to see these things they advance the human species, just by existing i feel. i feel like the race to mars would answer some ways we can't tell you. so that is my very pro-nasser's

speech. i hope that we find a mission to mars. >> what is nasa's response? >> they weren't happy i was writing this book if this was a guy from the inside. they didn't want me to make him into a hero, although thursday things. i feel like they haven't responded since the book came out. when people do actually read the book, they're going to love it because i think it looks now for very cool. i think they will like it, but i thought they spoke would like a social network and eventually they did come around to his bn. but you know, it is not a hit job on nasa. >> let's do one last question in them will call it an evening. yes, ma'am, right in the middle. [inaudible] >> he took the fall for them and he said it was entirely forcing

him to do appear to fill him him in this other guy were involved in finding the guy went to jail. they got probation and never spoke to him again. but with that. you know, they've known each other three weeks. it was his quick love. when she was in the courtroom and the judge of the prosecutor asks her, you did a skit for three weeks. why would you do it? she said i'm still trying to do it. they've moved on with their lives. they were not happy about this book. she asked me to change your name. she wanted nothing to do with it. i think she's in texas, but she didn't want to be involved. >> listen, thank you so much. >> thank you for being here. [applause]

>> he's a partisan guy who wants to unite people. i mean, all of the problems of the era you could get from the

sky. and why we couldn't elect him as the same reason we eventually went to war. >> he had the misfortune of running against a great military hero, dwight eisenhower. and so, i don't really think there's any way that adlai stevenson -- >> if you think about smith in 1828 last overwhelmingly to albert hoover, that paved the way for franklin roosevelt. >> there are 14 people in the series, many of whom i guarantee viewers have never heard of. all of him i can guarantee they will find interesting and fascinating and certainly surprising.

>> coming up next, boutique herbicides "after words," an hour-long program where we invite guests to interview actors. claimed economist dambisa moyo discusses her later book, how the west was lost. the best-selling author of "dead aid" says that flat economic decisions made by western governments have resulted in the spheres of economic growth and tipped in favor of what she calls the emerging world. she talks of libertarian economist, dan mitchell. >> host: my name is dan

mitchell at the cato institute. we are here to talk with dambisa moyo, a best-selling author about her new book, "how the west was lost." walk onto the program. let's jump right in. your basic premise. the west is being overtaken by the east. give us a nutshell explanation of what it's all about. >> guest: it's quite interesting in this bizarre time the society, almost obsessed with what's going on in the east in other places. of course it's incredibly fascinating. i'm a book is really about the errors that have been made in europe. he's a home-grown problem that had absolutely nothing to do with china. things like education, the structural problems like infrastructure, things like energy policy that don't have anything to do with china and are essential to get ready to make sure the u.s. is on the track to get back. >> host: they're almost a couple of books in one book.

your story at the decline of the west, your story of the rise of the east. and the premise premises the lines will cross. >> guest: i think you can argue there's an absolute power for sure, talking about the issues going on there. of course we live in an amazing time with china and other emerging economies have done the unthinkable, between hundreds of millions out of poverty. it will be relative question about which is what i've done in the book. >> host: let's start by talking about what's going on in the west. just go sure. first of all, i think in terms of the context of my work, i talk about unintended consequences, they've seemingly on the surface, but actually yield bad outcomes. what i've done is focus on the three key ingredients that economists focus on the stripers of economic growth. o., basically money, labor, basically the workforce and productivity. how efficiently you can do stuff.

what i argue here is we provide a catalog of the policies that have been instituted in the united states and across europe the past 50 years that have led to the erosion of these three key ingredients. so very simply and i'm sure we'll get into more detail. to give you an example, the idea of housing policy for all, which has been a mainstay of american policies both republicans and democrats on paper some think a great idea. in principle, the manner in which it's been executed hazlet clearly to a situation where we've had the subprime crisis. the idea of keeping interest rates historically low. the idea of having policies and subsidies is clearly induced behaviors that afflict the subprime crisis. >> when you talk about what we've done wrong in america and also western nations as well, part of it is we live for today, we consume, go for the free

lunch. elaborate on that. >> guest: yes, what we also face right now in places like the united states is the competition or the sort of test between the current generation in the future generation. we have to decide whether they are going to be sacrifices, which is what i talk about in the book. so the united states tomorrow can remain a preeminent economic power. clearly there were promises made, pensions is a classic example that are simply unsustainable and will be impossible. how much of a sacrifice are people willing to make today in the united states in order to make sure that tomorrow we can have educated population and so on. >> host: what happens if we make the sacrifice? vester warning in the book that because throughout this run past them because they seems to be the short term assignment attitude, what happens if we don't fix it? >> guest: domain problem, both

of the government level and individual level has been financed by data. the concern is that it's unsustainable and the dead had been used to finance investment, for example, we wouldn't be sitting here because they would've been productive investments in medicine cannot have that. so what could happen? i think in many ways europe is a harbinger of the sort of things that could happen. you end up with unsustainable budgets, very often lead to bailouts. i was just in california. serious concerns on infrastructure there. they have furloughs. i mean, those types of things can put stress on an economy. that is where you're heading where you're heading if you don't solve difficult problems. >> host: in other words, in your book, if we don't fix things in the united states and other countries as well, greases her future. >> guest: i think it's pretty evident. what people don't appreciate,

although coming from a different background, the fact of the matter is your increase in income inequality. people will be frustrated that they have to work longer than they had perhaps anticipated. the government is simply not going to be able to continue to finance the program is its promise to help that leads to an online and obviously you have many more labored this use. you have issues around the governments ability to submit things like infrastructure, education, energy policy and i swear i'm afraid you agree to. >> host: how much of this is demographics? is at the results of the baby boom generation and one-time spike for an elderly population? or is there something more permanent and systemic inner troubles? >> guest: there's a lot of things demographically rank. clearly the property boom, the prices going up was clearly supported by pb boomers who are

willing to pay for housing. and obviously, looking ahead come at issues around pension and health care are very strongly linked to the issues of demographics. i think there are more systematic issues, systemic issues flowing through the u.s. economy. things like education. the fact the united states t. been number 12 in one generation is incredibly problematic to compete over the long-term. if you look at the oecd of corporation and pisa study. if you look at performance in mathematics and sciences and reading, they've actually slid from being in the top one to three down to being in the 20th and high teens and 20s. that's problematic for america's competitiveness. the fact the united states today has 30 to 50 million people out

of work in the manufacturing sector, when we know these people are not competitive globally at a cost basis again is not something necessarily linked to demographics. >> host: would he talk about pensions, there's many pieces to that. the federal government social security program. underfunded pensions in a private area. and of course we see the debates in the u.s. states shoot underfunding, pension promises to state and local government workers. do you distinguish between the three different types? >> guest: i have written a lot about that. the overarching umbrella for pensions as their promise is unsustainable. in finance at how the money options that are just not going to be able to pay. we've seen a private site or whole industries that have basically had bankruptcy because that's the pension problem, the steel site are for the auto or come away rdc what the

implications can be. california, classic example put furloughs or people are forced not to to go to work because the government doesn't want to accrue additional liabilities. clearly this feed into the federal level. so i don't distinguish. of course in terms of numbers and what it looks like, you can look at the overarching liabilities. in the thesis that the thread running throughout the promises are simply not going to be able to be paid. >> host: if we're talking about premises that are able to be paid, at some point if you're california, would you become greece in the sense? when do investors decide we don't trust california anymore. california can still issue debt at a reasonably low interest rate. but we are seeing increases are to reach the point where they had to get a bailout. portugal is teetering on the edge but commanders are

demanding high rates. but if that that happen to california or illinois? >> guest: i think the one thing i'm constantly reminded his politics tends to be a these situations. although it is a state, it's not standard in the sense that it's part united states of america. they are far more reaching than california having problems of itself. so whether or not california or get built out, i am certain that somebody will come to the rescue. but that sort of does that preclude your sword is more underlying issue, which is if interest rates start to rise between september and now, the ten-year interest rate in the united states has gone up by 100 racist points. there's a lot of pressure in debt and interest payments. those pressures tend to force not just states, but also governments to a situation where they are not able to make

payments and they have to make trade-offs with public spending, for example. i think we see it now. but back to talk about illinois and ohio, the pressures you see from the public site for, we see teachers in new york and other places across the united states, those pressures will escalate if you cannot solve your interest rate problem and the fact you have to pay back money for interest rates are moving up. >> host: what you say is the fight we are now seen in wisconsin between government employee unions and the state legislature and governor is going to be repeated all across america. >> guest: the specific issue is collective bargaining. i think it is if of a greater problem in the united states, which is that many of the states and federal government is simply too indebted and those two things together mean something has to give. there's a lot of debate as we know about cutting spending. i fear there will be much more

happening on the attack site and its problematic. the united states corporate taxes are around 30%. this is higher than the oecd average of 35%. a friend of mine from germanic remarked how he thought it was quite surprising because in denmark, income tax at the private level is much higher. if they're 50%, 60%. at the corporate level, for corporate taxes to be lower in scandinavia and denmark, it's quite surprising. the united states is built on the idea of private site for an incentives than they think it's really a signal of just how bad things have become. i think there's going to be some mix of tax raises plus budget spending cuts in order to get out of the situation. >> host: is very amazing. every health care state all has lower corporate taxes by significant margins.

i want to go back to education. as you pointed out, the u.s. used to be at the top or near the top. 31 oecd countries are down around 20. but we spent per pupil more than any country other than switzerland. it is not a question of resources. we are just not allocating resources intelligently. >> guest: this is exactly the point. it's about the problem of education being delivered. i have to say reading up about the american education system and listening to experts to focus on the education system really reminds me of the eighth that year, especially aid to africa. two things in particular. one, people are rewarded for poor performance. it's quite clear for american education funds are going down and you have the last end, first-out types of policy,

regardless of performance because they came in last, there seems to be some dislocation. the other thing is we are as a society being held hostage by vested interests. the trade unions are teachers union specifically of other problematic we are sacrificing our children's education performance and ability to compete internationally and the ability for america to compete in the interest of teachers unions, there's nothing inherently wrong, but there's particularly something wrong with the idea that we as a society are going down, but we are not penalizing people for lack of delivery. >> host: is the problem structural? in europe you find a lot more. it is sweet and a choice at the

netherlands have school choice. even germany has school choice. with a few tiny programs in a few cities in the states. is that a solution? doing a competitive model that puts people in charge of teachers? >> guest: piercing to be much bardolph. what can we do to make parents much more involved in ensuring the site doesn't have been? i am not too sure about whether it really boils down to more choice or less choice. if you look at the education performance across europe committee to or seen a black site are certainly on the oecd standards relative to the rest of the world. if you were about choice, you wouldn't have expected them to be with the united states fighting down. one of the things i talked about in my work, possibly could be something worth thinking about, the idea of conditional transfers. it's very popular in mexico and brazil and also ruled out of the pilot program by mayor bloomberg

in new york by paying people to do the right thing. your child goes to school 90% of the time. attendance record you get what hundred dollars. you get immunized for a particular disease can make it a hundred dollars. there is discussion in europe about whether or not people should start getting paid so their children go to study mathematics or size, the united states and european state to continue to remain competitive. obviously this is not what we expect of a society. we need to start paying people to do the right name? given where societies are, everything seems to be in the table and it's quite fascinating the idea of transfers as one possible solution to the problem we see now. >> host: could some of the problem, whether we talking about education or other areas simply be the fact that once countries become rich they get lazy? >> guest: well, i hope not.

