>> thank you, if you read the book you will need a french accent. this morning, you have the book and the french accent. as brian explained, the purpose of the book is to show, to demonstrate the economy is a science and free-market works. it is a science, quite a recent science. if we look back into history,

extraordinary men had extraordinary intuition. re than two centuries ago, free-trade was gd. but it was more like intuition. what is quite recent in economics is a sign that most of all, arguments, certainly most of the arguments in this book are based on facts, facts that we can measure. we now work on data and build mathematical models, we confirm the mathematical model with economic reality, and w know the model iright or wrong, it is demonstrated wrong, we build a new model and so on. economics works since a recent period, when i started studying economics and even teaching economics it was a measure of opinion. people would think free-trade was good. other people would think free

trade was bad. some would advocate inflation as a way to create growth, for example. so it was a matter of discussion until the late 70s, economies would compare the efficiency of the soviet model verses the capitalist model. some would argue the communist model was maurice efficient, more egalitarian, because we didn't have the data. when we started analyzing the data, economics stopped being a matter of opinion and became a scientific matter. when i say economics is a science and free-market works better, it is not because it is my opinion or because it is my choice, it is a fact. i would say most of the economy works within this framework. the rule of economics to to --

today, is to define what is a good economic policy verses a bad economic policy. away to make the distinction. i argue that we are today in a position to make this distinction. we know what wks and we know wh doesn't work. of course, what works doesn't work perfectly because we are human beings and as human beings we have passion and we make irrational decisions, there are things weon't control. basically what we control, we know more or less how to define a good economic policy. what is a good economic policy? a good economic policy is a policy which brings people out of poverty, and if they a out of poverty which is the case in the united states or europe, a good economic policy is a policy which imoves opportunities for

people, more opportunities and more freedom of choice. the criteria are very clear. what works? basically sixprinciples. i have no time to elaborate, six principles which seem very evident today and which were not that evident 30 or 40 years ago. the first principle, which most economists would agree, beyond free-market, the basis of growth is under and orship. without the entrepreneur, you have no growth. the rule of law, reasonable tax system and respect of property. destroy the basis of private property, you don't have a rule

of law because it is unpredictable and you don't have entrepreneurship, you have no growth, as simple as that. this has been veryften described more as an intuition than by facts. we now have fact we can compare, we can compare countries where entrepreneurship has been destroyed in the name of communism. rule of law has been erased, private property has been destroyed, taxes have been too high conlan and as our consequence you have no growth. this principle which is tremely important is innovation. innovation is the only engine for growth. there is no other engine for growth. so you need to go a little bit further to try to understand the

conditions for innovation. the united states are a pioneer in innovation because of the very specific conditions, which is basically the relationship betwn the university, the academics and the business of unity. this is quite unique in the world. if you look at fundamental research, fundamental science and other aces which are as good as the united states, europe and japan, there is no place where the connection between the business community and the economic community is as close, as narrow as it is here. the united states will be able to keep its connection, its relationship between the academic world and the business world, i think the united states will be the leader in terms of innovation. ma other countries, france, for example or south korea, are

trying to build this kind of connection but it is quite complicated, it is rooted in history and the culture of these people. i read all the columns and books about the united states losing its edge in terms of innovation i see no risk there. as long as you keep what i just described. the third principle, and i want to elaborate, have a stable and predictable currency. this is absolutely evident today. it was not the case, i mentioned in my introduction, we do remember in the late 70s, the brazilian model was explained and shared by many economists all-around world, creating more money, through hyperinflation, you could bring faster growth. this was the common wisdom

largely accepted, demonstrated was wrong and also experimentation demonstrated that it was wrong. economics, like any science, and two legs, the fundamental, abstract theory a also -- this has been the case as far a inflation is concerned. one of the most marketable moves in 30 years is most of the country's around the world, they have created independent central banks, and in most of the cases, the independent central banks have been able to guaranteed to the people that the currency would be stable. this is one of the reasons why many countries in africa which were mired into poverty started growing. real growth. the main explanation has been

the monetary stability. befo monetary stability, people have no interest in investing in the future because ther was no future. since they had stable currency, these countries, all conditions remaining the same, these countries started to grow because they understood the principal number three. principal number four is free trade, in all economists without exception, i am talking about economists, not politicians, all econies do agree the free trade is essential and is positive. it has been demonstrated by theory and practice. the question is, why is it that noneconomists are against free-trade? it has to do with one of the characteristics of economics, it has to do with the fact that it is not a popular science.

