my wife is my editor, and she knows more about this. one of the things i think peoplp forget about researching and one of the things that we try to teach students of long form writing at columbia is that ath lot of the best research that you do is after you've started writing, and you realize you need to know something because you started writing about something, and it made youze y realize you wanted to write about it, and then you go back s and research from writing which is a really underestimatedre aspect of writing but, in fact,o the only way to stop researchiny is to start writing. and the only way then to do more directed research -- because you will research these things- be forever -- is to be researchinge things that come from yourrchi writing that need to be better that you need to find out moreht about. so the longer you put off the process of writing a first draft, the longer you will be it a situation where you will research forever. ..ofessional flaw is they cannot stop reporting or researching and start writing. and, you know, one of the things we learn just being in this

profession is you have to meet a deadline, and you have to push in your work so that you get where you need to be at the time you've promised. >> the flip side, though s you do live in fear that something will pop up on a database at the last minute that will undermine what you recreated in a big way. and you can rub the same search -- run the same search and other stories will come up. i don't know about you, but up to the point that fred was out, i was still running the same searches to see if there was something that was going to inform or uninform something i'd written. >> well, that's true. and in my ace, you probably run into this too, there are cases where i know there is information that i know i need and that i've been looking for and that i simply have not been able to run down. and it's out there somewhere, but it can't be part of the book because i can't, we can't find it. >> i think we're down -- are we out of time? we have time for one more question? no, we are out of time. jim, you're going to come up and

ask, okay? is we want to hear what you have to say. i want to thank these three writers. it's been exciting, and it's been interesting. give 'em a round of applause. [applause] >> tomiko brown-nagin is the author of "courage to dissent." what was the importance of atlanta in the civil rights movement? >> right. it's not been discussed very often in civil rights movement. although it was the home to several national civil rights organizations. the place i wanted to explore because i thought it would be a success story. is usually considered of

interest only because it was the home of martin luther king jr., but i wanted to explore it because i knew it was a home to a sizable african-american middle class. many black colleges, and i thought that in part because the white city fathers always considered it a place of racial moderation that it would be a good place from which to explore dynamics in the civil rights movement. >> what did you find? was it a success story? >> in some ways it was a success story, including for many members of the black middle class who came of age after the landmark civil rights legislation in the 1960s, but the story that i tell in my book, "courage to dissent," is a little more complicated your it also shows that for many

african-americans in atlanta, a city that one would think would be a perfect place to tell a story about civil rights success, it wasn't all successful for everyone. there was a lot of failure, including for a group of african-american women who were welfare rights activist. i tell their story in the third part of the book who challenged, not only wise but the black leadership, in the 1970s, saying they had been left out of the successes. >> when you use the word of dissent in the title of the book, who is dissenting? >> right. i talk about three ways of dissenters in my book at three different historical moment. the first wave of dissenters are pragmatists. they are people who are members of the african-american middle class who are interested in

challenging jim crow but without giving up the social and economic capital that the black middle class had been able to achieve under jim crow. so this meant, for instance, that they were interested in economic, preserving the economic status. they were interested in educational equality, but they were not so interested in school desegregation because that would have meant that black teachers might lose their jobs. >> was there a fear by the black middle class in atlanta that they would lose what they had? >> absolutely. there was. and to some extent that fear was well-founded. the last third of my book was to explore these dissenters whom i talk about as welfare rights activist. they were poor themselves here i discuss how the black middle class pushed back against

schools desegregation because of employment discrimination against black teachers and principals. >> what was the relationship between thurgood marshall and martin luther king jr.? >> well, it was complicated, and this is a story that i tell in the middle third of my book when we talk about dissenters who are street demonstrators and lawyers who represented them. it turned out that thurgood marshall was not enamored with student protesters. he told students at the beginning of the set ends in 1960 that they should not engage in street protest. he told them that they were going to get people killed, that they were invading the property of whites, and was very negative

