honor of welcoming, as i told you, ralph nader who will be in conversation with peter louis. they will instigate. this program is entitled billionaires against bull. the title was going to be longer, but i decided to leave it at that to be able to keep my job. the subtitle of the event is

from charity to justice. nader will speak about the difference between charity, philanthropy, and justice. libraries, as you know, great -- depend greatly on philanthropy, but i think their greatest mission is to offer, to be engines of social change. they are incredibly important organizations in our life and in some way the heart beat of a city. they bring people together for instance such as tonight for conversations. in only the super-rich can save us, ralph nader imagines a coalition of billionaires joining force to answer the question, what if america's wealthiest individuals decided it was time to work forget collective good? we are happy to bring ted turner and peter louis, two of the

billionaires described in nader's utopia at the library for discussion about wealth, philanthropy, and social justice. st. augusta reminds us that justice is held and is never been truer with 5% owning 65% of the nation's wealth. the radical idea that they have taken to heart through their social activism is that the superrich can harness the power that comes with wealth to create a more just and democratic society. it is thus fitting that they should be here in this conversation and debate on this stage at the new york public library, and constitution that unlike our universities and hospitals is open to all curious visitors regardless of their financial situation. as i say, if you walk through

these doors, 15 minutes after walking through them, you can actually be touching the leaves of grass. we have the manuscripts of walt whitman. try it one day. when asked to submit a bio, something we do now with all those we invite. peter wrote chairman, insurance, philanthropist, father, and grandfather. ralph nader rough justice advocate, founder of many citizen groups, maybe also provocateur. ted turner wrote chairman, united nations foundation, philanthropist, environmentalist, con sers vaitionist. it's with great pleasure i welcome the three of them to this stage. [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> thank you very much, paul. thank you very much for coming this evening. this is a unique format in the sense that these two are my billionaire heros. they are in the book, and thaifl jumped out of the fictional narrative to be here today. i want to thank you for performing so brilliantly in my fictional narrative. [laughter] they were bold and brazen and were pioneers and actually extending a lot of the things they have wrote and talked to me about. i didn't la baht news them and start anew. ted was always a renewable energy advocate, and he said some of the most flamboyant

festivals that one can conceive, a little controversial too, and peter who was my classmate at princeton, what a shy lad you were then, peter. took on insurance companies to push them towards more loss prevention which should be their mission as well as a lot of other activities, so i want to thank you for your fictional role, and now we go into the nonfiction. at dipper, you said, peter, that you spent 35 years trying to find ways to intelligently apply your fill lain -- philanthropic impulses. we were talking what it means to move from charity to justice. i gave this example. charity is starting soup kitchens. we have a lot of poverty in the country. 13 million children go to bed

hungry at night. that's charity. that's needed. that's very commendable, but justice would say why do we have hungry people in such a rich country? maybe we sthowf fuller employment -- should have fuller employment, a living wage, universal health care, and other things that people in western europe have had for years, and so i said this to peter, and i said, why is the emphasis on soup kitchens and not dealing with hunger? he said, because you can build soup kitchens which is -- i took it as a way of you're saying what ideas are going to work to deal with poverty, to deal with hunger? the thrust of this book is ideas tend to work when there's real resources behind them, when there's real infrastructure. the abolitionist of slavery

received money from proper ewe stonians and others received money from rich families. there's a precedent there, but having said that, and there's so many problems that we all recognize. ted thinks the world is collapsing, the oceans are collapsing, and what's happening in terms of the american empire is pretty startling. some illegal and constitutional viewpoint, political and boomeranging and everything else so there's so many problems, so many potential solutions. let me pose what could have happened. in 2002 when george w. bush and cheney were beating the drums to invade iraq, there was about a nine month window from the summer of 2002 to late march when the invasion occurred. george sorrows wrote against

it. he spoke against it. he actually wrote a book against it. he gave interviews against it. opt other side of that -- on the other side of that criticism were 300 former retired generals, admirals, leading diplomats, head of the nsa, admiral shanahan, the two chief security advisers to the first bush, brent croft and james baker. they gave interviews and went back to their work. there was no infrastructure. i called george sorrows several times. i never get a return, and i wanted to say to him if he put $200 million in those nine months with a massive infrastructure of media, lobbying to take those 300 very

imminent people, unherd of in american history to a pose a -- oppose a president in the pre-war stages which would have tripled immediately with nor generals, colonels, ect., security, former diplomats, had he put 200 million, and i was opposing that war, and i was very close to the dynamics. i was convinced that he unleashing all of these people on capitol hill in the media, would overcome the media complicity like the new "new york times" and the democratic party passivity in congress and torn apart the lies and deceptions that bush-cheney used to invade -- weapons of mass destruction, cooperation with al-qaeda, saddam, threat to the united states with drone-like

technology, ect., ect -- all know we've shown to be false. now, is this pie in the sky? why didn't george sorrows think of that? he makes $3-$4 billion his good year and $2-$2.5 billion in a bad year. he's extremely smart, knows what civic action does, has an open society institute. am i missing something? is the lack of imagination? is it a lack that if some of you called him he wouldn't have returned the call because it wasn't his idea? is it too much of a hypothetical? what do you think we could have avaded the disaster that is still in the makings for the people of iraq and our soldiers and our standing in the world and our environment? >> i think it's a lovely idea.

executing would have been impossible. >> tell me why. >> you can't put $200 million to work in nine months and be effective. someone came to me with that proposition, i would say show me your plan, show me the details of the plan. how are you going to spend the money? how will you know if you're doing any good? no one comes with that because no one has that. most people, activists and others, don't think that way. they think you pump in $200 million, you get something done. not true. >> what do you say, ted? >> i'd say i think peter's right about that, but i think the basic reason is i know the way that i think that i was opposed to the war too and spoke out against it when i got an opportunity like those people you spoke of in the group, but

it's very hard for an individual to write an op-ed, i write op-eds so i know, that tells the whole country that political leaders are wrong and we ought to do something totally different than they want to do. something as basic as whether we go to war or whether we don't, and i just think it's just too big a job for an individual to tackle plich. i mean, there's some very courageous people like yourself who would speak out against it like you did with the problems against the corvette, but you didn't add $200 million towards the advertising campaign. peter is right. to have the infrastructure to do that properly takes years. you need an advertising agency, and a lot of things that regular businessmen who look at the bottom line, investment bankers and so forth, are not qualified to do, and to put that together in a short period of time and

carry it off really well is extremely difficult. i think the main problem is, you know, you know -- you say to yourself, gee, i'd like to do that, but i'm really afraid to do it because i'll look like a fool saying the president and the congress doesn't know what they're doing, and i know more, and i'm telling the american people what to do. most people are too humble about that. >> okay. let me be clearer. first of all, george was already against it. the protagonist you have to convince. >> he didn't spend $200 million though. >> i like george tremendously. we have a similar situation where boone had done that with natural gas and he's about to get a bill through congress on his own working with congress, but he was very critical of the government of not having an energy policy, and he did spend close to $is --

$100 million, but not quite, but on television advertising paid for by himself. george is spending a lot of money, and he gave back when the cold war -- the cold war had come to an end and the eastern european countries were struggling with democracy and capitalism, george went there and spent hundreds of millions of dollars, gave it away to help build up check vok ya and hungary and the other eastern european countries struggling to find their way towards democracy and capitalism and i give him tremendous credit for that. that took a lot of courage too. in fact, he was the inspiration for my starting to give, the giving of the billion dollars to the u.n. because i saw he was giving billions of dollars away. i said if george can do it, why can't i do it? you know, i didn't have the billions he had, but i had a billion, and i gave it away.

