>> ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're gathered here in this great sovereign state of nevada to decide the fate of our economy in the trial of the century. in this hearing, we hope to discover those responsible for the financial crisis our great nation has gone through, the worst financial collapse since the great depression, that has

affected us all, even us in the great city of las vegas, the entertainment capital of the world. before this court, the prosecution accuses free market capitalism and its co-defendants, deregulation, tax cuts, unregulated layregulated d other forms of reagan economics as the principal causes of the financial collapse of commercial banks, insurance companies and real estate investment trusts, massive losses in 401(k) and pension plans, the highest unemployment rate in decades, and pain and suffering of average citizens throughout the world. now, that's just the indictment. >> that's the other side's opening statement. >> we're not there yet. you better watch yourself. we brought before this court, mr. steven moore, one of the

premiere members of the editorial board of the "wall street journal." who the foremost exponent of supply side policies of free market capitalism. mr. moore, please stand before the jury. you and your supporters have been accused of multifairous high crimes against humanity. how do you plead? >> not guilty, your honor. >> you don't have to say it so loud. >> have a seat mr. forbes. >> we'll begin these proceedings with five-minute opening statements. first, by the prosecuting attorney, mr. jeffrey madric, the professor of economics at the new school of social research in new york city, the editor in chief of challenge magazine and the author of the case for big government. after his opening statement, mr. moore will be given the opportunity to make an opening statement. you may reserve it, sir, until

after the prosecution rests their case. mr. moore is the co-author of the book, the end of prosperity and after the opening statements, each attorney will call two witnesses who will be subject to cross-examination, then each side will make closing arguments, so where's my jury? oh. where did they find this jury? this is a jury of nobody's peers. did you pay to get in here? let me give you a few instructions, ladies and gentlemen, you'll listen carefully to the opening statements and the witnesses, and at the end of the hearing, you will be required to determine whether sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. moore and his supply side free marketers are responsible for the financial crisis this country has suffered. is that understood? say yes, one and all.

now mr. madric, behave yourself. you may make your opening statement. >> thank you, judge. it's a pleasure to be here, judge and it's great to see all my friends out in this gallery. i appreciate all of you, or at least one of you coming. als to the jury, it's great to see you. typically, an attorney gets the opportunity to interview each of you, as you well know, and you know that too, right? you know that -- >> don't ask me questions. make your opening statement. >> i just want to be sure. i haven't had that opportunity, but i know you will be able to put, just looking at you, to put all past prejudices, views, biases aside, and view this argument as independently as possible, because that's your task, even though you applauded for mr. steve moore. now i want you to know, jury, that i have a lot of sympathy

for capitalism. capitalism is dynamic, it's full of energy, it's critical to the prosperity of every nation since the industrial revolution. nobody want to put capitalism asunder. capitalism is also like an adolescent. it's proven that throughout the history of capitalism. it's an adolescent that needs supervision, it needs guidance, and it needs nourishment and i hear that you agree with me. without that guidance, we've gone through 30 years of reducing that guidance, that supervision and that nourishment and i will argue that's led to the catastrophe we face today. 10% unemployment, a banking system that we thought was the pride of america, that's now insolvent. the pride of the world in fact, that's now basically insolvent, except that it was saved by government recently. i could go on and on. >> no, you can't.

>> retail sales -- >> you're reaching your five minutes, mr. madrick. >> retail sales, even recently kept going down. so we're in some trouble here. what will you be told by the defense? you will be told what you've heard time and again. it wasn't capitalism, it wasn't unguided capitalism, it was government that did it. it was government that told the commercial bankers to invest in risky securities they did not understand. it was government who told the banking system to set up a compensation system that rewarded people not to manage risk, but to take too much risk. it was government that told people and all these new mortgage brokers, sell mortgages to people who could not possibly understand them, even when you can't understand them, because you'll make a lot of money on it and i can go on and on as you

well no. >> no, you can't go on and on. you're using up your five minutes. >> i can go on and on and i'm not going to go on and on, judge. you will be told some other things. you will told a fanciful story about how america grew up in its early days, because there was a little government. it's untrue. even under thomas jefferson, there were serious rules and regulations about for example the sale of property. the key to the american story -- accessible cheap property, highly regulated by the federal government. the federal government built -- the state government built the canals, they built the primary schools, they built the sanitation system in your cities, which allowed cities to grow plague-free and become great sources of economic growth. they built your hig high school. they did all kinds of r & d -- give me.

>> i can't. we're running a tight ship. >> you can tell me i have 30 seconds left. >> you have 15 seconds left. >> i will prove today that capitalism didn't work. the advocates who say the price system and competition paul adjusts, always reduce excess greed and adjust the system to work efficiently and to maximize prosperity did not do so in this case, capitalism is important, but it needs supervision, guidance, and nourishment. it does not nourish itself. thank you. >> thank you, mr. madrick. we appreciate that. would juror number one please wake up? mr. moore, do you wish to make your opening statement at this time? >> i do. >> very good. >> ladies and gentlemen of the jury, i would submit to you that it is not free market capitalism that should be on trial this evening. it's socialism. it's big governmentism.

it's compassionate conservativism. it's chris dodd, it's barney frank, it's ben bernanke, it's henry paul son. your honor, it is the people who moved away from the free market system. >> wait a minute. if i hear my nor outbursts like that, i'm going to put mr. moore in jail. >> the people who moved this country away from the free market system are the people responsible for this crisis. now, let me submit to you all, that there is one reason that the united states has become the richest country in the history of the world, and it is because of the free market capitalist system and we should not apologize for that. the times in hour nation's history, when our economy has faltered, have been times when we have moved away from free market capitalism and towards socialism and big government and i would submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that for example, it was in the 1930's, when we had a massive new deal experiment in big government.