towards sit ins. and he believed that martin luther king jr. had inspired the students to go into the streets in protest. of course, for very good reasons because of martin luther king's leadership of the bus boycotts. >> were you surprised, i mean, the civil rights movement has often looked at as monolithic. and very in agreement. were you surprised at the levels of disagreement within the civil rights movement that you found? >> you know, i was. i think that's the most surprising thing that i found in my research. just how much we don't know about the movement, although many, many books have been written about the civil rights era. that there was so much conflict. and again, i talk about these three historical moments of the conflict. so much conflict over whether to

desegregate schools, how much emphasis to put on voting rights, whether to desegregate housing, whether to engage in street protests or to negotiate with whites. these are points of contacts that historic have written about, in part because we want to tell stories that are simple, stories that are consistent with progress, american progress, and for so many years those stories have turned over brown v. board of education, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and what long civil rights movement asked us to go back and talk with the 1930s and 1940s and then to push forward to the 1970s. so not to stop at those conventional points in the sto story. >> professor, if you had to pick a date as a civil rights movement started, what would

that day to be? >> well, you know, historians these days are really very skeptical of picking a starting point for the silver rights movement. i can tell you that my book begins in the 1940s, in the postwar era after the war, world war ii, provide a jumping right point for civil activism, including does or seems to be such a conflict between pursuing democracy abroad and the states in which african-americans found themselves, jim crow not consistent with democracy. so i talk about the 1940s as being a jumping off point. >> published by oxford. tell us about the cover of the book. >> right. i love these photographs on the book.

the first photograph is of walden who is one of the south first african-american. he's a man who was little known today, but what i show him doing here is challenging the white primary, the convention that excluded african-americans from voting in the democratic primary in georgia, and throughout the south. so he's actually here going and trying to vote. >> what year was that? >> 1944. and as you can see in the photograph, he is wearing off against this gentleman who is the registrar, and there are a lot of people gathered around looking at this really dramatic movement of history in atlanta. the lower photograph pivots us to the 1970s where i show a woman by the name of apple me matthews who was the leader of the local group of the national

welfare rights organization. she was a strong dissenter in the african-american committee. she is at a welfare rights protest there. and what she is saying there is that the civil rights movement has not worked equally well for all blacks. she is manning an adequate income. she's demanding integrated schools. affordable housing. so the cover is meant to depict the nuances of the book. >> professor, is she still a lot of? >> she is not. perspective you have a chance to talk to her relatives are and what? >> i did not.org relatives but i did have an extensive interview with her which was just great specs a given word on this book for cell years and other words of? >> absolutely. this book represents about a

decade of work that i started on it as a dissertation, and worked on it for many years here and the result is the 500 page -- >> dissertation. >> right. >> so in talking with ethel mae matthews in doing your research, what was she like 30, 40 years later? >> well, she was a remarkably strong woman. she was very passionate. she was very clear in her sense that politicians of all ideological stripes, of all races, had not been attempted enough -- attended enough to the poor. and that's what she said to become in no uncertain terms. and that was quite surprising to

me. she really opened up to me i think more than anyone else whom i interviewed, and i contacted about 30 interviews for this book. that the civil rights movement was much more complicated than even the stories that i have heard in grad school, and certainly in law school. >> if some is said to you, professor, that the civil rights movement was a middle-class movement, what would be your response be? well, i would say that it's an apt description anyways. in terms of its impact. i don't think that leaders of the civil rights movement like thurgood marshall, certainly not dr. king, and others, set out for it to be that way. they intended for civil rights

legislation, for instance, for civil rights litigation to have a wider impact, but for a number of reasons the civil rights movement did end up most officials who most members of middle-class. those with the people who were in the best position to take advantage of the opening up of the workplace to african-americans, opening up of schools to african-americans. but for those like ethel mae matthews who was the child of alabama sharecroppers, who just was not very well educated and she was very smart, but not very well educated. it was a harder, harder thing to do to try to go in and interview for jobs and be successful, even after the employment

discrimination legislation was enacted, for instance. so i talk about those things in the book, why it was so difficult to have a successful movement that brought in, brought benefits for greater number of people. >> we're talking with professor tomiko brown-nagin here in charlottesville at the virginia festival of the book, 17th annual in march 2011. what is your day job? >> well, i'm a law professor and a history professor at the university of virginia, a job that i enjoyed very much. >> what do you teach? >> i teach constitutional law, constitutional history. i also teach a course on education law. >> how long have you been doing that? >> at the university of virginia, for five years. before teaching at university of virginia, i taught at washington

