know how to explain it to you. You’re just …” It’s astonishing.

I’m constantly surprised by it when you get to a certain level of income and you can’t understand because you know you don’t want to give it to government, the government is somewhat incompetent. Like, “I don’t want to give it to those bozos to hand out.” I feel like when I pay … I pay a lot of taxes and I’m like, “I don’t want to give it to those crazy military people,” like everybody has a thing.

That’s why the Earned Income Tax Credit is the structure that I’m talking about using to build the guaranteed income. It has historically been really popular on the right as well as the left.

I would like to give it to regular people. Yeah, I’m good with people just getting cash.

Every president in the United States since 1975, Republican and Democrat alike, every single one has meaningfully expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. And it’s for that reason, not only because of the evidence it shows that it works but because there’s a sense that on the right …

Also, it’s a good gimme, it’s a good gimme.

Well, I think there’s a sense on the right that we should put the money in the hands of the people.

The people’s pockets.

Of people who can figure out how to use it themselves.

That was the argument for the tax cuts.

Well, but in that case it’s for the 1 percent, not for …

Didn’t you hear Paul Ryan, didn’t you hear what he …

Well, talk about a cynical kind of … I mean, every non-partisan analysis of the tax bill shows that there are massive disproportionate returns to the 1 percent, not to …

I like that you’re saying, “Talk about cynical,” at this moment in history.

So, let’s finish up, we only have a few more minutes. Talking about politics right now, you’re in … how do you look at the political scene? Your husband is working on the resistance and Facebook has gotten smacked hard. You don’t have to just talk about Facebook but, please do Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube?

Well, I mean, so many things. I think the news coming out of Washington, it’s hard to imagine it being more depressing. However, I do think that Trump’s election has been a wake-up call on the left and the right that a lot of people feel that the system is rigged against them and they are willing to embrace a very, very different perspective. It’s scary when Trump is in the White House pushing the policies that he is pushing, but I think the opportunity is, people are open to kinds of crazier kinds of ideas. Guaranteed income a few years ago was on the fringe. I think it’s increasingly becoming part of the mainstream.

I think, though, that we’ve got to counteract the sense that things are just going to always be the way that they are. The economy is going to always be the way it is, so politics is always going to be the way that it is and there’s a lot of evidence in the enthusiasm on the left. You know, you look at the Women’s March, this march that’s planned in a couple of weeks around gun violence across the country. There are a lot of reasons to be hopeful. As you said at the top of the conversation, votes matter, and what happens this November and then in November of 2020.

The only people that are voting are … thank goodness for African-American women. That’s it. The rest of them, millennials, I want to smack them upside the head.

And specifically Facebook. I think Facebook is increasingly recognizing the responsibility that it has.

Slow progress.

Slowly but increasingly and overdue.

Yeah, sorry about that American democracy problem. But, I mean, it was slow.

It was slow, absolutely.

We were all screaming about it a year ago and they just, they slowed all this all the way to today.

It has been slow. But I think what’s happened …

Why is that? You worked with these people.

Oof. I would speculate about that just as much as you or anyone else. I think that there was a sense that Facebook as a platform was a kind of neutral algorithm. It’s just a thing that works in the basement. It’s like, you just surface things and there’s nobody …

I’m giving you my “Mm-hmm.”

When in reality, I mean, humans make the decision about how these algorithms work and right now we are seeing a different approach from Facebook.

You think they’re taking advantage of that?

With local news in particular, I find that the initiative around local news that I have … I mean, I haven’t talked to anyone at Facebook about this. I’ve read the journalism that you’ve done and many others have done to be some of the most interesting. They’re specifically working with a dozen local news outlets to do two things.

One, to help them understand how to surface their journalism to bigger and broader audiences on the platform but also to adjust the algorithms to make sure more people see it. Which is really remarkable, right? Because it is a normative statement that local news matters and is important and that specifically Facebook has a responsibility to ensure that people see it. Now is that going to be enough? Absolutely not, we’ve got to think about foreign powers meddling in the election.