i actually don't subscribe at all. singapore was the fastest-growing economy in the planet. it had about 15% in gdp growth. that is really mind-boggling for a country that is really close to western standards. in fact, on a per capita income basis, we shouldn't even expect to see those levels and the weight of economic growth that we believe what you just sad. i don't think inside at all. the reason i brought my book is because i really believe perhaps a lot of americans don't really understand what the problems are in the economy. ec letter television in the press about it at this as an massive debts. it's not a practical mission that people understand this is a fight for soul of america. they're going to be 9 billion people on the planet in 2050. we absolutely need to get it right. we need america to help solve some of the problems around resources. a lack of water and land initiatives around energy that the united states agreed to

solving the problems. we can't rely on the u.s. at the time of education. >> host: would mention singapore being an example of a rich country quite rapidly. what are they doing right that the u.s. is doing wrong. thus brought into question. presumably not all western nations are the same. some are probably doing okay, some in the wrong direction at a faster rate. what are the differences between the qs, inside europe, where those countries differed from singapore or hong kong that seemed to have this vibrancy? >> guest: first of all, nobody really knows -- as economists, we don't have a persona solution for all countries for sure. i think it's quite fascinating to look at the different approach between britain and the united states in addressing the financial crisis. britain has adopted a very

austere approach towards resolving its deficits and debt. the united states has adopted a different approach that is quite fiscally? as we know what the kiwi wine, qe2, also monetary environment has kept rates low. there's a discussion about interest rates rising. quite different policy standards and obviously we don't know how that pans out. i think going to the fundamental framework that economists use and by no means am i saying this is a complete picture, but again, looking at e. term productivity, you can see why emerging economies are in a good place. they have a lot of money, have saved too much. in terms of labor, they've got great labor dynamics in terms of quantity and the large numbers of people, but in terms of quality they work hard to get back to this dale, particularly

in mathematics and science which do matter. places like china have actually managed to post the highest levels of productivity, obviously because they're able to import technology. they are able to do that in very, very important ways. these two things together are really foundations of the engines of growth we see there. they clearly are at a politically different environment, where they take a much larger lead. it's quite interesting to see the government does control the corporate environment and many countries don't have democracy in the manner in which the united states has the democratic process. democracy is something we should all aspire to, but it's clear it is not a prerequisite. you could argue in some instances of hyper politicization, having housing recommendations might rework policymakers of focusing on short-term policies as opposed to dealing with the bigger

structures that can undermine economic growth. >> host: that was one of the things they read me the wrong way. there is almost like this tom friedman -esque argument that the chinese have it so much better because they don't have to worry about the business of democracy. the government can decide something and implement the next day, whereas in america with separation of powers come it takes a long time for something to happen. obviously, even though democracy is in perfect, winston churchill said it believes were some of the options. >> host: >> guest: no one seemed to forget democracy. you need to think about how we can report come incentivize and penalizes necessary policy makers who don't focus on these long-term structural issues. everybody knows, with the republic can republican, independent, democratic apparatus of the pension problem. as of concerns about health

care. serious issues right infrastructure. they will be surprised at the debts and deficits story. i could make it around the table and get everyone to say sacrifices will have to be made. unfortunately policymakers have not done a good job of explaining to people with the sacrifices that look like and what the real heirs and policies have been over the last several decades. castro didn't you put your finger in the problem? a time horizon is the next election? >> guest: is very rational. look around south america. they democratic processes in some countries and those made when you are the busy president, you have a longer term. in mexico, for example, is a six-year terms, but gives you more bandwidth to think about problems and have elections. i find it pasolini just had elections in the united states a few months ago and midterms in november and here we are much of the discourse on television in the united states is about the

next election. where does policy have the scope or bandwidth to really focus on structural problems? everybody acknowledges they are they are. we talked about energy efficiency without basically trying to maintain their big thing, which is to stay in power. >> host: i don't think this is something you addressed in the book or maybe i just forgot. is there any evidence of longer-term sort of thing like that results in better policymaking? i get the feeling if you're a poor country, your hungry and therefore less likely to engage in the short-term is some overconsumption we see in western countries. but this comes back to my point. bb was to get rich you get lazy and it doesn't matter cukor 1% a year because they're already in good shape. >> guest: perhaps the argument has some credibility, but i think clearly a lot of people in the united states are still hungry. for that group, i think we should be worried here to think

the responsibilities of government are clear. the role of government is to provide a good regulatory environment without being a stranglehold. the responsibility of government is to provide public goods that we all benefit and no one person wants to pay for. it's also important for the government to provide a policy environment that incentivizes people to do the right date. i don't think an environment where government is the major arbiter of capital and labor is a good environment. the united states still continues to be the leader of innovation. the more you put a stranglehold on people in silicon valley or people involved in technology is not a good thing. when i see taxes at 35%, given where the u.s. is right now, it's troubling because they think to myself, how are we going to solve these problems around the world of americans may be over time as incentivize

to do sciences or be more innovative when we need them to be in organist areas. >> host: if you say we want to incentivize people to do the right thing, if you have a high tax welfare state, you're punishing people who produce and create high tax rates and you are rewarding people for becoming dependent on government. when i think agree sometimes i think of a parable but if you have too many people writing in the wagon and not enough people pulling the backend, guess what happens? the whole thing grinds to a halt, which in some senses a description of what's happening there. >> guest: i talk about this notebook for sure. commander richards on how the state should be really is personal. by that i mean a national decision. there are countries, scandinavian countries that have been successful at having some form of a social safety net. at the same time, encourage

involvement. they've got much lower corporate tax rates and the way they've done it is providing the infrastructure and public goods, that shall pay more of the income model. that seems to work well for scandinavia. germany has a well-defined and very designed welfare state with a small debut than you have in the united states. at the same time, you have to figure out how to have a tax rate that works to help support public goods. one that is not so onerous, were people in a global environment say gosh, why am i sitting in the united states and paid 35%? i can't pay health care costs in office. i might as well take my business elsewhere. so it is a sign talents here. my personal discussion of the book as i do think the united states does run the risk of ending up in a situation where too many people in the wagon.

i have to say it's not only that there are too many people, but a lot of people in the wagon don't want to be in the wagon. they would rather be out of the wagon, pulling the wagon. unfortunately, there have incentivize to do what they want to do and that is very problematic. >> host: i sometimes think of the welfare state like flypaper. they get stuck and become independent. even though they want to climb the ladder, government policies are friendly. i may ask about differences between welfare states because imagine scandinavian countries do it better. and that certainly seems to be the case. if you look at tensions in sweden, the age at which you can retire is actually tied to average life expectancy. you may very well be in the case 20 years from now where you can't access benefits until you get to be over 70, whereas we read these stories increase different professions that have political power have retirement ages of 50 or 55.

>> guest: or lower. >> host: i'm a good libertarian. if you're going to have big government, and certainly seems to sweden is much more of a model of how to do it and greece or italy. >> guest: look, there's something to be said for the fact that in this round, this last one to financial crisis, sweden has done better. they had there in financial crisis in the late 90s, so they don't get off the hook that easily. i think ultimately, government has a role for sure. i think you can get a bit carried away with that role. i give another example from the book. i don't believe that it's the responsibility of government to pick and choose which act of classes but the money in. there's many different classes. commodities, bonds, stock, cash, property. but what government has done is to keep interest rates low in the u.s. government over the

last several decades. subsidies and guarantees, fannie mae, freddie mac could induce people to take money put in the housing asset class. i think there's something inherently problematic with that. the idea of having the spluttered dependency systems, nasa goal for assistance if somebody comes from africa, i can see how dilapidated or damaging it can be for a whole continent. a billion people come in many people want to work and be part of the global interconnect its society and they don't have that privilege because of this whole culture of undermining and underwriting the large governments providing aid money in a situation where you have a welfare state. my preferences i would prefer to live in a place like sweet in that place a greece. they think it's not surprising that we see all the rights and a place like reason we are not seeing them across northern europe. >> host: to compare hong kong

and singapore to greasers weekend as hong kong and singapore by cool situations have less than 20% we have 40% of gdp in america when you have state and local governments and of course in sweden well over 50% considered by government. castro again, talk about this in the book are your thoughts take the case of singapore. these are discussions and decisions that a society has to make collaboratively. there are things that go in in singapore that americans might recoil is that we don't want to have that. i'll give you an example out of the boat. the singaporean government has a tv td agency, where it actually helps educated -- college educated people get together. in the hope of producing -- >> host: match.com? >> guest: is the singaporean match.com. if you think about it, many people do it as encouraging others to raise. singaporean government says are

not putting a gun and say you have to be together. but we are doing is creating an environment where educated population from each other and produce children who are more likely to go to school and so on. again, talking about how the governor should be, that is a very good example of how they might have a small government in terms of this case. but in terms of something and social policy, a lot of people recoil that and say it's unacceptable. >> host: i think boy said the meeting goes for millenniums. somehow i don't think singapore needs to be involved. the go back to europe because a few minutes ago you were talking about europe and this is sort of like the twilight zone aspect. europe is much more conservative fiscally in terms of not going with the keynesian spending packages. some of the countries do, but germany and the countries don't do it. they are not going with the keynesian monetary policy, whereas in the u.s. is sort of

like we've completely switch. the u.s. used to be more free-market oriented. were the ones with the so-called stimulus of quantitative easing and the europeans are the ones being more frugal. would have been? >> guest: this is the big question. i think we'll have to see who wins out. my personal preference is if you can't afford it, cut back your expenditure. especially if you've got issues behind raising revenue. people look behind the united states and around 45% of americans do don't pay federal taxes already. this is pressures of inflation for the oil is right now. those types of pressures are going to need something will have to give. the less prepared in terms of having to really tighten your belt, the more vulnerable this country will be to places like greece. we don't know what's going to happen in europe.

i'll take written as an example. we had a really bad quarter for gdp fell at the end of last year 2010. a lot of people who believe in the keynesian economics said gosh, it's exactly what we expected. yet serious problems on the horizon and oil prices have gone up. and the government has just decided that they don't think the decline in gdp was actually in operation and they are absolutely going gangbusters focusing on this idea that we do need to tighten our belt and is unsustainable to have these massive, government and productivity decline, which he seemed significantly in britain. he went so? i hope i live long enough to see. i have my views. i think it is unsustainable to have massive debts and deficits. the only way they work as if someone is willing to ntu. the united states has relied very heavily on china as a lender. if china decides to marry

doesn't want to enter the united states will have an impact. you could force pensions in america to buy debt or whatever. implicitly there something wrong with living beyond your means. i think the united states particularly because they were using the money they print for consumption has to come to terms with that. >> host: as bad as the u.s. fiscal forecast is, it's based on low interest rates. and if interest rates go back up to traditional levels, especially if you start getting inflation and interest rate premiums for inflation built into interest rate scum of the fiscal numbers just go to in a handbasket. >> guest: everybody knows that. i'm sure people know that. he can expect them to go up 100 basis points to 100%, without something having to give in your numbers. the thing is, as i said earlier, they both earned appeal to rational thinking. people understand these concepts clearly when they look at their

own household incomes. they understand what it means when one member of the family where both families and the parents are out of work. they understand what unemployment been sent with increases in inflation, but that might be for their consumption basket. absolutely understand what interest rate increases need for debt burdens. so it is essentially the same thing. the vulnerability of the united states is not that she's buried per se. the vulnerability is first about can she pay the interest that? the second of all, what people continue to mentor the united states? at this point, they got away with it, but we have to wait and see what happens. >> host: if you are china and this is the optimistic stories people tell me that sometimes a bully that, sometimes they don't. if you're china with restraint or folio of u.s. securities, why would you want to suddenly pull the rug out from under the

united states because you hurt yourself? is a joke a few of think a thousand dollars is your problem. if you a billion dollars is a big problem. >> guest: absolutely. china is starting to plan her own currency. as soon as she funded significantly to other countries around the world. nothing says the chinese government says united states, we are not going to give you short term money anymore. we are really not to give get the longer-term many, but we want to take on a bigger room providing infrastructure in the united states. at some point the symbiotic relationships, we spend you money, you could miss something in return. they have these vulnerabilities that one person decides altaic ahead on the chin. the chinese could decide to off at their portfolios and moved them towards europe had their significantly moving money out of a billion dollars a day just in interest. that money has been deployed in many different aspects. you're right. maybe the short-term they feel

america has got the upper hand. over the long-term, there's nothing that says china can't get higher returns. there's a lot they can get higher returns elsewhere than taking a punt on the united states getting the fiscal right. >> host: what do you think about the assertion that china is artificially keeping the value of its currency low for trade purposes? >> guest: i think in some sense most people acknowledge that traditionally china's exchange rate has been artificially manipulated for trade purposes. i think there are few things happening in china, which suggest that they get it. fair enough absurd to issue. first about the focus on domestic demand, which is a big move away from the idea of their whole growth story is one that's trade dependent. last year, 2010, not just china, india and brazil to 20% domestic demand increases very significant focus on now. the other thing they've done is

have over of last year in 2010 the chinese government puts out a five-year plan every five years, which kind of lays out what the government is planning to do. the government is focused on social programs in trying to encourage people domestically to invest much more than consumer goods and away from underwriting underwriting -- individually underwriting health care. so again i think there's much more focus on people starting to suspend. i think also if you think about for china is today, serious problems. it's not sort of a post of story that china is going to win. we don't know whether in a per capita income they say she could converge the u.s. level. she's got a lot of structure problems around resource allocations. a billion people are really indigent and incredibly poor. she's got a lot of issues, but i think to point fingers at china about the artificial manipulation of the exchange rate, in other words,

protectionism, i think it's kind of farcical because the united states and european countries are amongst the biggest leaders, the biggest protectionist country where agriculture is concerned. as an african, but find it quite interesting. if any china and hear america whacking a great chinese community to make your exchange rate moves so it can play fair. america does not play fair with respect to agriculture, nor do europeans with the culture policy. there's something about the fact that you say one thing to do something completely different. i believe in free trade. i think it's a great way to raise people's living standards. i'm also sensitive to the fact that many africans have lost their jobs and families livelihoods have been decimated because the protections programs in the u.s.a. and europe over many decades. the fact of the matter is they are parcel of this protectionist game and it really does undermine your ability to force other countries to be less

protectionist either during the same thing. >> host: is kind of hard to throw rocks. let me go back to the u.s.a. and europe. a couple years ago you were suggesting a couple years ago i was very high in the euro because it seemed the european central bank was just more prudent. it all may one mandate price stability versus a semi-keynesians of the fed to short-term economics. the central bank basically sacrifice a lot of its independence of the european politicians but by and government debts, irish government data. it's on the site the fed buying up other skinny and pretty dead. what is your take on where that's going to lead? >> guest: a hedge fund put it best. when you're trading the markets, what sort of a key driver in your decision-making?