university in st. louis for two years. >> you were editor of yale already widely? >> that's right, yale law journal, i was an editor of the journal, so i attended -- attended year law school. i also got a ph.d in history from duke university, and prior to that i got an undergraduate degree in history spent would you go up and what did your parents do? >> right. i grew up in a small town in south carolina, greenwood it's called. my parents like ethel mae matthews, my father was once a sharecropper. e. later on worked in a factory, both of my parents attended segregated schools in south carolina. my mom, later asked when i was in law school and college and

became a teacher, which is something she does now spirit we have been talking with tomiko brown-nagin, author of this book, "courage to dissent: atlanta and the long history of the civil rights movement." >> next, andrew liveris, author of "make it in america" argues that america needs to restore its manufacturing base in order to restore the country. >> it's a pleasure to be here. this is truly a labor of love to introduce our speaker today. i got to know andrew when dow brought in people and he contacted me and we worked out a different of things. of course, anytime a local company gets bought up by a national, or in this case and the national company, when you're the governor you are worried that the guts of the company will be taken elsewhere.

and it's a contraction resident and expansion. first of all, and was very frank and honest and said to be some short-term contraction, but for pennsylvania this is a great opportunity for growth and he has lived up to his word in a very short period of time. he's not interested in losing jobs for america or for dow. is interested in gaining jobs and the right type of jobs which is why he is here today. he's been with dow for 34 years. i think most of you know dow is $54 billion company that sells special chemicals, plastics, enhanced materials. it's just an extraordinary company, most major countries of the world and sells to virtually every country in the world. he is still very active back home in a study with a university, but he cares very much about the united states of

america and very much about americans. i had the chance to speak at the business council, which is an organization of 150 ceos of the 150 biggest and strongest companies in america just last week. andrew is the vice president of the council and asked me to come down. and one of the things i spoke about was the need for us to continue to invest in our own growth in things like infrastructure. infrastructure is important to the future of this country. infrastructure means manufacturing, and it's my strong belief that if it ever become a country that doesn't produce anything, we are cooked. we are simply cooked. we can't be a service economy. we can be a high-tech economy. we can't be -- we have to make things and would have to make creative things but we also have to continue to make things that are traditionally manufactured as well. andrew has spoken out on behalf of of that initiative with this

great book, "make it in america." and i'd like to come before you say such an exciting book that i bought a copy, but andrew set me set me a copy so i didn't have to buy one. and i just want to introduce andrew i give you a quote in an interview, tv interview that he did, which i think is extraordinary. because it sums up what the united states government should be doing. by the way, i think president obama in his state of union address got it right. we have to continue to invest, and invest in our own growth. invest in education, invest in innovation. the r&d tax credit that andrew talked in his interview. i'm very proud and pennsylvania during my time as governor we quadrupled our are indeed credit. but i don't know if i'll do understand. we don't have a permanent federal r&d tax credit, and that's a big disincentive to business growth here in the united states.

i had this interview, and andrew was asked the question about china. "glee" our biggest competitor, -- august the our biggest competitor. and he still attempt to manufacture comp what is china getting right that united states is not? that was the question. and andrew reply, the chinese do, not just the chinese but other countries i referenced in the book, which you all want to buy, such as germany, is a very holistic approach to manufacture. it's a strategy. basically they say manufacturing is a vital part of my economy. it employs people, pays great wages. so that the country strategy. they approach it as a country. those of us who are free marketeers would say that's a government interference. i don't see it as government interference. i see it as the public sector is establishing the rules of the road the private sector knows what those rules are, and, therefore, we can compete.