Why didn’t they see it, weren’t geniuses what … I mean, I’m being reductive there but you know what I mean.

Your guess is as good as mine on that. I think that they’re turning a corner now and are focused on …

An understatement. I literally was just in an argument on Twitter with the head of ads who was like, “Well, it’s not our fault.” I’m like, “Stop, just stop talking.”

What was he saying?

He was saying that it wasn’t truly their fault.

“It” being the Russian stuff.

The Russians. I think I just said, “Hush. Stop talking. Just stop, please.”

Yeah, I think it’s very clear. I mean, you have a responsibility to make sure foreign powers don’t hack our elections. And the problem is, okay, well, how do you define “hack”? But propagating fake news on a platform to support one candidate over another is a problem.

Well, you know, the thing is, to their defense, it’s a company, not a government fighting a government. I know, but it’s a government, right? You made a face.

I mean, it’s a company, but this idea that companies don’t have responsibilities, that’s just not my worldview.

Oh, yes, of course, but I’m saying our government didn’t intervene. Well, you know these companies can’t do it by themselves, this has got to be an effort …

Well, yes, government has … I mean, if I’m talking about the …

Not the Trump government. The Obama administration certainly had a responsibility here to be more active.

Absolutely. And I am worried about the election this fall. We have evidence to show that the Russians in particular, it’s very clear, tried very hard to hack the voting systems in several states, and we have not made … I have seen no progress from a federal perspective in making sure that these elections are going to be safe and secure. There’s been some media coverage of it, but frankly, I think there’s been more media coverage of Facebook’s role than the imperative for a stronger security system. And clearly, we need more coverage of both. I think on all of this, we need to be talking about it all much more robustly, because this problem is not going to go away.

Well, this particular administration is so cynical, it’s a disturbingly cynical administration, which doesn’t mind creating havoc. In the end, it’s a group of people that love havoc and are also not very smart.

Well, but to say that sort of suggests … I mean, we have a responsibility, democracy, whatever your politics, democracy … In the democratic system it’s the responsibility of people in power to govern and defend it.

Of course, but you know, we have a president who just joked that it was good that the Chinese … I mean, you know, like, come on. It’s so funny because it’s sort of like …

Well, let’s just not excuse that, let’s not be …

I’m not excusing it.

No, I’m not saying you are, but we just can’t have this air of resignation like, “Oh, they’re just crazy and nothing is ever going to happen.”

They’re not crazy-crazy, you know. They’re not crazy, it’s just that it’s impossible to do anything when good people don’t stand up. And I’m talking about the Republicans most of the time because it’s the enablers to me who are the real problem now, which is interesting, but this will be done by voting. Chris, when do you imagine you have — we’re going to finish up — when do you imagine success for this?

The more this idea is talked about in the mainstream, not just in political conversations but around dining room tables, over coffee and over …

And how you put out there, of course.

I think that’s success in the short term. In the long run, clearly, we want public policy to change, but success in the next couple of years will be people talking seriously about how can get a guaranteed income done in one way or another? Maybe through the Earned Income Tax Credit, maybe through other kinds of ways, but the more we’re rolling up our sleeves and thinking about, “How do you guarantee financial stability through cash?” That’s the success in the near term.

You have actually convinced me. And now I’m thinking about definitely, you know, some scenario I’m interested in. You know, I agree you, I think giving people … Listen, I’d rather that than the latest tank or the latest whatever the hell our government is spending money on. I’d rather give it to average people who need a break, which would be nice so they can get to one among our many, many, many problems in this country.

Anyway, we have a lot of great things, too, and our generosity, although some people don’t agree with it, would be one of them. Chris, it was great talking to you. You’ve had a fascinating career since you stopped funding like fancy magazines. This is much better than the fancy magazines, and people who hate you no matter what you do just so, yeah.

I’ll say, “Swisher told me to do it.”

