that people in my generation will have if they take medication that they will be able to benefit from a little bit more of a sensitive and a nuanced sense of the ways that medication can affect you. >> guest: host is yours isn't the argument for delivering what care is delivered in a better and a more thoughtful way as i hear it. is that right? >> guest: exactly. do you think -- this is the big question devotee asks. do you think that kids are being over medicated? >> guest: that question is an impossible to answer because i think it would require assessing every case. it would require saying how many kids should be dedicated and i don't know how any of us can say with the proper number of children to be medicated would be. how many hundreds of thousands would be the right number. i just hope that in so far as kids are getting this care that

it's done in a sensitive way, and in a way that is as productive and helpful for their long-term development as possible. >> guest: there is a serious problem of abuse of occasions of stimulants that gets a lot of media attention, doesn't necessarily help in terms of understanding why kids are being prescribed medication. it does however point to the pressures that are bearing down on these kids they feel like we have to be sort of superhuman. to what extent do you think we can in white society for kids mental health problems? should we be indicting society? should we have a biological view and see these kids will be having problems no matter what? where do you come down thinking about that? ..

>> yes. that is his takeover if the

child is impaired not functioning as they should be to let them go on that way. >> it is fascinating. the book should be a mass -- of mystery. it was worth while. thank you so much

>> thank you for joining us today for a conversation about ian bremmer new book. he of course, very proud as a political scientist who is speaking to them major changes under way in the world to make some money as

a fellow political scientist but it shows how politics and government with the global economy so the economist knowledge is not sufficient to understand where we're going. this book is interesting with a new concept with the g-zero world it is with global cooperation. not so much of the competition it is about the leadership backgammon the

world today tease think united states has been an effective leader of the town now? it is the loss of american leadership? >> that is tough question. i am honored to be appear with susan and everybody knows her background. it is a pleasure and a privilege. as a fragile superpower i am looking forward to the update.

it is always good to be here and think you turning a with horrible horrible weather. on balance, yes. given the alternatives, sure. we can point* to massive mistakes americans and others but when i think about u.s. leadership with the u.s.-led architecture not the last 10 are 20 years but think about what happened to japan in that order. and the marshall plan.

talk about the united nations with the exception lonesome of the united states with the political and with the globalization of process. on balance but it is over. >> when did it start becoming over? >> with the rise of the emerging markets. that is not the problem. it is the rise of the other.

when japan and europe rose we did not have that problem. you don't just have day coordination problem but to putin did not come to the camp david summit. and frankly that is a good thing. it would have then a tough meeting to normalize the trade status which nobody once frankly but with syria or iran. >> i am very disappointed as well. g-7 plus one. if you go to a wedding, take her wrong.

-- along. but to get back to the initial question, it started to erode the globally because all these institutions the world series sums global and it behooves us to say that but. >> but when day start to break down it was tactful. not reality. the girl bank gets it. they understand. i would say the rise of the

other and with the financial crisis with us story of the united states not doing it? >> this was the believe the u.s. is in decline in zero of them. i don't know if you think we're in a decline. show your hands. decline of. [laughter] how many do not?

i ain't your respective we will not bail out europe we're not leading the global climate we will not iran. but number two if any other country is prepared to play that role. the with the u.s. global architecture we could end up with those that are not global. or we may end up with neither.

>> talk about those that aeronaut u.s.-led. what teh's it say of the wto or the world bank? to think we've made a mistake? to give them a seat to at the table. even without american leadership? >> there are lots of global institutions that matter but we have to reflect the global balance of power that has emerged to become less effective. the world bank and imf with

good if they pay more money it is more conditionality. it will undermine and reminds me i have this conversation with tony blair to play a stronger role and i said if they are truly global institutions they do not agree with types of governance if we take a effective leadership which do you think we need to jettison more fundamentally compromise? he said honestly i would say none of them because hours

are the right to values. i applaud him for being honest. i believe if you ask obama our mitt romney that question they would say the same thing. if that is the answer they blow not work. >> for example,, the market is embraced by all of these countries. a regulated market to that we get back to your previous book how the role of government and large state governments but america has one variation on the market but others to embrace the