[laughter] [applause] >> okay. this gets down to peter's challenge. what do you do with the $200 million? >> pursuing my point -- >> go ahead. >> if you read george's latest book about his philanthropy, says of his contributions in eastern europe -- they didn't do much good. he was totally well-intentioned, didn't do much good. that's my point. given that problem, my solution -- because we shouldn't have been in a war, and i spent -- george and i spent together a lot of money to try to beat george w. bush in 2004 to no avail, but we tried. ted's right. you got to have a lot of people together to do this, and money doesn't do that.

now, my solution for the time being given our failure in 2004, okay, it looks like the conservatives are taking over, the christian rights taking over, and the things i care about are being not promoted. it is to try to do what the conservatives started doing 25 years ago is to build a progressive infrastructure so that we have people and organizations and the ability to do things that the progressives do not have today, and the conservatives have. >> well, let me just get back to this because i disagree that there is no way to spend those $200 million. if we remember this, we had the best tribunes against bush and cheney you could ever have. war battled victims -- solders, generals, diplomats, nsa-types,

and they didn't have an infrastructure. they couldn't get on the media. they didn't have the infrastructure to mobilize where they were to multiply their numbers, and it was basically a battle for the truth, and bush and cheney were peddling on truths, lies, or deceptions, and the money would go not only to support all these people, going up on capitol hill, to the local media, people who are attracted -- auditoriums full of citizens, but it's also a media blast, and the case was overwhelming that they could not support the lies that they were peddling, and on top of that, who could you have better than four star generals, joe odum head of the nsa with ten reasons why not to invade iraq. you had people symbolically

invincible compared to the draft dodgers and post vietnam war of president bush and dick cheney. >> that's not how you think. [laughter] >> okay. let's take your skepticism and $200 million is a lot of money without a real detailed plan -- which we could have given -- and we would have tripled all these people. they were ready to come out, once they came out, there were more ready to come out. it was extraordinary, but the intimidation from the white house was extraordinary too. how would you test something like that? how would you hypothesize a way to keep this country from plunging itself into wars that are unconstitutional, violate international law, violate statutes, boom rang against us, and decisions are made with two guys in the white house can a congress that's a ink blob.

>> i support media matters which was organized just before the 2004 election to find all the lies and expose them. they are doing a very good job. >> true. >> and if you are in the business of finding and exposing the lies early, i think you can deal with this. we had no mechanism for doing it, and you could not have put a plan together that was viable to mobilize these people for $200 million in nine months. you could not have done it. >> $100 million? $50 million? >> $20 million maybe. >> all right. take these -- >> i got this -- yes. >> i have to say something. when you said these two guys, those two guys were the presidents of the united states, and the secretary of defense, and those are the guys that we elected under the democratic system to be our leaders, and we were paying them. they were getting paid to do

it. the 400 generals, you can get 400 generals to sign up for anything just about. if you pay them a little bit. >> there's the point. never before in american history has there been more people -- >> ralph, ralph -- >> yes? >> we were paying the president. where's the president? you know, he may be wrong, but then as our fault and the next election let's correct it. if we don't, we reelected him again, didn't we? [laughter] >> yes, but you ran -- >> you didn't do so damn good. [laughter] tell me you want to change thicks, you tried and failed. >> but this was an emergency -- >> it was an emergency? >> you cannot wait for an election. >> we'll survive. >> you can't wait for elections. >> i think we should go to war with yes , yemen too while we're there and maybe saudi arabia, take the oil. [laughter] >> do you think -- you've funded think tanks and all, do you

think that the retired military diplomatic and security people in this country who have a different perspective, not worried about promotions -- >> work for cnn, doing commentary like you do. >> in my judgment there's tremendous resource because they have been there, have credibility, articulate, nobody's going to attack -- >> it's always the president and secretary of defense. >> yep. i'm getting to that. should there be a perm innocent secretary yat that serves need people in moments of crazy wars or other military ventures? they are always there to be activated, always there to get on the media, always there to get up to testify because as you know, two organized people in the white house can flatten 300 million americans who are not organized. you have this human treasure out there, and you know some of

them, this human treasure in their retirement, and there's nobody giving them a public infrastructure, no one giving them media, no one giving them the ability to do more than what they do which is, you know, write here and interview here and go back frustrated. you don't see that as an october for justice philanthropy? >> spent my whole career doing this and kicking the networking around. at the end of the 30 years what i had to show for it? broken toes. [laughter] you try to kick the establishment around all your life, and what have you got? you're still kicking, but you don't have a lot of influence. >> well -- >> the government is still here screwing up. >> we're talking about buying media. >> you do vote though. >> aren't you willing to sell time? >> sell -- >> propaganda on the media? >> you know, i'm in the business now trying to do exactly what you are saying, not on stopping

war. i'm not up for that. my objective is to reduce the penalties on people who use, grow, and sell marijuana. [applause] i'm particularly focused on having been people's ability to use marijuana for medicine which is very valuable. in colorado, there will be an initiative on the ballot in november i think in 2012. the current polling doesn't justify passing -- on the current polling says that initiative won't pass. i am trying to concoct and finance a public education campaign simply for colorado -- we got a lot of pulling, we have the targets, we know what we're doing -- to communicate the good things about medical marijuana,

marijuana in general, and blot the bad things in hopes of taking that polling from where it is up seven or eight points to where it's viable. now, this is trying to do in a very small way exactly what you're doing. don't bet op me, and we're doing this smart and as luxury as we can. don't bet it's going to work. we're trying to establish a template for doing these things, but this stuff is tough to accomplish. >> you funded platforms for medical marijuana legalization. that worked. >> well organized groups that came to us and said we have a plan, we think we can do it, give us money of the that's different. we didn't generate it. someone -- we are not in the business of making plans except this one thing i'm trying. if someone comes with a decent