in america, compete is a manufacturing country. i believe we can't and i believe we must. one of the greatest proponents of the idea in the country joining with union leaders and others is andrew liveris. >> thank you, ed. [applause] >> thank you, governor rendell. thank you steve, thanks for that warm introduction. in fact, i didn't realize that governor rendell would give my speech from and i essential will stop now because in every sense this is a governor who has given his speech before. he's given it over and over again. so it really warms my heart to have you here. you are a special changing of pennsylvania, a special champion for the country, and i welcome you as a champion of public-private partnerships,

which something that struck me the minute -- something that struck me the minute i met the governor. you prefer to do. do you know in your time in office that he would not have said this about herself but once it's as if that matters that you reference in the book about germany is he doubled the exports of the state. he doubled the exports of the state. so it can be done. and you know it's a lot of work, a lot of work to engage people in a national conversation. it takes vision, it takes courage, it takes a belief. you have to of the belief system because a lot of people who did not want to engage in this conversation. so governor, it's great to have you here and it's an honor to share the avenue with so many future business leaders in front of me. i do want to engage in the conversation today why? because to state the obvious, you are building the future. your talents, knowledge, entrepreneurial work, interest

to get yourself here. believe it or not, i'm sure you see sure you see a few ceos and your time here at this great school, and we'll all say it over and over but i will say from my vantage point, we need you more than ever. if you listen to what's coming out of washington, as the governor referred, the national conversation has begun. you know that business is now being engaged. and business is unique, ability to innovate, to create those jobs the governor referred to, to fuel prosperity and for all beneficiaries of yesterday's hard work that fueled our current prosperity. but the conversation is showing that it is once again this nation's business. the business of business is coming from washington, and other state capitals. of course, pittsburgh being key. now that's not just two of the united states.

i put equally we at trying to as the governor referred to, we operate in many, many countries. i could take that book and say make it somewhere else. make it in america is not a unique thought. but really here in america it was a thought that was not being expressed. when the downturn began several years ago, the downturn that will be known as the great recession, there was a lot of focus on business, finance in particular, and really the focus was how things had gone wrong. well, what's really happening today is how to make things go right. and all of you have a role to play on how things go right. a lot of us, a lot of us who employ people like the company i work for, are counting on it. we need you intellectually curious, engaged, with practical

thinking on how to make things go right. your impact on the countries you're from, including this great country, cannot be minimized. it's nothing short of a noble goals of economic growth, job creation, preservation of our fragile planet and the environment, the quality of life, quality of life itself. i can't think of more noble goals for today's leaders and today's business leaders like myself. we see it as an opportunity, a world that really has -- itself not only in boardrooms, but in living rooms and dining rooms, playgrounds, in villages, cities around the world. i went to over 30 countries last year. it's the same conversation everywhere. how do we get these noble goals? how to put them in reality?

there's a lot of responsibility that goes with answering that question. as populations grow and resources to manage, it's more important than ever that companies, companies like dow, deliver, deliver and smart answers. to answer the question not from the sustained build or profitability, but sustainability and profitability. they do not distinguish themselves in silos anymore. they are integrated. and as global competition heats up, nations, countries, need to be just as deliberate. national capitals need to be just as smart in making sure that not only their economies grow, no matter what gdp of capital is, that we in fact create sustainable growth. sustainable prosperity, no

matter what stage of development that nation, state or country is in. so, contextually i could really truly go around the world with the conversation. but today, guess where i am? one of the nation's most storied locations. i do really want to focus on the united states. this is my first talk to an mba class, or a class that is envisaged that i get lots of invites. i really wanted to come here. i felt privileged to be asked. but i am an australian with a unique worldview, and i am amazingly and essentially proud of this country. this country is truly a beacon of light. and we need to keep it there. so i'm going to focus on the united states, on our choices, and with those choices come consequences. and a perspective on going to

speak to you from as the governor said is from the world of manufacturing. 35 years almost of working for this great manufacturing company, i am proud of the manufacturing sector, and i'm proud to work for one of the largest that came from the united states. in fact, this book, "make it in america," is really the product of the women and men of the dow chemical company. not just the current employees by the generation that preceded us and truly create a prosperity that i referred to. because make no mistake, whether it is a dow, from your vantage point, we truly do stand on the shoulders of the giants that preceded us. i think it's important we honor them with our future vision that builds on that. so, i'm going to turn something that you buy don't hear very often, we are right now entering a golden age of manufacturing.