market that has stood utilities. >> not trying to disparage the wto but if you ask for can build when the post we're at -- post four period we were on the path to more converting. like kidder not but now we're in a world toward more divergence and fragmentation. we see that desire over time to diversify not today but they know over the long term they want that. certainly not before 2,008 the same thing is true with

twitter as a separate internet with the state to capitalism to take on the forgery standards if you don't have u.s.-led globalization people support the idea of the markets but talk gain of convergence i think we move in the latter direction. we know doha is dead so to get a smaller trade grouping together for those countries that are more like mine did like us. >> not japan yet. >> rationale and china held

no. bob thinks it is too ambitious even though. >> but we don't know once you start negotiating the entry is conceivable the bar goes lower with european leaders with a transatlantic far as share. they wanted an announcement

it is not happening what would they be willing to put together those coalitions? how many global summits on climate do we need to have before we realize we will never accomplish anything? >> my colleagues figure that out also. if we don't have effective global cooperation for all the reasons you discuss and get into why we need plan

food energy and water but you also say some read gen made europay but use day asia is the reason most likely? say more about that. >> i worry because the breakdown of global leadership does not create a series of globalization is. europe as the region is more about common rules. the germans to not like leadership because with the

set to of norms is much more fat is voluntary. it is more coercive and the security ties to russia and much more informal. look at the middle east or asia that is problematic. we might have the egyptians at the election but to the turks support the middle-class with the shia disenfranchised population only libya it is the exception ever ready wanted to get rid of could off the but it is the exception. >> isn't that like asia?

>> very drivers for integration are much more common. if they are focused to nearly the middle east left to its own devices it is bad for asia and a different way because if you think about integration in asia china drives that strategically few are a countries say i want both. i want to head. as we project down the road to say that it will you need to answer to questions to what extent will the be a

security guarantee given the challenge faced domestically with that economic benefit? the second question is how will the chinese allow those to persist given how much more. >> good day push the u.s. forces out? >> but so far they have not? >> they have a little but when you say so far they have not to the extent obama's has a doctor. he hates them a once more air tactical flexibility it

is oriented on this question. both of which are fundamentally about concerns of china's rising. >> also about my eight he had read your book and recognizes there are a lot of questions in asia how the u.s. is the outside power it is a long way from washington to tokyo or beijing why it is hard to get officials out there frequently. given the worries about america pulling back it has

been to reassure other countries we're there for the long term. >> is like he read my book. i don't think this was intentional. >> i think the united states was not being proactive with the strategy and research and gave the japanese and other countries rich and poor will say we are very worried about china's rising they did respond effectively and resaw some great trips

generally as far as they go they have bent successful. >> i know how long it will last but others are assured. for america's pivot to asia to work they cannot be as oriented to security because ultimately we not interested in doing it. if way paying our hat to entirely on the uncertainty to be hugely enthusiastic that worries me.

but we make our announcement on the security side. that is not how we want to project our power. >> in the past in added states has favored bilateral alliance relationships. but part of the obama approach when they came into office with the vision not to be marginalized one is to participate in the regional organization not just rely on the alliance. >> regional architecture is confusing in most areas.

by a great america did not want to to be absent. no question. instead of blaming bush for not being acted enough that now to be more present the. >> and it is appropriate from the washington perspective. but then to say let's get active then may have a china up problem. not even been concerned about china's rise. that came from our allies.

>> and the way they started to behave. >> that is also true. but it was reactive. if you hear hillary now as long as they behave the way we want them to. do you expect them to? >> not really. then it is ahead. we did not say contained. we are damned if we do and if we don't. if you don't take a more passive role with the china market will shift the center of gravity increasingly to

china the u.s. will margin not -- marginalize itself that is what titian -- kissinger talks about. is the obama administration's strike the right balance? what about president romney? will he get to the balance better? >> the earlier ones are harder but that is the right question. kissinger comes back and says obama is to hawkish on china but he believes it. i have a view on this but with president romney he will declare china -- which is wrong but obama's said he would close guantanamo.

that is not happening. i don't care. when it is david axelrod against karl rove i try to dispense. >> what do you think he will do? >> [inaudible] >> i am rarely aligned with policy.