it was a failure in every regard. the size of the government doubled during the new deal. eight years after franklin roosevelt was elected president, and implemented his big government new deal policies, the unemployment rate was still 15%. in the united states. the new deal was not a success. it was a failure because we abandoned free market. now let's talk about the current crisis. is this a crisis of the free market system not working? no, i would submit to you ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it was the result of big government policies, and in fact, big government republicanism that helped create this crisis. the federal government grew by a record pace under george bush and the republicans in congress. they abandoned the principles they believed in, and then let's talk about what happened to the money supply. we had a massive expansion inest money supply and a massive devaluation of our currency in the period from 2001 to 2007. the price of gold went from 300 to $900 an ounce. we debased our currency and no country has ever become rich by

debasing its currency. now, i would submit to you all, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the way out of this crisis is not these big government bailouts, not the big government stimulus plan, not the $9 trillion debt plan that barack obama has submitted and has passed, but it will be a return to the free market policies. it was ronald reagan who turned around our economy the last time we were in a great economic crisis and he turned around our economy through free trade, 3 low taxes, through limited government. we have to return to the policies that work. we know that when we let the engine of free enterprise work, that america prospers like never -- like no other country ever has. there has never been a time, ladies and gentlemen, when big government, either in the united states, or anyplace in the world, and i would challenge jeff madrick to point to any example in history where big government made people richer. big government is what makes people poor and it turns

countries into impoverished nations. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, mr. moore. mr. madrick, you can call your first witness. >> i do call my first witness and i think it's charles ga gasperino. thank you. >> would charles gasperino please come before the court? >> wait a second, mr. gasperino, don't talk to the jury. one more mover like that mr. gasperino, you won't be allowed to testify and you'll be in the can. >> raise your right hand. do you promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> yes. >> all right. just stand there and tell the

truth. >> mr. gasperino, thanks so much. was there greed exhibited on wall street in the last decade? >> excuse me. i have to give him the mic. >> do you want to use my mic, mr. gasperino? >> charles -- >> i will take the gavel though. >> let me ask that again. was there greed on wall street? >> there was some amount of greed. >> how did it manifest itself? >> as it always does. people want to make more money, people cut corners and doing so, greed leads to excess. >> and how much money did people make? >> they made a lot of money. >> for example? >> jimmy cane made $40 million in 2006. dan o'neal made $50 million in 2006. this is right before the whole thing hit the fan. >> how well did their companies do as a consequence?

>> in 2007, merrill lynch was nearly bankrupt. in 2007, bear stearns nearly went bankrupt in the middle of 2007 and actually it. it was a run on the bank in early 2008. >> explain to me how you think capitalism is supposed to work. we believe that people should make whatever they can make, because they are managing their companies well, creating useful products, contributing to the prosperity of america. cane, o'neal made enormous amounts of money compared to what most of us made. was capitalism working? >> i think it was to a certain extent. i mean, you can't regulate out greed. i think that's what you want to do. you want to prevent greed, you have to essentially kill everybody on the planet, because it's the basic human instinct, some of us have more of it than others, and that goes to stupid things, but if you want to regulate greed, good luck.

you'll need a bigger government than barack obama ever envisioned. >> do you think that the compensation system contributed to bad decision making? >> absolutely. yes, it did. >> it did. so you don't think there is a way to regulate bad decision making on wall street that has to do -- >> the way to do that is to have government involved where you have, for example, if we're talking about the free market, who do you think gave us fanney and freddie and by the way, how much do you think franklin rains was paid before the scandal? it was something like $20 million. this was a government regulated agency that paid -- i call him a perpetrator, because i believe he was cited by the f.c.c. that paid a guy involved in an accounting scandal $20 million and by the way, did not put to death fanney or freddie, allowed

them to continue in their ways -- >> mr. gasperino, mr. madrick, your time is running short here. so please, answer his question. >> fanney and freddie were made private corporations. >> they're regulated by the housing and development organization under the clinton administration, which forced fanney and freddie for the first time ever to start guaranteeing subprime loans. you're right. >> judge, i may have to ask you, i may have to do this with both of my witnesses to treat this witness as a hostile witness. >> mr. madrick, the only problem is you're five minutes too late. >> oh, ok. >> should the investment bankers, why weren't me able to assess the prices of these securities they bought so aggressively? >> why weren't they?

>> isn't the -- let me continue, this is my last question. isn't the capitalist system supposed to be true competition to adjust prices in a way that we don't get outside crazy behavior that lasts for years? it's ok to say we allow some exception, but for years. >> sir, i would tell you that the cure is worse than the disease. if you look at history, there have been bubbles throughout the history of mankind, it's all about human nature. you can't regulate it out. if you want to regulate out economic bubbles, your basically go back to what you had in the soviet union, that type of economy, and if you want to regulate it even less lightly than that, go to europe and welcome 15 to 20% unemployment. >> -- between u.s. regulation and the federal reserve and the f.c.c. and the soviet union in your mind? >> if you want to regulate out greed, you want to regulate out bubbles and financial -- >> ok, you're become being repetitive.

>> -- you will get the soviet union. >> mr. madrick, thank you very much. mr. gasparino, you're subject to cross-examination. mr. moore. >> mr. gasparino, it's good to see you. >> i'm sure of that. >> you seem to be very bothered by some of these high executive salaries that some of these c.e.o.'s were made. >> i'm just stating the facts, sir. >> do you have any idea how much money lebron james makes? >> i don't care. >> would it surprise you to know he makes $40 million? >> do you have any idea how much money hannah montana makes? >> would it surprise, you, sir, to know she makes over $50 million. >> she didn't blow up the economy. >> mr. moore, don't ask him how much the mayor of las vegas makes, ok? >> now here is my question to you, sir. can we agree that someone who

runs a major company with thousands, if not tens of thousands of employees, who has oversight over billions, if not tens of billions of dollars, if that company is well managed and makes a profit for the shareholders, do you have a problem, sir, with that person making as much money as hannah montana makes and a-rod and lebron james? >> are you saying that dan o'neal well managed his came? are you saying that kaine was a great c.e.o.? >> no, i'm -- look, i am not here to defend c.e.o.'s who ran their companies in to the ground. >> mr. moore, you're here to defend yourself. >> what i'm asking you, is why do we -- don't you believe, sir, that it should be the boards of directors and the shareholders, not members of congress, who determine what the salaries are of these companies? after all, the shareholders are the owners of the company, right? >> of course, but you forget one

little piece here, mr. moore. the government is a shareholder right now. >> well, that's the whole problem. >> but they needed to be a shareholder to bail him out. >> this is a squealy witness. >> that's why -- >> let me ask you about the housing crisis, because you're an expert on that. would you agree with the premise that the housing sector in america is one of the most subsidized and regulated sectors of the u.s. economy? >> absolutely. subsidized by various tax incentives, regulated left and right. you know, there's 15 agencies that probably watch over the whole system. >> so this is hardly a free market system in housing, is it? we've got all of these institutions from the tax deduction for housing, fannie mae, freddie mac, the federal housing administration that are pumping money into what became a bubble. >> absolutely right. >> so may i submit to you, sir, that it was the government intervention in the housing

market, not the free market system, that caused this bubble in housing. >> i think you're asking for a very simplistic answer and it's not that simplistic, because here's what you had. you had a confluence of issues. you did have something known as -- [inaudible] and that was caused a lot by deregulation in the housing business and you did have government prodding them along. you couldn't have a bubble without the free market, you couldn't have a bubble without that. >> do you agree though that fannie mae and freddie mac played a central role in the housing bubble? >> subsequent role. >> one more question. you're an expert on markets and i want to ask you this question, sir, and i want an honest answer, please. do you believe the united states government can run the car companies in america? >> no, i don't. >> thank you. i rest. >> all right. thank you very much. thank you, mr. gasparino. you may step down. mr. madrick, please call your

second witness. >> where's the bailiff? >> i'm right here. >> it's john macky, will john macky please come up to the -- to face the court. >> please raise your right hand? >> do you swear to temperature the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i always tell the truth but it usually gets me in trouble. >> let me ask you about executive compensation. give the jurors some idea of how executive compensation has soared in the recent era? >> it really has soared. historically, if you go back to

