thanks for watching state of the union. i'm dana bash. we'll be right back here noon eastern with live coverage awaiting hillary clinton's presidential announcement. "fareed zakaria gps" starts right now. >> this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. we'll begin the show with hillary clinton's big announcement. how would madam secretary translate into madam president? what can we discern about her foreign policy and will she, should she distance herself from her former boss president obama? then iran and cuba. one sworn enemies of the united states. now a chance for better relations with both. is it going to happen?

is it a good thing? -of- great panel to debate it all. then the chinese american rivalry. a former treasury secretary says america is suffering a historic defeat at the hands of the world's rising superpower. what is it and just how bad is it? i'll explain. also the clock is ticking. it's almost tax day in america and malcolm gladwell will explain why in the world it is that americans are, in his view more honest on their taxes than any other people. he says they had no reason to be so why do they do it. >> people believe in the system. that's a beautiful thing. >> first here is my take. at the heart of the concerns surrounding the deal with iran is a simple question. is iran rational? the answer for many critics of the deal is self-evident. iranians are apocalyptic israeli

prime minister netanyahu has often said. he warns that you can't bet on their rationality. senator lindsey graham puts it quite simply i think they are crazy, he said. israel's defense minister reaffirmed the diagnosis recently called them a messy and apocalyptic regime. yet these same critics preferred policy is one that relies heavily on iran's rationality. the alternative to the deal forged by iran in the six great powers is not war, they insist but rather ratchet up the pressure and demand more concessions from tehran. so this crazy apocalyptic band of mullahs will when faced with a few more sanctions calmly calculate costs and benefits and yield in a predictable way to more pressure. or as written in the forward, apparently they are irrational enough to welcome nuclear armageddon but rational enough

to yield to economic punishment. the point is also well made by max fisher. in fact in his thorough book "unthinkable iraq iran and american strategy" carefully reviews decades of iran's foreign policy and shows it has been not just rational but prudent over the years. he quotes israeli chief of staff who explained the iraqi regime is radical but not irrational. remember rational does not mean reasonable. it means in this case that the regime wants to thrive. given that goal it calculates costs and benefits and acts to further it. but it is worth asking a broader question as well. is iran being reasonable sneh look at a map of the middle east. shiite iran is surrounded by hostile sunni states. across the persian gulf sits

saudi arabia's it's sworn enemy, armed to the teeth. in iraq and syria, iran faces large sunni insurgencies dedicated to slaughtering shiites. add to this the nuclear dimension. iran has several nuclear armed neighbors, pakistan india, russia china, and, of course israel. plus iran has faced active opposition from the world's superpower for three decades. seymour seymour seymour hersh reported extensionally not to tappel regime but the country. they are regarded by some as pretty nasty terrorist outfits. for a decade starting in 2001, tehran watched as 200,000 american troops across eastern and western borders in iraq and afghanistan. the bush administration openly talked about the need for regime change in tehran which was

branded part of the globe's axis of evil. i'm not making the case that any of these policies toward iran should have been altered. international politics is a rough business. but given these realities, is it so bizarre that iran has behaved as it has, or that it has sought to build a nuclear industry that could give it a pathway to a nuclear weapon. would a secular, hyper rational country facing the same array of threats have acted differently. in 1963 john f. kennedy predicted that the world would see 15 to 25 new nuclear armed states within a decade. kennedy's prediction has not proved true because the international community led by the united states has confronted nuclear wannabes with real costs but also benefits. the framework appears to strike that balance for iran. there's no guarantee that the supreme leader will accept the tradeoffs as his recent tweets

remind us. but it forces him to make a rational calculation and live with the consequences. for more go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column this week and that's get started. we have a terrific panel. the director of policy planning in secretary clinton's state department. she's president and ceo of think tank an adviser to the romney/ryan campaign in the 2012 election. during iraq war he was spokesman for coalition authority. peter is senior columnist, cnn political commentator and i should say a fellow of new

america as well. peter, when running for the presidency when you look over the last 100 years, the only times a candidate, party has gone three terms in the white house has been when the candidate has been arguing for continuity. hoover after coolidge fdr after himself, and only once since the two-term limit, which is bush after reagan bush senior. does that mean hillary has to run as the candidate of continuity? >> absolutely. she has to be authentic. for her to suggest she's an outsider radical change given she was in the obama administration would undermine. the good news she has a pretty good record to run on. health care is pretty popular, health care reform and the economy is getting stronger. i think clinton people look at what al gore did when he didn't run on bill clinton's record in 2000. they say we know how well that worked out. i think she will add certain