with my personal narrative and -- . [inaudible] but it was pragmatic and smart. leaving that aside, when obama was asked he said al qaeda. [inaudible]

i'd think there is much more substance in our relationship. therefore to that extent. [no audio]

with those u.s. global lead standards. we really want to. with the interest in iran iran, they don't feel that way. the chinese have a win-win. they don't believe in themselves. [no audio] be honest about what we will do. >>

[no audio] we're doing more surveillance more than the chinese did building submarines and things like that. our ships and planes our watching. they really don't like at and fishing boats and oceanographic vessels come out rehab more maritime incidents. that has been kept very that has been kept very quiet with a lot of discussion about it fed is going nowhere but captive very quiet. >> we are discussing cybersecurity much more openly. is that good for the relationship?

>> in areas where the conflict is more a steady and keeping it quiet with the overflight that you do with the case of cyber it is exponentially worse. is very serious and could spell -- spill into kinetic conflict so we have to be public about it. and cannot allow the chinese to believe it is not a serious challenge. we whitewash allot of it. >> your view of china is

quite at gnostic about the future as one of the rising powers that is the most difficult to predict the future? is your view today if we had a good understanding would fix the problem? it could make it less likely to spill over into other areas of the relationship. call me unsentimental. it has a sentimental view. we wanted good relationship the jonge is there facing our great then in a significant economy.

it does not mean they are capable to put the fix into place. and historical a speaking and furthermore what keeps us awake at night? but if there was one thing to keep me awake at night to it would be tied up. that strikes me as execution to have a military coup how billionaires' say gauge with

a chinese party system. i went to jericho those who write the book on geo security. i said is this a plausible scenario? what is the likelihood? the next five years and is he said i don't know. he said it will definitely have been at some point*. talk about a forced incidence of transparency of billions of documents that describe the relationship of highest of well chinese communist party.

if anything worried me right now it would be that. >> down to ec agree have the clips of that now? >> without question. this guy who was out there with chest thumping and head of security dumped all information that was lucky and people aligned against him quickly. but those who have to control information to stay in power at a high level where in an environment where that information gets out. it is fundamentally dangerous. when you say are you agnostic about china? i would say the level of

volatility is vastly greater than any other. the definition where politics matters and people say they look like emerging-market. not true. >> is funny because while that was going on hot and heavy they said what difference will that make? and try to explain politicians worry more about the voters then they do about dead demonstrators. china is rate about the demonstrators. we should all been this up i

have more but let's give others say chance. there should be a microphone. >> >> can you identify yourself? >> if someone came from nowhere and said i will give you a choice. is the relationship between soviet union in united states 300 or 35 years a go when they're worried about some blowing each other up and all the problems you describe in the united states today, wouldn't you be glad baines rs say our? >> fact is a great question. but the answer is somewhat

more complicated. the u.s. soviet union and generally speaking we were not impacted negatively on a day to day basis. but yet to their bosses a possibility kennedy said one added three we could have had nuclear war. in fact, is really true how much worse could it be? the entire soviet period was not that. you have been normalized distribution. the u.s. and china likelihood of global war

strikes as marginal. the baseline relationship becomes more problematic. i think about cybersecurity cybersecurity, globalization and intellectual capital and property. i think about american in treasurys and who will buy them and able to blackmail each other but we could do that. not depend on how risk averse you are and what kind of decision you like. you prefer to live? most people do. we will die at some point* we could do the actuarial tables.

that does remind me a gentleman who asked me a question and he said you think in our lifetime we will see reunification of korea? i said which lifetime? [laughter] >> because like president obama talk that the u.s. does not seek to contain china but it it seems you try to reinforce the strategies to contain china. what do describe?