he said whenever i have to deal with policymakers, i always say to myself, what is it -- don't focus on what he should do. focus on what they're going to do. i, politics reigns. so yes perhaps economists might take a look and say that what should be keynesian. but it is right for you intervene. if you decide to do it things in the market to make markets at my track is. he talked about the housing markets, keeping interest rates low, guarantees and all that. but the fact of the matter is that they're going to do. i completely concur with my friend because i think he's right that is that i was going to be the case that bailouts are going to happen? is a political exercise this way too important. as an economic enterprise, there's a lot of a lot of skeptics even before the euro came into being. but now that we are in it and we have general mcchrystal

paraphrase him, but his point that we should focus on where we are not where would like to be. when you're a financial crisis, all you're sort of price cause they actually not the sort of stuck. you might have to loosen up a bit and do other things. this is a classic example of that. people asked the other time to think of the year was going to break apart. if iraq conestoga say there's lots of reasons as an economist why should break out. economies create the same path and so on. as somebody who looks at politics and economics, i would say unlikely that it will break up because politics will succeed that. >> host: there seems to be honest a secular religion in europe that have celebration of the year was part of that and they'll sacrifice other peripheral countries in order to keep fear alive. let me go to china and hit you with some of the things that i think i would disagree with.

and you actually mentioned some of these things in the book. china has rapid growth for a couple decades. if you compare their per capita gdp or income to u.s. per capita income, it seems like it's a big job. i think they be 2070, some figure in the book for how many decades way, way in the future it would take for china to catch up in living standard. that assumes that china doesn't have a public any kind, but china doesn't have economic mismanagement. there's a lot of concern about the financial system being very nontransparent and shaky. so yes, china has an programmatically and that's great. hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty. but are they really a threat in any sense? is it that if your neighbors become richer? >> guest: so, you'll remember in my introductory remarks i said precisely my book is not caught how china was.

there's a succession of look at what china is doing and we should commend them. they've come from nowhere. they are poorer than many african countries 34 years ago and now they are the number two largest country in the gdp basis. but this is a poor country. it is number two in gdp. number 99 and per capita income. for the serious issues and all the stuff we've talked about already. with a long, long way to go. in the short term technically they've got issues and they've tacked about what i mentioned a moment ago, serious issues about how they're going to actually bounce back from the financial crisis on the ceiling to the united states vary considerably in terms of exporting goods and so on and so forth. they've also got structure problems, how do you move a billion people out of poverty? no countries ever done that. it will not be a straight line. of course overlying that is the whole idea of the political

environment. i think it is not unforeseeable that at some point come at some level they might be more precious to have more political instability. if you put all of this aside, is china going to keep growing? i would say absolutely yes. look in the capital labor productivity. i think it absolutely will because again, the fact there's are in favor of china and against the united states, but that's natural because the united states is much more wealthy. >> host: poor countries protesters in rich countries. >> guest: the question of where it's still out as can china converge to capital income? we don't know. we don't know if that's possible because of resource constraints. already we have 85 billion barrels of oil on the planet. the fact of the matter is that we'll be concern is largely oil

that was discovered in 1950s and 1960s. constraints about arab land. 1.3 billion people to feed. issues around water. just look at some of the numbers coming out of the middle east in terms of this other nations now working as illustrated hope concerned about water. issues are on energy, but also minerals. that is where the united states and european countries have to get it right. we need them to focus on issues, otherwise we know what happens when resource constraints are alive and well. they tend to end up in conflicts. >> host: you are not seen in your book the west is lost because of china. it is lost because of home-grown misstate that china is an example of a country and also you have a lot of discussion at indiana, of countries that are engaged in the overconsumption, short-term political. >> guest: that's exactly right. 50 years of economic folly in

stark choices ahead. america does have stark choices to make. and he needs to focus on making those choices so you can remain a preeminent economy. just as an analogy come as somebody said to me is sort of like the green bay packers. your number one. you win a super bowl. in order to stay there, focus on your own team dynamics. make sure it's the best it can be. if you start focusing on the guy snapping at your heels as number two, you can get overly focused and what they're doing in u.k. to the super bowl. i think that's a message for the united states. the problems we have right now, education, budget. china plays a role in tangentially, but it's not the core issue with respect to infrastructure. it is about what america is doing wrong. solve those problems in the remain competitive. if you don't involve province, china might even do some relatively bad things about things, but she's probably on the right tack in the united

states on the wrong track. >> host: think the old joke. these guys are camping in despair comes over. one guy says you cannot run the bear. the guy says i only have to outrun you. what about -- i ensure the theory that china will get old before it gets rich. and there is, just equate demographic problems on the u.s. with their social security system, medicare and medicaid, china, especially one child policy are going to have this giant version of a baby boom generation retiring and not nearly as many workers coming along to replace them. they don't have the western-style social welfare state, but she point out in your boat that they may be moving in that direction. just go absolutely. the problem for them. if you compare china and india, which are quite comparable in many ways, india demographic is much more favorable in the midterm. the chinese government has made

a very deliberate choice to focus on one child policy because they were concerned about how we're going to have a billion people if we just let population growth continually be bigger than a billion people would have to take care of or certainly provide for. so you're right. this is one of the things they focus on. i always say when it comes to chinese government ever sitting around talking about it, the party thought about it. they are not imposing a one child policy because they necessarily hate children. it's clearly because they're trying to get people off the economic ladder the shortest amount of time and that fortunately means they do have some issues about keeping the population stable. could hurt them in the long-term? we talk about singapore and this idea of governments get involved in something called eugenics. governments involved in the population dynamics and the

chinese are very aware of the implications of the long-term. it's one of these policy trade-offs. what we do to help people become more economically independent fortune of a better likelihood because there's a trade-off with the fact that many people have to have their children. it's up for debate. it's a tough call. >> host: lets vera to this one child policy. panic is a mismatch between the number of boys and girls in china and its cohorts. a lot of the social science as we casually, so i'm not going to put in a shirt on it. if you have lots of young men but nothing there to do, that's a recipe for social turmoil. >> guest: middle east classic example. >> host: does china they send challenges? if you have a surplus of young men with no way to channel their energy in a productive way, is that a recipe for bad things?

gusto as i said, the middle east is a large proportion of a lot of young men in particular who were justified, unemployed. we see long-term prospects for future. you end up with what we see now. i very much believe what we see in libya and egypt is really a reflection of the inability for governments to deliver improvements in living standards. too much poverty, too many people disaffected. wherever it is, if you have a large population of people who do not feel like they're able to capitalize or get involved in an economy of growth, don't have a vested interest, you will invariably end up as a political instability. one of my concerns when he read about africa may last. a billion people on the continent, you've got to get away. you've got to make sure these young people have job

opportunities. they get the incentives right so they don't end up at 25%, 35 disaffected in what's going on. it's particularly stark when you have a government that has been corrupt. i think that is where d.c. great attention. i would argue wherever it is rather work without being able to deliver economic growth and meaningfully reduce property, to have these type of issues. >> host: let's go back to the 1980s. you're probably too young to remember this, but i'm sure you've read it. in the 1980s, everyone in america is and was terrified of japan inc. i think the japanese had rockefeller center, other high-profile things like that. i think you mentioned some of those in your boat. but japan inc. disappeared and now we are kind of rating for japan to be one of these debt dominoes because their daddies gdp.percent of is china the new japan inc.? are we overstating whether people should be concerned about

them? >> guest: i would say i don't know. if i knew i'd be in tahiti. i would've traded that already. >> host: how could you be in washington without pretending to know everything? >> guest: my sense is because japan has given an example of what can happen, we all know japan with the housing crisis that led to the situation. it is again why so essential that america saw the structure problems. they suffered during that time. now 34 years later. it can be really long-term in a sustained basis, which is quite detrimental. we don't know. nobody knows how china is going to look in 20, 30, 50 years. i'm quite optimistic of the things that outline. very many challenges short-term. they do have issues around the demographic i talked about. et cetera resource constraints, but the fact of the matter in which the government is doing

with these things i think bodes well in that they are stored as plain a chess game moves ahead of most policy makers. >> host: we only have about five minutes left, so let's focus on some solutions that our u.s. audience might be interested in. you mentioned the housing crisis. but i think of the housing crisis, it makes me very pessimistic. i read your book and that bush is a curmudgeon. i like to think i'm more of a curmudgeon because we basically have a government through the federal reserve artificially low rates, fannie mae and freddie mac have teamed the playing fields of the excess equality is going and. we have a bubble caused by government mistakes and the answer in washington is more government. now, you have a history of being in the financial markets. either the moral hazard is critical. you know that mispricing and misallocation at risk is a very

misguided approach. .. that being said and coming back to the comment that we have to start from where we are rammed not where we would like to be, the fact of the matter is we've got a lot of foreclosures and issues in the economy still.

i believe that the issues around long-term issues that need to be dealt with are not being dealt with satisfactorily. there's a lot of talk with a 3% of gdp to go to science and technology issues around the 45 billion plus to infrastructure but i think the united states has to be much more aggressive in terms of addressing the fact that she is on this economic path. i also think what a lot of americans perhaps don't really understand what the implications of what is going on are for american longer term. maybe they don't care. i remember going up in africa during the 1980's the structural adjustment period a partner said listen it's going to be really hard, but this is something we have to do in order to be vibrant in the longer-term and it is essential to explain that to the americans here. >> host: you're not by chance

a texas resident of the u.s., are you? >> guest: no. >> host: good i got the feeling as you're warning and we are addressing these things let me ask you we are now in the middle of a fiscal fight and washington in the last ten years the federal government has gone from 1.8 trillion up to 3.8 trillion. it's more than doubled the last ten years. now we're having a fiscal side of the 8.3 trillion of the house wants to cut 61 billion the special-interest in washington are acting like that's revving apart the social safety net. if the u.s. can't trend 61 billion from a $3.8 trillion budget that was doubled in just ten years, is there any hope we are going to get our long-term fiscal house in order? that's not even getting into the fact that we spend too much on consumption and transfer spending and as you point out there are issues about the capitol spending that are sort of getting squeezed out. is there any hope?