people do not like economists, people do not like economics and you understand why. economts work globally. we say free trade is good for you as a group, for you as a nation,ut if you happen to be a worker in an industry which disappearsecause of chinese competition, to hear that free trade is good for you is completely irrelevant. you have this contradiction in economics between discourse, which is a global discourse, free trade is good for you, and the individual perception of free trade which can harm singh individuals. this is why it is extremely important that the government, the national government or whatever, would take care of the negative consequences of free

trade and other economic modernization, when they do impact individuals. but there will be discrepancies between the global benefits of economic growth and the individual perception. this does apply to principles no. 5, which is the destructive creation, to use the word of joseph peter, destructive creation, when an activity has become obsolete, irrelevant, it is to be closed, destroyed, in order to be reaced by something else. in principle, like free trade, it is extremely efficient. in planned economy, new factories were closed, this is why there was no growth in the soviet union. when you close a factory, simultaneoly, new factories or new activities will be created somewhere, but you don't know

where. therefore, there will be no television coverage. it is like free trade, it creates a symmetry. this explains why for politicians, pundits, is easier, beyond the fact that sometimes they do not understand the principle of economics or they do not like it which is in st. what you don't understand, you don't like, it helps, if i may y so, that the negative aspects of growth are visible, and the positives are not as easily visible. economics and free market economics are not extremely popular. what is extremely interesting, i read about this, this came as a surprise f many people, even for economists, the big surprise since 20, 25 years, the free

market and capitalism work everywhere, in any civilization. this is not well accepted. i will use an example. today, you have many arab or muslimountries which are still at civil war, not all of them, i am talking mostly about non oil-producing countries, many pundits saying they are poor because they are muslim, they don't have the right religion, islam is not expressing enough individual responsibility, everything is destiny, there is no reason to invest in the future, you just wait and see what will happen to you. these are common explanations for the poverty of the country like egypt, in the 50s you had the dominance of explanations saying the asian people, because they were confusion this, they

were never able to grow because confucianism, there is no interest in the future and people keep repeating the same gesture. what happens today under mur own eyes, in less than 25 years, when you employ at the right economic policy which is exactly the same everywhere, do aly everywhere, very rapidly, i mentioned egypt is growing, china is growing, india is growing, india is an interesting case as well. win india became independent in 1490 -- 48, in 48, india chose the economic model which was extremely popular at that time, closed border state controlling the industry, you couldn't start

a new business, even a small business without the state authorization, and this was supposed to bring india out of poverty. between 1991, was 1%. this was so predictable, so constant, so regular, that economists in india called that the into rate of growth, as if 1% was rted in the indian or hindu culture. in 1991, the finance minister decided to open the border to welcome foreign investments to a certain extent, to the license system, and india is growing 5%, 6%, 7% according to the year. i mentioned in the a because it is less known, what happened in china, i will not elaborate. one of the miracles which is not

a miracle,ust an application of sound principle and good economic policy, shows that the cost share, religion, civilization is not a key factor, the key factor is the economic strategy which is good or bad. it goes into the direction of more free market or less free market and this makes the difference. if the system is so perfect and wonderful, why do we have crises? there should be no crisis. they are crisis, and quite often, quite wide. there are two reasons. the firsts a fundamental reason, capitalism, free market and growth in cycles by definition, why can't we avoid the cycle? it has to do with innovation. growth is connected as i said before, based on innovation, but you can't know in advance whether the innovation, we were

we not work, sometimes innovation doesn't work. whether innovation doesn't work, it brings negative consequences. the cycle of the economy is connected with the technical cycle and cycle of innovation. if you don't have innovation you have no growth and if you have innovation, you take risks. as a french economist likes to say, the market is a dangerous place to be. so the market is efficient, but the market is dangerous by definition. among all the markets, the financial market is the most special place to be. it is the most unpredictable of the markets, there's a lot of innovation going on in the financial market, securitization has beenne of the most remarkable innovations in the financial market, not recently, it started centuries ago, it becomes more sophisticated. when you have innovation you have danger. when you have danger you have

risk. in the socialist economy or hindu economy there were no cycles. you could be sure it was 1% year. that would never reach 6%, 7% a year. now there are 7% the year, it is a cycle and they already have. therefore, i don't think you can eliminate cycles. what you can do is to help individual people to confront the harness of the cycle. people lose their jobs, people in factories are closed and so on because of the cycle and because of the crisis. what is to be done is for a responsible government to take into consideration the hardship which is supported by the people which as a consequence of the crisis, have a growing economy without any cycles is