elements absolutely but i think she'll run as the candidate of continuity experience and she has a pretty strong case to make. >> you know the cnn poll that said when people asked what kind of perp do you want they said somebody who is not going to follow -- continue obama's policies. >> this is very hard to do for a candidate, to basically have their party run for a third term and yet separate from the first two of those three terms. mccain had a very difficult time doing this. you cannot think of a more distinctive figure george w. bush in 2008 and yet mccain owned george w. bush. hillary is not going to be able to distance herself from obama. it's partly a benefit, advantage. i do people think of her as secretary of state, exudes experience in the world when the world is chaotic. i think there's some benefit to that. the flip side is she owns this chaotic world will she was america's chief diplomat. how she explains where she differed without alienating key

segment of the base democrats need to turn out i think is very difficult. >> how will she do it. >> she's going to be continuity absolutely and some change. on the continuity parts, particularly we're seeing fruits of obama's engagement strategy very important in the first four years when she was secretary of state. with iran with cuba before that with myanmar. at the same time she does i think, have a more muscular vision of u.s. leadership than the president does in certain areas and i think as she artic lays her own vision of the u.s. role in the world, we will see some differences. >> what about the potential game changer anne-marie which is the female factor all this stuff conventional analysis. my 12-year-old daughter doesn't follow politics at all. she loves the idea of hillary clinton being president because she thinks it's high time for a woman. >> it's interesting will i was

talking to one of my son's 18-year-old friends, who was a woman, who said the same thing. i think women are hugely important. an army of women thinking this is our time. in 2008 you had grandchildren dragging their grandparents to the polls, this time around you're going to have grandmother's bringing grandchildren to the polls saying under the circumstances to vote for the first woman president. >> what do the republicans do about that? >> i agree with that i think the combination of her experience having been secretary of state and woman issue, as you characterize it is powerful but doesn't strike me as rational for candidacy, particularly in a dangerous world. while the my may be coming back it's sluggish labor participation rates are slow. not because she has a clear distinction yet particularly when the sand beneath the feet of the democratic party moving in the direction of the left. that said i think republicans, no matter who the nominee is is

one going to have to run against eight years of obama and more importantly run a populist campaign. that is the challenge of republicans. can they look at hillary clinton and say proximity to wall street has basically lived a very rich life in every sense of the world, completely out of touch, scott walker chris christie marco rubio, despite their policy differences they have come up the ranks a different way. if they can make -- >> that doesn't sound, peter, like jeb bush. it's a challenge to run. struck me they will be for republican primary, there is a race right now to be the candidate to the right of jeb bush. there is some candidate to the right of jeb bush and that will be the contest. who will that be. >> i think the strongest candidate marco rubio. just as hillary clinton has experienced, republican brand has to be changed. that's why jeb bush is to my mind such a disaster because he takes that off the table. then it becomes did you like the

bush presidency better or clinton presidency better? we know how americans feel about that there are other candidates who represent change. rand paul is the most innovative. we've seen over the past couple weeks he has real flaws as a candidate. what's compelling about rubio, he's a gifted natural politician. he's likable in a reaganesque way. he also represents the future. i think he doesn't come off as fervent idea logically as cruz does. if he can hold his own in hillary clinton in debates, seem as substantive as her, which is a big question i think he could turn out to be a strong candidate. >> i think what's interesting here is the change. he's the first hispanic she's the first woman president. she's not going to run on being the first woman president, she's going to run on being a good president, being a person who can actually deliver. you've got that change built in. i think the debates are really going to be -- >> it's time she will be stepping on the debate stage most likely in the fall of 2016.

that's risky. these republicans will be duking it out in a bitter way for the next year. when they get on that stage, they will be much better politically athletic shape than hillary clinton. >> we have to come back. i'll ask one more questions about the preliminaries when we come back. much more. we'll talk about iran and cuba as well.