proposition, somebody probably will listen to it. >> has the network -- >> you're saying give me $200 million and we'll stop the war. had you thought it was possible, i would have gave you $200 million. >> that's the challenge to make those proposals credible to hard bitten businessmen and businesswomen who want results. they are tired of writing checks that in effect go nowhere, but take industrial hemp which you had an interest in. if we legalize industrial hemp, it's legal to import, energy uses, food, paper, a very hearty plant not requiring fertilizer or pesticide, import it from canada, romania, france, china for clothes and food, but it's illegal here. now, what would you think it would take because you know a lot about this too. what do you think it would take

to get the government to take industrial hemp off the dea prescribed list which is absurd. i mean, the last thing a marijuana farmer wants an industrial hemp plant next to him to dilute it; right? this is medieval thinking. the farmers want it. international paper wants it. take a poll, everybody wants this. how much would it take in terms of justice advocacy, lobbying, mobilizing, media, the whole works, you think to get that off the dea list, the most conserve titch farmers -- conservative farmers in america can't wait to start growing. >> hemp is interesting to me, and i don't know the answer. >> give me an estimate as a businessman. >> i'm trying to spend a couple million dollars in colorado to move the needle a little bit. i vice president the foggiest -- i haven't the foggiest notion about hemp.

i don't know. someone's got -- this -- i just happen to know a lot about one thing. >> okay. well that tells me -- >> and that's the same problem that ted's got and warren buffet's got. they know a lot about some things and not much about doing this. >> okay. what that tells me is that the groups who have been in civic action and have changed things, look, i don't like to toot my horn, but almost everything we've done has been done. all the environment, the auto safety, the freedom of information, things that mark green and others in the audience worked on, all of it since 1970 has been less than $200 million. all the changes, the legislation, the standards, the judicial decisions, the victories, the creation of princeton project 55, harvard law school apple seed to diffuse throughout the country, public interest research groups all over the country like nipe or all these -- building institutions is part of it too.

it's not just issue by issue. i mean, the aclu, when that started, that -- what a great contribution to our country. naacp, what a great contribution to the country. there's not a single non-profit group monitoring nanotechnology. there's two or three little ones on by yo technology. there's a few examples of vigilant groups nudging state legislatures. there's a huge, huge gap, so what i'm saying when you say you don't have the foggiest idea, it's our job -- let's same i'm the full time citizen advocacy, to get detailed not only to persuade you in macro, here's a test case -- i don't know why you picked colorado -- >> i'll tell you -- >> just a min.

[laughter] >> let's get a test case. i think we're in agreement that the two or three presidential debates that are hoped up for the republican and democratic nominees are dull and why don't we break the lock? have all the people in the country participate in inviting the candidates to st. louis, to atlanta, cleveland, san fransisco where you get whole coalitions of group, labor groups, religious groups, women groups, civil rights groups, ect., all on a letter head led by the mayor, perhaps inviting the two nominees in august or september, early october, to come to their city, come to their region in appalachia so that they, the people, can change the dynamic and raise all of these issues that the candidates don't want to touch. they want like four or five issues, deficit, taxes, ect., they don't want to touch that.

this will completely change the dynamic of the presidential campaign putting millions of people in view. what republican goes to massachusetts or new york? what democrat goes to, you know, texas to campaign? they never see them. now, i've talkedded with you about this, peter, and i said for a $1.5 million, we can get enough organizers and enough researchers and enough media people to contact these coalitions to put together in all these cities and areas, and you had a very good response. you said show me two cities or three cities where this coalition is getting together doing right before you decide it. that's exactly the kind of test i'm going to try to meet for you, but in other words we can look at something and say it's pie in the sky, won't work, ect., or we can be inherently

skeptical. i want to push it to a level of rigor where you push for rigor -- what you're known for -- and we push to respond, but let's at least start with a test case. we don't have to prove the whole thing. we can start with a test case. now, tomorrow you're going to phoenix, and you're going to be sitting in the biggest conglomerate of multibillionaires ever assembled probably over 50 led by bill gates, and bill gates senior is in the book, hard to fit bill gates, jr.. these are old kind of classic philanthropists, and warren buffet will be there, probably relieved after his shareholder meeting recently. now, you are known to be one of the world's greatest mavericks. somebody wrote a book on that. you really are a maverick. there's no bull about it. what are you going to say --

>> i don't feel like a maverick. i think i'm an average joe. [laughter] >> i just like to watch the news, that's all. >> and the atlanta braves and so on. [laughter] now, they are going to teach you -- >> [inaudible] lesson >> -- [laughter] >> they are going to try to give each other ideas. that's good. as one told me a few months ago, a very rich man, he said, ralph, we know how to make a lot of money, but don't know how to spend it. >> i do. >> including my. exactly, my point. >> i have more ideas than money. >> now, what's your role tomorrow with these people. >> i'm just one of the bunch. i'm just going to listen and learn and, you know, maybe say a few words. >> too much -- let's have the real ted turner. [laughter] g you cannot believe how he hides.

he hides -- ted is an actor and also authentic. >> it's an entertainer. >> in the car over today, he's reciting from memory whole sections of shakespeare, on and on and own, and poets. i said when did you learn this? he said when i was a little boy and decided to remember it. [laughter] now, you don't understand the depths of this man and the versatilely of what he's been involved in and his personal courage. he's going to the congo in a few months to help save the great apes because he said if you save the great apes -- >> stop killing the great apes, maybe we can learn to stop killing each other. >> so, you know, this is not going to antigua, but going to the congo. i'm really intrigued to see what you're going to do to take these billionaires to a level beyond

simple charity. >> well, if i get a chance, you know, my issue is i'm interested in marijuana too, and i think it should be legalized, because i think we have a lot of other problems that are a lot worse, spending too much time and money and effort on it, and it's like prohibition. people are going to drink. i don't think marijuana is worse than alcohol, but my main issue is nuclear weapons and global climate change, overpopulation and family planning and just generally prereceiverring the environment -- preserving the environment, learn to live sustainably with our little framing jill planet here so we can live nor thousands of years. i like us. i like people. [laughter] i am one. [laughter] you know? i'm proud of it. i'd rather be a perp than a mouse. -- i'd rather be a person than a mouse. if we were a bunch of mice, we'd

really be in trouble. we wouldn't even talk or having this intelligent discussion. [laughter] >> okay. well, let's take something near to home here after fukushima following sure nobel and three mile and there's areas in shabble, and andrew cuomo said it should be shut down, and having public hearings now, and within the 30-40 miles, there's 40 million people, and there's no way they can evacuate. they shut down before it opened on long island because no evacuation feasibility. that was in long island. now, what about billionaires getting together says we don't want to lose new york. there's an earthquake zone here. >> the greatest threat to new