>> the problem with u.s. strategy the chinese are not stupid or week. we could if they were stupid or if they had no choice. but the chinese understand with the policies we talk about are not to china's benefit. for us to combat them with china and japan and the rest of among the negroes what to rethink?

with it should apply we would like the chinese to adapt behavior's if they do they would be included in some organizations. the problem with iran now we tell the iranians what they must not do but what we will give them if they do what we want. we made it very clear. but not how they will engage. even the diplomacy but not go up. with a should give it the best possible shot. i do think being honest of the potential for

containment of the zero i saw the there is no state capitalism and vicious the characteristics. it is scary to move away. if china has democracy tomorrow the instability is massive and it would be less will dispose. we should be honest. and moving away from heavy-handed liberal democracy and it tried to be more balanced to support

economic development we show that we don't care. my bet the former stanford ph.d., usually pro-democracy. we would never send an ambassador like that to china. because we don't want that relationship to screw up. >> no. i heard jon huntsman yesterday. talk about the decisions, we have all office in the state department designed to overcome the fire wall. we may not talk about it to as of the previous administrations but there is active in u.s. government efforts to promote human

rights. >> telerate clinton is said we should not criticize our baker when it comes to human rights. there is the very public tone. but my plane to this specifically on russia we said that we don't care. but i do think we should be more cautious. >> it looks as if europe may face a disaster with a eurozone. we think we know that economic consequences for europe and the united states. and what are the geopolitical collapse of the

eurozone? >> we have not talked about europe or japan and part of the problem of the u.s.-led 10 leadership is that the europeans are massively distracted. it is not just the u.s. allies will not spend much time focusing on this. that certain late in terms of values and structure and role of law and governments around the world. you will end up with a bunch of countries to make their own individual deal. how would russia be able to play off the poles and

germans and ukrainians? of course, you have the arms embargo. if it collapses that will end. if the eurozone collapses greece will cut a deal. they could pay with that. what we see if in the g-zero the geopolitical relationships have been done or but they will not cut the deal with china they will be reluctant to bear period car-rental but they are fundamentally focused on norms and rules and institutions and cannot do at tie up because of that.

but if it were you would see suddenly interest would be dominated. dominated. g-zero is good for small individual commercial interest to take advantage. >> those have been very strong with china. to look at a national policy , they are very much dominated by commercial interest. >> going back to the year earlier comments that we just add it talked about g8 with like-minded countries

it could be good however look at the list of the like-minded countries most are on shaky ground most are practically an active and incapable. isn't that like the pillars? >> no. that coalitions of the willing could be very different. talk about the coalition of a willing you may include a country like brazil. with economics statecraft, emerging markets like turkey. not developed states of the

time but denied the state's in europe differ radically. maybe the u.s. to not include the europeans. maybe they should be leading the climate and we should be excluded. this is not the u.s. dominant view it will be the most important player. you are right to become psat and in four station fortunate time then comes a horrible crisis that limits the top allies to act which makes it more challenging. >> korea it is a new ally with increase aimed global reach. >> that is true in the ability to a gauge that

other countries cannot and the new china. we need to do much more with the south koreans and to it fast with the generational shift. young koreans see the world very different than their parents do. there are nine to s supportive of the alliance and the data like those individuals. and the u.s. gets information they are simpatico with but it reminds me of the feeling in georgia. we were completely snowed how problematic. >> it is so flawed tile.

from one month to the next, they resent china and like the u.s. better. it is hard to work around. >> i with the state university of new york directing a program with it in be a student's. what advice would lourdes you give them as they pursue their careers as they look to do things internationally? >> to the extent i have successes not because i am a political scientist but i could find a niche in markets that was interesting and not well occupied. the markets don't work with people to be competitive but you try to become a monopoly

and brand your item. if i talk about a student entering the work environment i say do not over specialize. try to understand systems and patterns learn broadly and try to figure out what to emerging trends could be developing to use those skills in a unique way. market yourself to from a. that is the path i would focus on. >> cybersecurity? >> sure. >> >> there are people in the back. just raise your hand. >> james taylor. we have not spoken about

asia fit great need for earn natural resources. there is speculation the u.s. maybe energy dependent. do you think that possibility will allow us to be more assertive and reemerge more actively in the world you are describing? >> it may allow us. we'll allow us to be less assertive. if we have a problem in iran fe decide to close down the straits of hormuz, that is a problem for us. a bigger problem for china or india. syria is a problem for us a bigger for lebanon, turkey.

we will have more of these conversations s.c. america station a distaste becomes more and energy independence. very few countries have a positive trajectory. no one is prepared to send troops back to iraq if it breaks apart. . .