1965, the average fortune 500 c.e.o. made 24 times the average pay of their works.xd by 1980, that had grown to 40 times. by the year 2000, had grown to 300 times. the average fortune 500 c.e.o. makes 225%. the average compensation of c.e.o.'s in the other 13 largest industrial nations, so seems like there's something wrong there. >> has that shown up in improved performance if corporations? >> in other words, executives make six times more as a proportion of average workers than they did 30, 40 years ago. are companies six times as well managed? >> in 2007, they appear to be. >> do you think that all that executive compensation helps improve management of companies?

>> no, i don't. >> could it have hurt management? >> why yes, it could have hurt it. >> could you explain to jurors how it could have hurt with all your experience? >> well, in my opinion, in my experience, if the c.e.o. is paid too much, unlike say, lebron james, it demotherlyizes the rest of the -- demoralizes the rest of the organization. you're part of a team, part of a larger couple tour and people are taking disproportionate amounts of money compared to everyone else, it could be bad for the overall organization. >> do you understand why people who are always defending c.e.o.'s salaries are always talking about athletes like lebron james, who unambiguously prove their worth and their merit, compared to many c.e.o.'s? why do they talk about athletes all the time? >> because athletes are very well paid, so it's sort of by comparison, seems very reasonable. >> is it reasonable? >> a good c.e.o. is worth quite

a bit of money. but you have to -- it's important to realize that you have to worry about what the external equity is, what a c.e.o. is worth in the marketplace, but you also have to be concerned about internal equity, what they're worth relative to everyone else in the organization. and a good company pays attention to both, and strikes a balance. i think some part of the debt balance, we've gotten out of balance over the last 30, 40 years. >> i don't know, i haven't asked you, but are you worried that sometimes this compensation lease to short-term decision making, as opposed to longer term, strategic decision making in some cases? >> in some instances, i think that happens. >> is that good or bad to america? >> bad. >> so there can be some bad side to this type of compensation? >> absolutely. >> do you think that's what happened to the financial community in the last five or 10 years? >> yes. >> again, i didn't ask you this of about, but do you have any

ideas in mind, could stan o'neal have made $50 million to drive merrill lynch -- does that upset you as a man who has built a brilliant business and worked his proverbial rear end off to build that business, does that upset you? >> no, it doesn't upset me. it's not how i choose thoron whole foods markets, but it's not my responsibility or i question the responsibility of government, but it is the responsibility of the board of directors and the shareholders to make sure that those successes are held in check. >> mr. madrick, do you have any other questions. >> one last. free market advocates argue competition will hold these in check. he'll allow that occasionally it will get out of hand. the competition will hold excesses in check over time. in my view, they haven't.

do you think there is something awry in that ideological attitude about markets? >> i don't think the problem here is markets so much is we need reforms in corporate governance. i don't think boards of directors and shareholders are doing their job perfectly. >> thank you very much. mr. moore, do you have any cross-examination? >> sir, i just want to be clear on this and thank you so much for being here. you're one of america's great entrepreneurs. if i understand you correctly, from your -- absolutely. if i understand correctly, you're making the case that boards of directors and shareholders have been derelict in their duty, well, especially the boards, who set compensation. this is not a failure of the free market system, is it? it's a failure of the duty of the compensation beards, is that -- would you agree with that? >> yes, i would. >> ok. i don't see how then this has

anything to do with the indictment of the free market system. let me ask you this, sir. when did you start your company, what year was that? >> 1978. >> what are your sales this year? >> about $8 billion. >> say again. >> $8 billion. >> $8 billion. you're an incredible american success story. sir, there are many countries in the world that do not have free market capitalist systems, north korea, brazil, ethopia, russia. do you believe, sir, that you could have created an $8 billion company in a nation that does not have a free market capitalist system? >> no. >> i rest. >> all right. thank you very much. mr. macky, before you're excused, i'm going to take the prerogative as a judge to ask you a question, all right? or a series of questions. you are the c.e.o. and chairman of whole foods, are you not? >> yes. >> what would it take for the mayor las vegas to get a whole foods in his downtown?

now be careful before you answer the question. >> well, whole foods doesn't take government -- we refuse to take government payoffs, so that won't work. >> where's my marshal? >> you'll have to turn the economy around, sir. >> you're bordering on contempt here. you're bordering on contempt. >> i recommend cutting taxes. >> thank you very much. >> all right, mr. madrick, do you have any other witnesses at this time? >> i do not. >> does the prosecution rest then. >> the prosecution necessarily rests. >> all right. mr. moore, do you have any witness was you want to call? >> your honor, i don't even feel i need witnesses after that travis at this in the case, the free market system, but i would like to call the great and

esteemed publisher, steve forbes. >> mr. forbes, would you please place your left hand there. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you god. >> i do. >> keep the mic. >> steve, it's great to see you. >> please don't be familiar. call him mr. forbes, will you please? jury ignore this -- that last outburst, all right? >> may i question my witness, sir? >> i'm not so sure. >> all right. go ahead, mr. forbes. >> mr. forbes, steve, you and your father have built one of the great publishing dynasties

in american history. i would like to ask you the famed question that i just asked a previous witness. do you believe that you and your father could have built the dynasty you have, what were your sales, sir, in the last fiscal year? >> they weren't as high as the year before, thanks to government meddling in the economy, but to answer your question, in no other economy, other than the free market entrepreneurial economy, could the forbes have survived. not just in the commercial sense, but what we write about people. but we will say good things about the mayor. i want to get out of here alive. >> thank you, mr. forbes -- thank you, steve. >> so i'll call him not oscar, the oscar. >> sir, we seen a great financial collapse in this country over the last nine months. the prosecution is trying to make the case that this is a result of the failure of free market economics.