york and moscow is an accidental or madman launching the nuclear weapons, but let's get rid of them firstment i think nuclear power, we don't have to worry too much about it. it's going to have a real hard time now getting off the ground. very few people want a nuclear plant in their backyard. it's not competitive. i think we should be focusing on wind, geothermal, and solar, and replacing fossil fuel as quickly as we can because that's what the scientists, the science information tells us because if we let global climate change get out of the control, we're going to have big trouble. >> everything you say is true. you dodged the issue. >> i did? >> the issue is -- >> which issue? >> the issue is indian point. >> why do you define the issues? [laughter] that's what i was worried about at dinner. we were supposed to have a

moderator, and nader takes over. why didn't you just take over the united states instead of running for president? [laughter] >> peter, look -- [applause] peter -- >> i thought about that. >> peter, listen. you're in the insurance business. nuclear power has been under serious critiques, unnecessary, unsafe, uninsurable, you know, taxpayer really insures the bulk of it. you have to have tax guarantees. from an insurance point of view, right at the beginning the insurance companies said we're not insuring nuclear power. we can't come to a positive conclusion to the government pass the the anderson agent saying there's a little bit of insurance, but if something really blows and we lose the state of pennsylvania, an atomic energy commission estimate in a worst case scenario, the area the size of pennsylvania, from

an insurance point of view, why can't some insurance mag companies say we want to make money, sure, but we have a responsibility because we know about risk. we have a responsibility to tell the american people these are uninsurable for very risky reasons, and we're going to fund a movement to do what hillary clinton and andrew cuomo, not all the wall politicians, shut down indian point because we cannot risk in disaster that they're experiencing now in a far less populated area in north eastern japan. why can't the insurance billionaires do something like that? it wouldn't take that much money. >> well, first of all, you asked the question before why can't two or three billionaires get together and do something? >> right. >> one of the main reasons that can't happen is because it won't.

they won't. these guys that are billionaires think they know everything. [laughter] both of them. and they have made it mostly doing it on their own, and they are not up clined to work in teams -- inclined to work in teams. they are inclined to have teams working for them, and that's a reality -- >> that's true. >> it almost destroys your idea of them getting together to do something. >> how about one of them? let's grant what you say. there's a lot of truth to that i think, but how about just one of them? how about funding these citizen groups trying to close these potential disasters down? this technology insanity. these are aging plants. how about just one funding a major short term six month move to get the nrc, which is already worried sick about indian point -- we know that from the inside. they are holding public

hearings, and to get it done? >> we have an example of billionaires working and getting stuff done, the coke brothers, are doing a good job. >> exactly, on the side. >> but they are driven by self-interest, economic self-interest. most of the do-gooders meeting in arizona are theoretically driven by now i got it, i want to help out. >> okay. >> economic self-interest is a very important driver, and that's what is facilitating the cokes. >> isn't it self-interest to save property values in the new york city metropolitan areas from cred l claims on insurance companies? [laughter] >> listen, insurance companies cannot insure that. insurance is the business of put -- multiple risks and averages. when you have a fukushima, that's a disaster that no one

can insure. that's the problem. economically it's not possible. >> that's why in the fine print they exempt it in the homeowners policies? >> i don't know. >> that's a whole other project, all the fine print contracts we have to sign. [applause] >> we are in the midst of trying to convince one of 50 state departments of insurance to let us have the policy on the internet so we don't have to send one out all the time and waste all those trees. we won't get it down because there's bureaucrats stopping it because they like the current system because they make money on it somehow. >> [inaudible] >> we do. in our economic self-interest we fight them. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> we have the realists here. [applause]

>> let's say full med tear for all, is that worthy of billionaires lobbying power? single payer full medicare? most doctors, nurses, majority want it instead of the present system of -- how do you describe it? denial, exclusion, this, that, 45,000 americans dying every year because they can't afford health insurance for diagnosis or treatment, harvard medical school study peer review department, so where are you on that? would you want canadian system, free choice of doctor and hospital, private insurance? >> dealing with alternate energy and nuclear weapons just wore me out. i'm for the -- i'm for universal health care like the rest of the world. i think america being the only country that didn't have it all

these years was incorrect. the details to do it, i have to leave to others. i'm not a medical insurance expert. >> i have to -- >> you're property casualty. >> it was hard enough to figure out who is playing second base next year for the braves. [laughter] >> really, that's challenging as hell. how many people in the room have won the world series, huh? [laughter] it ain't easy. >> you go to an iv league school, it never worked for me. [laughter] until -- i met peter -- 15 years ago we had lunch in washington, and i said, you know, peter, there's one thing to be done with air bags. we're trying to get company fleets to convert to air bags, not just the government purchase cars with air bags, this is under the reagan administration, and he like lightning converted

his company fleet to air bags. that, to me, is what insurance should be all about of the that was a business decision, not just a charitable decision to do that. in fact, there's an insurance company in hard ford who did it a week after. >> if you had lunch with me and trieded to get to do it, i didn't even know about it. how come during that time you saw peter, but not me? [laughter] >> you didn't go to princeton. [laughter] >> he went to brown. [laughter] >> listen -- [laughter] all right, listen. let me throw it open to taboos. this country is full of taboos. all societies have taboos. we're not just talking about pornography, self-censorship is the norm of the day. we don't often say what's on our minds. we don't say what should be changed in this country that's controversial. like a lot of corporate

executives don't go after the military budget eating up half our federal budget apart from the insurance, medicare and medicaid and there's no more soviet union, and we're fighting wars, $3-$4 # billion a week in iraq and afghanistan. >> i speak out against the size of the u.s. military budget. we're spenting like 17 times as much as russia and china, and i think it's crazy. we have troops in 65 countries and bases all over the world. what do you think we are, the british empire 200 years ago? i mean, we don't make money off of that, and then they do better without us there. the last war we won was against japan. [applause] >> i'm it is true, you did speak out on it, but a lot of corporate executives, even when they are retired, not just corporate exec ties, but not one in the last election, i can't

remember one other than from ohio -- >> that's your home state. >> i like him. the names are hard to pronounce. [laughter] but i think he was the one who spoke out against the size of the military budget. nobody spoke out against it. it's to the military industrial complex like eisenhower warned years ago has taken over the country basically. >> not just the military budget. you got retired, very wealthy business people. no one's going to be able to do anything to them. >> they got successful because they kept their mouth shut and learned during their lives otherwise they get their butt kicked when they did open their mouth to keep their mouth shut. >> retirement lockjaw? >> not just retirement, but i don't say everything i'd like to say. it's too outrageous. >> say one outrageous thing now of significance.