I could have told you that Chris, “Just give away money to people who actually appreciate it,” but buying a media company, still. I don’t know which one you should buy, but you should. I appreciate the effort.

I think I’m out of that.

You’re out of that business, no more Chris Hughes. Is there even one for sale? I don’t know, there’s always something for sale, Chris. It was great talking and thanks for coming on the show.


Recode – All

Cash For Apps: Make money with android app

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes says the 1 percent should give cash to working people

How Complete Beginners are using an ‘Untapped’ Google Network to create Passive Income ON DEMAND

Facebook co-founder and “Fair Shot” author Chris Hughes

In his new book “Fair Shot,” Hughes outlines a proposal for “guaranteed income,” to lift health and education outcomes in the U.S.

“Fair Shot” author Chris Hughes is trying to convince America’s richest citizens to give money to working people — not education policy, not inspirational messages, not invocations to try harder. Cash.

“Cash is the best thing you can do to improve health outcomes, education outcomes and lift people out of poverty,” Hughes said on the latest episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher.

“Of course we need more and better education,” he added. “Of course we need more small businesses to create good jobs. We’ve spent decades thinking about those things, investing in those things and we should think more. However, we overlook the most powerful weapon in the arsenal — and in many ways the simplest. Cash can be that.”

In his new book, he argues that a guaranteed income for people in the U.S. could be financed by the one percent — a group that includes Hughes himself. He met Mark Zuckerberg his freshman year at Harvard, co-founded Facebook and later became a digital adviser to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

“My story — which the only thing we can call it is a lucky break — is unfortunately not that uncommon in the economy today,” Hughes said. “I might be extreme, but I don’t think my case is actually that unusual. A small group of people are getting very, very wealthy while everyone else is struggling to make ends meet.”

You can listen to Recode Decode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts.

On the new podcast, Hughes explained how his proposal for guaranteed income — $ 500 a month for everyone making $ 50,000 or less per year — differs from the more commonly discussed concept of universal basic income.

“It’s inspired by the exact same values of cash, no strings attached, to achieve financial stability, recognizing the dignity and freedom of each individual,” he said. “But it’s a more modest place to begin. I make the case that we can and should do this through a modernization of the Earned Income Tax Credit.”

The EITC already gives money to low-income people, but whether you’re eligible and how much you get can vary wildly depending on your age, location, marital status and many other factors, Hughes said. And the policy, first enacted in 1975, has not been updated to address modern forms of economic insecurity.

“Jobs in America have already come apart,” Hughes said. “That is one of the effects of automation, and globalization in particular: All of the jobs in the past 10 years that we’ve created, 94 percent of them are part-time, contract, temporary, seasonal. Yeah, unemployment is near a record low, but the jobs that are out there are not providing the kind of 40 hours a week benefits [like] sick leave or retirement benefits.”

Even a couple hundred dollars could make a huge difference for people with no savings living paycheck to paycheck, who might not know how many hours they’ll be able to work next week, he explained.

“If you have a little bit more financial stability in your life, you’re able to live one step or two steps back from the brink,” Hughes said. “We’re not talking about so much money that everybody wins the lottery and we’re all just hanging out, putting up our feet, whatever the worst images that critics conjure up.”

If you like this show, you should also sample our other podcasts:

  • Recode Media with Peter Kafka features no-nonsense conversations with the smartest and most interesting people in the media world, with new episodes every Thursday. Use these links to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts.
  • Too Embarrassed to Ask, hosted by Kara Swisher and The Verge’s Lauren Goode, answers the tech questions sent in by our readers and listeners. You can hear new episodes every Friday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts.
  • And Recode Replay has all the audio from our live events, including the Code Conference, Code Media and the Code Commerce Series. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts.

If you like what we’re doing, please write a review on Apple Podcasts — and if you don’t, just tweet-strafe Kara.