can you point out some examples, sir, of where you believe it was actually the failure of government intervention, either in housing policy or regulatory policy, monetary policy, that created the crisis where we actually deviated away from the free market system? >> yes. there is no way we could have had a bubble in housing of the size we did, and all the other things that have happened. the federal reserve had kept a strong and stable dollar. if it -- and the printing of too much money, the excess liquidity, the artificially lowering the price of capital led to a disaster, just as those kind of policies led in the 1970's, so that's primary number 1. that's government. fanney and freddie in the two year period guaranteed a trillion dollars of junk mortgages. those were government sponsored enterprises and congress afforded every attempt to make a reform.

when the crisis hit, it was the s.e.c. overseeing accounting that allowed the regulators and auditors to put in this crazy mark to market accounting that devastated bank balance sheets and turned a flood into a tsunami. if we'd had those, mr. moore, in the early 1990's or early 1980's when we last had banking crises, we would have had the disaster that we had in recent months and then i won't even mention short selling, or moving the road pumps in short selling, not enforcing the rules against naked short selling. you have to borrow shares before you sell them. that again was a failure of government, not free enterprise, so when you have those kind of government mistakes, make no mistake, you're going to have a disaster, whether it happened in wall street, housing, or elsewhere, excess money and to kind of derelictions, you will get a disaster. >> stir, may i ask you, your motto, on your plane and your other -- what do you calm the motto at forbes magazine? >> capitalist tool. >> capitalist tool.

and you say that unapologetically, sir? >> absolutely. entrepreneurial free markets. remember, capitalism didn't invent human nature and so the bottom line, there's no other system, and precisely because, mr. moore, the system was invented not by government, not by philosopher, they came after the fact. it was spontaneous, allowed to happen and that's why it worked. >> two last quick questions. first, is there any truth, sir, to the allegation by the prosecution that tax cuts for the rich caused this economic crisis? >> tax cuts of the early part of this decade, 2003, just as the tax cuts of the 1980's, the kennedy tax cuts of the 1960's, by lowering the price of productive work, risk taking and success, enabled the economy to flourish in each of those periods of time. >> what happened to revenues? >> revenues actually went up, not down. with you create a vibrant economy, wealth is created, jobs are create, income is grown. guess what? government gets a cut --

>> there is no evidence, sir, that the tax cuts under bush or reagan or kennedy caused the budget deficits? >> it's like saying you get a $10,000 raise and you spend $20,000. no, that is not a crisis of revenue. that is a spending problem. congress feeds to have the credit card taken away and we'd have a surplus again. >> one last question, please. to cement my case, mr. moore. >> this is the fourth last question. >> just a yes or no answer. >> fair enough. >> you witnessed, mr. forbes, what has happened in the last three months with bailout plans, with stimulus plans, with debt, with the $10 trillion budget. do you believe, sir, that there's any chance that these policies will cause an economic recovery? >> it will not, to use the fashionable word today, cause a sustainable economic recovery. it didn't work for us in the 1930's, didn't work for japan in

the 1990's, won't work for us today, no. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. madrick, we would like you to cross-examine. >> thank you, judge. >> mr. forbes, it's nice to see you. >> nice to see you, we are neighbors, even if we're on the opposite side. >> it's good to see you. any great companies in sweden? >> any great business enterprises in sweden or france or germany? >> there are great enterprises all around the world, except for perhaps north korea, but the key question is not just a handful of great enterprises. the key question is how many small businesses are created, how many jobs are created in the private sector. >> you don't think there are jobs created in those countries? >> there are jobs created, but if you look at the facts over the last 25, 30 years, in the private sector, the united states proportionately created far nor jobs that have been created in western you europe and scandinavia.

>> please tell the jurors, what has the median wage of mail workers done in the last 30 or 40 years, since the reagan -- since president reagan was president? >> well, if you actually count the real world wages, not some of the ways that government counts wages and the way government deals with statistics, standard of living in the united states has increased enormously. only those who look at government statistics actually believe that a working american today has a lower or the same standard of living 30 years ago. whether it's health care, education, quality of life, quality of housing, quality of cars, you name it, it's better today than it was 30 years ago. >> gentleman just so the jury knows, i know we don't -- when we disagree with government statistics -- i couldn't. >> and by the way -- >> please. >> when we disagree with government statistics, we don't want to look at them. when we agree with them, we want to cite them. the median wage of workers is lower than it was today than this was before and let me fight

this out and ask you a new question. there are always new products in america and with there are new products, in fact, in the recent period, can't come close to comparing to the new products of 1920's in terms of distribution. one out of five families owned a car in 1919. three out of five owned an automobile in 1929 and real wages, measured by the government, who in this particular case we don't like, measured by the government, real wages went up when there were all those new products, electric refrigerators. >> mr. forbes, do you understand the question? >> here's the question. you know the question. shall i ask a question, judge? >> i think that's a cross-examination. >> median wages are down over this period, there are new products, median wages went up over the entire course of american history over 20 and 30 year periods, but not this time

around. why is it different this time around again, just tell the jurors, please? >> all right. in the 1920's were a fabulously productive, innovative decade and it worked because the tax cuts we had in the 1920's and a sound money policy. 1929, we made a series of catastrophic errors in 1930, 1931, that gave us the great greg. so that was government. private sector worked in the 1920's. in terms of your median wage, first of all, the government survey concentrates on those who actually make reports to the government. it misses out on new companies, so it's a flawed survey. we actually look at tax returns and the i.r.s. did a study that came out a few years ago of people earning what they earned in the mid 1990's and what they earned in 2004, and actual tack returns showed -- tax returns showed that people's income went up, particularly those in the bottom fifth, that almost all of them, the vast majority, went

up, not only in terms of tomb wages, but also in terms proportionately moving up a quinn tile or two quinn tiles, so in that sense, i rely on another government, the i.r.s., the tax returns, rather than a faulty survey that hasn't been updated in 30 years. >> i must say, i never thought i would hear a forbes say he relied on the i.r.s. we are choosing our statistics, aren't we. >> i believe in diversity. >> you were talking about fannie mae and freddie mac. a what proportion of subprime loans did they buy? i wrote it down. in 2006, they created this crisis. what proportion did they buy and wall street didn't buy? >> in terms of what fannie mae ended up guaranteeing, subprime mortgages and what they call a mortgages ended up, you don't look at just their numbers, actually, ceded a trillion dollars. now, wall street wrote this

stuff and fannie mae guaranteed it. however, again, this couldn't have happened if the federal reserve hadn't done what they did to create that excess liquidity. >> fannie mae bought 20% of subprime mortgages. >> they bought them. however, those were mortgages that i think they kept on their books. they started to drink the cool aid too and keep this stuff, because they thought it was a way of enhancing their profit. >> mr. madrick is badgering my witness. >> mr. forbes, mr. moore isn't even sweating, so sit down. >> quickly. quickly. steve, mr. forbes, the federal reserve has lowered interest rates drastically before, not just in the early 2000's. the early 1990's. if i still have the memory i had only 10 years ago, i could find a couple of other incidents.