[laughter] [applause] >> don't do it. >> you're next, peter. >> i'm afraid. [laughter] >> i can't think of anything right now. [laughter] >> peter? >> i don't think any of my thoughts are outrageous, so i don't have any to say. [laughter] >> you don't think you censor yourself at all? >> oh, i pay attention to what i'm going to say, particularly when there's television cameras on. >> we're on c-span, you know? >> i heard. >> let's take the tax system. do you agree there should be a basic system where the taxes first should be assessed on things the society likes the least or dislikes the most before there's taxes on labor, furniture and clothing and thanks that are necessary? i haven't finished. let's start with -- >> i already have the answer. [laughter]

>> let's start with the carbon tax, pollution, let's start with speculation tax, trillions and trillions of dollars, half of 1% would raise $300-$400 billion [applause] what do you say? what do you say? [laughter] >> i work on nuclear weapons. i'll let you take care of that. >> it's too complicated. >> what about carbon tax? >> we need a carbon tax and a refund on people's income taxes. i think the polluters should pay because if the polluter's paying, there's an insenttive to cut back on the pollution. that makes good sense. i'm for phasing out fossil fuels. they served us well for the last three million years, but it's time to move on. we have more modern better ways of doing things that are less expensive and sustainable. fossil fuels are not sustainable. we'll run out of them in 50-100

years and might be atmosphere first, and that's not good. >> why are corporations and nuclear winning? >> because they are holding the hill, and they have all the money and all the subsidies, huge subsidies because the society's bearing the cost of the coal burning electrical generating, the health, the children have asthma, poisenned by mercury from the coal emissions, and solar power is clean, and solar and wind. there's other problems specific to that, but they are all manageable and if we started switching over right now, it'd be great for the economy, create jobs, we'd be cutting back on our -- >> why aren't we doing it? >> because the oil and coal industry like the tobacco industry were able to -- during -- if obama, god bless

his soul, had put energy ahead of health care, we would have had the energy bill through the senate. it did pass the house, but he decided, and there were good reasons for taking health care first, but by the time the health care bill was so con ten, that -- contentious and also gave the coal and oil industry a chance to buy in. they outspent the solar and wind industries that are just startup industries with 2 million subscribers and don't have income. they spent the money they had, but they ran out of money, and then the coal -- i've seen so many clean coal commercials that i believe i wake up in the middle of the night saying maybe coal is clean. [laughter] you know? i just watched cnn for an hour, and they're five commercials every 10 minutes. >> okay, okay -- >> we don't have the money. the good guys don't have the money, the bad guys have the

money and spend it, and they have 100 years of advertising agency experience, all the stuff you talked about. that's what they do. they are winning even though they are wrong and bad. >> and the people are on your side, and why don't you have billionaires mobilized and 435 districts for counterattacking? >> i'm going to phoenix tomorrow to see if that's what we can do. >> exactly. [applause] peter? >> we're going to give them free pot. [laughter] [applause] >> outrageous thing number two. >> if we did that, we might win. >> exactly. >> free pot for congress mep. [laughter] all you can smoke. [laughter] >> most of them are paying for it themselves. >> look what you would have done for cnn ratings if you had a

program. [laughter] >> well -- >> go ahead. >> you are implicit in your wish, in your fantasy is that there's of lack of understanding 69 power of economic self-interest. short term economic self-interest, all brought up in the country to concentrate on short term economic interest, except you. [laughter] and that is a very difficult thing to overcome. >> you know, i talked to ed marky, on the energy bill, and he said on capitol hill is swarmed with lobbyists, and there's almost nothing out there that's organized except the people who are op your side. the people are on the side of renewables and efficiencies. it's common sense, but they don't have a laser-beam organizing capability, and that's where full time

organizers and marchs and demonstrations and you will overcoming lobbyists who don't have a single vote. they represent inanimate octobers called corporations. i don't understand. you are among the most optimistic positive people. you understand clearly the difference between donations and structural change, shift of power, changing technology, arrowing people. the history of america is when people get organized, things get done against special interests, commercial interests, against short term, against technology, and when they are not organized, it doesn't happen. suspect it logical to say that every time you establish with convincing evidence something is wrong, it's destructive, it's damaging to our posterity, that the corollary to that is there's

got to be enough resources to activate that leadership in neighborhoods and communities all over the country and focus on congress and focus on the decision makers. why are you so jaded? >> wait -- >> i'm older than both of you. [applause] >> we spent 20 -- i think i'm older than you? >> oh, yeah, you're older than me. >> i spent $20 million to do a simple thing, get people out to vote. >> that's not a simple thing. >> that's straightforward, very focused, and we couldn't do it. that was $20 million. if we spent $200 million, we could have got six more people to vote. [laughter] >> that happens to be one of the most difficult things to get people to do if they don't intend to do it. >> why don't you advocate people not able to have a driver's license if they don't vote. >> i have a better proposal. >> it's operating in australia,

belgium, austria, voting is a duty just like jury duty. we got a lot of civil liberties and rights. the only duty in the constitution inferred is jury duty, and if we have to obey thousands of laws, there should be a legal duty to vote, and if you don't like in the ballot, write in, vote for yourself, or vote for none of the above that takes care of my issue, the civil liberty issues. [applause] >> i like it. >> that way only obstructions to voting, and there's still a lot of obstructions, you know, fooling around changing precincts and voter that brockage and all of that is now illegal. >> good idea. good idea. your idea is terrific. >> a few million bucks makes it more than a good idea. [laughter] >> no -- [laughter]

[applause] >> go ahead. >> i would say, and i don't want to infer i'm going to pay for it -- >> no, no, no. [laughter] >> show me a viable plan that will make that come to pass. one of the things that happens when you spend your life making a living is you get realistic. >> no, you're absolutely right, peter. >> this is the core of the issue. we have to persuade with some rigor and experience and data and this and that for this money to start flowing, and once it starts flowing and wops the result -- once the results come, there's a whole transformation of the resources for civic culture and civic community in this country, and that's what we have to -- and i hope that this meeting is just the beginning of a rigorous exchange with your billionaires in phoenix as well as others -- >> they're not mine. >> with the billionaires you're going to see.