new york state is reinventing how we do business by leading the way on tax cuts. we cut the rates on personal income taxes. we enacted the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. we eliminated the income tax on manufacturers altogether. with startup-ny, qualified businesses that start, expand or relocate to new york state pay no taxes for 10 years. all to grow our economy and create jobs.

see how new york can give your business the opportunity to grow at ny.gov/business why do we do it? why do we spend every waking moment, thinking about people? why are we so committed to keeping you connected? why combine performance with a conscience? why innovate for a future without accidents? why do any of it? why do all of it? because if it matters to you it's everything to us. the xc60 crossover. from volvo. lease the well equiped volvo xc60 today. visit your local volvo showroom for details.

whether you need a warm up before the big race... or a healthy start before the big meeting there's a choice hotel that's waiting for you. this spring, choose choice twice, get a night at no price at 1,500 hotels. book now at choicehotels.com we are back with anne-marie slaughter slaughter, dan and peter. dan, the thing that struck me about it you now listen to the

positions he's taking on all kinds of issues from defense spending to social conservative issues this guy was meant to be a libertarian. does it suggest that libertarian wing a lot of people find attractive small government it's gone. at least it can't survive iowa and social conservative base of republican party. >> on social issues there is space for it. particularly if you look at polling among republicans, particularly young republicans like issues on same-sex marriage moved in the direction -- >> why -- >> i think he's worried about foreign policy issues. i do not think there's space right now in the republican party for a candidate who does not represent a muscular intervention view of the world, particularly contrasted with eight years of obama. had this been george w. bush's mess might have been a different dynamic. it's chaotic.

world of obama, which they dislike, they can't have a standard bearer that has any space shared with obama and that is the fundamental challenge. substance, anne-marie big news of last day or two coming out with not just tweets but did he none -- did heeenunciation of the deal. >> we forget leading up to that week we looked like no deal. suddenly iranians saying they wouldn't ship enriched uranium off to russia. everyone was taking a harder line. they found enough common ground to get the framework. the big issues are still there. they have agreed to enrich uranium but are they going to do it by shipping it out of the country or in the country. i think this is once again the

iranians pulling their classic technique, much harder line stance preparing for the end game. >> what about our hard-liners. >> hard-liners, henry kissinger, george schulz hard-liner chuck schumer, just returned from israel. i was amazed center left some of netanyahu's fiercest critics expressing extreme -- >> right now iran is three months from breakup. the deal rolls them back to 12 months. aren't things you worry about already true? >> if you believe we can actually enforce that. the key here is the inspections. the president, secretary of state, have talked about any place, anywhere. saying something much different than that. no piece of paper english or farsi we can look at and say, these are the rules. they can hit nuclear facilities military go to all these

places. it's not clear. it's vague. how does anybody get security that one-year break is for real if you can't rely on inspections. >> i've always had the view the deal assuming some things clarified, i've always been clarified it will happen. too much resistance on both sides. negotiators have strong critics within their countries. will it happen? >> i think both governments have a strong strong desire to see it happen. you saw how hard they pushed how hard obama pushed at the end. look at rouhani, he's not the supreme decider. his presidency is over. i think chances are good. look as much as you can respect henry kissinger, made good points in the op-ed, still didn't answer basic questions we've been asking week after week what is the alternative. the fundamental fallacy no deal pressure on iran goes up. it goes down. even if the u.s. congress imposes new sanctions, the rest of the world, which likes this

deal is going to start to see the sanctions erode. china is going to start importing more oil from iran. then if there's going to be any future deal in the future it will be a worse one thought a better one. >> at the end of the day get the coalition together was only possible because it was a path to negotiation. >> absolutely. i agree with peter completely. if this doesn't happen, it's going to perceive to be torpedoed by us and the coalition will fall apart. i think the other pieces at every stage the desire to actually have the deal does go up. in the skirmishing for eight years between us and iran we couldn't get to the table. now we've gotten to the table for the interim agreement. now for the framework agreement. i'm not going to say it's automatic but i would bet we're going to get a deal because the desire is great. >> a completely different argument than administration. the administration is arguing very tough negotiators, put a lot of pressure on iran. iran is rational basically the way you articulate in op-ed,