why didn't we have a great housing boom, why didn't we have a collapse and a near depression then? >> the federal reserve lowered interest rates in the 1990's but not on the scale they did in 2000. we didn't have a year of 1% federal funds rates. that was a brand new thing, that was artificial, nothing to do with the market. so if you looked at the federal reserve -- in fact, in past times, sometimes with the fed has lowered interest rates artificially, like the early 1970's, it was because it was printing excess money and setting the stage for horrors down the road as happened in 1974 and 1975. so yes, the fed has may have had -- this wasn't the first time the fed has made mistakes, but what compounded what the fed did this time were mistakes made on things like mark to market accounting, short selling, inconsistent reaction by the government, which, you know, hank paulson is the james

buchanan's treasury secretary. >> i have one last question. i know you've never seen a tax cut you didn't love. but as i -- i know you don't like some government statistics over others, but we had the fastest economic growth in the 1950's and 1960's. the fastest rise in median household incomes and taxes were very high, weren't they? >> the overall tax burden in the 1950's and 1960's was far lower than it was today, and also, you didn't -- you didn't have massive property taxes as we do today, an on income taxes, while the rates were high, most people didn't hit those high brackets. and social security taxes, you have to include them, were infinitely lower than they are today, but in the late 1950's, people started moving into the higher tax brackets. the u.s. economy started to suffer severe recessions. we had a mild one in 1954. we had a tough one in 1958. another one in 1960, which is

why john kennedy put in a proposal to cut income tax rates 28% across the board. it ultimately passed. he was right. i wish the democratic party would learn from john kennedy. >> thank you. >> thank you, steve. >> thank you, steve. i said, thank you, steve. >> thank you.ñi marshal? where's my marshal? >> mr. moore, your next witness please. >> i would like to call, your honor, mr. doug casey. >> mr. casey.

>> mr. casey, would you please place your left hand on the bible, raise your left hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and fog but the truth. >> so help me god. >> so help you god. >> which god? >> ok. >> oh, boy. >> mr. casey, i have your copy of atlas shrug, race your right hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and fog but the truth, so help you, iran? >> you'll have to take my word for it. >> all right. mr. moore. >> mr. casey, thank you so much for being here today. the prosecution is trying to make the case that it was the failure of free market that caused this economic crisis. you were a long-standing student and lecturer and writer on american financial economic history. i would like to ask you this question, sir. do up see any evidence that it

was the breakdown of free market policies that caused the financial panic that we've seen in the last 18 months? >> that's false, even ridiculous question, in that we don't have a free market in this country and we haven't, even since the founding of the country as you pointed out. what we have today is not capitalism, so capitalism can't be on trial. what we have is fascism. fascism is a system. let me define the word,t( where individuals and companies own the properties, but the government directs them. so that's the answer to your question. >> if i understand you, sir, we can't blame the free market system for our kick failures right now, because we don't have a free market. >> that's exactly correct. >> all right. the next question i wanted to ask you, you are an investment guru, is that right, sir? you provide a lot of good advice to people. would you advise the american people, or investors, to invest

in chrysler or general motors today? >> was that a question or a no? >> what we're facing right now is not just the most serious depression -- >> is that a yes or no? >> no. no. you're looking at something -- this isn't the most serious thing since 1930's. this is the most serious thing since the founding of the country, so no. i couldn't recommend common stocks, i couldn't recommend bonds, i couldn't recommend u.s. dollars. none of these. >> do you think that is true united states government did the right thing when it bailed out aig? >> not only did it do not the right thing, it did exactly the opposite of the right thing. >> did it do the right thing when it bailed out bear stearns? >> no. >> did it you do the right thing when it bailed out the 12 largest banks in the united states? >> i don't even acknowledge the right of the u.s. government to exist.

>> do you believe that the 800 billion, billion -- >> wait a second. i'm beginning to take this very personally. >> do you believe that this man should be the mayor of las vegas? >> i'm giving you your miranda warnings right now. you have a right to remain silent, ok? >> listen, personally, you seem like a very nice guy, but you ought to get honest work. >> do you believe, sir, that we need mayors and governors? >> no, i don't. i think that anything that needs doing, will be done by -- >> marshal, shoot this man. >> and if entrepreneurs don't provide the gooder service, it's not desired by the market. the answer is no. >> what you're saying, sir, is the citizens of las vegas could save a lot of money, if this man did not have a job?

>> yes. >> well, wait. wait. >> yes. and the 50,000 people to work for him. >> that's assuming facts not in evidence. >> it sounds like the wrong person is on trial here. >> this is -- all do respect, this is a kangaroo court. any court that could have the nerve to put capitalism on trial, for the sins of another court is a kangaroo court. >> i want the record to reflect for your entire system you've had your hand on the bible. >> that's like crossing my fingers, if you would. >> one last question, if i may, sir. do you believe that this man has the right to put you in jail? >> don't challenge me. >> no, i don't.

no, i -- it's going to take an explanation we don't have time for, but no, not believing the state or the government or what it does, no, i don't think -- >> so to rum size, if we had a very limited government or no government at all, we would be a richer country. >> oh, absolutely. this country would be already right now at the level of star trek, if we didn't have the government. i mean, to me, the thing i'm most amazed by -- >> even if barack obama is president? >> oh. >> all right. >> i'm just amazed that we're as prosperous as we still are with the dead hand of the state laying upon all the citizens of this country. >> do you believe, sir, finally, that barack obama is the messiah? >> judge, i object? >> did you say the messiah or the anti-christ? >> i would like the defense to ask at least one serious question.

