quote, in no way distorted her coverage. he went on to commend her track record as a model of intelligent and courageous reporting. indeed, this is proof not to be a huge obstacle to her career. in the years since, she returned to as a journal spond to iran, lebanon, and many of the most voluntary zones in the middle east. she continues to practice what paul seeinger call at the time intelligent and courageous reporting. she went on to write a book four years later about the iraq war. and then the forward of the book

she noted how that e-mail she wrote had active as a catalyst, not just for her feelings but the feelings of her reader. this is what she wrote. because i was writing to friends, i spoke freely without the restraint of -- daily journal. the emotional and personal tone grabbed the public in a way my published piecings for the newspaper for the seldom did. the reaction overwhelmed me. strangers wrote asking is it that bad in iraq? we had no idea. let me reread the part for her introduction. the restraint from daily. she felt there was no room for what she called the emotional and personal tone that would effect readers in way that standard journalism couldn't match. at the time this happened i was a managing editor of the "the wall street journal" online operation. i was involved in this only

insofar as i was the recipient of reader e-mail most stirred up in heavily orgestrated letter writing campaign. by conservative bloggers. i was glad it didn't take more punitive action. i was relieved to see she would certain move to the middle east. i forgot about it until a few months ago. in late november of last year, "the new york times" chief came under scrutiny for a series of tweets that she sent out during and before the gaza conflict. at one point the bureau chief sent a public tweet a controversial palestinian-american journalist with the words, hey, would love to chat some time. my friends say good things. more controversially she took the facebook to post her observation when she recently talked to gas disa bheem lost a

relative or gathering belongings they seemed a big ho hum. a reporter at the premere news organization like the times or the wall street counselor can go only so far in expressing her opinion inspect this case, accomplished a unusual thing. she managed to hang the people on both sides of the controversy. she did come to apologize for her language. she told "the new york times" public editor she was wrong to characterize palestinians view of death as quote, ho hum. i should have talked about steadfastness or resilience. that was a ridiculous word to use. overall she acknowledged i wasn't careful enough. it wasn't enough for "the new york times." after the inincidents she was instructed to run her social media post by an editor in new

york. according to sullivan, the times public editor, quote, the idea to capitalize on the promise with readers while not exposing the times to a reporter's unfiltered and unedited thoughts. this is an important line, i want to say it one more time. the times wants soar ensure the readers not be exposed to the reporter's unedited thought. how is it going? i know this thanks to an insightful paper who is a student at colombia journalism school and interviewed her by e-mail. the new ed editing policy makes a lot of intellectual sense but maybe not so much practical sense. i found the back and forth over what i should write and how i should write it a back and forth welcome in the newspaper editing business to feel awkward and off for facebook and twitter. the act of bringing and editor

and exchanges over what to posts seems unreal to the form. one of the concerns was very practical. she sent proposed tweet or facebook posts to editor in new york in the morning, jerusalem time. they may not be rushed for six or hour sevens or so. i'm not sure it's worth follow. the facebook page turned to forum of middle east visit really a for the both sides. she told him especially when beginned with the fact my feed has got anemic and less interesting. we're going lose whatever momentum. and so what do with we may of how journalists conduct themselves in the new era? it is, of course, a lond staning the reporter should be an objective acts as handmade with the facts that are reader and viewers need to make racial informed decisions.

it does not mean that journalism is providely opposing sides on any issue. if anything become increasingly important for reporters to play a larger role in explaining and able lidsing what their public sees and hears. it's not simple. it never was in a digital age and become more complicated. we know one of the republican for that. from our friends and family to total strangers. in 2004, it took several weeks for the e-mail to be distributed and published overline. in 2012, it took a few seconds for the tweets to be read and retweeted. the cycle moves faster now. it's a cliche i app fies for saying it. we must remember reporters especially those boricking for organizations lie the "new york times" for everything they get.