yet, a golden age. you heard me correctly. i know that statement might surprise many that i certainly don't see it written in in headlines. i don't hear it on "meet the press," but it stands most audiences in america when i say it. because the united states has become painfully accustomed to the exact reverse. to the loss of manufacturing jobs, the closing of plants, the suffocation that's going on in main street america in small towns and, of course, big cities. now, who of you has been on the amtrak connecting the great city of new york with the great city of philadelphia? what's the fight on both sides of the railroad? i saw will want on my way up this morning for global die works.

global die works. if you have a idea what global die works might have done in history? pigments no more. that manufacturing world has passed dyes were invented roughly around 19 to a. i'm i said it is probably truly move to some low-level cross-country. you see, that's the problem. in america with associate what's on the side of those railroad lines with the word manufacturing. i don't know who would do that. i often joke with my ceo friends in the high-tech silicon valley world that they still our word. who said information and technology should go together? who created information-technology?

manufacturing technology to do. and still does it today. you know, i sometimes, when i do courses and teaching other -- i get a lecture recently. i found through their curricula to look at the top of i'm to talk about. i found through your curricula here. this is one of the worlds greatest business schools, right? i couldn't find one course with the word manufacturing in it your not one. i don't know, dean. [laughter] >> i don't know. i saw lots of courses with the words information and technology. i saw lots of corporate finance. investment banking, private equity, management consulting, noble pursuits. i love them. they served me well.

dwelt on the. i'm going to get back on that. see, you perceive the action to be in these important, exciting fields. there's a whole advertising campaign that you have fallen victim to. and it's called the lure of the dollar. you are in the consumption. and i need to pull you back. i need to post your back in the swirl of trading value. i need to teach you in a very short period of time what that means. advanced manufacturing is a term that we at dow have coined that others have picked a. we picked up by traveling the world and seen what the chinese are doing, what the germans are doing, whether singapore's and the brazils are done. and when i have discussions like this in audiences with your

demographics in those countries, and i say manufacturing, they immediately think advanced manufacturing. they don't think global dye works. they think semiconductors. they think advanced technology to support medicines. they think advanced water purification. they think solar and portable cakes. they live and breathe high-tech center that you consume. they feel the power of manufacturing. it's great millions and that's a jobs in the economy. jobs are at the centerpiece of their partner as the governor said, it's a national strategy. countries like this are truly creating wealth. they are creating true value by investing in this highly technology rich, highly advanced manufacturing sectors. highly specialized, where the

image isn't dyes, but people with masks operating at the micron level so that impurities can't get it. you seen those pictures, i know. they are building semi-conductors, wind turbines, solar cells, lightweight cars, advanced batteries. i could go on and on. it's not the old definition. it's not smokestack. it's not steal. it's not a global dye works. so, this is the future. they are changing the world. they are changing the world before our very eyes and the way we live in it. more and more nations around the world understand that and understand that power. they embrace it. it creates prosperity which in turned create greater demand which creates human capital. what type of human capital? research scientists, engineers, and, therefore, they need these

people taught at the universities so they're building the universities. and they are producing the human capital that ultimately produces the innovations central to the economy. it's a virtuous circle, you see. and its stunning when you see it at work. when you see their own demand creating their own human capital for their own countries. integrates and advanced manufacturing society, like we used to have. so, therefore, it's critical that this country and braces it once again. manufacturing matters. whether in a single for or i'm in istanbul, seoul, whether i'm in johannesburg, são paulo, it matters. it matters into to the jobs it creates and the types of jobs it creates. and, in fact, it does one other thing. it stimulates to solve the

necessary challenges that our world currently faces. whether it is harnessing energy from the sun or purifying water from the sea. you see, manufacturing creates more jobs in central areas throughout human life than any other sector. and then it does one other thing. it in fact creates lots of jobs around those jobs. it's a vital sector. it creates a ripple effect throughout the economy. even in 2009 when manufacturing experienced the sharpest decline to date, the specific sector and the united states still supported 7 million direct manufacturing jobs. 7 million. jobs that an intern supplied an extensive supply chain around it. jobs that affects thousands of small and medium enterprises. this multiplier effect, which