Recode – All

Cash For Apps: Make money with android app

Former Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell could be Trump’s next top economic adviser

How Complete Beginners are using an ‘Untapped’ Google Network to create Passive Income ON DEMAND

It could give Silicon Valley more influence in the Trump administration.

Chris Liddell, the former chief finanical officer at Microsoft and a key touchpoint for current tech execs in the Trump administration, could become President Trump’s top economic adviser.

That’s according to reports Saturday that fingers Liddell as the likely next head of the National Economic Council, the policymaking advisory body that is currently led by Gary Cohn. The White House said this week that Cohn would leave his gig soon.

Liddell is currently the White House’s director of strategic initiatives and is said to be a key ally of Jared Kushner in an administration rife with internal feuds. Liddell and Reed Cordish, another businessman and friend of Kushner’s, have been two of the main emissaries from the White House to Silicon Valley. Cordish said last month he was also leaving the White House.

Liddell’s profile would certainly expand if he were take the job — he would be expected to advise Trump on everything from tarriffs to tax cuts to entitlement reform. And it would also likely give tech more access to the White House in the same way that Cohn, a former president of Goldman Sachs, gave Wall Street access to it.

The New Zealand-born Liddell served as CFO at MIcrosoft from 2005 to 2009 before jumping to General Motors.


Recode – All

Cash For Apps: Make money with android app

Chris Rock’s first Netflix special debuts February 14th

Chris Rock signed a deal with Netflix in 2016, agreeing to two comedy specials for a reported sum of $ 40 million. Well the wait for Rock's comedy special return is finally over as Netflix has announced that the first of those two specials will air on…
Engadget RSS Feed

The ‘Five Nights at Freddy’s’ movie will be directed by Chris Columbus

Almost a year ago, Blumhouse Productions — the studio that followed the wild success of Paranormal Activity with hits like Insidious, Whiplash, Split and Get Out — secured the film rights for the video game Five Nights At Freddy's. Today, the compa…
Engadget RSS Feed

Internet of Business welcomes Chris Middleton as editor

Chris Middleton Editor

We’re delighted to announce Chris Middleton as the new editor of Internet of Business. Chris brings an enormous amount of experience to the role and specialises in robotics, AI, the IoT, and technology strategy.

He is former editor of Computing, Computer Business Review, and Professional Outsourcing, among others, and is a contributing editor to Diginomica, Computing, and Hack and Craft News. Over the years, he has also written for Computer Weekly, The Guardian, The Times, PC World, I-CIO, V3, and The Inquirer, among many others.

He is an acknowledged robotics expert who has appeared on BBC TV and radio, and ITN, and is probably the only tech journalist in the UK to own a number of humanoid robots, which he hires out to events, exhibitions, universities, and schools.

Chris says: “I’m proud to join IoB at such an exciting time for the Internet of Things, and to pick up the editorial baton from Jessica Twentyman, whose expertise and insight has been so important in developing this site. (I’m delighted to say that Jess, one of the UK’s leading tech journalists, has agreed to remain a regular contributor, joining what will be an expanding roster of talent.)

“Over the next few years, the IoT will combine with edge computing, analytics, AI, robotics, autonomous vehicles, drones, and a range of other technologies, such as enterprise asset management and digital twins, to create entirely new types of business, along with new opportunities for established players.

“The market for robotics, AI, and autonomous systems alone could be worth up to $ 3 trillion, by some estimates, so it’s critical that no organisation – and no country – gets left behind in the new industrial age.

“IoB will be there to cover it all. And to reflect the growing importance and diversity of this sector, we will be shifting our focus to thought leadership, analysis, and longer-form content, telling you what we think and what’s important at every stage of the journey.

“Meanwhile, our unrivalled programme of international events brings together experts and thought leaders in vertical and horizontal sectors, so that we can all learn from the very best.

“Welcome to Internet of Business: let’s start a new conversation.”

The post Internet of Business welcomes Chris Middleton as editor appeared first on Internet of Business.

Internet of Business