came to the table. what you're saying, sanction regime will collapse it's over. we had no options. we can't put pressure on them. we're going to take whatever they agree to. if that's the case let's have that discussion. that is not what the administration is saying. >> i think if we can afford as commentators to talk about the real world, we don't have infinite leverage on iran precisely because we don't have -- >> we have to get to cuba. i have a feeling more agreement. the one thing about the deal about this opening, most people are still skeptical it's not going to change this regime very much in the short run, will it? >> yeah. i don't think that's what we're betting on. this is not a way of opening to cuba so we have regime change this is obama's initial strategy of engagement. in his inaugural address, he said we will extend our hand if you will unclench your fist. we will not change the regime through the embargo. what we are doing is shooting ourselves in both feet in the

world and particularly in latin america. >> 30 seconds. >> look the cuba policy absolutely has to be modernized. it's a relic of the past to some degree. on the other hand any change should be to force change in human rights and address some other issues why the embargo was put in place. our approach to cuba seems to be the approach to iran all concessions. >> all right. we've got to go. very good discussion. thank you all. next on "gps," the u.s. may be making progress with cuba and iran but is it making bad decisions when it comes to the most important relationships in the world, the relationship with china. that's what some are saying. find out what i think when we come back. you could sit at your computer and read all about zero-turn mowers. click. scroll. tweet.

or you could just sit on a john deere z435 eztrak and feel its power. you'll know it'll get the job done fast. when it's time to pick a mower you've got to get on one. visit your local john deere dealer for a test drive today. sign up to take your turn on a z435 and save 100 dollars on your purchase. nothing runs like a deere. people ship all kinds of things. but what if that thing is a few hundred thousand doses of flu vaccine. that need to be kept at 41 degrees. while being shipped to a country where it's 90 degrees. in the shade. sound hard? yeah. does that mean people in laos shouldn't get their vaccine? we didn't think so. from figuring it out to getting it done, we're here to help. look! this is the new asian inspired broth bowl from panera bread.

that noise! panera broth bowls should be slurped with gusto! to explore further order online or visit your neighborhood panera bread. keeping a billion customers a year flying means keeping seven billion transactions flowing. and when weather hits, it's data mayhem. but airlines running hp end-to-end solutions are always calm during a storm. so if your business deals with the unexpected

hp big data and cloud solutions make sure you always know what's coming-and are ready for it. make it matter.

now for our what in the world segment. former treasury secretary larry summers recently shared this ominous prediction in the "washington post." this past month may be remembered as the moment the united states lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic stem system.

u.s. diplomacy has approved a disaster wrote the economist. the u.s. committed a comic series of missteps said the financial times. what were they all talking about? china has convinced several key american allies to defy uncle sam and join its new lending body, asian bank. the new lender described as a potential rival to the world bank and imf and will fund transportation energy and other projects throughout arab. u.s. pressed its allies not to join concerned about the new bank's lending standards and transparency and also out of worry over china's growing influence in the world. but many american allies want to join or have joined anyway. there's south korea and australia, germany, france and italy, even great britain, despite its special relationship with the united states. a recent tally over 50 countries have become members or applying for membership to the bank. even the chinese themselves were

surprised by success reports "the new york times." larry summers wrote, "i can think of no event since brettonwoods the conference that established imf and world bank comparable to china's effort to establish a major new institution and failure of united states to persuade dozens of its traditional allies starting with britain to stay out. so is this the worst thing to ever happen to the u.s. as it continues its pivot to asia? i'm not convinced. asia really needs roads. existing lenders aren't meeting the demand. the asian development bank estimated 32 of its member countries would need over $8 trillion in infrastructure investment from 2010 to 2020 over $700 billion per year. the world bank and other existing lenders couldn't come close to meeting that demand according to the "washington

post." so why not have an additional lending entity help? more infrastructure in asia would help the economies there. by extension, that would help the rest of the world, including the united states. unlike imf, this bank isn't writing the basic rules upholding international economic system it's funding roads and bridges as many state-owned banks do anyway. what does deserve criticism is the utter fecklessness of the united states congress. china might not have started the bank in the first place had the u.s. allowed china to have more influence in the world bank and imf. even though it has the second largest economy in the world, china gets less than 5% voting power in the world bank and has less than 4% of the vote at the imf. tiny belgium and netherlands have more voting power than china at the imf. legislation that would inform that institution has gone nowhere in congress.