according to u.s. bureau of economic analysis, is by far the biggest of any sector, has been worked out and for every dollar in the manufacturing sector, there's a dollar of 40 traded around in the supply chain. the service sector, some of which i've referred to already, only supports half that amount. for every dollar it creates it only supports 50. so when you look at this of our great country, and it's 9% unemployment rate, and unemployment rate that current job creation can barely keep pace in keeping at 9%, there is no question in my mind where jobs need to create come from. asked the governor pointed out, only manufacturers, only the value creation of manufacturing can create the jobs that a new america needs. and only manufacturing can solve

the major challenges the world faces. the rising demand for energy, the need for clean water and sustainable housing and affordable medicines, the need for sustainable solutions of all kinds will come from the technology places that are embedded in these advanced manufacturing places. so, when done right, and advanced manufactured sector can create solutions for sustainable society, create value when it so does it, and thereby completes the a virtuous circle. that's why we at dow have transformed our company to a modern-day enterprise, that is curly investing more r&d than it ever has in its task of $9 billion spent in the last five years alone. and is building science space jobs in the united states. we have decided to be counted. we have decided to back the country. why? because the country has the dna. i will return to the point that

the governor referred to. and also because we at dow see transformational, but enterprise as the same thing. and it's a sustainable enterprise in a sustainable growth country is a symbiotic relationship. one that is borderless, one that has sustainable outcomes, sustainable solutions to sustainable opportunities and sustainable profits. so, i hope you've heard by now that i made a case for advanced manufacturing strategy for the country. let me just keep on and talk about what other countries do, our competitors if you like. and that's a word that maybe sometimes we don't use in the united states free often. other countries are our competitors. they are competing for job creation. there's nothing embarrassing about that. that after all is the market? so we need a natural approach, not just to compete but like

every pursued you pursue. to win. winning is good. we should want to win as a country. so, what happened when i go to these countries better to try to compete for dow chemical's capital? what are they doing when i ask a question, what are your costs over the long term in this country? what's the cost of building in your country? what access do we have to your markets? what access do have to your human capability of scientific and other kinds? what sorts of tax credits you have a rounded r&d? and what sorts of regulations do i have to comply with so that i can operate to my minimum stay which is the highest anywhere in the world but i can have certainty? how can i scale up in your country? how do you institutions work

with me, whether they be public or private sector? now, if i get a blank face i'm pretty much of that country doesn't have a strategy. when i did, like a singapore, every three weeks or four weeks from the chicago office of the economic development board, promising me not just all the incentives in the world to answer those questions, but few bits of support, including all the compass to have attracted over the last 40 years, case study after case study after case study of wide they have lived by the word, and i'm pretty sure singapore gets it. they understand what it takes to compete for my business. they are proactive. they have addressed regulation. they have addressed taxes. they have addressed energy policy. they have addressed health care. they have got framework. they have got the rules of the

road. and, of course, they want to win. so they benchmarked other countries and they show where the country is in everyone of those particular items. and they say, and by the way, in your industry i particularly want that sector. i want advanced workers. i want advanced biotech. i want, and to get that sector i'm going to give you this on top. that's the world out there, folks. it isn't a blank stare. they are winning jobs. they are heartless the business. they are mitigating risks. governor rendell knows this well. he did this here in pennsylvania, and it worked. america is sedation -- america as a nation is not doing the.