your example, peter, to illustrate your point. just before the proposal to reform the financial industry starting hitting congress, after the wall street crooks and speculators crashed the economy, i called up carl. he's the epitome of trying to invoke up vester -- investor power for crummy or crony corporate executives and boards of directors, and i said to him, carl -- also went to princeton -- i said, karl -- >> much younger though. >> yeah, and $14 billion. he also lives in florida. i said, carl, you know, if you put in $3-$4 million and hire really good experienced advocates so they get in in the drafting stage of this huge legislation and they make investor rights and investor

vote the statutory part of it, you know, this is what you've lived for. this is what you're known for, and he said, well, i've got a guy there. i hired him. he's sort of a part-time lobbyist. call him. i called him, he was not there. he called me, i missed him, and i called back, missed him, and it fizzled. i was willing to meet with him, take this once in a lifetime opportunity because wall street was on its knees at that point with little credibility, out for a huge bailout, two, give voice to 60 million investors who own the corporation, but have so little control that they are told, you don't like the way we operate? beat it. ..

your point -- see, i figured he knew so much more than me that he could say, here's what you can do. this is what will work with a vestige. this is the underbelly of these big ticket is. and so, we want to have more meetings, more exchanges, not cumbersome steps. we can reach a level of rigor, where more and more philanthropic funds can move into justice. a society that has more justice is a society that needs less

charity. [applause] yeah, i interacted you. you were saying? >> well, i was just going to point out that one of the icons reluctance is that he's doing just fine with the current shareholder program. economic just rears its ugly head. the nike is not hurting because he's got the power. >> he's got the power to buy 5% of the company ensure that the juices out of the executives. but he has made statements at a broader level of concern. and in a capitalist society, the owners had no control. >> routh, when we set out in 2424 names politically progressive organizations, we got the best and brightest people we could find to run them. some of them organize themselves and came to us.

what i realized after watching them for a year or two is that these people, brilliance, well-educated, hard-working, well motivated, nice people hadn't the foggiest notion how it had to be done. they don't have to manage, they don't know how to write an objective or evaluate people's performance. they do not know how to get them done and that's most people and that's almost all people involved in politics. they don't know how to do it. so i formed an organization whose job -- whose only function is to help them to the very fundamental things, like red objectives, write a mission statement to tell people what your organization is all about. >> what's the new book >> what's the new book >> what's the new book >> what's the new book ingenious name. and they are doing a lot of good and they aren't necessary, but

they are also fighting against when these people mostly don't want to know about this. >> you're right. i'm steinman says physics is simple compared to politics. if you go to national convention of political science and say folks, i'm trying to change things here for the people against the corrupt power structure. give me some strategies. give me some ideas. give me something that works. give me something that has worked. they don't come up with it. i mean, this is a vacuum here. >> their teachers. they don't know about this stuff. >> some of them are former government officials. >> there's a few people in business to learn how to manage here are probably a few people in the military know-how to manage. people in government and politics could care less about managing. >> how did you and your businesses -- and i didn't go into your businesses, but this

book is how to motivate people. actually try to do it without question in this book. have you people, to get their toe in order? have your people to show up to town meetings and voting in all that stuff. when you're running your business is, shootout with what every manager dealt with, people are not created for not dynamic, don't meet deadlines, people who get discouraged, people who don't have a high enough significance of their own ability. what do you do click >> i didn't have people like that. >> i didn't have people like that. i had them and got rid of them. either they laughed or they changed. and i think most of them changed. i mean, when the marines -- he joined the marines in that you've been there for six months, you're a different person. they were different people. they got it done. i made it clear what i expected

of them. >> those that seem you have have on your desk likes >> lead, follow or get out of the way. >> you know, peter creely was a very shy person when he was in college. he became one of the most motivating stage driven, flamboyant executives before all of these agents had to sell insurance policies. how did you do it? how did she get them to do more than they ever thought? >> exaggerating both my shyness in my flamboyant. [laughter] i figured out pretty early that people do better working for you, working for me if i tell them what they have to do to please me. you think there are many bosses to tell their supporters what they have to do to please them? no. that's the key issue.

and what that requires is for the busty figure out in advance, what is this person going to do in the next six months to make me feel good? that requires a discipline in an effort on the part of the bus they don't put in. it's hard to do. and that's a weekday. everybody in our company knows that they are supposed to do. it's written. they discussed it with the manager, negotiated. and when they don't do it, do it, and they pay a penalty. but when they do do it, and they get rewarded. >> is that we did? >> i couldn't hear very well. i'm hard of hearing. >> i'm sorry. >> i'm leben in the dark over here. >> you let employees know what pleases them. >> my employees know what i want done, too. when you work for cnn, you know, then you're supposed to come and give commentary so many times a day at certain times and you did it, didn't you?

it might work for you. what time to be there and what to do when you got there and how to dress. >> just as an overview, where do you see this country going? >> in a handbasket. i don't know. out of nowhere this country is going. i think it's going to be okay, but i'm doing everything i can and going back 10 minutes ago or so because i never -- he never got around to letting the answer about what we're going to do. and too kind to ensure that i wasn't doing my share, i feel like i am doing my share. i've worked my pohang kiosk and i gave away half of what i had before they even asked for it. it was already done. and i didn't think about whether it's half or not. it was close to half anyway.

>> i never said that about you. [laughter] you are my hero in this boat. >> i'm like that woman in the tv commercial. the cleanup ladies have been doing the best i can. >> listen. lush estate days. recent post, give or take an 80% think america is going in the wrong direction. >> i agree with that. and family circle and in the the right. >> at overall -- >> were pretty terrible. i agree with and pickens. we need an energy plan. we don't have one. >> next book on the 75% think that corporations are to much control over their lives. >> i try to get a big corporation. i never had one, but i would've liked to have more control over people's lives. [laughter]

go to my restaurant. >> the third one was 62% of people think most major parties are failing. >> sailing? the parties are failing? both of them? >> yes. >> what a week and a? [laughter] i'm conflicted. i want to go for a party that's headed in the right direction. >> otherwise they can't get anything done. they can't get anything done. where paralyze society. we've had a rough couple of weeks. you know, this stuff in the middle east is shaken everybody pretty much all the upheaval because we don't know what's going to happen and then you know we've had these tornadoes and oil spills and all these other problems with tsunamis. and i think heavy news viewers like me are kind of shaking. i like a little peace and quiet.

give me smarr lindsay lohan. i'll be kind of happy to get back in the news. the worst is over. [laughter] >> there is some view that some of the privileged well-to-do elders in our society -- >> what? >> elders. >> like us? >> yes, and people in their 90s and 80s, dave about 40 kids and just money to the younger generation coming to different kinds of education, judith sinnott. do you think there's potential in raising that to a higher level? >> i went back to my old prep school last week at my own expense and spoke to the student body about getting ahead and doing the right thing. you know, older people that are semi retired do all kind of social work.