>> guest: i hope there is because if there isn't then it's not just the u.s. and for a wide wide to the car ride. we need to emphasize need the u.s. to get it right. i'm not very sanguine because when i read the papers and i see the house republicans talking about 61 democrats talking about six i'm like all my god they are not even near each other and that's why there is this threat. >> host: they are not anywhere near the numbers they should be. >> guest: of course and not anywhere near where they should be. yes it is not a comfortable feeling but again i think unfortunately the politics has a stranglehold. but remember the politicians respond to the average individual's want and they should be responding but at the same time the policy makers should be listening to the average person understands the issues. people say we are willing to sacrifice and there is evidence of that. christy in new york has shown already -- new jersey, excuse me -- has shown already how the might be similar appetite for

people to cut back on spending. and the same with rubio. there are data points to see perhaps people are willing to say we do need cut so that we can actually be sustainable in the longer term. >> host: i suppose on the semi optimistic note -- >> guest: i am optimistic americans will get it right. >> host: i hope you're right. we deutsch closeout. i want to thank dambisa moyo for being here to read her book how the west was lost. lots of good data, lots of big contentious ideas and proposals thank you very much for being with us and for watching.

francis fukuyama's latest book the origins of political order traces the history of the modern state and politicalshing. institutions. he spoke recently at the politics and prose bookstore in washington. this is just over an hour. >> good evening, everyone.stando thank you all for coming. this is clearly a standing roome audience only, and i know that we are to celebrate and celebrate francis fukuyama is the major contribution, "the origins of political order: from prehuman time to the french revolution." before we begin, i want to just say that this is a momentous time for politics & prose. as you know, i am trained to come it was carload cohen's

house band and she and barbara meade, together with the stellar staff here at politics & prose and need to be engaged and lovers of books and ideas in the community of writers, publishers, editors, agents have made politics & prose into more than a bricks and mortar bookstore. it's a setting for the discussion and dissemination of ideas and it's a hollowed public space where people meet, talk, and disagree in a civil way. and i will continue to have way in the leadership of its new owners, brad graham and melissa muscatine. so, i just want to -- continuity will stand and appropriate changes will be made, to. but not around what is a

community institution around ideas. i very much wanted to introduce francis fukuyama tonight because i respect them, even as they told them to my thai civil society activists in asia and africa work on civil society and we have a lot of vigorous discussion about the end of history 10, 15 years ago. so that's one reason. the more important reason is he is an open-minded scholar who embraces big ideas, is not encapsulated by silos or artificial boundaries. he clarifies as he pursues nuance and complexity. to be fooled by the fact that this book as the colin says,

from prehistoric times to the french revolution. professor fukuyama takes us through the relationship of the state and accountable government. he wants to know what is the origin of state law and accountable government. and having one of those in place doesn't presuppose that the others will have vibrant and alive institutions. he discusses failed and failing states in his ratings, provides probing questions about the united states as well. i love the fact that you defend the necessity of politics, even if you take us through political anxiety, political decay and it makes us think about her of society here the united state. i have not read the whole book yet, but i've already been made to think for me, i'm not reconstruct it and i'd like to thank an open-minded liberal can

you help me realize there is more to friedrich hayek demarcate absolutism. so let us welcome francis fukuyama. [applause] and let's also pay tribute to the good work of c-span, which adds to public discourse in this country and the folks who work the camera can make it happen. [applause] >> thank you. it's really a great honor to be here and have this wonderful audience. i'm very grateful that you are all here at politics & prose. one of the nice things about speaking at a new book is to go to real brick-and-mortar bookstores and there are still people that like real books and come out for events like this because of the intellectual challenge and entries. i'll get straight into it.

see no huntington was my teacher when i was a graduate student at harvard. he wrote an important book in 1968 called political order in changing societies, which rereading it now in light of the arab spring actually is probably one of the best guides to what is going on in the middle east at the present moment. it is a book that needed to be updated. i thought of a project is doing a revision of this book. among other things, on the very first pages is the soviet union and united states are equally developed political orators. that didn't seem quite right after the fall of the berlin wall. the other major issue is when i was just referred to. i've been thinking about iraq, somalia, all of these foreign policy analogies we face. i may have the solution, the problem is getting to denmark.

denmark is in quotation nice because denmark is actually not a real country. it's a mythical place that is low corruption, democracy, stable government, the services delivered very efficiently and so forth. we have this vision of denmark in the back of your heads in we go to a place like afghanistan and how are you going to get afghanistan to look like denmark? part of the reason i began to realize is that we don't understand denmark. i had a visiting professorship at the university in denmark. i'm going to denmark for the past two years. most danes have no idea how denmark got to be denmark. it starts he has a political scientist at the basic book you can go to and say whether political institutions come from. i didn't see one and so i decided to write it. so i also didn't want to write a

book on the politics are told this traditional eurocentric or an go centric story. not because i am the poster in england the west, but i think it's a distortion and this one that's been taught still in a lot of the discourse that really begins with karl marx, this is england as modernization. england's present is everybody's future. this is something the karl marx said. while we realize that you learn something about the history of england is that it is a very peculiar country in the number of ways i will explain to you. to expect other countries to replicate england's modernization path i think is highly unrealistic. in fact, in my view it was china. china did not establish the first day. that happened a lot of places, egypt, mesopotamia, valley of

mexico. the chinese established the first modern state, not based on hiring your cousins and friends who in the government, but based on civil service examination, centralized administration. they did this in the third century b.c. it's a historical achievement that i think a lot of people would not adequately recognize. instead of starting with england work reset realm and i'm going to the magna carta and demise of democracy in england, a maine license to certainly china. china created the first modern state. where their societies differ from china? that's the basic background. there are three important baskets of political institutions that we need to think about. the first is the state itself. the state is all about power. the stake is the ability to concentrate power in a hierarchy and use it to enforce rules over a particular territory. in the developing world and this

again is why i think we sometimes take politics for granted. we assume that things will have been. you know, long-term i lived in fairfax county for 20 years and the pothole scape filled every spring. why did they itself not in papua new guinea. turns out there's a hidden social structure that provides services and does a pretty efficiently, at least in a rich catholic fairfax. not so well in this district, but it's interesting why those differences have bid. i think all of the antigovernment act events of which there are many, especially in our society, don't understand if you want the country that doesn't have a strong government is able to enforce rules come ui to move to somalia or afghanistan or less developed country that actually cannot enforce rules on its own territory. somalia come if you want to own

not just an assault rifle, but an rpg or shoulder filed, but it's not a happy society because it does not institutions. second is the rule of law. the rule of law is all about community rules of justice that i regard it as superior to the will of whoever happens to be running the government about whether that is a president, prime minister, king, marner, whatever. the executive and the society doesn't feel that he or she can make up rules on the fly whatever they want. but they actually have to implement a lot if someone else makes. so that is a second set of important institutions. the third is institutions of accountability. today we associate those of democracy, with elections. but that is not the only form of accountability. in any event, and accountability institutions were first put in place in 17th century england,

the king was accountable to parliament but only represented 10% of the english population. so you can now you cannot accountability without democracy. i believe in china you can also have moral accountability. a government can feel obligated to take the interest of its citizens into account, even in the absence of elections. the question is where did this come from? stated that the concentration of power. the rule of law and accountability or means of limited power and the miracle of modern politics is that you get the president of the united states was the most powerful individual in human history knute what if he wants to, but he doesn't because it's all limited by the end by accountable political institutions. it's the kind of miracle of modern politics. i'm going to totally a few stories from the book in each of these baskets. to begin with the state. the state in some sense is in my

view a big struggle against the family. human nature to do a couple things. there's a universal human nature. they're a couple of dialogue vocal natures, where we get this notion that before you had people clubbing each other over the head and a gnomic war of all against all. that was actually never true. human societies never went to die. here they were all social because they are born researcher touristic set allow them to cooperate. one of them is a principle called gems selection are inclusive biologist which means your altruistic to people in proportion of the number of genes to share with them. in other words, nepotism. you're going to favor relatives. the second principle is reciprocal all treason. you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours on a face-to-face basis. no human child growing up

anywhere has to be taught these mechanisms. these are inbuilt forms of sociability. there are default leads to relate to each other. friends and family. in the absence of a modern institution that forces you to hire somebody with qualifications rather than your cousin or brother and not, that's the way you're going to do it. that's the kind of politics that will insert itself. this is a rose in societies that were organized tribally, meaning people were the marsh king groups. spirit groups. they believe they're descended from a common ancestor that they are basically third and fourth and fifth cousins. how do you get from the state based on kinship is a form of social organization to one based on citizenship in which it's not a matter of who you related to come up in a city said that the state of finance for japan or whatever. that's why there is a constant struggle, against especially the biological urge to protect your children. had this happened?

in china, it unfortunately have been as a result of centuries on military conflict. charles tilly was famous for arguing in the case of europe at the state makes war and war makes the state. it's really military competition that drove people out of tribal societies into the more organized hierarchical unit. if you look at chinese history, that is exactly the story that unfolds. at the beginning of the western qin dynasty and conquer the shame peoples. they are split up into maybe three dozen tribal groups. in the spring and autumn. they fight about 1200 words with one another. in the warring states. they fight about 450 words. the number is reduced because so many states have been snuffed out in concord at this point, that they're in as many states to fight these wars.

finally, the process has seven surviving states in the warring states period and finally in the year 221 b.c., the state of chen manages to conquer all of its rivals and establishes the first unified chinese dynasty. as in europe, another 1800 years later, the process is driven by the needs of warfare. first, you are fighting with aristocrats commemorating chariots. they find it if you can strip presents increasing and the tree are lot better. you need to tax, need resources and that requires cadastral surveys. you create a bureaucracy in order to tax and you need an administrative hierarchy to run this whole machine. this is what the chinese do. they figure if you hire your cousin to be a general as one can develop these patronage appointments early on in the civil war, you're going to lose the war. so you need a different

principle. you need and personal merit-based principle of us is that the chinese did. they're the first to come up the civil service examination as a means of entry into the government. they did this in the third century b.c. unfortunately it didn't last. the great han dynasty that defends chinese visualization for centralized high-quality government. it falls apart in the third century a.d. for a number of reasons. and what happens is we patrimonial ice, meaning aristocratic families, people with wealth and power recapture the government. this continues through this week and pollen dynasties in this state they been established in the third century doesn't get put back in place until about 1100 or so in a northern song period. the struggle against the family goes on for a very long time. now the weirdest institution designed to create a powerful state and to beat back a family

is the system of military slavery that developed during the abbasid dynasty, the second big arab dynasty and was carried to its logical conclusion by the ottomans. what the ottomans did every three or four years is they would send out a group of people into the balkan provinces of the empire, like football fans they would look for young men between the ages of 12 and 18. they would forcibly taken from their families and raise them as slaves in the palace or in haiti or nay. but treatment not for life of degradation, but to be senior military officers and administrators. indeed the grand this year, who is the prime minister of the ottoman empire. now why did they create this strange institution? by the way, people recruited in this fashion were not allowed to marry in not allowed to have children. if the children, they were

either expelled from the janissary core and their children were never allowed to rise to positions of status. why did they do a? again, all because of the family. to know what you allow people in a weak position to have children, what do they want to do? they want to secure positions for their children. the ottomans understood a monument in the station has to be based on promoting people by merit and therefore if you allow them to have families, you would be able to do this. they created a one generation aristocracy. the whole ottoman system began to collapse the moment these entrenched groups took the opening cause by cnn and rising inflation and the 17th century to start to demand that their children be allowed to assume their positions. this is a general problem in france. overshooting france, before the french revolution, they faced

exactly the same problem. wealthy elites potentially could depose the king. so what did they do? what does the french monarchy do? they felt the office of tax collector were finance minister to wealthy individuals. this actually had an import and impact in breaking up the opposition to the centralization project of louis the 14th and these other great monarchs. you can come at this desire to turn public -- first of all, there is desire to publicize private office. you want to grab as much of the public sector as you can. in the early 1600s, and enter an institution came permissible for wealthy individuals have bought public offices to turn them over to their children as heritable properties so why does the château of multistate spinners and everything, you'd also get disoriented from sports another public office. so by the time of the

revolution, the entire french had been sold off to wealthy individuals. this constant struggle, you know, you can't create a modern state under these circumstances. one of the things the revolution did was divested these old elites of not just their property and offices, but their heads in a flood of cases. it took a violent revolution to eliminate assistant. now let's talk about the rule of law. this is a second really important basket of institutions. as i said, the root of our limitations. they are rules that limit the discretion of rulers to do as they want. where does this come from? in my view, historically it's come out of religion. if you think about it, which it is the only source of roles outside of politics, where rulers are limited by rules that they themselves don't need.

this is true in many civilizational conditions. it's true of ancient israel. it's true the christian tradition. it's true in the world of islam than is true in india under hinduism. and every one of these societies, you have irreligious lot that is made by religious authorities, interpretative by hierarchies of religious judges. the promise in the case of india. and all of these cases, the ruler has to go to religious authority to give sanctions. and india, you have to be sanctified by a prop man. there's a clear status distinction. it is the priest on top of the warrior in that society. so that is rule of law. that is what we mean by rules. the only world civilization that did not have rule of law and the censors china.

the reason they believe the chinese never have this was the club was they never had a say transcendental religion. they had ancestor worship, that is amazing that chinese guy to be so sophisticated with such a primitive religion. ancestor worship, you only have to worship your ancestors. there's really no authority that comes from it and it is completely controlled by the state. no chinese emperor has ever thought there is a higher source of law that they have to obey. that continues to the present day. the chinese communist party has a constitution, but they make the constitution. it doesn't really limit what they want to do. and the west, the rule of law develops early and powerfully. one of the heroes in my book, the classic modernization. like the reformation like the catholic church in a couple of historical respects. the church was extremely important. in the post here than jihad.