so china came up with an alternative lending body that would allow it to have more clout. now, washington should cool it. the united states needs to deter chinese expansionism but at the same time it needs to be realistic and accommodate its rising power when reasonable. after all, surely it is appropriate for china, the world's number two economy, to have some clout and some institutions in the global economic run, europe has many such bodies. washington should swallow its pride and join the asian bank working from within to strengthen its transparency and reliability. besides, there's a lot of infrastructure that needs building in america. who knows, maybe the bank will contemplate helping america repair its roads one day. next on "gps," tax day in america is right around the corner. have you filed your taxes yet? do you intend into. malcolm gladwell on why he says americans are the most honest

taxpayers in the world. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern.

when it comes to good nutrition...i'm no expert. that would be my daughter -- hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. grandpa! [ female announcer ] stay strong, stay active with boost.

i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com.

have just three days left to file your taxes. if you're not an american you may not be aware, filing taxes in the usa is a huge pain. the forms are tedious, calculations are arcane. at the end you often have to part with a lot of your hard earned cash. i had author extraordinaire malcolm gladwell to talk about internal revenue service. we talked about a lot more. >> the great puzzle of the american tax system is why are we so honest. we are the most honest taxpayers in the world. only switzerland comes close. even my native canada are less honest on tax dachl what's weird about it is the penalties for cheating on your taxes or trying to find tax cheats in america are lower than almost anyone

else. i arrest -- i audit a tiny traction of taxpayers, smaller number than almost any developed country. if we don't have any determined process why are americans so honest the answer is because americans see the tax system as legitimate. legitimate exists as a way of explaining why people behave why people are obedient. for the longest time our approach was always the surest path to obedience was deterrence. you simply raise the cost of obedience so high people stopped miss behaving. but there are enough problems with this deterrence enough instances where it doesn't seem to work that a number of philosopher and legal thinkers over the past 10 years or more tom tyler, larry sherman, a bunch of others have written really interesting research that deterrence is not the principle

reason they behave the way it should it's legitimacy. by that they mean three things. power is perceived as legitimate if it is respectful of those who are under its perurview. means when i speak up as a problem you listen to me. when it's fair when there's three of us we're all under your control and all treated the same. power is legitimate when it is seen as trustworthy. when the rules don't change overnight. i don't wake up tomorrow morning and discover i'm a completely different universe. this is where i would say we have an issue we need to deal with in this country, which is the most dangerous problem facing the tax system is the rising sense that it might not be fair that some people are getting a special deal and others are not. >> by that you mean there are enough -- there's an accumulation of loopholes and things like that that allow people to effectively play -- >> if too many people are seen

to be getting deals that the ordinary system doesn't get you start to undermine legitimacy of the system. i don't think it's a short step to go from a system where most people pay taxes to italy or greece where they don't. what you have there are developed modern countries who have lost the sense their public institutions are legitimate. it's a fragile thing. >> it's about a fairer application of the rules. >> absolutely. think about the american taxation example. we have the wimpiest internal revenue system of any industrialized country and yet we all pay our taxes. we will all pay our taxes. tax compliance rates in america are in the high '90s. they are kind of mind blowing. economists will tell you, it's marvelous -- i've forgotten the name of the economist in new orleans who wrote this hilarious

paper that said rationally in america you should cheat on your taxes. you're not going to get caught. if you get caught penalties are low enough to make it worth it. we don't do that because people believe in the system. that's a beautiful system. >> we aren't advocating cheating on taxes. when we come back risks, why does one take risks and how do you make sure it pays off. meet the world's newest energy superpower. surprised? in fact, america is now the world's number one natural gas producer... and we could soon become number one in oil. because hydraulic fracturing technology is safely recovering lots more oil and natural gas. supporting millions of new jobs. billions in tax revenue... and a new century of american energy security. the new energy superpower? it's red, white and blue. log on to learn more.