>> all right. cross-examine. >> one serious question. >> sir, thank you. >> i'm trying to treat this proceeding with all the dignity that it deserves. >> and we actually, because we're probably more open hear hearted, then we will treat you with even more dignity. but met me ask you this, is america a prosperous country? >> yes, in relative terms. >> most prosperous country in the world? >> for the last 30 years, based mostly upon the kindness of strangers in china and so forth, yes. >> how long have you been predicting depression? >> oh, that's very easy to predict. any time that you have -- >> when did you start? >> about 1978. 1978. >> i was looking at it. >> you were talking about how regulation, inflation and so forth leads to depression. >> yes.

we licked inflation. we deregulated it -- i feel like frank sinatra. we licked it, we we deregulated it and then we had something you call the worst economic calamity in american history, even though we reversed some of those conditions you worried about so much. >> what are you talking about now? >> that was a cyclical recovery, and all i can tell you is that in the real world, actions have consequences, cause has effect, and regulation, inflation, and the government in general, has brought us to where we are now and it's going to get much, much worse. >> so we've been a very prosperous country, everyone on the jury, full of economic opportunity and we did this despite the fact that we have a government, any kind of a government. and if we didn't have any kind of government, we would be even

more prosperous. is there one historical example you can point to to make your case? >> just one. >> one example of a nation without a government that became very prosperous? >> i'll say this. every time without exception, the richest and most prosperous countries in the world are the countries that have the lightest touch of government. in the past, that's been the united states. so that's why we're as prosperous as we are now. we would be much more prosperous had we not had the government. >> i don't want to get into statistical analysis and if pack, i won't. i'm not even going to bother to argue that one question. you know, i know that you'll just say those statistics -- did -- if we got rid of government, i always talk about sweden, but let me talk about a different country. if we got rid of government, norway, which is almost as rich as we are, may be even richer,

and they pay for child care and the university is it free and they pay for health care and they don't have 47 million people or the equivalent proportion without health care insurance. if we eliminated the government in norway, wow, would they be way richer than we are? >> yes, they would, because what government does is it misallocates huge amounts of capital and causes disportions in the marketplace, so yes, the norwegians would be far better off without their government. >> so if we had achieved this state against all odds, we have achieved the state of prosperity in america against all odds. >> america has been relatively free compared to the other countries in the world, that's correct. >> does the government have to protect property rights, the minimal necessary requirement to make a market work? :

>> mr. madrick, do you rest. >> i request a redirect. >> no redirect. have a seat. >> you don't have authority over me. >> you know, you may not get to the jury. do you rest. >> i rest, reluctantly. >> but i want to make a closing statement. since mr. madrick has the burden

of proof, he'll go first. justice homes said if i had more time i would have made it more brief. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen of the jury, i again urge you to rid yourself of your previous prejudices and the outcries from the gallery. although, i must say i enjoyed the gallery. we have heard a great deal of rhetoric from the other side. we have heard virtually no analysis. we have heard about basketball players. we've heard about the fact that there's not a free market in ethiopia. could you ever start a whole foods in ethiopia? well, even i would agree it's probably pretty difficult. not as difficult as maybe las vegas. [laughter] >> is that analysis? have we heard from the other side at all about the mispricing

of assets on wall street? and we've heard about government and fannie mae. i agree fannie mae contributed to this problem. are they the central issue? not remotely. just look at the numbers and i know and i bring up numbers and people say, i don't like those numbers. just look at the numbers and purchases and the community reinvestment act. i'm surprised that didn't come up had nothing to do with this crisis. three republican appointees stated as much after they actually did the research. i would commend the jury. i would commend my opponent. i would commend the gallery and, judge, i don't have to commend you because i know you do this. do some research into these issues. ask yourself why infrastructure in america is rated a d. this is america. rated a d by the civil

engineers. ask yourself why it is so darn expensive to go to college in america. does that make sense to you? ask yourself why public education is unequal. you probably may have. you would probably disagree. ask yourself who made -- what made public education work in america. steve, my opponent, brought up one point and i want to make this very clear. he said big government always gets in the way or something like that. let me point this out to you historically. there is no example of a major rich nation today that has not had something we can define as a big government. some very big governments and i know many of you think life is not as good in france or sweden as it is here. don't tell that to the swedes or the french and they know the

services they get and they know their country has been prosperous. i'm not saying they do everything right and by any means government does everything right in america. but it is time to get some balance in this argument. what's happened to america is that we've lost our sense of balance. we've been dominated by an extreme ideology, an ideology that has taken us much too far, and you see an example of that today. you see an example of it where everything that has happened is government's fault, not some of it, but all of it. where you use examples about free markets, examples like ethiopia instead of examples like western europe. can you open, can you start a company in china today? increasingly you can. a company in india and america better wake up to that fact. they better wake up to the fact

that other systems that regulate more, that pay for education and has more efficient healthcare systems are going to start becoming much more competitive economically than we are. and we better start taking care of ourselves. and i'm not going to become an idealog that the only answer -- i always remember this line from sinatra. it's a powerful line. sir, take your hand off that broad. we're in las vegas. i can say. >> what happens here stays here. >> we better take care of ourselves. i'm not going to come up and use lebron james as an example or ethiopia and tell you changed the numbers. i'm going to tell you we better get some balance in america and

we lost that and the consequence of losing that has been severe economic cataclysm. who brought up the soviet union? the soviet union, please, charles. let's not -- let's not jump from one extreme to the other. i'm not talking about the soviet union. but we need some balance here. we did not need this cataclysm. you -- everybody on this jury is paying the price for. and if we don't have the government, since he is my neighbor i can call steve -- if we don't have government intervening, economies go down farther and farther and farther. and i'd love to talk to you a little bit about the new deal. the categorical deal. thank you judge. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. moore?

>> your honor, it's been a pleasure to be here with you. i like you and i do not love you and i'm not going to hug you. [laughter] >> thank god! notwithstanding your position. sfrush >> i would beseech the jury to think about this. please, i beg you do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. that goose that lays the golden eggs is the free market capitalist system. it's reason that the united states has become the richest nation on earth. let's review some of the evidence that the prosecuting team has put -- brought today. he said executive compensation. the free market system isn't working because a lot of executives are overpaid. i agree that many executives, especially, a failing institutions -- mr. gasparino had this correct. many of them should not be paid anything. they should not get golden parachutes and they should give the money back if they caused

their company to go into a bankruptcy. this was not a failure of the free market system. it was a failure of the compensation boards of directors that should be overseeing the interests of the shareholders. because, i agree with the prosecuting attorney. he says we have lost our balance between the free market system and government. he is exactly right. we have lost the proper balance and the reason we lost the proper balance is we have seen in the last 18 months the greatest expansion of government in the history of this country. we've spent $800 billion on a failed a stimulus plan that has not caused a new job and caused the unemployment rate to 9.5%. where is all this infrastructure creates jobs? the prosecuting attorney says well, we don't have a good education and healthcare system in this country. who runs those industries?