you could be a big brother or big sister. there's just a million things he could do that you don't have to have any money. all you have to have his time in months. >> what e.g. do about the iphone in between? >> about that who? >> the iphone in between. >> all this technology with the young and our text messaging have been split off from the older generations more than ever before. >> well, it's going to take a generation for that to adjust. let's hope that more information will lead to better information and will be better off for it then worse off. i hope that the case for cnn. we've been going through one technological revolution for the last 50 years. i mean, you go back we were born, just seven years ago, they didn't have television. they didn't have nuclear power and nuclear weapons. they didn't have computers. i mean, we had typewriters and carbon paper. we were let me to have a phone

or electricity. some people in america didn't have electricity. so you know, we made tremendous progress. we really have technologically. a real challenge has been to keep coming to keep our social structure up to enable to cope with the tech illogical advances. and may we have not done so well. we're still fighting wars in low-end things up and dropping bombs on people when we should be stopped with that. we should have moved on from that and be in the process of moving on from coal and oil as quickly as they possibly can about not doing either. but hopefully we will. >> let's take a -- >> is going to have to grow quickly. >> watch cnn and you'll be there. >> 80% of people falling behind economically since the 1970s.

>> a lot of that was given away. >> i blew myself up. >> a million dollars to the u.n. >> white people do any jet. they get those revolutions and blow themselves up. >> now -- >> have you ever thought of that? [laughter] have you ever thought of blowing yourself up when he ran against al gore, there were a lot of people there thought it might've been good. >> you're really responsible for bush in my opinion. [laughter] at least there's an opinion. and i love you like a brother, you know, used to work for me. >> had come you should have been a senator. point of privilege.

everyone has an equal right to land. [applause] >> wait, wait. has the right to run. >> bush took far more bush took them so far more votes than i ever could. [applause] and by the way, never mind tennessee, arkansas, he got more votes. you've got more popular votes than bush. >> i realize that, but that doesn't count. >> is a good project. get rid of the electoral college. maybe 20, 50 million bucks. you know gore was asked that question, whether he blames the greens. >> no, he was way out. he was in outer space by then. she had left. >> once a politician, always a

politician. >> he would send them out if they wanted a popular vote. it was stolen from him from tallahassee to the supreme court, five, four politicians. to stop the recount. >> no idea say that? that is like saying third-party candidates in second-class citizens. this is a two-party nation. get out of the way. that doesn't reflect the world's greatest maverick. >> you at every right to do it. or the world's greatest maverick. not me. >> anyway, that was all digression. >> i'm your friend. of course the democrats could assassinating bush did come including the war, tax cuts and the filibuster power and so forth. [applause] anyway, what would you do about corporate crime, corporate irresponsibility, rampant

speculation that other people's money -- >> shoot them. >> shoot them. >> give them a short trial and shoot them. >> would you care to elaborate on that? [laughter] >> you know, i just shoot them. hang them. >> here's the way a look at it. the pharmaceutical industry has basically outsourced all the ingredients. penicillin is not produced in this country anymore. there was an indian scientists have said the other day in china shut down its pharmaceutical industry, the world drug business -- >> what about shoes? we'll be barefoot. >> thank god for china. >> what about chinese food? >> contaminated fish. okay, how far is this globalization going to go before we hollow letter country

>> our job is vast. we haven't mentioned our failure in education, which is our most significant failure in the last 20 years, so releasing out. or if we keep going, third class or fourth class, even though we have other resources about the history. >> added manufacturers who think they're the best, but can't pay their workers 60 cents an hour and block their unions and worker rights. it can't compete. you can't compete. you can't compete with modern technology, hard worker, 60 cents an hour repression by readerships about like in china, shipping back into this country. i mean, the auto supply industry is going. the electronic industries going. the furniture industry is going.

you know, i told corporate executives not long ago. they told me they have to keep up with global competition. that's why they have to go to china. by then chief of the love of the way to the top? i know some bilingual executives and managers who would be willing to work or one 10th of what you guys work. [applause] is so unfair. so unfair to the working people in this country. the level of discouragement and repression is imploding in this country, not just in appalachia. there's huge underemployment. the head of wal-mart with those rubberstamp errors and he's not a big yes. he's making 11,000 bucks an hour and half a million and a half workers who make less than 11 bucks an hour, eight, nine, 10. before getting a january 2 make more than any of a million and a half workers. to be to be or not or did you have a crony as?

i mean, people have a sense of unfairness. >> all of these disasters, one after another and we haven't talked about local climate changes that are civilization ending in the next 15 years. >> tell us which are doing about that, chasseurs stancil. >> i'm trying to get it. i'm not contain anything. just out of curiosity, you getting paid for this? of course not. >> if they buy this book i actually get 75 cents per book. >> publicly making a fortune. >> not exactly. it would have made me a fortune if they hear is super wealthy talked about it a little more. yoko bono was invited to come. barry diller was invited. phil donahue was invited and didn't come. you came because you've got

guts. [cheers and applause] >> tell us about trigger nuclear weapons even now 20 years later. >> you know, i work with a group of really smart people and nuclear disarmament and nuclear safety in the meantime. and there are over two dozen nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert in the united states and russia pointed at each other. and if there is a mistake or an earthquake underneath the central command for arizona state by sun sword and somebody pushes the wrong button. i know when i went into the russian nuclear launch facility out in the woods 30 miles outside of moscow, they took me

down six floors and took me an agreement that this is the room where the attack will be launched against the united states in the whole wall was covered with maps and u.s. and the rest of the world. and not enough at the corner on the side of the wall was a picture of jesus christ. and i thought what a name of god are you doing with that in here? i think you all are supposed to be communists. this is when it was to soviet union. they said we just wanted to be sure to cover all the bases. [laughter] and they told me. they said you can sit in a chair just like this, except he was kind of an easy chair. and there is a box on the table with the button on it that said you could just sit there, but for god sakes don't press the red button. i said why not? they said that's the button the lunch is everything. >> i must say, this one is meant to move from success to significance.

you've really touched a lot of important issues. >> what i've decided first of all is to have a plan. i decided if i'm going to worry -- it's been my whole life worrying. i tell most of my friends they don't need to worry so much. i would like to say that to you while because i worry for you. i have become the great global warrior. and i'm worried about gray day. or eating men. they are eating the chimpanzees because they don't have enough food. and that's really wrong because that is almost late eating a person because they can even talk once you learn to talk to them with sign language. >> give me an example. >> where was i.? >> please give me an example. >> the worrying. >> said i'm going to worry, but in a way but the biggest problems? global warming could kill us

within 20, 30 years. nuclear weapons could kill us this afternoon. busting nuclear weapons number one. let's get rid of nuclear weapons, to global warming under control. overpopulation moves more slowly. but in our lifetimes, when we were bored and i was born in 1938, when i was born, the population was just over 2 billion. it is 7 billion now. in 70 years, the number of human beings on this planet has not got an increase by three and a half times. the number of elephants in the world that went down 90% during that 70 years. the number is the great thing about 90%, too. most of the environment has deteriorated in figures close to that. so what we're doing is more and more people put more and more pressure on a finite resource and over using a completely for a farmland is eroding.