♪ ♪ the pursuit of healthier. it begins from the second we're born. after all, healthier doesn't happen all by itself. it needs to be earned... every day... from the smallest detail to the boldest leap. healthier means using wellness to keep away illness... knowing a prescription is way more than the pills... and believing that a single life can be made better by millions of others. healthier takes somebody who can power modern health care... by connecting every single part of it. realizing cold hard data can inspire warmth and compassion... and that when technology meets expertise... everything is possible. for as long as the world keeps on searching for healthier... we're here to make healthier happen. optum.

healthier is here. new york state is reinventing how we do business by leading the way on tax cuts. we cut the rates on personal income taxes. we enacted the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. we eliminated the income tax on manufacturers altogether. with startup-ny, qualified businesses that start, expand or relocate to new york state pay no taxes for 10 years. all to grow our economy and create jobs. see how new york can give your business the opportunity to grow at ny.gov/business whether you need a warm up before the big race... or a healthy start before the big meeting there's a choice hotel that's waiting for you. this spring, choose choice twice, get a night at no price at 1,500 hotels. book now at choicehotels.com

and we are back with malcolm gladwell author of "david and goliath" now in paper back. in that book you talk about something important, almost the key to success, which is the ability to take risks. because you have so many people who may be well educated may be very bright but they are risk averse. it's tough to succeed if you're

risk averse. so what makes you embrace risk? >> well i was very taken when i was writing the book -- i had a chapter about a famous cancer researcher who was one of the fathers of modern chemotherapy. in the history of 20th century medicine he is up there. his story is really fascinating. the time when he was pioneering he and a small group of others pioneering some of these very, very new ideas about how to treat cancer he was reviled and denounced and considered to be pursuing inhumane medical ideas, theories and practices. my children -- he was a child leukemia guy. really the guy who gets the ball rolling against child leukemia. the question is why would someone do that? why would they embark on a course of action that entailed that much social risk? basically he placed his

reputation on the line and risked his entire career as a medical scientist in pursuit of an idea. for years and years and years, not even an inkling it was going to work. the answer he would give is he had nothing to lose. he was a a kid from essentially the ghetto in chicago, didn't have a lot of friends. wasn't big on warm and fuzzy. he was kind of an angry, driven highly ambitious guy who felt he was incredibly lucky to be where he was at nih. if it failed so what. it wasn't as if he came from -- he had some massive legacy to protect. he still maintained this kind of very strappy attitude that he carried with him from the west side of chicago. >> so the puzzle if it's that's true does that mean you kind of have to have nothing to lose to

seek risk? if you're a guy who goes to harvard and harvard law school and has a nice opportunity to work at a corporate law firm you're not going to start your own company, you've got too much to lose. you've got this clear line -- clear income for the rest of your life. it's the guy who doesn't who is going to be willing to take that risk. >> that is a very interesting argument that i got into a little bit in david and goliath. what are the down sides to affluence? we know the good parts of affluence. we're well aware of them. do you also entail take on certain liabilities? when you raise a child in a culture of comfort where every need is taken care of. the answer is you do. that doesn't mean you shouldn't raise a child in comfort, it just means the path to doing something extraordinary is going to be a little more difficult, not impossible but a little more

difficult. every week you sit here and talk to people who have accomplished great things and you must be struck as i am when i observe these kinds of people how often they do not come from the most privileged and comfortable of backgrounds. right? it's a cliche that we talk about. doesn't that mean if you are someone contemplating raising a child that you should think twice about providing everything you can for that. i remember having conversations, in my last book i had a chapter on the generation of jewish men born in the '30s in the bronx to the children of garment workers who rose to become the most powerful figures in the legal world. i was talking to one of these guys and he was telling me how they all grew up in the bronx, their parents all had nothing. they all went to nyu when it was a commuter school and city college. then he was saying -- he was talking about how crucial that was to the fact he took this

enormous chance in the '50s and '60s to doing m and a law, bottom of the barrel nobody wanted to do it. we're going to do it. so i was talking to this guy about his children. i said where do you send your children? >> well i wanted only the best for them. every one of them went to a private school. i said to him, well aren't you then closing the very door that was open to you because of your own modest upbringing? it didn't compute. here is a guy with an iq of 190.one of those brilliant men and couldn't see counter-dicks with his own childhood, which he saw as absolutely essential to his own success, and the fact he had deprived his own children of that same kind of -- >> so what should he do? i've sent my children into the wild to be raised by wolves. what do you do? >> i sat down i was writing