the government does. the two industries in america that are most dysfunctional, education and healthcare -- education is 90% run by the government and the healthcare system is 50% run by the government. now the prosecuting attorney and his friends in washington like barack obama want that entire industry, the healthcare industry, to be run by government. now i would submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, if we have the government running our healthcare system in america, it will have all of the efficiency of the department of motor vehicles and the postal service. we don't want that. our health is too important. now, infrastructure, the prosecuting attorney said we are not spending enough money on infrastructure. the problem with infrastructure in this country -- and you're right a lot of your infrastructure is crumbling. why because these ding bat politicians spend millions of dollars every year to bridges to nowhere. get the government out of infrastructure and we will have a much better system of roads, bridges, and highways.

finally, i would submit that if you look at countries around the world, let us not emulate the model that the prosecuting attorney says that he so much admires in his book "the case for big government," he wants the united states to look like europe. he has euro-envy. he wants us to look like france, germany, italy, and spain and sweden. there's a problem with that model, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't work. those countries have had higher unemployment rates. they have more people in poverty, they have not created jobs. the united states under the free enterprise system created 46 million new jobs. over that same time periods, europe created 5 million jobs. we created nine times as many jobs as those countries did. we created much more wealth and so on. so the point, i think, i'm making is that our founding fathers set up a system that was ingenuous. i am not making the case for no government. mr. casey made that case very impassionately. i don't agree entirely with

that. we do need a rule of law. we do need a court system. we do need roads. but we -- and we obviously need a national security system and a national defense but we do not have to have the government mettling in and what have we seen in the last six months from george bush and now president obama, what we care most about is the future we leave to our children. for the first time in history, if we remain on the course that we are on right now, our children, thanks to $10 trillion of government debt that we will amass over the next 10 years under these big government policies, that the prosecuting so much admires -- under those policies, every american born, every child born today will inherit 150 to $200,000 of debt. i would submit, your honor, that this is fiscal child abuse.

no great nation leaves that kind of debt to their children. and so in closing, we need to maintained the free enterprise system. we need to leave to our children a system of limited government and a burgeoning free market system that makes everybody rich. the great dream of america is not as the prosecuting attorney would say to make rich people poor. it's to make poor people rich. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. moore. [applause] >> all right, now ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you've heard the witnesses and the statements of both the prosecutor as well as the defendant. it's now up to you to decide the guilt or not guilt of mr. steven moore and the defenders of free market capitalism and supply-side economics. now, do you have a foreman? all right, sir.

the foreman will tally the votes. the decision in this particular case can be by majority vote. >> i have a question. >> it does not require a unanimous decision. i'm not going to try this case over again. [laughter] >> is that clear? >> your honor, while the jury compiles the votes, i have been asked to announce that both the prosecuting attorney and the defendant attorney immediately after the verdict, unless their hauled off to jail, will be in the back of the room signing their books. the little commercial plug -- >> you're fired. no, you're the worst -- you're the worst bailiff i've ever had. [laughter] >> you are unbelievable. unless he's hauled off to jail. disregard that. unring that bell. [laughter] >> and we have posters of the

debate of the century available for signature at the back. >> mr. foreman has the jury received a book. >> yes. >> would you please read the verdict. >> your honor, after due consideration in the free market of ideas and after deep deliberation, this jury has concluded not guilty. capitalism lives! >> all right. i want to thank mr. madrick as the prosecutor and mr. moore -- >> you've been a great judge. you've done a fantastic job. >> your honor, your honor, i have been handed a notice from the white house. in the event of a not guilty verdict, i am supposed to read

this to you. >> let me see that, please. >> here you are. you may read it. >> you're going to tell me what to do? [laughter] >> this is unbelievable. it's from the white house, 1600 pennsylvania avenue, washington, d.c., 20500. it's dated july the 10th, 2009. it says -- well, it's the honorable mayor of las vegas, and it's an amazing message. by the powers granted by the united states of america patriot act, the president of the united states hereby declares marshall law in the city of las vegas and mr. steven moore and his free market conspiracies are hereby declared to be enemy combatants. [laughter] >> we, therefore, declare this court decision null and void -- >> he has no right. >> and hereby reverse the ruling

of this jury and condemn mr. steve moore and his free market cohorts to 151 years of -- no, eight years, pardon me, eight years of hard labor at the new barack obama gitmo center in washington, d.c. [laughter] >> illiberally yours, barack obama. well, i'm going to tell you what i'm going to do with this message. [applause] >> members of the jury, whereas las vegas is located in the sovereign state of nevada which functions under the constitution of the united states and the tenth amendment to the united states constitution states that the federal government has no jurisdiction over this court and, therefore, i declare this official statement by the white house to be null and void. mr. moore and all codefendants are set free at freedomfest and

are invited to partake in all the entertainment and liberties of my fair city, long live the constitution and long live las vegas. [applause] >> case closed. >> this event was part of freedomfest a libertarian conference held annually in las vegas. for more information visit freedomfest.com. >> rick pearlstein, who lives in

nixon land. >> we have two groups of americans who hate each other, left and right, red and blue, one side barely considers the other side american at all and a big part of barack obama's appeal or at least his attempted appeal was to transcend just that sort of thinking. now, whether that would work or not is really the open question of his administration. i mean, he did, you know, pass a stimulus bill with zero republican votes and he's still being called a socialist. so, you know, it's a way to think about our history going forward. are we still living in that radically bifurcated, mutual mode of recrimination that we saw that evolved with richard nixon in the 1960s. >> how did it evolve during richard nixon and was he partially involved in your view? >> he didn't create the wave but

he surfed the wave. as the '60 social movements became passionate and sometimes even violent, large swaths of white middle class america became very frightened that their normal expectations of law and order were being upended. and richard nexon kind of harvested that rage and he took political advantage of that rage. >> how? >> well, for example, he argued privately, some of his aids said it publicly, that they wanted to achieve a strategy of positive polarization. in other words, it's good to have a political discourse that divides the country in two because of their belief that the republicans would harvest the bigger side of the divide.