, in the early middle ages, bishops and priests could marry and have children. and guess what they did? they'll start to their benefices over the children. they are all wrapped up in the clan shenanigans of all the local princes and inability in germany. you have at one point in the late 11th century, the rise of a pope gregory the seventh u.s.a. titanic historical figure. he was very much like the luther who would come after him by a few centuries, who realized unless the church itself eliminated this biological principle of being able to have children, it would not have moral authority to become an independent institution. furthermore, all the bishops in the church were being appointed by the emperor. the church did not have control over his own personal policy

basically. so he declared the church is independent. they will point the bishops and other priests and bishops have to be celibate. they cannot marry and cannot have children. this comes as something of a surprise to both very priests. it's a huge struggle within the church and it's an even bigger struggle that the emperor because the emperor wants to keep his legitimating source of authority. they fight a two generation were, alloys of the pope versus allies of the emperor. at the yen, the church issues independence. at that point, they can establish a separate ecclesiastical law presided over by bishops and priests appointed only by the church. the first lawyers are ecclesiastical lawyers. legal specialists is really a creation that happens first in the church and then gets transferred to the secular realm

and also in the christian west divides church and state at the very early point. the legal authorities have legitimacy in a separate hierarchy that is complete independent of european rulers. this is extremely important for subsequent european development because any european beluga wants to be like a chinese emperor and do whatever he pleases has to contend with the fact there's a preexisting set of legal constraints that prevent him or her from doing that one. the final basket of institutions are institutions of accountability, a.k.a. democracy. you sometimes get the idea and this actually comes from tokyo that once the idea of equality gets out its unstoppable and. one of the things he relates many you look at the history of the rise of democracy is just how weird and in a way contingent its emergence was.

and it arose really because of the survival of a peculiar feudal institution into modern times, which is called the parliament. every european country in the mid in the middle ages had a body called an estate, a parliament, sovereign court. there is the cortez and russia, emc schoolbook. all of these were notables of gentry, high nobility, sometimes at the bourgeoisie and the king traditionally had the courage of these bodies to get permission to wage war and especially to collect taxes. in the late 16th and 17th centuries come and you had all these powerful monarchs i wanted to behave like a chinese emperor. they wanted to create a centralized, powerful, bureaucratic realm in which everything was uniformed. and they reached this long

struggle against these estates in every single country. only if one of them did the parliament or the states when the battle and that was england. in a sense, shows you how accidental history is. parliament didn't prevail in france and didn't prevail by the way because the french had sold off all of the offices to wealthy individuals. once you take care of me and my family, i'm fine with everything else. were not going to defend liberties. as tocqueville said, the french interpreted liberty has privilege, but it didn't happen in spain. it certainly didn't happen in russia, were desired basically recruited the entire mobility in tucson military organization. it did happen in england for a very peculiar reasons because parliament for a whole variety of reasons have a lot of solidarity. not only did they hang together,

they raised an army, friday february 15th. they defeated him, cut off his head. this is charles the first in the 1640s. in 1688 the deposed another came and brought an blame the points from holland to be their new monarch. because of the whole issue they did not want to be taxed without parliamentary consent. so it just happens in this one island nation, you get this powerful parliament that is able to force a constitutional settlement on the english monarch. from there to the american founding is a really short distance because john locke was a participant in the events of the glorious revolution. he wrote the second trade of government is unjust to is unjust to find was something that has to come up with can send in u.k. to the american revolution, based on the principle, no taxation without representation. so the difference from the english defense during the

single were in our own founding is a country based on democratic and is really not a font distance at all. it would not have happened if we had been colonized by spain and indeed in latin america it didn't happen on that timescale and didn't result in a powerful commercial empire the way england evolved except for the balancing of aeroflot accountable government and a strong state. so this is a miracle. this miracle happen. if you think about it, there is no necessity. no historical driving forces that dictated this would be the outcome. when singling out there, it is a powerful model and others wanted to imitate. the fact that after the first place for some historical accident. and china to stay been so powerful and an early stage of the history, they never allowed

free cities great bourgeoisie or opposing religious groups to appear and they don't do it to this day. they control the potential source of opposition to the regime. so let me just conclude with a couple of observations about how this is relevant. so let's begin with india and china. every business school for the last 10, 15 years has been to remember shane cory says, contrasting india and china. when china wants to build a three gorges dam to have to have 1.2 million people at the floodplain. they just do it. people kick and scream and there's a lot of unhappiness. but all the people are moved out. high-speed rail, beautiful airports in chinese cities, turnpikes, infrastructure because they have this very strong and relatively high-quality authoritarian government that does not

decrease back, the interest of citizens. in india, just to give you an example, the motor co. a couple years ago wanted to establish an assembly plant in west bengal. they get hit with lawsuits, peasants association, they go on strike protesting the citing of this planet. finally they say enough. we are not going to do it and they put the plant elsewhere. in india come me that the real problem with basic infrastructure because they are block of our democracy. they are checks and balances. the indian state can't do anything at us because it's involved in this fashion were a lot and accountability are actually much more important. a lot of people will say, this is the inheritance of british colonialism for something that happened in the last couple hundred years of the history of these countries.

i think having written this book, i now understand this is total nonsense. these reflect patterns of government are at least 2000 years old. since the unification of china in 221 b.c., the country falls apart in inter-dynastic years, that has always come together spent more time as a unified authoritarian government governed by a single authority that is in a state of disunity. india is almost a near upset. it's only been unified for two brief periods. under the more you can pay identity group is a few centuries later when the vocals are british invaded inside to india, none were able to extend their rule through the whole of the subcontinent. the fact that india is a democracy i don't believe has deep historical roots. the fact that is not a chinese style dictatorship is absolutely

not accidental. nobody in indian history has ever been able to really big d. in that kind of authoritarian fashion because indian society is way to test. it's organized into kasson village associations and powerful religious groups all of which resisted to dominate. the final thing i mentioned that the eurocentric accounts of modernization don't understand how peculiar european modernization is. it's important to remember when we modernize through a country in the third world today. how is european development peculiar? first of all, the exit from kinship was again not done by a state, by a powerful state that demanded people have allegiance to it. it was done by the catholic

church. the church of the roman empire set rules of inheritance. the first eight concubines, forbade divorce and forbade marriage up to five degrees of relatedness of cousins. all of these are a means of cutting off the ability of claims, a tribal groups to keep property within the clan. they also supported the right of women to hold and alienate property at this very, very early stage in the middle ages. they did this for self-interested reasons. they wanted to break the economic power of the tribal groups and it worked beautifully. it turns out widows and spinsters in this area ended up with all the money in the family. when they died without children, guess who inherited? churches holdings in france go up by 20%, 30% in the first part

of the century as a result of changes in the rules. it means that individualism started in europe is a much, much earlier point. that wasn't the industrial revolution the reformation. within two or three generations of their conversion to christianity, all the barbarian tribes were already no longer living in this tribal associations. inning win, it gets carried to this extreme, where thierry parent who is improvident enough to turn over your fortune to your son before he died without having signed it made this contract come you could be in big trouble because the kid could say well, sorry dad. i got my own business to worry about and i'll try to take care of you, but it's not a priority. an english families, already in the 1300, you are having family

signed contracts with each other because you could not rely on children to take care of their children in old age. already that presumes a huge amount of individualism that were not bound by what ernest gelder returned as within that big conglomeration of relatives. for much more individualistic early on. finally, sequence and development of europe goes like this. it goes first with her for comment and you construct a powerful centralized state and only later do you get democratic accountability. what comes before the state building. the early modern european monarchs that want to create chinese style states had to do this against the background of existing was that limit their ability to exercise power. the final anecdote is my favorite historical character recounted in this book is the evil empress wu.

the evil empress wu was the only woman who established a dynasty in their own name as ruling through her son or has been. she came early in the sixth century. she was originally concubines of the second emperor. she got into his grace is an displeased the existing empress by having her own daughter as an audience at the empress and then was smothered. the emperor carbureted her and made babaloo the new empress. she actually killed a couple of her own sons and her rise to power and she managed to kill off a great part of the tom mobility listed in the way of her rise to power. you know, it didn't do much for women's empowerment unfortunately in china.

it is actually a plaque somewhere in the forbidden city that warns against women in politics after the experience of the evil empress wu. you contrast that to a couple stories from europe. what a couple of revolts. in the 1520s, there's a thing called the commune near epic commie narrowcast habsburg emperor, charles the fifth. they fight a civil war in essence for a few years and the emperor one, defeated his enemies. there is a civil war called the phone in france 130 years later under louis the 14th. they fought a very bloody civil war and the king defeated his aristocratic foes. and both of those cases, it's remarkable that charles the fifth and louis the 14th basically pardoned their noble opponents and go back to their states and live happily ever after. if this had been china, the emperor would've killed the opponents and told us as we

lineage of those opponents to make sure the rope of dissent was awoken. i think the early presidents really did make a difference in terms of the kind of authoritarian government, that you could create until these horrible governments, totalitarian governments of the 20th century as a result of modernization come you undermined the authority of the traditional forms of law. so this is that the. well, it's not that the beard is a small part of the book. but i guess what i have learned in the 20 years since the end of history is full process by which forget to modern liberal democracy, which is the only realistic alternative for modern society is based on an awful lot of accidents and in a sense, pathetic. it means if we try to create similar institutions in other

societies that haven't had similar experiences, it's a hard process. thank you very much. [applause] >> what a rich presentation. maybe nominally a political scientist with lots of historic sensibility. one of the things you want to know is that francis fukuyama has been in public service. he's been one of those who has tried to let government have a longer range outlook and governments have a serving on on the state department policy planning twice and as the deputy under dennis ross. as you know, there has been a distinguished group of people who have served as head of the state department planning staff. george cannon, sam lewis,

winston lord, robert urie, dennis ross, people have a passion for public service as does francis fukuyama. so let's begin with the questions. >> that was a wonderful overview. and maybe this question is too specific and not general enough. but you began by saying, how do we get to beat denmark? there's now a divide opening between england and i was in their vision of the state involves a lot more state responsibility to take care of retirement, to organize health. and we seem to be going in exactly the other direction. is there something in your theory to kind of speaks to that? >> you have to wait for volume two for that one. [laughter] is a very good question. it is a volume to kind of issue.

most of what i know about the subject i learned from seymour burton mixed income of the great sociologists and political scientists wrote an excellent book called american exceptionalism, which is a book about why the united states is so peculiar when you compared to other developed countries. one of the important ways it is different is we don't trust government. in europe, people say the government as an embodiment of the public interest to continue the path to an respect because it represents a public interest. the united states has been regarded as an in potentially oppressive. they are good that it come out of the american revolution. it was a revolts against overweening monarchical power. and that is in no way stuck with us. and then i think the other issue is that since america was the

land of new settlement for europeans, obviously not indigenous people have into that here, but for the new settlers, but i was pretty much greater degree soso mobility. at least if you did make it come your children, grandchildren could race and economic status. i think reinforces the american view that if you are poor, it is because you have not worked hard enough. if you're rich, it's because you're industrious and thrifty and there's enough truth that i think it reinforces american kind of unwillingness to have the state put you ahead. it ought to be individuals doing this on their own. >> i have a question since our state department is very talked about democratization is a process. there's one element to have it right up and that the issue of

technology and the spread of information. i suspect i will be in your second volume. to wonder if you could speak to that briefly because it seems we may be at the end of history moment, where information technology has radically changed a lot of the underlying theories of some of these arguments taking. >> i think there's been this important change for social media, for example. it played a very big growth in the arab spring. it's very good at mobilizing people and social mobilization is really critical for producing democratic change. what is not clear to me is whether it is as good in producing institutions down the road as it is in this kind of short-term mobilization. if you look at tunisia were egypt right now, what they desperately need is not for social mobilization. they need political parties,

vigorous, free media, all of these institutions that make civil society powerful and able to stand up and demand things that the government. technology can help with that. i think that it is not kind of the panacea that some people see it as being. >> i'm referring to is more in the sense of transcending the other inherent problems that the information can overcome some of these things. i was worried the nature of my point. thank you. >> okay. >> well, for the second volume, you might want to check some other authorities than marty lipstick. since the end of the second world war, the rates of intergenerational social mobility in person western europe have been demonstrably higher than ours, presumably because of the welfare state and educational investment.