oceans are poisoning. look what happened with the golf oil spill, what's happening with the overfishing. do we have do change the way we doing things. with 7 billion people, a billion people were hungry. the secretary-general of the united nations just put me on a committee to abolish property common to millions development role. that's another nonpaying job. but i'm going to do it. i don't know how to eliminate poverty. helmet going to do it in 10 years? notches poverty here in the united states, but poverty and he e-mailed his other places where it's really tough. >> the u.n. development is that at the most detailed thing year after year on what it takes to abolish world poverty. >> they were doing it mainly because of the increase in the economy in china. a lot of poverty had been eliminated out of this latest

recession and food prices going up. >> is a basic nutrition, basic health, clean water. >> you know how much they were seen across here? between 40 and $50 billion a year. >> the global military budget is a trillion dollars a year in the united states spends half of that. that doesn't include the words. the words are a trillion dollars apiece. you know, >> peter, leverages saskia. you said something quite interesting that interview on marijuana i've never heard before, which is a stimulated your creativity, focused on the nature of the manager, better human being. would you want to elaborate on

that? because most -- not that i'm taking a position on this. i think any addiction that is made illegal goes underground and you can't do with it. prohibition was an example of that. but can you explain exactly the impact? u.k. of a variety of functions for going into that level of consciousness. i do want to join the spot. >> i don't feel in the spot. a wiki just did a good job of explaining it. my excessive marijuana has been 100% positive all the time. he may admit there's lots of positive things. >> is good for your company? >> i think so. i'm biased, but i think so. >> t. seen a downside? is there any hazard like cigarette smoking has hazards? >> unfortunate because it's not illegal, there's another dance

but it's also not addictive. or when you can't do research because it is illegal, you're greatly inhibited from getting facts. >> even appoints beneficial for glaucoma in multiple sclerosis. >> those things have been proven. it's now medicine being sold in canada, which is a spray dashing marijuana spray. >> how about driving cars? when you're stoned? [laughter] >> it's better than driving when your high-end whiskey. >> that certainly much more serious problem. >> i'm not advocating driving. we have half a million people in jail in this country because are picking them up -- with 50,000 new yorkers get arrested every year for possession of marijuana. it's crazy.

it's expensive. it's unfair, it's racist. it's every day braw -- [applause] >> fewer records they the prison industry is involved in this. >> i didn't say that. >> you called them jailers. >> they certainly have motivation because they've got a lot of people in jail. economic self-interest. >> now, when you go to march me with these people, can you convey the message for me? >> of ralph nader? >> just tell them a break to get a small number of very accomplished americans in the pacific world. >> i'm sure they've all got a copy of your book gave >> gascon would like to meet with them. either one by one or at some of dimmers they have.

>> i spoke to warren buffet and he invited me to come to omaha. we are pressed together and he was quite taken with the book. he invited me to the shareholders meeting to sell at the book since he's the leader leader in this boat. he's the one who got 16 other very rich people together to plan this very detailed plan, peter, very detailed plan. and i said, you know, this may be a movie sunday. he said really clicks with playmate? [laughter] i'd say warren beatty. and it turns out warren beatty is in the book running again schwarzenegger for governor of california, right? now, warren buffett will put in a good word for this kind of meeting because he thinks some concrete ideas are needed. but it's not going to happen

unless a few people in that circle try to make it happen. and that's serious. i have have had begun in people this audience haven't begun to convey the kind of turnaround projects, changes, movements, whatever that are very feasible, very well documented. a data resource. they need infrastructure. for that, we need some time to talk. we need time to exchange you can back them down, say this is a good idea. give me some more detail. we want to give you an inventory and a lot of it will be in your area of major concern in peter's area of major can earn another things peter has supported. but we have to let century. i'm serious. it's very hard to get your call. >> i hate to be a stuck record, but you've got to have a proposition , a realistic proposition , speaking for myself. i don't want to get into a

meeting where were a lot of smart smart guys are writing ideas that the flight will be debating them. it's a waste of time and nobody wants to do it. >> have you been to that with the public? >> every aspect of life. >> would say we prepared detailed compendium of objects that meet your standards. let's say there are 50 projects. >> do to with a plan of each. >> the plan if some people want diversity because it might have one billionaire when they because of the billionaires experience. you might have another billionaire. those who did that and we are ready. how do we connect? you return calls most people of your while to not return calls. you return calls. >> i cannot call it a pity that caused me. i get a lot of junk mail. >> we all do.

what's the next step here? >> keep doing what you're doing. good on the talk shows as much as you can promote your boat. >> i came out with a book year ago and did all this stuff. i would've liked to have sold more, but sell you can't give away the rest. >> that doesn't quite do it. >> i don't know what to do. i don't have all the answers. they did would be would be in trouble. >> said, we have to connect the compassion of the super wealthy. >> there's never been more billionaires. >> there's only 400. >> the point is there is much more than that. >> were you when the hundred? two years ago i checked. the plaintiff says. people who want to get things done stereotype the superrich as

in their own growth they want to make more money, their nurse says. they have no interest. they're a different, give us grandchildren, et cetera. we are saying they are 1%. the spacious 1% of the multibillionaires who really care. how do we need -- how do we connect with their distinctive passions? and they'll have passions. had we connect once we meet the responsibility of peter's properly established? let's say someone comes up with something that can accelerate the transformation of energy to renewables. >> i'll certainly listen. that's when going there to learn. >> keep writing letters to

people. i write letters to people the time. i used to send or 4.2 m. 4.0. when i run into a book about the environment or anything that's super important, i've got a mailing list of all members of congress, all fortune 500 corporations, all the college presidents, other presidents lies lies the big corporations. and i send out hundreds of copies they usually cost nearly $40,000 with a personal level suggesting they read the book and give them a free boat. that is one way of doing it. i guess maybe i descending thousand books that i get maybe 100 fighters.

do what you can do. you know, just do what you can do. when i walk down the street in new york and atlanta, i see a piece of trash is picked trash is picked up carry it to the nearest wastebasket. i can't recall, but if we have enough people picking up trash, more people pick it up throwing it down, will live in a clean word. that's what i'm looking for. [applause] >> as you know better than most another certain kind of trash you can't pick it. >> areas if you do with the big enough piece of equipment. >> i think that's a pretty good place to start. i would like to thank you very, very much for this evening. ralph nader. [cheers and applause]