first they receive steady paycheck, 00, maybe a retirement benefit or two. they get two things that even more pornl jowrntd -- important journalistically. when jodi arrived in jerusalem she was able to reach sources in ways competing journal irss do. it's not because of the past accomplishment, which is significant. it's by of where she works. "the new york times" can send a scare you to jerusalem and sources calling to offer help. reporters like to have another big advantage. they worked for decades to build and retain and shrilled fie. -- so lid fie. it's big with the print readers and unique users online. and the audience has tremendous influence. any story written or broadcast by the times is going to be heard and read by diplomats in

the state department, members of the israeli party, decision makers of the palestinian authority. so in that sense, the balance of power clear? for generations reporters have always owed almost total allegiance to the institution until they decide to move to a different miewp or networking. so journalists have from time to time gotten in to trouble for making contributions to political candidates or for showing up at public demonstrations about hot issues like abortion. for good reasons, many publishers found it necessary to contribute to continue to exercise this authority. now over the reporters use of social media. in 2011 the american society of newspaper editor compiled a number of news companies policies. most attempting to address the pitfall that she came across with the post on facebook and twitter. one of the most interesting policy i found from "the washington post, which states that as reporters and editors must, quote, relinquish some of

the personal privileges of private citizens. "washington post" journalists must recognize any con tect associated with them is for practical purposes the equivalent of what appears beneath a byline in the newspaper or website. so in other words, no matter what digital identity the reporters and editors choose whether anything on twitter about an important development on the beat or showing off the daughter's birthday cake. "washington post" journalists must follow the company's code on ethics and impartiality. [inaudible] i'm sorry? we'll get to that part in a moment. we'll what we see in the rule is an effort by journalism institutions to retain the professional credibility among citizens of backgrounds. in part because they believe it will help them stay relevant in the public discourse. and the reason for this are well expressed by a writer name john lloyd from the "financial times" who said it a little over a year

ago. all journalism is a matter of power. that power includes the major one to stimulate and organize public opinion, and so doing put pressure on the political level. to have that power, news organization needs to be organizations. which have a collective memory a clear goal, ideal, commercial and legal department, a reputation which will assist reporters to gain entry. a career structure so you can attract people who see it something worth doing. that is such organizations professionalize the collection of news and give it a structure. so in that light, i want to pose a question to you. even as institutions seek to preserve the traditional line of conduct by their staff, is it still so clear for the institution to reach in and the individual journalists responsibility begins? i'm wary of platitude about digital changes everything. but this is a case where the legacy ways of defining practice and norm are becoming under

intense pressure from the internet and social media. there are several reasons. first the institutions themselves are under increasing economic pressure. that makes the issue for difficult. niewb and tv stations find it necessary to drive nor traffic to the website and other properties fop accomplish that, it's critical that social media be part of the mix. reporters must deploy twitter and facebook in ways that draw bigger audiences and drive more usage on the sites. many user of social media find may be consistently provocative or interesting in order to be successful. and being provocative almost always means some tweets and post goes awry. more over, encouraging the direct relationship between journalism readers will reader rethinking traditional rules about how journalisms are edited and supervised. at most newspapers, every word of copy that appeared in print had been read by at least one

editor and often two or three. can you do that? can you do that? social media? as we saw close editing cannot coexist. remember what she said. it seems -- to the form. but there's another issue. one that go even more direct throughout tenth relationship of reporters and their employers. journalists reputation and market value depend on the ability to attract an audience. that's true whether they work for a huge news organization or part of a small start-up. now this is hard for many to understand. for many years they haven't cared that much about how many people read or watch their stories. for one, most reporters see themselves as member of a large team and always been hard to determine with very much precision the actual contribution of any individual journalists. second, those metric until recently have been hard to issue

-- measure. for traditional media you may get a -- and article in the newspaper or magazine you have a hard time determining how many view each story gets. third, most reporters are largely anonymous to the outside world. the name of who is covering the police department or the state department is largely unknown to anyone who isn't already a source. but now reporters and audiences can be determined constantly and instantly. the numbers often become a standard by which a journalist values and determined news organization and the open market. it's knew and at least for every journalist who is a popular news anchor. one can attempt if not always to succeed to measure the value of any journalist. reporters and a digital world have different and expanded set of obligations. it's not enough to simply cover a beat or produce a video.

or write a story. reporters who limit themselves to the tool may find themselves under equip to handle the grow, expectations of news sites that want journalists to bring in more readers and generate more page viewers. reporters have another set of obligation. they have duty to themselves and own career to build up the presence online. to prove to employers presence and future they can build and sustain an audience. so the audience is measurable, viz account, and here is what is scary for many news organizations. thanks largely to social media, reporters' audience is movable. let's think about how different that is. for many years when a reporter would leave a news organization, the readers would pairly notice. they would stick with the institution. but a journalist building the brand is in another category all together. let me give you a few example. howard, of prominent media critic had around 70,000 twitter