would become more assertive. if i felt that more americans were likely to feel that they benefit from the u.s. or the lender of last resort or driving globalization. but what we are increasingly seeing is there is no longer an average american. we are seeing that large numbers of americans feel despite all the wealth being generated by the multinational corporations in the u.s. and their shareholders that they are not a part of that and so the u.s. is more energy independent. great white don't we focus on the u.s.? i think this is structural. i do not think we are addressing this. i think this will be more of a

challenge. >> there's always been isolation a strain in the american foreign policy. so are we just seeing, you know, fatigue after a afghanistan and iraq and of course economic financial crisis just returning to in isolationist u.s.? >> i don't think it is just fatigued some of it is structural some of it is a bunch of americans who do not feel for legitimate reasons that the globalization will benefit them. the manufacturing job is done. i don't think they are coming back we can put policies in place that will bring some back that will create some that generally speaking we need to retrain our people. you need a college education to get a job nowadays and a lot of people don't. they said okay let's give everyone a college education that they did that by accrediting the schools so it basically didn't approve the

standards so they could pretend to fix the problem. we are not moving towards a real fix of that problem. i suppose you could say the caveat is that american policy is so dominated by the special-interest better than other countries would. so, if we want to continue to not pay attention to whether it's occupied wall street for 15% real employment we could probably get away for that for decades. but the challenge will grow. >> talking about isolationism or lack of interest not address it or assertive but just a more active u.s. leadership in the world you say in a way that one thing i noted with interest is you said that we are not worried enough about china to galvanize us into a more active leadership role. >> putin before he didn't --

>> that's a live irony, interesting. >> he actually brought up world war ii and said the cattle of the atrocities that happened in asia and europe before the united states was willing to come in the hands of the u.s. -- ifill sticking period the u.s. has to be galvanized. it's not like there is no government in the u.s.. when the financial crisis hit, president bush, for all of his false was able with congress for all of its perceived flaws to react very quickly come and obama was able to come to mind once he took office and then they stopped because there was no longer a crisis. the problem we have is what i called the safe haven curse, sort of the readers curse on the economic reforms and a budgie zero you aren't looking for countries with growth you are looking at resilience because there is so much risk people pile more cash into u.s. treasuries which means we have a lot more rope to hang ourselves with. there is little urgency.

they can downgrade us. it doesn't matter we don't understand this reality. downgrades again watch what's going to happen. nothing but it also means we don't need to address these big issues. there is no urgency and i don't think -- as a consequence can be romani or obama that there will be issues on taxes and so forth and if you ask to fundamentally address the long-term big budgetary issues, the answer -- i think the answer is no. >> the microphone is coming. >> thank you. cheryl wallace. i'm interested in your vision for the duration group and out of default over time. my purpose for asking the question is to give an indication on whether you are seeing if american corporations or your client based recognizing the importance of the

international issues that we are discussing this is a very wonky audience these issues don't register. have you seen that increase over time the word globalization a lot more than we have in the past. >> yeah. look. there is nothing in my background that would lead anywhere to believe that i would have a successful large company. i don't know how to run one. i have no business experience. yes, profoundly lucky but also people need this stuff. and that is really why. my initial inclination is because i had a phd in political science, and looking at the former soviet union you had mike on the left and i and is interested in how it works and i wanted to get some private sector experience. i never had a real job as i wanted to come to new york and

get a job like any company or bank but just to learn about the market to understand because i had a phd in political science and i didn't know what in the equity market was that seems stupid. so it's a very obvious politics affects the markets in emerging markets with natural resources and with regular party policy, with these massive geopolitical changes it seems like a no-brainer so i came to new york and there's wonderful people in half the company's i met frank at aei g. and goldman sachs and lehman brothers and these were really nice, smart folks that had been around the block of it and the appreciated a lot of the stuff and they all said you know what, you are a nice guy but we don't hire political scientists we hire economists and strategists and physicists because it is useful for the model and increasingly. but they don't have political science. so after a year i was frustrated and i said if you are not going to hire me for your company if i were to put out a shingle and

call it the eurasia group because i studied eurasia and the guide was not credible, then would you hire me and become a client, and they said yes. so all of a sudden i have all these clients and that's how i started it and at the beginning because no one knew what the hell this stuff was i had to go and explain here's what a political scientist does and what can be useful to you and a lot of them were helping me to say okay that's really interesting. here's how i would like it because it's not like i decline and said or business plan. i didn't. i was just doing it. what has changed this that the company is now understand. the banks of the oil companies. they always hire these people to be fair i didn't know that back then that they were always working in these places and putting cash down 23 years. but one of the other companies did, the banks didn't get it.