so in other words, even though in much of his public rhetoric he would speak the words of unity that we expect our presidents to speak all the time, barely beneath the surface he encouraged the idea that one group of americans would believe another group of americans weren't quite american at all. one group is a silent majority, the rest was, you know, these hippies and kids who, you know, wanted to tear down everything all us hard-working americans had built. >> was some of that rage in your view justified? >> oh, absolutely. >> why? >> well, i mean, a lot of what went on the new left and the black power movement was, you know, churlish and juvenile and narcissistic. i tell the story of abby hoffman who is one of the most prominent antiwar activists. he was a yippy and i tell the

story how john lindsey had kind of made him sort of an ambassador between the city and the hippy community on the lower left side and part of that was he couldn't be arrested. and abbie hoffman would bated the cops and he bated a cop into arresting he literally smashed a display case just because he could. and when you're talking about that level of childishness, that doesn't make it very easy for us to kind of body forth together as a commonwealth. it's when the rage became kind of undifferentiated and was directed at, say, senators who opposed the war like, you know, edmond muskie who nixon tried to tie to the radical movement that

things got very irresponsible. >> as a politician, do you expect richard nixon? >> he's the best. he wasn't, you know, quite good enough to, you know, bluff his way to two full terms but as far as his ability to find and certain the kind of subterranean moods broiling beneath the american life and speak to those hopes and dreams, he was brilliant. he was brilliant at thinking about what kind of constituency he could build for his politics. and one of the ways in which he was such a brilliant politician and one of the evidences of it he was not a very charming man. it was a paradox and he was a guy who people found to get along with he didn't seem to enjoy people and yet he was still able to win the allegiance of americans. >> this is your second book. the first book was on barry

goldwater and your second book on the republicans on the right and you're working on a third. why so fascinated with the right? >> the thing that fascinates me -- i'm an apologetic liberal and i'm a political activist i'm proud that some people have found my work useful and fair. i'm fascinated by the fact that we americans share a nation with each other even though we see the world in such different ways and we speak the same language, english, you know, and we inhabit the same spaces. but we had just enough mutual comprehension that we can be voyeuristic on one another's words and i find that fascinating. why to people think differently than i do. what to i have in common? what don't i have in common. why do some people end up liberal and conservative? you know, i can sit in a library and close my eyes and think about that for hours and call it a good day.

>> is america unique in that respect? >> i think that america is unique in that its !8ñideallogi direction is up for grabs. we never had an american -- but a set of ideas. we're always fighting over the ideas. you know, what does liberty mean? well, a social democrat -- in other words, someone on the left, a new tealer means liberty means having food in your stomach to take care of your family. a conservative would say liberty means the government staying out of the private economy no matter what. and we're still having the same arguments with each other in

almost 250 years into the experiment. >> has there ever been a time in your understanding of history, rick pearlstein where everyone has been united. >> we've always been united and divided. i mean, you know, we couldn't have defeated fascism in world war ii had we not, you know, achieved a remarkable degree of operational unity but by the same token a lot of that involved kind of burying certain ways that we are disunited, say, around race, that quickly rose to the surface after world war ii in the 1950s as, you know, african-americans came back from world war ii, it said we fought for our freedom. white settlers came back from world war ii and we fought for our way of life and suddenly we're at loggerheads again. it's the american condition. >> what's the book you're working on and what's your trilogy called?

>> well, i've called it the backlash trilogy. the first book goes from '58 to '54 and '1965 and 1972 and i'm working on a book called the invisible bridge which is about the 1970s and the rise of ronald reagan. it's going to cover the years from 1973 to 1980. >> we're here at the organization of american historians' annual meeting and you just participated on a panel on the conservative -- state of conservatism in america. why as a liberal are you so fascinated with conservatism? >> well, a lot of historians are absolutely riveted by conservatism and one of the reasons is because they've had such a dominate role in governing the country. certainly since, you know, 2001, we've had, you know, until 2006 we had a conservative president and a conservative congress, you know, we had two terms of ronald reagan. and, you know, that's kind of where the action is.

i mean, it's the real exciting story in american political development. why did a country that seemed to be heading to a kind of permanent liberal consensus around the new deal ideas begin to lurch so aggressively to the right? and it's something, you know, at this panel we're trying to -- it's hard to figure. it's fascinating to figure. >> then as a political activist is it important for you to understand the right? >> sure. sure. well, my way of understanding the right is very much based in empathy. and that any political movement that hopes to capture a coalition that can achieve a majority, let alone a governing majority which requires 60% these days because of the filibuster has to understand that the massive americans in the middle who, you know, don't necessarily share any particular political allegiance will -- that conservative ideas are

attractive. and what is attractive about those ideas? why do they answer to people's normal aspirations? and without understanding that, you can't understand how to persuade people to the way of thinking politically that you find the greater good for the greater number, which, you know, in my case would be, you know, the social democratic tradition, the new deal tradition. the idea that strong government, central government, can deliver the most prosperity with liberty and individual autonomy. >> have you ever imagined interviewing richard nixon? >> oh, yeah. i couldn't -- i couldn't outfox that guy. he was a chess master. he was a poker master. he was four or five steps ahead of everyone. and there's the movie

frost-nixon which came out this past year which was excellent which was basically a rare movement where he seemed to let down his guard and seems to have bested by this, you know, petty, you know, sort of low brow television host, you know -- i mean, it's straight out -- i mean, the best way to defeat an enemy is to misdirect him by making him believe that you're not as strong as you really are. i don't know. i think david frost would have better man that one. >> rick pearlstein, author of nixonland. >> this summer, book tv is asking, what are you reading? >> my name is amy walter. i have dreams for what i would like to read this summer. though, i don't know how many of them will actually get read but top of my list is jon meachan's

new book american lion about andrew jackson. i would like to get one political biography in a summer and believe it or not, sitting on the beach with truman one year was quite lovely. it seems odd but it is true. i have started but not yet made as much of a debt as i would like in the book "break-through." david sedaris if we're going in the fiction book, his is combo fiction-nonfiction. quirky. some people don't necessarily appreciate his sense of humor. i personally find him his hysterical. "when you're engulfed in flames." that's sitting on my nightstand. that's a good nightstand book.

what is also going to get read this summer because i have a 2 1/2-year-old are a lot of books that, quite frankly, i don't have any choice but i will read them every single night. and for those of you with young kids i do recommend the neighbors on sunny side street. it's a little bit quirky. it doesn't really make any sense but those are most books for kids but has a lot of things to look at, which distracts for a long time. richard scarry books and where the wild things are. always a classic and soon to be a movie. so those are summer books. i just hope i can get through one of them. >> to see more reading lists and other program information, visit our website at book tv to agree.

booktv.org. >> here's a look at some upcoming book fairs and festivals over the next few months.

>> forstchen talks about his book "one second after" a nuclear bomb that sends out electromagnetic pulses. he writes about his book and the need for a missile defense system to guard against those attacks. the foundation for defense of democracies here in washington hosted this event. it's about an hour. >> hi, i'm cliff may. i'm the president for the foundation of the defense for democracies. it's a policy institute formed just after 9/11. and we focus on terrorism, the ideologies, regimes and movements that drive terrorism. we're based in