followers when he worked at "the washington post. two years ago he left the post to write for "the daily beast." the twitter audience didn't stay at the post. it moved with him. now he has 110,000 followers. andrew sullivan, a blogger announced he was leaving "the daily beast" to start his own media business. guess what? the 75,000 twitter followers will accompany him out the door. jim roberts and editor of the "new york times" left earlier this year. the 80,000 followers became part of the reuters audience. the message is getting through to journalists. when i spoke to her a few months ago i asked about the trend. she said she country have -- doesn't have special accounts she uses twitter as a research tool to learn what is going on in the middle east and to find sources. during the iran uprising u of 2009 which she covered. a journal editor told her her name had become, quoted, one of the most searched term on our website. her name had become the searched

term. that's when it occurred to her she told me, we're turning to brands. i don't know if this is a good or bad thing. on the one hand, you can increase your audience. on the other hand, some of our nape name brands are becoming overstressed. i know, reporters spend hours how to time the tweets, when to send them overnight. this is isn't why i became a journalist she said. i didn't become a reporter to become a celebrity. you have to have we interaction with the real world not just the virtual. i couldn't agree more with my former colleague. as powerful as social media have become, they cannot substitute for the vital act of journalism that reporters commit daily and in many part of the world courageously. it's important to not -- proposition. it's entirely possible that not too far downtown road social media will be seen as a journalistic tool. with any tool they need

guideline. reporters must understand that social media post -- indeed as i said earlier, found her e-mail and private e-mail to be the single most viral thing she had ever written. each time a reporter sends out tweet, oar puts something on facebook, a self-editor must engage. but the new era also means that reporters must closely -- lets more closely exam who they are and what role they want to play. if you're attention is to becoming an advocate for one side or the other, often down playing or ignoring contradictory evidence, so. it. there are plenty of examples of reporters acting in ma mode going back many years. advocacy journalism has a rich history in the u.s. and around the world and digital platform only make it more powerful. one must also recognize the implication of the role. a journalist may be diminishing his or her potential audience preaching only to the converted.

he or she may be cutting themselves off from the sources who won't gate fair hearing. most fundamentally reporters may fail to invite or consider opinions and facts that will make the journalism more texture, authentic, and valuable. for those that value the search for truth. unencumbered to the specific point of view, i would say, whatever you write, whatever you say has become a part of how your reporting will be viewed you can no longer separate your tweet or post from your article or broadcast. the sooner you see social media as integral to journalism not as a sideline. the more easily we can adapt to the possibility and risk. when i began researching the speech a few months ago. i took the time to reread the e-mails from 2004. it had been about nine years since i had seen it. and suddenly it came back to me, this was a piece of journalism

with minor editing must be run in the "the wall street journal." she felt too constrained to offer to editors like me and the world's loss her message had to be spread as if it were contraband shared by insiders rather than a vivid description of events that deserve wide spread attention. when she talked last month i asked somehow she feels that e-mail from baghdad eight years later. here's what she said, i'll give your the last word. things have changed a lot. i didn't have a direct audience as you have now with twitter and facebook and blogs. now the conversation becomes public much more conscious whatever you say is no longer private. there's something about technology. there's an intimate sei to it that makes you forget it's a public public domain. you mistake for a private conversation with a friend. as for the e-mail she sent, almost ten years ago, she said this. there was a difficult -- i don't

regret it. you try to have impact. grow try to get people to see things in a different way. by my e-mail succeeded in doing that. thank you very much. [applause] i'll be happy to discuss this. i would like to ask the first question. >> okay. >> [laughter] [inaudible] do you want to explain what happened? >> no. i would rather not. can you? >> as i recall, she sent out a tweet or facebook post. >> tweet. >> memorializing someone. >> a leader who died. she thought he was a -- she had expressed some regret over his death. [inaudible conversations] >> right. and she was fired? right? >> that's what has been reported.

>> okay. i'm glad this is all on tv. [laughter] >> are you asking how i feel about that? >> yeah. >> well, i think that's another example i could have brought in to this. you know, i wasn't part of that decision, and it would be inappropriate for me to get in to some somebody's employment. you never know -- i do think it's an even more vivid example of what she talked about. with social media, there's a hidden false intimate sei we feel we have. we feel we are communicating with the people who are on our facebook page or who were in twitter feed. and so in the same way you talk to people in a private conversation differently than if in a public forum, reporters needs to understand that kind of private conversation doesn't exist in social media.