impossible. . the second explanation, the short-term explanation, how do you explain apecific crisis, not cycles in general but specific crises. it is not that easy. there is a lot of date around the 1930 crisis, t 1970s crisis, but my position, many market share this position. the present crisis and former crisis, the monetary policy. is very probably the excess of money available in the market which has brought speculation and the crisis after the bubble. the economic history, we have a lot of those which have always

been the consequence excess of planetary creation the problem with the bubble is they are difficult to predict and when you are in a bubble it is hard to get out of a bubble. you don't know how long you make a lot of money. , you regret having left. others are still making money. the bubbles have been described in mathematical model and, i described at length my model, the brazilian economist teaching at princeton show how bubble works. you know you are in a bubble not by looking at crisis but the number of transactions. when the number of transaion, cox at that stage, we can't

predict how long the bubble will go on and when to get out of the bubble, we can't because financial markets follow the rules, we wrote a gain of wil randomness. financial markets are widely random. they cnot be otherwise, they would not be markets anymore because everyone would make money on the market. they are random by definition. at that stage of our economic knowledge we cannot do more. many people would say many criticisms say why do we need economists if we don't know how to make predictions. we don't make predictions. we can predict what is bad for you. we are like primitive medical doctors who tell you if you

smoke and you drink, probably you have concerns in your life. economists would say if you close your borders like you did in the 1930s, if you print a lot of money, probably a won't be very well off afterwards, the situation will be worse. and indian economist when consulted on the best for developing countries, if i were you i wouldn't start from here. we know where not to start from. we know what is to be avoided. to talk about the situation in europe, stimulus doesn't work we know that because it has been done before. maybe this time it will work because we cannot make predictions. i cannot predict the present stimulus will work or will not work because what we can say is

stimulus never works. i won't get into detail, we can demonstrate why it doesn't work. we can demonstrate new theory but we can demonstrate also as a practical matter because it has been tried many times, there is no case study to show public stimulus works, it usually does not. i wanted to say something today, stimulus is omoted, regulation is promoted. fell on stimulus i am very clear. on the regulation -- regulation is usually eless. regulation is usually useless, it is usually good, it has been

demonstrated. the regulation would be useful. it certainly would be useful for the regulators because of a lot of regulation--a lot of regulation is justified, if i may say so, by the political desire of bureaucrats and politicians to increase their own domain, their own power, we are all rational to a certain extent that bureaucrats are rational as well. so you have to understand that bureaucrats will explain the origin of the crisis, even if is is not the case, because i still don't see the connection between regulation and the current crisis. i say that some kind of regulation can be useful if we increase transparency. my position is to say regulation would allow iividuals to be

better aware of what they buy and would increase individual freedom, individual choice. i speak in your name, the regulators would use the arguments of transparency to build more useless regulation. economics is always about fine-tuning and trade off, and finally we repeat the strain -- sorry, i try never to repeat myself. you needn't listen to me yesterday night, maybe you didn't read my latest paper in the journal, but i really love the discussion with the liberal economist at cornell university because you have this big debate about health care in the united states, many liberal economists in the united states look at the french system and they love it,

bob frank explained to me, i love the french system, would like to have the same in the united states, he goes to france every summer and when he has a medical problem, he goes to a french doctor, he can freely choose a doctor and it is extremelcheap, they are happily surprised. they love the high-speed train. we want that in the united states. frank says you can't blame me for wanting the same as you have and i said bob, i pay for the high-speed train and the taxpayer and i pay as a taxpayer for access to a free medical doctor when you are on vacation. you have half of your income to pay for the welfare system and also people who pay the mostre

unemployed people. the cost is so high that it does prevent employment of a lot of young, unqualified people so it is always a trade-off. you can't have a perfect world with everything, you have to choose. the responsibility of the economist is to give the data, to give the figures, you can have a health care system like in france, but on a permanent basis, in good years between 10%, and 12% unemployment with what you have any united states. when we have 10% unemployment we are extremely happy, %, 40% of people, less than 25 are unemployed, but we have a