>> lipstick did not assert -- at a was higher. he leaped it was higher. >> yes. at the question, which represents a professional professorial definition. you think a big terms. they're one of the social scientists who do. every campus has one for better or worse. some have two, three, four. and yet, the city is full of tens of thousands of university graduates, highly educated the federal democracy, petraeus is extremely proud of his princeton phd. and yet, if you look at the results in terms of policy derivatives of what we think they might have learned in our universities, the result aren't far from sublime.

what's your comment? [laughter] >> well, as a professional educator, i don't want to denigrate the impact of university education. i tied at sites a decade and i think some of my students are here. did you learn anything? [laughter] okay, so see. however, let me make this comment. i actually think that the direction that a lot of the social scientists have been the last 20 years has not been helpful because it's basically been taken over by economics. and so actually, one of my agenda is in this book full of history is to remind people that they can't understand the way the contemporary world is unless they know more history. you can't do things they game theoretic models and regressions alone.

one of the reasons contemporary american political science has not been terribly useful to policymakers is because it's now moved into the abstract realm, where people don't know about real places and therefore they can't tell you, what do you do in pashtun is stand when you are confronting these tribes because nobody has bothered to learn the languages are spent time in the villages and figure out what's going on there. so i will grant that win. my students spend time in these villages and their big exceptions to this general rule. >> my students document my harvard college. the list is like henry kissinger were simply awful. so, congratulations. [laughter] [inaudible]

>> high, and the end of history in the last man, you argued that liberal democracy represents the endpoint of history, h. history, which is to say that my previous stages of history does not contain within itself and does not have this internal contradictions that it destroyed all others. in the first chapter of your new book, you touch on some disturbing themes in our culture, notion amongst a lot of people get the government is simply bad and not needed. stratification of wealth, rights of corporations. in the 20 years since he published the end of history, have you had reason to doubt that we are in fact at the end of history? or do you think that we may be

seeing the destruction of what we thought was the end of history to spot something new? >> well, there's a couple of different parts and so i think it a lot in the last 20 years. i haven't sat still. one of the important games in the current book is when i pick up from huntington's, which is the possibility of political decay. one think you see very clearly as you create institutions for one set of purposes and then people and pass them but they kind of intrinsic worth, either through religious sanctification or historical tradition or whatever and the circumstances change and institutions need to be changed and they become dysfunctional. i would say we've got a path than in the united states because we faced certain long-term challenges and fiscal sustainability of where we are and so forth. our political system is so check

and balance and so polarized committee underlined political culture is so polarized we can make these basic decisions. if indeed we cannot solve these problems, there's no reason to think our particular american democracy is going to do all that well and it could certainly decay over time. now that is a slightly different question from the one i raised in the end of history, which is okay, in theory can you think of a better political system that would solve these problems? the one that's out there is this authoritarian capitalist china. for a number of reasons, they think they are on a roll right now, but i don't actually believe that this doesn't is sustainable over a long period of time, compared to a system like ours that has checks and balances. largely because i don't think the chinese have ever solved this problem that they themselves called the bad

emperor problem, which is to say if you have an authoritarian system without checks and balances and you have a good emperor, you are sitting pretty. you can make quick decisions, much faster than a democracy that has to get consensus and agreement and so forth, interest groups and that sort of thing. if you have a bad emperor, you're really big trouble because there's no way of getting rid of that person. evil empress wu or the first chance that bird was a maniacal guy who buried 400 confucian scholars in an open pit because he didn't like what they're saying about him, and the last bad emperor that the chinese would knowledge. you don't get that in a democratic system because we do have checks and balances. in that respect, i still vote their system down the road for obl ts cur .. the >> thank you very much.

>> due dated the importance of the law in the church to the eighth century. >> no, that is the end of the family. the investor crisis at a 10th century -- the 11th century rather. >> that she is the question because i was wondering because we've always been told that charlemagne saved civilization. if they are to have the foundation of the laws in the eighth century, he would have been inherited. he did not have that. >> i misunderstood you. >> congratulations on the book and your success. i wanted to ask if someone believes that made very correct predictions a year before, end of communism in eastern europe and even the end of history, my belief is canada phone. the two persons before me pretty much asked the question, but i want to emphasize why.

obviously we don't want war, to chaos. we cannot have democracy and free markets in the arab world and iran in china at the same time. is this a 10 you would recommend to policymakers right now. should we be not afraid to free markets to prevail, obviously without chaos, without wars? >> absolutely. i believe historically we have regarded it as part of its national identity virtually to be not just -- we happen to be democratic in north america. we are kind of a model to other people. we believe this is based in universal human rights and rules of justice. and we have promoted democracy all over the place. my objection during the iraq war as we should do it militarily. but not to be based on people in

the societies that what democracy. there's plenty of ways we can level up the playing field when they are facing very repressive authoritarian regimes. so that means is different. and also, i have never believed that american democracy per se with a model for democracy as such. and anyways, the european union represents a more accurate version of what the end of history would look like because they want to transcend power politics and replace power by rules and so forth. >> thank you, dr. fukuyama. how does india's policy and kashmir fit in with its democracy? 75,000 deaths unaccounted for in the past few decades. >> i'm not going to act as a spokesman for the end of government. i doubt on whether doing this and kashmir. democracies do a lot of things.

you look at american foreign policy is the remake a lot of mistakes in the world as well. the other thing is just because a country is a democracy, doesn't mean it puts the promotion of democratic values first and foremost in all aspects of his policy. we support saudi arabia because they got oil, not because they're a democracy. this wife. so you know, it's interesting actually that a lot of newer democracies like india, turkey, pisgah are all so different from the united states because they actually don't regard projection of democratic values around the world with the same imperative that americans do. it's interesting why that's the case. >> they're going to take everyone who is the mind's questions and then we'll have to come to an end. everyone in blankets to ask ask a question.

>> this is a volume three question. given the supranational organizations, u.n., world trade organization, the world core and a whole bunch of regional organizations, can i coax you into commenting on the prospects of a world state? >> sure. i think the prospect is zero. [laughter] no, i mean, i just think if you look at -- if you look at a political system, it has to be based on some minimal degree of consensus about basic rules of justice, values and so forth. and in a big diverse democracy like the united states, we are having a lot of trouble with that. ..

context but you start talking about the diversity of levels of development and the cultures and everything else that exist in the world, think it is not a reasonable prospect. this is something i actually wrote about in my last book and what i do think you can hope for is a much denser personalization that overlaps and some are original and some are functional and they provide global governance, but not hear a single world government. >> this question may sound a little eurocentric and i apologize, but i think at thei end of the middle ages with the treaty of westphalia we startedy establishing between nationstates in agreement that the sovereignty of the nation-state was the number one sort of legal issue in relation

between states and i think you t in the post-world war two order that the idea of the responsibility to protect often trumps the right to sovereignty for the state which seems to be excellent reading in the post cold war order especially with russia justifying georgia by the sword of normative example of the west intervening in kosovo do you think we are moving into a post system in the western states? >> i don't think we were ever that deeply into the system. the 19th century may have had that just in europe you think about 20th century we have all these marxist running around trying to undermine other states in the name of the communist revolution we have the united states trying to do the same thing except in an anti-communist direction anyone suspected sovereignty terribly well and i don't, you know, as an ethical matter, i think that

there is an important argument you can make that if you believe in the system that produces a certain moderation in the international relations because it means you are not going to try to get involved in the control politics of your neighbors and then destabilize them in this sort of thing but unfortunately i don't think we live in that kind of willed. globalization means ideas, people travelling across borders of time and this idea that we can see all countries of and say we are not touching them i don't think is realistic. >> thank you. >> i took your class back in 1999. so i8 read the book i think i wrote him an e-mail but he didn't get back to me. [laughter] i wrote the book as is my what and essay that you wrote about

hypocrisy added to this but as a sort of grand reputation, very historical the referenced reputation of the libertarian ideology to what was the continued emphasis on how institutional the decay live and die on their ability to tax interestingly that is light one of putin's bigot renovations. ischemic and their ability to tax legitimately. >> legitimately, yes, as opposed to the current system that we have right now. so i was wondering about that and then also generally since you no longer live in d.c. has that changed your opinion about things? [laughter] >> well it's made me much more comfortable in the summer. [laughter] the issue of taxation is really important because it is a

hallmark of a serious government is able to legitimately tax and the people willing to pay taxes in order to support the public services and so i think one of the unfortunate elements roane into our ideological mix as a result of reganism is that all taxation is legitimate that never under any circumstances you raise taxes because i don't think you're going to have a serious country if that is your starting assumption. so you're right i am not a libertarian. and i will talk to you but i've been busy. [laughter] you described the tribal society as a precursor to the state. what relevance does that bear to

a country like libya where the tribes are still tremendously important? >> it turns out that we discover the charges made that there are still many societies in the middle east that are organized tribally. when we stumbled into anbar province, we simply didn't realize you have to go to the sheik and get him to agree on behalf of the tribe rather than try to organize elections and all this stuff that americans want to do. and i think that one of the big, you know, tunisia and egypt have had national identities and much more modern political systems than what say yemen or libya or jordan in which the tribalism is still extremely strong and one of the things we simply do not know about libya is the degree to which the current conflict, you know, represents a democracy

or whether it is a fight between cut off the's tried and another coming and that is one of the big dangers. i still think we have to do it because i think if you've been able to crush it would have been terrible. but that being said, we just don't know a lot about that society and which actually organized. >> to my friend jonathan, he actually had his hand up. >> please come to the microphone because this is on c-span. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i don't have trouble with the authority. [laughter] >> i understand in agreement with much of what you say about that but what you haven't diluted to and i offer another generalization you have to venture into is how does the

phenomenon of the war and interstate war in particular effect of the evolution of the systems as you see? >> it drives state building was it doesn't cease to drive it after you get a state it continues like you look at this city there is a big five cited next to the river where does that come from? where does the growth of the big federal government before the civil war the population of the city was i don't know something like 50,000 people and then after the civil war its several hundred thousand and after that it drove the increases in the need for the civilian bureaucracy is of the various sorts, so i think that is a process of reform can only be brought about by military threat and competition because people are kind of muleheaded and a lot

of times they are stuck in certain ways and unless they are really hit on the hit by the to buy for meaning by the threat of the real military danger they are just not going to do the things that are necessary.

>> his name is synonymous with cynical scheming in in the selfless pursuit of power. sunday night other miles unger argues that machiavelli's theories may have been in response to the corruption around him at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> search for your favorite author and every program we have aired at otb.org. tune in every weekend for booktv, with 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. our web site has the entire schedule. >> in his book, "sex on the moon" ben mezrich tells the true story of nasa's moon rocks. he recently talked about his book with texas monthly deputy editor brian sweany at the dallas museum of art. this is just under an hour. >> thank you.

thank you. is a great to be here for latee night at the dma?uou for j it is wonderful.p [applause] so thank you for joining us for this and certainly all of thee other programs.nv i toer say this is my third opportunity to host one of thesd conversations at it's been able t to bring to dallas also the fact i always walk out and see a roomful of people who love reading and writing as much as i do in that community that we share when we are able to talk to authors and talk about the work and enjoy that. i've always said the dallas museum of art is a special place since i grew up here and took my first trip to the museum here when i was a student at williams high school so i had the chance to come back and participate in a program like this is very special and it's also a special to have somebody like ben mezrich suretype. i was talking to one of my friends today and told them what i was doing this evening and she's like that's the one that gets the great stories i would like to write and i think that's true he's now the author of 12 books but he says no one read

the first six which i don't believe that you know him i'm sure for the book bringing down the house which was made into a movie with kevin spc called 21. i'm sure you know him from the accidental billionaires' which was made into a little movie called the social network and now i know we will all be talking about this book called speed," which is so fantastic not the least of which it centered in texas and role of the places featured in the book from the johnson space center to the enchanted rock to a night on the coast in galveston i think will be familiar to many of you. so, please welcome to dallas and welcome to the stage ben mezrich. [applause] >> am i wrong when i heard the title of the book was "sex on the moon i thought of as a drink the college kids had? [laughter]

office and at my wife actually came up with the title so i was in the dirty mind behind the title of the main character did have to do the to spread moon rocks on his bed and had sex with a goal on the moon. i'm afraid it's getting caught in this band filters. [laughter] but yeah. >> when i was reading it i kept thinking of the title where does it come from an sec you get a moment later in the book becomes very evident as to why the book is called that. very quick because i'm guessing that many people haven't had the chance to read it because this is one of those delicate things you don't want to give away what happens. >> go ahead and let's just say tell us about that and what he does. you said he is the most complex individual that you have written about in any of your books. take that, mark zuckerburg.

laughter could tell about him and what really attracted you to tell his story. >> thad roberts came from a hardback ground, fundamentally mormon family. he was kicked out of his house when he was 18 for admitting to premarital sex. and then he decided he wanted to be an astronaut and he changed his life and kind of became james bond and he majored in she physics and geology in utah and learn how to fly airplanes and scuba dive and he spoke what i said five languages and then he got into the johnson space center in mccullough's program for college kids but it's a feeder to the programs and he was achieving the dreamed. he was a big star and she became the social leader of the co-ops and interns and then he fell in love in the young intern and then we all done something stupid out of love or what thad roberts did is he stole 600 pounds a full moon rocks from his professor's office and

spread them on a bed, had sex with a school friend and tried to sell them over the internet to a belgium jim dealers design was axel emmerson and we couldn't have invented this guy. she's never been out in his life comegys collects rocks and trees and every monday night in this huge center where all of the guys treat rocks, his hobby is popinjay which i've never heard of which there is a bird on a 100-foot pole and all these men stand on the air around it and shoot with crossbows. i've never heard of this she is this guy in sees the senate on the internet i have moon rocks for sale and he is a big believer in right and wrong so he immediately called the fbi, he mailed the fbi in tampa and became a big operation and thad roberts was taken down. i always give it away but you know he got arrested. [laughter]