"david and goliath" with a guy who is a psychology who basically his practice is talking to the wealthy about how to raise their children. his argument is that you have to understand that when -- that parenting is very difficult when you have no money. it gets easier as you start to get more money. then as you get too much money it gets harder again. you have to understand if you are wealthy, the task of being a good parent requires an awful lot more time and attention than it does if you're middle class. he talks about this difference between can't and won't. when you're middle class and your child asks for a pony you say, we can't. end of story. there's no need to give any explanation because it's simply out of -- it's ridiculous impossible request. when you have -- when you're a millionaire and your child says i want a ferrari when you're 16 you can't say you can't anymore, because you clearly can. you have to be able to say we

won't. that means you have to articulate a reason. state, give a child a sense of what he and you and your family stand for and why you are choosing to deny your child something that you could supply as easily as that. that's hard. right? that takes practice. you have to think about it. that's i think a really really crucial point. i think many parents assume that affluence makes their lives and the lives of their children easier and they forget, no, it makes it harder. >> fascinating stuff to think about, as always coming from malcolm gladwell. next on "gps," why there's a monkey or four in the middle of an argument between two sovereign kingdoms. i will explain.

look! this is the new asian inspired broth bowl from panera bread. that noise! panera broth bowls should be slurped with gusto! to explore further order online or visit your neighborhood panera bread. people ship all kinds of things. but what if that thing is a few hundred thousand doses of flu vaccine. that need to be kept at 41 degrees. while being shipped to a country where it's 90 degrees. in the shade. sound hard? yeah. does that mean people in laos shouldn't get their vaccine? we didn't think so. from figuring it out to getting it done, we're here to help.

why do we do it? why do we spend every waking moment, thinking about people? why are we so committed to keeping you connected? why combine performance with a conscience? why innovate for a future without accidents? why do any of it? why do all of it? because if it matters to you it's everything to us. the xc60 crossover. from volvo. lease the well equiped volvo xc60 today. visit your local volvo showroom for details.

this week turkey blocked access to twitter, youtube, and more than 160 other sites after they were ordered to remove images relating to this hostage situation. youtube and twitter were

unblocked after complying with the order but this wasn't the first time social media was blocked in turkey in recent years. it brings me to my question of the week. which of the following countries did not disrupt its citizens' use of twitter, facebook or youtube in 2014? according to those company's transparency reports. china, iran egypt or pakistan? stay tuned. we'll tell you the correct answer. this week's book of the week is a short history of nearly everything by bill bryson. i finally got around to reading this. it is the great travel writer's effort to educate himself and all of us on science, something that he says he was bad at at school but felt he needed to understand. the result is a series of tales about history's greatest scientific discoveries written in a way that is wonderfully easy to read and understand. you can dip in and out of the book so don't be intimidated by the topic, just plunge in.

you're in for a treat. now for the last look oil, boarders water, many thing that spark disagreements between nations but this the first time i remember there being a monkey in the middle of an argument between two countries quite literally. let me explain. saudi arabia and sweden have been trading barbs and aggressive action for months now. it all began in january when sweden's foreign minister tweeted about a blogger's flogging critical against treechlt women. retaliating by barring speaking about human rights and recalling its ambassador from stockholm. then stockholm announced it would not renew a long-standing defense agreement. recently signs feuding kingdoms were mending strained relations. but alas looks may have been

deceiving. this week riyadh nearly threw down the gauntlet. saudi arabia announced it would not not accept three marmoset, tiny creatures, smallest creatures of monkey that were to be transferred from a zoo in stock homo to one in riyadh. they would hold onto these pygmy marmosets in case riyadh changes its mind. in this geopolitical game the monkeys really are in the middle. the correct answer to the "gps" challenge question is c, egypt. that's quite a change from four years ago when in january 2011 holy spirit any -- hosni mubarak shut off internet in his country to crush revolutionary demonstrations against him. egypt since made content removal requests but so have countries

like germany and france. to score one from general sisi. while egypt may be not be blocking media, they don't have freedom of the press. overall given a score of not free by freedom house in 2014. thanks for being part of my program this week. i'll see you next week. xxx xxx good morning. time for "reliable sources." we are standing by for historic announcement from hillary clinton. she is about to release a web video confirming that it's true she is running for president. it could come later this hour. we're going to bring it to you as soon as it happens. meantime we have all the bases covered this morning, clinton beat reporters, campaign strategists and experts all standing by. but let's be honest here she's going to tell us what we all already know. the media waiting game is sometimes down right laughable. we're going to be