high-speed train. we have this wonderful medical doctor. fundamentally, economics -- i am not a radical, i am sure some people see me as a -- the view that milton friedman had of me, i think economics, you need clear principles, you need t know the facts, you need to work on data, but it is all about fine-tuning the trade off, and the discussion, let the people decide through the democratic process. thank you. [applause] you have some questions? >> we have time for questions. there is a microphone going around. this is being taped so please use the microphone and intify

yourself and tell us where you are coming from so the viewing audience knows who is asking the questions. i will take the privile of asking the first question which is did we learn anything fundamental about economics from this crisis? orill we as we sort it out? was allf this already taken into account by the present state of knowledge, circa 200 in the science of economics? >> it is a bit early to answer, but i think we haven't learned a lot. when you talk with the academics, do they change the curriculum, for example, it would be in to say something is new in this crisis, it

confirms certain knowledge that we had and people who share the view that the loose monetary policy, this has been confirmed by the crisis. i wouldn't say that there is a revolution in the knowledge of economics and the crisis at least so far. even if you read columnists, very liberal columnists, they are not bringing in new ideas. they want more of the same or less of the same but basically we are still working within the same framework. the debate about this is the end of capitalism, this is completely irrelevant, there are no new elements in this crisis. that is the present situation.

[talking over each other] >> my name is daniel, i worked in the hedge fund business. my question is about the form of regulation you have described to about regulators' increasing transparency. i wanted to know if you could comment on theecision about ten years ago by alan greenspan and larry summers to prevent or forestall the push by some regulators to have derivatives trade through market exchange, they stood very firmly that banks were the best custodians of their self-interest and they could handle them. do you think that was a mistake? what would you recommend in the future? >> don't think it was a mistake. i don't think it was a mistake. it was very helpful to promote innovation in these fields.

there is a misunderstanding when you look at the crisis, between the consequence and the cause. once again, the real cause is the monetary creation, loose monetary policy. what has been done with the excess of monetary creation is ly a consequence. there is -- the relationship is reversed. it is the same debate about greed. when people say the bankers have been greedy, this is a completely irrelevant argument. everyone is greedy. if you have no greed in the economy, you have no innovation. it is an ideological prediction, moralistic posturing, this has nothing to do with economics.

it is a very old tradition, a long time ago, extremely helpful, i hope it will continue and regulation will not stifle innovation in the financial sector. many observers, it is too bad, the financial sector -- they have not been listened to, the possibilities make a bundle of money. not by the lack of regulation but the quantity of money. looking at the consequence, this has been deregulated, this is

only afterward. the final observation, when you regulate, the regulators will always be late, financial innovation, you cannot regulate what doesn't exist. when y regulate, you regulate what exists. because of lessons of the past we have some kind of regulation based onhat just happened but what just happened will not repeat itself because in the coming years, you have new financial innovation, the regulation becomes obsolete on the very day. it wil always be late. we are always running behind the market. if we had bter regulators, i don't know how to find them, the regulators are not the best

people to become regulators. regulators and regulation will always be behind innovation except for the size of innovation. did i answer your question. [inaudible] >> you don't have regulators telling people what to produce, we just have a counter is of the party risk and transparency through the market. to me, it seemed the market mechanisms of the market problem. >> i do agree. >> also, my name is steve hoffman of mediation services. on the question of regulation, prior to the year 2000, virtually all of the states regulated insurance with two key factors, one is if you write insurance and take in premiums, you ha to set aside a certain percentage of the premiums you take in in reserves because

theoretically and in reality, people are buying insurance to protect themselves against loss, and therefore you can't treat all opinions as 100% profits. and you had to have an insurable interest, act i can't buy fire insurance on your house or life insurance on your life because i don't have -- in the year 2000, congress, obviously urging the financial community, deregulated, they trump all those laws with a federal statute that said y can write credit default swaps which is insurance. we are going to preempt all the states from regulating it and requing reserves. and we are also going to ensure that all the states have -- in stead of if you loans and debt, if goldman sachs has the debt of

some entity and they are worried they will default, they buy insurance, they know their rks very well, they are not stupid, they knowt is not risk of loss and yetig who is writing all this stuff, basilly assumes there is a zero risk of loss because bernie madoff instructed aaa rating agencies, said there is no risk involved because they gave it a aaa rating. even in the absence of getting rid of the regulation that made sense, that really is very much behind the crisis we are in. >> i will answer you in my next book which is to be published wednesday. >> november. >> i don't want to interfere with her on the subject chinos