>> you obviously have come off enormous with not only the book but the fact they then are converted to movies which obviously help in terms of that notoriety. >> they always change the titles and it's annoying. so "sex on the moon" is the one they have to keep. >> you're locked in on that one. >> and you said you were working on this at the time that the social network was being done so there was some kind of overlap but at that point i've always thought actors and actresses are only as good as the roles they choose, writers only as good as the stories defect. all of that that you explained notwithstanding all of the story is that he could have told what was it that attracted you to this particular? >> for me the stories come to me. i don't look for them and if anymore ever since bringing down the house and get 20 or 30 e-mails or phone calls a week just every college student does something crazy will call me, and i've always wanted to write

about nasa but when you think of speed of you think of the 60's, tom hanks and a silver castle and this let me get inside of nasa today to read some of the blue contact me just out of present and it was weird because i never met someone who spent almost a decade in prison before so he arranged to meet in a crowded hotel lobby. [laughter] but he was the nicest most charismatic and good looking smart guy who did something stupid. >> the nicest fellow that he had ever met. >> i was amazed no one had written about the story. there had been one article in the l.a. times median texas there had been more stuff i've not seen anything about this, and i just couldn't believe it and so the first thing i did is i filed information with the fbi to get the fbi file which is thousands of pages. i even got when the fbi agents took him down they were leaving wires and lagat the transcript of everything set on the wires

and the first thing that he says when he walks into the restaurant is if you are wearing a lawyer i unscrewed. [laughter] spearman there's one section in the book - discreet, too whether it's that correspondence between thad who is going by the name of or in robinson. >> it's like a play on words because he was a geologist it turns out. >> which i didn't know. but you are reprinting their e-mails and those are in fact. actually nasa gave him as a gift for solving the moonrock caper to name an asteroid after him so there is an asteroid floating around the sun somewhere. but it's reprinted directly and a lot of the dialogue is actually street from the transcript and everything. i do get attacked a lot in the

press for my style which is a very kind of dramatic cinematically of telling the story but the reality is that everything in here is from the files. >> you brought that up and so that is something i want to visit with you about. certainly that can now a lot in bringing down the house, so i wonder if you can talk about that technique that you employee as a writer. >> my controversial -- demint your controversial technique. estimate exactly. >> , you imply that and why, "the new york times" came out yesterday she did you. >> she hates me. [laughter] but that's part of it. that was the source hangover from that and so tell me -- >> it's been like this my entire career. in a cinematic interim this is the kind of stuff i like to read it is a form of new journalism i guess i get all the information i interviewed just about everybody and thousands of pages of court documents and all the fpi stuff and then i sit down

and i tell the story in a visual way and there are going to be journalists who do not like. certainly janet was of one of those but i don't miss surly right for janet, i write for me and the people who like this kind of book and the realities of a true story as true as any other thing on the nonfiction list. uzi a biography of cleopatra come on, nobody knows anything about cleopatra and you see a biography of abraham lincoln and obama's biography has invented characters. it's a process, you know, you have to take the facts and then write in a certain way. i choose to write in a very cinematically. so for instance i will interview thad roberts, i will interview the other kid for was there, this guy gordon whose leader in the book. so i know there was a conversation that took place years ago between these people but i don't know the exact word.

one journalism talked about moon rocks but that is a very boring and week way of telling the scene and i know what they did with the moon rocks, so i describe what they did with the moon rocks and there are some journalists who love it and some who don't, and it will be a controversy for ever in terms of certain journalists will never like it with the social network and accidental billionaires', mark zuckerburg came out and said it's not true and then he called me the jackie collins of silicon valley. he never went about anything that wasn't true he never said this isn't true she just said the holding isn't true. so i think the reality is it is a very true story. he meant to have sex on moon rocks because he wanted to be like having sex on the moon he spread them on a bed and had sex in the moon.

he said he just put them under the mattress that's actually not true she did this on purpose and so, i use the facts but i tell it in my style and, you know, some people like it and some people don't. >> so you're saying some journalists might not like it. what you think of yourself or you a journalist or -- >> i never saw myself as a journalist i always saw myself in the entertainment business, and i only stumbled into the true stories. i heeded nonfiction, i grew up watching really bad television, and i was a fan of pop culture and movies and then i met these mit kids in the bar hanging out in the bar in boston called crossroads which it's like an mit dhaka av triet [applause] i like to hear that. it's like if you can imagine an mit dive bar it's a bunch of geeky guys -- sorry. [laughter] ibm geeky, too. but the cattle this money and it

was an hundred dollar bills and in boston university hundred dollar bills. i don't know what it's like in dallas using them. >> thousands. [laughter] >> leal comer it? in boston university them because it is all college kids and i couldn't figure out why so i went over to his house and in his laundry was $250,000 in the stacks of 100 scum and i thought she was a drug dealer but he wasn't a drug dealer and the next day we flew to vegas and i ended up joining the team and then i said i want to write the story and so that was my first restore the so i kind of fell into nonfiction but i wrote like a thriller because that's what i had been writing so it wasn't like i'm just going to sit down and write non-fiction in this way. it's just i was writing fiction and then i ran into a true story and that's been the we accidental billionaires', same thing. sitting at home and i get an e-mail to the point in the morning and it is a harvard senior actually from houston and he said my best friend cofounder facebook and no one has ever heard of him and then in a box

eduardo etds three yes, mark zuckerburg siggerud him and he wanted to tell his story and suddenly i was in another true story. so it is this weird kind of stumbling my way through nonfiction treat stomach there's been any merchant experience for you in terms of bringing down the house your part of that culture and that is what brought you -- >> i think that most -- i want to stay with us for a minute because it's interesting in terms of what the readers expect in the book as to how is marketed and how it is built, i think that we all have that kind of classic notion of the willing suspension of disbelief so you're point of cleopatra is well taken but it's true in bringing it on the house there were large sections, not large sections but there were scenes created to help move the story along, right? >> i disagree. there was definitely claims by people who were not on the mit black jack team who said the

scenes didn't happen but the reality is that it played pretty close to what really happened. there is a scene i think the big scene people talked about is when they use the strippers to change in the chips and i was told that by two members of the mit black jack team that were there so maybe you can discount the story. i definitely interviewed a few strippers and you can probably discount -- [laughter] their story is also with the reality is you can only go so far in terms of how many interviews you do and whether or not you believe it happened. all journalists make choices, so it is a dispute with accidental billionaires' is heavily vetted. you know, aaron sorkin writing the screenplay on the social network there were lawyers and everyone involved in making a movie like that, so you know, it's pretty accurate i would say the social network is very close to at least with the legal guys believe happened. then the others you couldn't invent? 65 olympic twin rowers to read

when i first met them i walked into a hotel room and i don't know if it was tyler or cameron, you can't tell, and tyler is like you look it up and think we must be the bad guys of this torian adc we would be addressed as skeletons chasing the karate kid and i put that in the movie and it ended up and ralph called as the original crotty kid and was like i love that line so that was cool. [laughter] but anyway, there's a lot of different choices and different opinions of what happened. >> right. well, we touched on a couple of things i want to make sure to talk about to read one, you talked to the cinematic quality of your wedding and level to hold off on that because i think the audience would be interested to know the sort of jump that you've made from sitting at your desk by yourself pounding of these books and in the translation to the biggest screen because that is an experience in its own. let me hold on that and say that one of the things we have seen particularly in the last three

books is that you are sort of drawn to a particular type of character it seems to me, young and smart and pushing the envelope of what ever is that they are doing. is that a fair characterization? >> yanna, geeky, that isn't by choice that is just who calls me. >> what is it about that a world that appears to you? >> i live vicariously through them. i was a geeky guy, still pretty much in common and the idea you could go from that to rock star or marked zuckerberg sitting alone in a room suddenly billionaire or the high life in vegas. even thad roberts is the guy that went from nothing to almost being an astronaut to than stealing a case of moon rocks. it is a vicarious thrill. >> it's interesting because i think you make the point that one as a result of his upbringing in the number two, coming to houston and not knowing anybody he was determined to reinvent himself. he wanted to be the guy people recognized as the social leader

and the person coming up with all of these not pranks but who could get into the simulator and push abound. >> that does drive the narrative in building up to that climaxed. this is a kid that need people to love him. he said i need people to love me. there's no better need than that. he didn't have that a growing that and that's what he did. yeah i think there is that transformation is what i like to write about. >> you're saying that he met with eduardo event of a of winklevoss twins. thad is your main source. how's that different and were their moments even his story began to see to fantastic were you able to check certain things he had said because there are

some moments and hear that kind of stretch the bounds. how do you go about vetting whether or not he's telling you is correct or if he is just spinning a tale? >> with mark zuckerberg i spent a year trying to talk to him and he refused. he was talking to eduardo and it was his right to say no but i spent a year and he was very nice but then in the end, no, no, no. thad wanted to tell his stories and i got hundreds of hours of him on tape telling it, and in the beginning he wasn't telling the truth. and it was a matter of once i have all the fbi files i could confront him and say that is not actually happened according to the fbi. and according to the clerk transcripts and the other people who were there and then he would back off and wait and say okay it happened so there is that aspect of it and i guess if i may journalist that is the main form of my journalism is seeing where people are lying to me. but in the and he was open and

honesty and fisa here's the deal especially with my book there will be picked apart by people like janet so you need to tell the truth. so he did. in the end he did and he was very open and honest with me and you know there is that thing where i did start to like camelot and as a writer that's where things get tricky because of some of these extremely likable what he did is pretty bad. i mean, my dad who is an engineer, scientist read the book and said i hate this guy. this guy stole our national treasure, minute gave their lives to get moon rocks and he stole let for petty reasons, right? and there is that and when you look at it objectively, yeah that the same time he's tearing up and he scored his life because he thought it would be cool and it's hard not to feel bad for him and of start to like him and i tell you anybody that met thad roberts would love him

he is a very lovable guy. who just did a bad thing. and so for the author that may be my main problem close to the subject because i want to be a part of it. so, yes i guess there is that. but yeah. >> ig does come across very sympathetic. and i think that you, you know where this is headed but as he is coming from these other things establishing himself at nasa uzi that he's talented and working hard and trying to improve himself i think that there is a question as you sit in the interviews with cbs in the sunday morning program that he doesn't know why he did what he did what he looks back on it and so that is a puzzling aspect of it but i do think that you do get the sense that part of a, the personality that made him great in those things also led him to the real and kind of good on the other path. islamic absolutely. this was the kid who could do anything and then decided to do

this, so -- >> you talk about writing in a cinematic way that you refer to that a couple of times already in the conversation. so, tell me when you are sitting down to write these books are you already thinking of what may happen in the movie? is that -- you are already -- >> 100%. it started in my first book threshold. i've always been a cinematic writer and then with bringing down the house when and actually became a movie suddenly i had a kevin spacey became my first reader so is writing books and he was one of the first to read it. and now mike who is like a god in this industry so i do know when i sit down this could be a movie and i'm picturing, not picture and justin timberlake running around nasa but i am picturing a very visual not on the he would be great which he would, i'm picturing a very visual setting the true to him that way because i feel that there is a synergy now because

books become movies more and more frequently i feel devotees i've been fortunate in that respect. so in this one we spoke to the same people in the social network said the same producers and kevin spacey and ruden and sorkin, sorry, daluca so yes i do think that we but movies are much more fun, right? for me when i sit down in my cold dark room in boston for three months of solid loneliness you have to be to string a big screen in your head. >> would you rather be reading a book or watching a movie? >> i love reading books and, you know, i am sad in a way that i like the kindle and that it is a great device because books are so wonderful and i read all the time and i watched a lot of tv and a lot of movies and i kind of consume all forms of entertainment but the books are great. i grew up and i wish that they could last forever.