as i said in that interview, the private sector really gets the answers it needs because we don't have a holistic strategy. we ask for framework. we get them. in the last 10 years, just under 10 years the u.s. manufacturing sector has accelerate its loss of manufacturing jobs. in the last 10 years the u.s. manufacturing sector which now employs 7 million as i mentioned earlier, lost 5.5 million. 5.5 million manufacturing jobs and advanced technologies left the country in the last 10 years. that they complete third of the sector. our national past year -- posture. we have less answers open. there is a profound policy of

uncertainty in the united states. we are lacking the courageous leaders like governor rendell who does my not being elected the next time around, although he did. by taking the courageous stand saying i'm not operating on a two, four, or six-year cycle. i'm operating for our country, for our safety. this lack of certainty is killing manufacturing. killing manufacturing. the national association of manufacturers has found that the structural costs of manufacture generically in the united states, not including labor, is 17.6% disadvantaged against the highest of our foreign counterparts. which happens to be japan, by the way. 17.6% more expensive than the highest of the oecd. when you have to invest a

billion dollars, which is what an average facility of mind my cost, 17.6% ain't chump change. that's real money. and i can guarantee you one way, i will not be speaking to you next year, if i did get my shareholders that return. when they say to me, why are you possibly investing in the more expensive facility here compared to the one that is 17.6% less in the next highest country. that's a lot of money that sits on the table. there's another important argument that is central to not leaving these manufacturing jobs bill. you see, i've heard the arguments, i've seen it in headlines. it's just natural to lose these jobs. it's just the way of the world. long ago thrown, long ago athens, the ottomans, u.k., we all had their big days in the sun doing what they did to be the biggest economy in the world at that time.

we are just morphing to the next phase of our economy. you know, wages are cheaper around the world. it's natural that we'd lose these industries, it's natural we lose manufacturing. besides, as long as we keep innovating it doesn't matter if countries like china do all the manufacturing. that's fun. i can live with an ipad that says, you know, designed in california, built in china. i'm fine with the. i still have my ipad. no problem with that. i think that's a common view out there. these views are totally 100% wrong. outsourcing based on wages is yesterday's story. long ago did global die lead or low-tech manufacturing. that's not the current headlines. it happens to be with in the case talks about when they talk about outsourcing and off shoring, but they are completely wrong. it has nothing to do with the

wage. keep in mind that 17.6% figure i talk about. it's not labeled -- labor cost. besides, if it was labor costs how do you account for germany? germany has a vibrant high-tech manufacturing sector that actually export 50% of their gdp. so we know it's not labor costs. here's why there's a hypothesis of the pace that we can stand idly by and blame it on something like labor costs. here's what's wrong with that thesis of designing california, built in china. here's a statement that is a tipping point a statement. we manufacture of the high-tech goes, r&d will follow. innovation will follow. take the electronics industry. at the beginning it was

outsourced and off short because of labor, electronics of the world, assembly. that was the beginning. as these countries learn how to assemble, they develop national strategies to invent the chip and the devices that surround the chip. and they started building chip plants. and then they worked out how to integrate those devices into systems, and created their own tvs and phones and all the things that we use as gadgets. and then they created around that r&d centers, that then in turn were fed by the universe is that were a natural -- national strategy to outgun the next device. so the failure of no key and

ericsson, if you go visit samsung, if you go visit their campus just outside of seoul, you will leave with a tremor. you will say there is a silicon valley being rebuilt by samsung, a national champion of korea. you will not win if you think that ultimately these industri industries, once leaving the united states, we'll keep innovating and keep r&d in this country. and here's the other thing that goes with it. as you lose the employers that build and do the r&d, the scientists and engineers that you need to do the r&d will increasingly not, from here. and the ones that do, from here will go back there. does that sound like a national debate?

if you are reading the newspapers, and what's happening in this country around science, technology, or math, is a tragedy. many of you from other caches who may study science technology engineering and math are being forced to leave because you can't get employment here. this sounds like we're doing a blank stare and letting manufacturing leave. and say to the scientist that educating this country, you know what, we don't care if you lead because you will get chopped off and we. and inevitably innovation will finally. we at dow chemical built a r&d said and china three years ago. we currently employ 500 chinese scientists. they already are at the double activity rate better best alternative lab in the world. they are smart, and we are

employing more and more of them that are coming back from u.s. universities in that center. in fact, of the in the u.s. congress that's been the most on r&d, eight of them already have facilities in china and india. not just factories, but high-tech r&d facilities. modern new technologies. it's not too late to do something to balance this loss of r&d in the united states. as the governor says we have lots of experience. we operate in 37 countries and we so in 150. we believe they're still great guide to be built here in the united states. we have a major set of advantages still with us. we still are the largest economy in the world. we are still the largest manufacturing economy in the world. we still have critical mass is a scalability at this point. we on the first class university system turn out high school