best. >> i am steven with national review. my question is, did your book's first line, economics is a science, you surveyed the current state of the field. as you just said, science is about making predictions from observations in the past, we have seen stimulus doesn't work and yet the number of high-profile economists, certain columnist for the new york times persist in their belief that solutions are the best way to address cyclical downturn. what is the scientific equivalent of this disagreement within the field of economics? something more radical than that? >> usually -- because they don't

really follow what chae is recommended at this time. taking cycle into consideration, in order to save capitalism, in good years, as a budget surplus, keep the money, and in bad years, you should spend the money. what you were suggesting was countercyclical budgets. no country has ever followed ese recommendations. the only person i know who rently came out with this recommendation has been the german chancellor. she said that in the future we should follow, have surplus in good years. so this is a little bit different because there is no

public savings, they just advocate up your deficit. this was not part of the canadian agenda. in the short term, public stimulus may work. it does happen that it can have -- can create some kind of jobs in the short term, but not for very long because the kind of investment where the state goes is investment which creates jobs but which doesn't create wealth. they are not real investmes with return on these investments, as a consequence, we know that sooner or later the stimulus is stayed by inflation. this would slow down the

recovery. as you say, it is mostly columnists who are recommending this kind of public stimulus, where politicians. i don't see many economists right now suggesting this kind of policy. node name comes to my mind, actually. if i may add, if i may add, what would a political leader recommend job creation through public spending? because of his own market and running for reelection, he must demand this acting, and you are not reelected by not acting, and also because he hopes he will have a short-term return because the elections are always short

term. this is normal behavior in all democracies, and this is why economists are playing their own role to say maybe it can work in the short term as a consequence which is negative in the long term. other people running for office may follow their own rationale. >> i am with commentary magazine. you quoted mandel broke twice approvingly abourandomness, yet in the begiing of your speech you said economics grounding is a science, has been solidified by the ability of data and the application of mathematical, physical models which i would think mandelbrot withholding contention. in addition to helping

economists verify their checks agnst reality, the reliance, overreliance on mathematical models is a blind spot, in the circles of at economics and fails to take into account the unpredictability of financial and economic cycles, do you think it frumps common-sense, healthy account of human nature? >> three questions, try to make a distinction, why randomness, what he says and tries to show, in nature you don't juggle

randomness, he admires randomness. physical events can be predicted to a certain extent. he has built a mathematical model on the fractal model whi shows that many chaotic events like noise to follow a mathematical pattern and can therefore be predicted and the consequence is extremely important in telecommunication. some mathematical model applies to nature and physical events. it is not that chaotic. he tried, many others tried to transfer his model to the financial market. when looking at the data, we have data in the nineteenth

century, starting in new york's, which is available, it appears that no pattern ever appeared. it is completely random. and any mathematical model which tried to introduce a prediction in the evolution of the crisis in thearket, all these models have been proven wrong, including many models which have been used in recent years,t least not to use money. these models were an attempt to predict the evolution, the conclusion is to say at that spage, we have no mathematical tool to predict the financial market, randomness is mild, physical nature, in the

financial world, randomness is complete. many mathematical models come to your mind. the recent stock exchange crisis, proved to be extremely precise. the second question, the relevance of mathematical models him general, taking into account human nature and common sense. for the purpose of the mathematical model, it is very limited. sin number of permits in ecomics which tend to repeat themselves. there is a mathematical relation

between money, creation, there is a mathematical relationship between the level of wages and unemployment. there is a mathematical relation between the level of your education, college premium, and your chances to be employed. this is built into mathematical models, these models have two virtues. they introduce a certain amount of predictability. you have that type of consequence. if people go longer to college state have a strong assistance to find a job. the second reason mathematical models are used is because it is

universal language. you speak mathematics, you are not taking the same language. this is the rationale for mathematical models but mathematical models only represent part of the reality. and they used the wrong. the progress of science requires the model to be distracted and destroyed. i have seen, the wayconomics is taught in the united states, there is an abuse of mathematics and an abuse of mode. many students in the united stat this that economics is only about mathematical dels and this is absolutely wrong. the mathematical model is only one of t instruments that can be used to understand what is

going around and make a prediction in certain cases, there is a lack of common sense, this answers your question, what will change. i am very worried by the fact that mathematics is a requirement and also that the history of economic ideas is not talk any more. in american universities. this is a big loss. it reduces the scope of students in the economic departments. >> i am an investment adviser. i was intrigued by your definition, your yardstick for this assessment of the economic system, the extent to which it brings people out of poverty. maybe this is not an economic question b a political question. what do you think of the