now they do. manufacturers didn't get it. now they do. i tell you who doesn't get it, technology companies. they still don't. and is because they are run by engineers. i mean, they are -- people basically think what, governments are relevant. you know, i remember talking at one point the head of government relations who basically said that their purpose was to make sure that the ceo never had a deal with government officials that they wouldn't be distracted by that so they could just do their business. these people don't understand where the world is right now not any time soon. but the point is i mean, when i look at how badly google got china wrong because i mean, these are conversations that i remember ten years ago having the conversations were basically i know we have a problem with the chinese government with the chinese people, we are on the side of the chinese people.

i don't want the american corporation owning that. i want google out because what happens if something bad happens with the u.s. and china you think we are going to do nice with that information? we are going to use that information. we better use that information as a taxpayer i want us to use the information that the chinese should not want us in there as a consequence. this all comes down to i think we need to be really honest about the places we pretend that there are aligned interests and there really aren't, and that's i think something that the technology companies in the west had been really slow to get and they are likely to get hurt as a consequence. >> i think we can take maybe two more questions. one on the front row in the back. >> you mentioned in your book with canada and the pipelines coming into the state's and if the u.s. doesn't want to build

the pipelines, then canada has other options. can you give other examples of this? >> specifically canada or globally? >> globally. >> the concept is if we have a world of the u.s.'s leading globalization the u.n. is align yourself with u.s. globalization. if we have a world where different regions have a different kind of integration is the way you win is to make sure you can hedge all of that stuff what i call the put it states so who pits? turkey pecked it's beautifully. love the pivot. >> are you getting dizzy? >> they are getting dizzy. same even less like a woman came up afterwards and asked me a question. i was very surprised that you were so positive. i said because yoreally don't like and she said it's not like that. this was an attractive educated woman that wasn't dressed conservatively but you really don't and she eventually admitted that was the problem. not everything is great in turkey. there are problems with the

government but the fact is turkey's defense number two trading partner was italy now it's iraq. they've opened i think 12 new embassies in the last year in africa >> it's one of the fastest-growing countries in the world. one quarter it was the fastest. >> they are doing extraordinarily well and yet they've got all this exposure to europe because they figured out how to pick it. i think that's smart and by the way the israeli relationship was definitely part of that strategy. i.e. to say that because we don't want bad relationship if i were again advising irca wan i might have told them to do that. i think we need to frequently put our shoes and to the people of we were trying to do the best for the leader of looking at his set of issues what would we be telling the person? and indonesia privets pretty well. they have a large consumer base and they have a large chinese population that unlike many of the chinese populations in asia isn't oriented just towards

china their local and they take on the indonesian names and they're more into that to decentralize the government. they're small and everybody wants a little piece and they are very transparent. kazakhstan put its well not just for energy but also as a potential financial center. >> and yet it's well in the short term in part because their economy is so far behind china that they are actually quite complementary. as that starts happening over time the indian demographics stop picking up, well they have been picking up as the collapse and as the indian economy becomes more resource intensive they are going to fight much more. so i don't know that it fits well in ten or 20 years the date of it will now. and in africa as a continent, almost to the country pivots well so there are a lot of countries out there that it will.

>> final question. >> of i ron the research on the emerging markets. speaking of demographics though, i thought the one thing i didn't hear you speak up was our own. this year the majority of kids born in the united states are of the african-american or latino origin. and in 30 years or perhaps less, the majority of the country. are we giving birth to the much more engaged american world? >> and that's a great question. if you believe that being a different ethnic background is going to create much more engagement internationally then that is the dominant fact the answer would be yes. i certainly think we have a much more vibrant economy as a consequence of that level of diversity of our population. we have a more vibrant economy because a lot of people live in the cities and the interact with each other. but then you read people like richard or joe and you