workers, and we have a flexible, mobile, productive workforce. and we still have, despite what i said, one of the best immigration systems in the world. that is why in addition to the incentives the governor gave we stayed here in philadelphia, pennsylvania. we said that the east coast corridor of this country and dow's, could be used as a tipping point. we said that if this government and this government are willing to be a partner to us, that we create a framework to build advanced manufacturing of laboratories. we have one just north of us at spring house that can build on. and we can build intellectual capacity right here in philadelphia. as he said, that was not the

inbound thought that the inbound thought was would have to consolidate back to our hub in michigan and texas, and that all these jobs would be lost. it's not be reversible if government takes an active, and active look at how to create this guy you added manufacturing in the country and in states like this one. so we see at dow the united states as still a hub, that growing overseas is not a threat, that the way we structure our global operations as my fellow ceos in the manufacturing sectors say over and over, growing overseas and growing locally is a symbiotic. that even if we build factories overseas, we can still create high value added jobs here if we keep a scalability and a critical mass. however, there's a threat. and it is a threat the size of which the world has never seen.

it is a threat and as a competitor, as a partner, and it's on the march. and that's china. who of you have been to join in the last year or two? not enough of you. all hands should go up. china is on the march. china as it grows and as it comes larger, of course is that the second largest economy in the world and has the opportunity in the next 10 to 15 just to be larger than the united states, china has a delivered holistic strategy around manufacturing. that's what it's already the number one manufacturing company in the world. it's on the march. it is next five year plan, seven high-tech sector is that it will build in the next five years. and when i say it will build, it will build. okay? it's what they do. it is command and control government, so they can.

there's a consequence to that which -- i'm just letting you know from a threat point of view it's very real. they can become a hub of baseball. -- a spoke. when you compete against national champions coming out of china with the size of their market, with subsidize capital and subsidize inputs, forget labor. and the barriers are not scale anymore. they can out-innovate you. i think this is the biggest threat the united states faces. and, in fact, i'll give you a scary statistic. according to the national science foundation, only 9%, 9% of all u.s. companies have participate in roddick

innovation in the last three years. if that statistic doesn't alarm you, that the greatest companies coming out of the united states, only 9% are active innovation. it is so contrary to your thinking, because you think of google and ebay, the current jazzy industries are just imitating like crazy everywhere. they are not innovating here. only 9% are innovating in of the united states. so, would you say this was a crisis? we do, and we believe the response much come in the form of a national strategy, one that recognizes once and for all the global economy is not a level playing field and that the playing field will not level itself. that governments around the world see this, that the governments of the united states need to see it, too. many business leaders asked the governor reference reject the idea of governor -- government

interference with this. well, i don't think we should see it that way. governments set the rule of the road. i am a firm believer of the firm -- free market. but as we've learned in the last few years, sometimes the wisdom of markets fail. believe it or not, the collective good is sometimes not considered by the good of markets and greet in fact just like wall street, the movie, should you, can be good. in that instant. they do not ensure that our global and national economic foundations will be taken care. markets can never be a substitute for the kind of long range thinking that governments provide. only governments can have the kind of policy frameworks that give businesses a sense of certainty. and stability as the world becomes more volatile and more of a threat. therefore businesses operate in those frameworks to create values, create jobs. i am not calling for bigger government. please don't misread it.

i'm calling for smart government, efficient government, government that can be a partner to this is to help predictably and inserting. and i mean not just the united states, but all the states in the united states. it's a disgrace that in one state it takes nine months to get one permit and it takes texas '90s. why of those differences existing? so, we need to change. we need to change to one at a general collaborative spirit. one for the greater good. one for the national interest, that the public and private sectors need to work together in these frameworks. and that's why we wrote the book, "make it in america." we wrote it to share these concerns, not just a state of problems but to get solutions. i encourage if you can't read the book. it gives proactive solutions to a topic i have described today. i'm not going to take the time but he speaks to exact solutions. it speaks not