>> the hollywood aspect has been very good to you. i think that he has said did you went to the golden globes as kevin spc's plus one. >> it was a weird experience because normally someone like me wouldn't be sitting anywhere near actual celebrities because i write books in the hollywood that means here. my table was kevin and nicole kidman and chief urban and mcginn fox and brian austin green and scarlett johansson and then right behind me was bruce willis, and it was crazy. i had to go to the bathroom and you only get free minute breaks. so i run right into brad pitt and angelina jolie and you were just like quote you are really good-looking. [laughter] and get to the bathroom. but it was a wild experience. i see myself as a guy from boston. i always kind of just wandering

around the corner of these things and it was just a wide experience. >> tell a little bit about how involved you are in the production and the actual creative process behind the film. actually do the, obviously aaron sorkin -- >> when you get a guy like sorkin -- >> i've had in the writers that i've talked with over the years or that i know that have had books made into films there is one school of thought that it's mine and mine alone and i'm going to protect it and john grisham is famous for saying once it goes i could care less it's not mine anymore. tell about your creative involvement and help your creative involvement will be a net "sex on the moon." >> for me i'm mostly involved in when the screen plays are written. erin came to boston and we sat in the hotel room and i wasn't finished yet it was a strange situation so i was literally handing him checks writing the screenplay so that was a really cool thing and then once they are onset, the director is god, she runs the place.

god, god, and just us that really runs and you are just there. my involvement is, you know, i am very and if they have any questions you have no control. once you sell the book they ask things and you do have input and with a story like this, you know, it is kind of like what john grisham says once you select it is theirs. it's your book. it's their movie and it's hard to say that, but at the same time i've been very lucky. i love 21, thought 21 was a fun movie and i love the social network. so so far it's been great. i mean, you know, you never know what's going to happen. >> would you ever just write a screenplay? >> i have done a couple of screenplays. i did a draft of one of my early books of the americans which hasn't gotten made yet but it's a different format and for me the books are my main bread-and-butter but sooner or later it's like they have to

want me to. i spend a lot of time as a struggling writer so now i don't want to be and go through that again, but its -- the truth is they don't necessarily want you to adapt your own work for whatever reason it's not normally the first thing they go to so we will see. >> who should play thad? >> i get asked that a lot and that will be up to the director and producer, but it's got to be a good looking guy that can be both athletic and like a mountain climber and a geek so it's kind of challenging and that you can -- >> i've heard names like shia laboufe, there's definitely a lot of younger guys that could pull it off. i do get is a real juicy role for a guy. >> let's talk about the other aspect of the book business which i think is interesting to folks is you are now on a whirlwind kind of promotional

tour, 5 a.m. flight in the city and multiple interviews how does that square again with a writer that we always think of as being in the rest of the world as seriously trying to get that last chapter light and to be dropped in the world is the sort of media push? >> it's a culture shock because you spend half of your year walked in the room and the other half talking to people. i like it like the entertainment aspect but it's weird suddenly having schedules because normally you don't care what time it is you just write and get put into the project is and have control over your life and then you have no control over your life but it's also a wonderful and i will say the tour has changed dramatically. this is amazing. the first book tour the first stop was tunnell retial which is a radio station that only errors in the italian tunnell in boston it's literally in a am station in 100 yards of the tunnel and was a traffic station that someone got the idea of putting authors on so no one wants to

hear you, right, because they are trying to get the traffic report, and then my second stop was in need of massachusetts it was a public access television station and i'd written a book called threshold. as a medical thriller and somewhere in the book i mentioned in the future and there may not be dwarfs because we will be able to genetically choose our children. it was a little sentence in the book and i never thought of it and i show that the public station and others to chairs like this and in one is a dwarf. [laughter] and it was my second publicities top of my life and i sit down and i start to think wait a minute, this isn't good. [laughter] and it was a debate there shouldn't be dwarfs. then he said union people won't want to choose dwarfs. [laughter] but there was no budget and after the interview in did we go outside and the dwarf had to

give me a ride home. so i don't know, it was a strange day. >> you're next book the lead character was in fact. >> i'm a big fan. i watched a game of phones. i think he's awesome. >> speaking of projects, you said you don't have -- you don't have your next one lined up right now obviously you were going to enjoy this and continue with the media push. how will you begin to decide. you are getting all of these e-mails and wanting to tell the story but what will you be looking for for that next project? >> i looked through all of these ideas and they come and 90% of them are really bad. it's like every person who commits a crime, but you know, i need that sort of young kid, really smart is not a bad person

was kind in the grey area of right and wrong. this is the first highest ever and a person to commit the crime, and then the there has to be all those elements of the trail and the sex and all those kind of things that janet doesn't like and then there has to be a little fun for me in a place i want to go because you have to spend six months to a year doing it so for me going to vegas, also but i wouldn't go somewhere horrible so there's that kind. >> for the next project you're going to be looking for that sort of type of character and story. >> would be cool if prince harry because i don't want william. harry has a story, you know he has a story so that is what i'm looking for. >> what are you reading, what are you doing when you're not

working on the book as you say just all the time that you are spending with the research what are you reading and what writers inspire you? >> a game of thrones is amazing. >> because of the hbo -- >> i started one before and i watched it like this is great and now i'm reading them all and those books are the reason dwarfs was created because of serious business. i read a lot of what comes out, so you know, i read i think sebastian is a phenomenal nonfiction writer and he's hardcore. he will go to afghanistan and embed himself in afghanistan so, good for him. and coming you know, who else -- i read it all. i love the hundred games a trilogy which is odd that i would like that but it was really good. >> are you more comfortable now with the screen writers to the other authors or where do you

find, what is your community? >> i have a lot of writing friends but overall i don't know that many screenwriters because i don't live in l.a. and they are all there. but yeah, i don't have a lot of close friends who are writers as a couple, a guy named matthew parole. wonderful book, she's great. and a few other local writers but we don't sit around in her turtlenecks -- yeah. >> we are starting to come up on the time as we say ben is going to be doing a book signing immediately after this and there are obviously other defense with the late night dna. i want to ask this a couple more questions and what we would really like for the audience to do is if you have a question to please come on down to one of the standing microphones at the front and we will take you sort of in order for 15 minutes or so

at that point. if you have questions you might begin to think what's continue a little bit more in the audience. how would you describe the joke i thought was funny that nobody had read your first six books but what you told me is you graduated from harvard and you knew he wanted to write books, not magazine articles or screenplays, books. so you lock yourself away. how do you feel like you have matured as a writer and that you are better than now? how did you learn the craft? >> i've written nine novels and they take place in bars in new york city. none of them got published about 190 rejection slips rejected by everyone in new york and then i read john grisham and my book and in a thriller and so my first six books were thrillers and they were pretty trashy from

the medical trollers and one was a tv movie called fatal error if any of you saw it, i hope you didn't and i apologize and it was the start of antonio jr the underwear model and he plays a surgeon and there is a scene where watching with my dad is a doctor now and he leans over the chest and says we have a subdural hematoma and my dad turns to me and he's like you know that's in the head, right? [laughter] i think that i've got a lot better than that. but you know i think my style is improving. i feel strongly that "sex on the moon" is my best book. i think bringing down the house for me is a transitional moment in my life. that book ever in six weeks in vegas and in the state of the hotel each flight publishers

hate when you say that quickly i want you to say it took five years but the reality is it was this crazy like i was living and writing it which was not and that became the see emerging technique i just go inside and live the story but i will say anybody out there that wants to be a writer, you know, those days of rejection are kind of the most noble and romantic times in life and you should look forward to the rejection. i, being a geeky guy had a lot of rejection that to that point with women, but then it became books and i would put them on the wall and each would become this thing i would have to beat that rejection and i will say that when i got into the public and finally started to sell my books every person i worked with i had a rejection letter from which was kind of cool. he would go to the meeting and they were like we love your stuff. what about this? [laughter] you didn't love this, right? so, you know, you learn from the

rejection and there is this huge mall in publishing it's impossible to get over this wall. you know, it's a tough business but it's that climb over the wall i think that makes you better, and i feel like now i'm a very different writer than i was in the beginning. >> you say you think this was your best work. what is it about them? >> as i said most of the geeky guys i wrote about before were unable to get laid and this is the first character of which falling in love became his problem, and it was his downfall and its new for me to write a romance, the love letters he wrote from prison are within the book. the access i had to him, you know, even when i was with the mit kids this was different this was a kid really laying it out saying this is my life and i screwed up so there's more than anything i've written about before and during this book i

had a kid, which a lot of you probably know changes your life in a jar of headrick -- dramatic ways and it isn't using to me because you are not sleeping, right? but you are also dealing with, you know, massive sort of your understanding to discuss different and i tried to get inside of this kid's head more and more. >> i can't do better than that. >> thank you. [applause] >> the book obviously is "sex on the moon." we will do questions for about 15 minutes and then there will be a book signing immediately afterwards. >> if you have questions just come down. we have standing microphones at the front and we will call on you and fire away. >> yes, ma'am. >> you were asked what books you read now and i'm curious what books you like and read growing up. >> my parents had a rule when we were little we have to read two books a week before we were about to watch tv which seems

draconian now that i have a kid. [laughter] and i was obsessed with television, so for me i can a speed reader. but anything counted. any kind of books. so i've really got into science fiction, robert, and then i graduated to hemingway and i loved the song of the horizon and i kept reading it and reading it and from there i would go through periods of different types of books. i've literally read everything there is to read. i was reading of can this nonstop for one year. i don't know why. it was great. so why shift from finton thing. i don't limit myself. so yes i think growing up it was mostly science fiction. >> fer exit entel billionaires' you didn't interview mark zuckerberg just the people mad at him, do you take the bodies into account? >> yes coming and i feel like in that book it is clear that a lot

of it is from edgardo. i think the movie is a little bit more market also had sean parker, who is on the other side come and i also have a lot of people who knew market extremely well from high school friends to college friends to people that actually work at facebook even though they said in e-mail to everybody not to speak to me or aaron sorkin that just made people want to talk to me, so there were a lot of sources. it would have been great if marked talked to me, but i don't think that there is any way that you could look to the book or that movie and say that it's not true. i feel the people who were there other than marked say that's what happened. so yes, eduardo definitely have an ax to grind. the winklevoss as you can see all the time have an ax to grind. sean parker was a pretty good source and a wonderful person. i think that timberlake got him perfectly and i feel like sean is looking more and more like justin timberlake now. laughter echoes of the positive

thing. but yeah, you do have to take into account, and i feel like you can tell which scenes are from eduardo's point of view and which aren't but it is one of the issues, yes. >> yes, sir. >> other than "sex on the moon," it may be but which of the books, which one was your favorite to write? >> ugly americans is a book that not as many people read. >> a quick follow-up on that are you still shopping ugly americans? >> it is a true story about a kid from new jersey played football, had never been out of jersey, gets a phone call comegys at princeton university college football player, gets a call from the alum, invites him from japan, packs a duffel bag and flies to japan, ends up working for a guy that some of you might remember was a 26-year-old trader who bankrupted the entire biggest bank in england abetting all of the assets on the japanese stock market. he goes to jail in the main

character in my book becomes a hot shot kelly in asia, falls in love with a daughter of a japanese gangster and makes a single deal that makes 500,000,005 minutes and has to leave japan quickly. it all takes place in japan and the sex underground of japan. it's a story about leaving large and asia saw it out as a fun book. it did well on wall street, every wall street guy had a copy of it. but outside wall street it didn't really catch spc and dana are involved so hopefully eventually it will get made. bringing down the house i think is, for me, if you want to know what i write, it's what i write. but, you know, between those three really. >> go ahead, please. >> i have two questions. one is -- thanks for coming, by the way. i was curious on your latest

book what was the subject incentive for wanting to talk to you and have his story written? and then i'm also curious about the label of nonfiction. have you thought about putting it out under fiction and avoiding the controversy? >> first of all its the publishers of the publishers look at it and their lawyers look at it and their editors and they say this is true. so that on the one hand but on the other hand know i feel very strongly is non-fiction and i think is clearly nonfiction. i would say chapter by chapter and every scene can be documented both in the court documents and interviews so yes it's written stylistically in a way that reads like a thriller but there's no way to cut fiction everything in that scene happens but it's going to be a controversy that will always be journalists who are searching out james fry that's all holding but in the opening of my book i say exactly what i'm going to do

so there is no scandal and that upsets journalists because they want scandal so badly. so they always say you recreate a dialogue. i'm going to recreate a dialogue. but it's not made up dialogue it's created from the people who were there so no i don't have a problem with it. i love talking about it and that's the other thing. they expect me to run away but i happy to talk about it. i think it is a very valid form of nonfiction that goes back to thompson and tom wolfe and it goes back beyond that. there's plenty of writers and the designation is really of to the publishers. but i think it is very clearly nonfiction. the second question was about thad, why did he come to me. that is a great question. obviously he saw himself as a movie character. when he did the crime the james bond theme song was going through his head, and so he wants to be famous or infamous which is tricky obviously but at

the same time he also feels like he spent an enormous amount of his life in prison. seven and a half years is like murderers get seven and a half years, and he had the moon rocks for a week and he used them, no question about that, but he felt like he had served so much time that telling his story was the right thing to do. it's not that he's proud she did but at the same time he feels like she did this crazy thing and there is no reason he shouldn't tell people. it does he feel bad about it? yes but is he ashamed of himself? i don't think so but that is a question people come to me because they want to get famous. i think that is definitely part of it. but a look at it like the mit kids who were like we have this sports career that nobody knows about and they want people to know about it so yes, there is that. >> yes, sir. >> life of one of your best