hypothesis that as a society prospers, political leaders have less and less direct experience of poverty, they also have less and less appreciation f the power of markets and capitalism to lift people out of poverty? >> the scope, the domain of economics is a limited domain. economists -- if you want hot water, you had better choose a good plumber. to governments you want growth, we can show you the way to an extent of. economics is basically about growth. the question is, is growth a

relevant criteria. many attempts have been done by some economists like the calcutta ecommerce, the you and don't like capitalism, other instruments to measure that happiness of the people and trying to understand happiness was different for a cut from economic growth. people tend to be more happy in a growing economy. a growing economy brings more opportunities and more freedom of choice globally. globally. there is another debate, which is the relationship between growth f social justice, the case of countries where growth

is creating new inequality which in the case of china, there is no connection between growth and social injustice. in most cas, growth does bring more social justice. doesn't bring necesrily more democracy, which is another complicated question. the relationship between growth and political freedom in is not a clear connection. many feared that i can't focus on one aspect of your question, i am sorry for that. 5 -- >> perhaps the final question? >> you talk about china and india, chose to focus on india. i wonder your thoughts on china, china is obviously running attention between control and a

free market. how does it stack up on your check list, how does it make you think about the future of their growth. >> if i may quote myself, my former book was a book on china. the title of the book, the empire of lies to summarize my argument, very shortly, the factors in china, chosen to be a stng country. in is not the same. in a nondemocratic country, you decide to concentrate on the investment, the narrow part of the country, narrow part of the population, and make a distinction, what the chinese

leader's call useful china and useless china. useful china is basically the eastern part of china, the part of china which is profitable because it is in permanent relationship with the rest of the world, globalized china. this globalized china is using the work force of the peasants, not using the work fce of the peasants at all, which means approximately 60% of the chinese people are completely left out of the process. this sounds like a strategic choice. there are two- at least two risk factors for china, even. when you live out 60% of the people even in a perceived regime, you don't know what will happen in the long term. we can see that these days. there is a huge risk factor

because of this imbalance in china which is not the cas in other developing countries like brazil or india, where because of democracy, governments try to incorporate the larger number of people, a huge risk factor connected to the social division. second weakness of china is a complete lack of innovation. china basically is an economy, subcontracting economy, if you have an ipod or cellphone in your pocket, you can verify right now, in china, in fact, the added value by the chinese for and ipod is 5%. if your shirt is made in china, probably 80%.

for most of china, the participation of china is no more than 5% because it isot an innovative e economy. you cannot quote one chinese innovation. much is done and spoken about th huge new chinese university. i have taught in some of these universities, the quality is not very high. the best students usually leave the country. the leaders are despised by india. india has emerged in the software basis. they try to understand, indian software and chinese software. they come back from india and discovered there may be a

connection between freedom of speech and innovation. but so far they prefer no innovation and freedom of speech. the regime is not very helpful as far as innovation is concerned. the only gains were big equipments built by companies and engineers and foreign architects because the chinese government didn't trust the quality of its own architect and engineer. and third, the risk with the chinese government is discovering how much they depend on the global market and the growth rate of the u.s. economy. and when the u.s. consumer stopped buying chinese products at walmart, the very next day, factories are closed in china and people are losing their job.

they're doing very well, 40% of the nation. 40% because you have a trickle-down effect an 60% are completely out of the loop. the system is very unpredictable and dangerous. if you want to make money fast, you go to china. if you want to make money for long you go to india but you need patience but it is less risky. [applause] >> guy sorman was an economic adviser to the prime minister of france from 1995 to 1997. he taught economics at the paris institute of political science from 1970 to 2,000. he is author of 20 books including the empire of lies and the conservative revolution in america. for more information, visit man

hadn't-institute.org. >> in 1959, soviet premier nikita khrushchev to the two week tour of the u.s.. peter carlson recount that trip with his son on afterwards, part of book tv weekend. >> the publisher and editor of the nation magazine and frequent contributor to ms nbc, cnn and pbs participate in a discussion on a downturn in the financial system based on the nation's coverage of economic events for 20 years. and the author of nickel and dime, and christopher hayes, washington editor for the nation magazine. the event, hosted by the new york society for ethical culture center in new york city, is 1 hour and a half. [applause] >> good in