there are certainly bounds beyond which a reporter comprises his or her ability to be seen as ab independent observer of event. but this of course gets to an even larger issue on social media which is, you know, i like to think most if not all journalists are intelligent human beings. we have thoughts and opinions and we're processing information, and so, you know, at what point does that come to our coverage? and if you remember what she said in the forward to her book that there were conventions about the wall street journal and common to most american newspaper that didn't allow her to express her view of what was going on in the ground in bag baghdad. when she expressed in the private e-mail it far more impact than any other story she had written until then. there has to be some way of channeling those kinds of observations and analysis in a

way that is congruent with journalism institutions that enable people to really get a feel for what is going on. >> i think you are suppose god with -- [inaudible] or pass around the microphone. >> i have a question about talking about difference between your tweets of social media and role as a reporter. what would you say say is the appropriate content of a social media message as opposed to what you are reporting? >> so, well think about one of the things that social media allows you to do that are more difficult or impossible in a conventional journalism framework. first of all, obviously there's an immediacy to it. it's hard to duplicate.

if you're a reporter being sent to the scene of a breaking story, twitter is the very powerful way of -- especially if you are using hashtag in a way enabling people following the story to find it. you know, as a bit of a side element, one of the down sides to that if you are the publishers or if you're the employer of this journalist out there tweeting, is it all that traffic is going twitter. it's probably not going to your website. and it's taking away some of the time that he or she may be using that might have been using in order to build sources on the scene. i think to me, the kind of line is are you saying something on twitter or facebook that is going to comprise your ability to develop sources to come across as a thoughtful and independent observer of what you're covering? i'm sorry if it sounds squishy.

it's hard to come up with kind of a codified rule about what you can and cannot do. remarking as a self-editor has to engage. it's something you have to hit send on comprise my ability to be an independent observer or seen as one. if that's the case, i think one has to think through it. >> in effect, doesn't it put more -- [inaudible] class of '72. dufnt it in effect put more pressure on a professor and editor. back in my cay, in the '70 and '80s with television we wanted to be stars we wanted to be provocative but we had the ethic and teachings of journalism school that gave us a balance of where to be. i was told in school the private and public comments were on the record.

doesn't fall back on what you do? >> it absolutely does. it falls back on journalism school, it falls back on editor and station managers as well us with not all journalists go to journalism school. we've been incorporating more social media classes in the region and classes that teach student the basic about how to use twitter and facebook. more fundamentally what are the pitfall you run in to? for example, the big problem or issue with twitter is how do you authenticate and validate information that you're reading in social media? there's tremendous value in a lot of what gets reported on social media. especially in breaking stories. learning how to authenticate that information. learning how to understand whom it's coming from, and at what point you ought to be using or not using it. it's a difficult question. we take them through case studies of of times when it's

been used effect i havely and serious damage to a journalist's reputation. >> hi. i'm sonia, class of '09. i am now a reporter with cbs atlanta in the city. >> congratulations. >> i was curious about your opinion on a couple of instances that have made national news. one is cbs anchor in will cross, wisconsin, -- telling her she was overweight and a bad role model. she responded on-air saying that, you know, she admitted she was overweight but she didn't think she was a bad role model. bla. the next instance is a good friend of mine. i worked with her in new york, rhonda lee out of shreveport, louisiana. meteorologist someone posted a comment saying she's the black lady who does the news. her hair, you know, why she can't wear a wig. she has short hair.

she's black. it has natural hair. and so she responded to him saying something i thought was pretty appropriate. she said, i'm proud of my african-american ancestry which includes my hair. for your edification, traditionally our hair doesn't grow downward. it's upward. she was trying to explain. she was fired. the anchor out of l.a. cross was not. she responded on tv and got okay from the station. but rhonda lee was fired for violating social media terms. >> yeah. a response with social media or something she said on-air? >> she said it on social media. i was curious about your thoughts on that. >> well, so the first one -- i did see the video of the wisconsin woman who was defending her weight. i don't general discuss women's weight in public. i'm trying to figure out -- [laughter] how i can say it with c-span

cameras on. [laughter] i thought it's kind of a inappropriate thing to be doing on tv. it's, i mean, i understand it was a painful incident that the woman suffered that all of us as human beings and journalists take the barbs at the same time and put up on it. on the second incident you mentioned, i haven't read it. i don't know what the woman said on facebook. it doesn't sound to me like somebody simply responding to somebody saying this is my hair. this is my heritage and broad. it would cause as a firing offense. again, i don't want to have too many more discussions about should somebody have been fired or not from an news organization. it can be hard to know -- [inaudible conversations] what is that? >> yeah. that one i don't understand.

why it would have triggered that outcome. >> my name -- [inaudible] for forty three years in the area. i'm a builder too. .. the weapons of mass

destruction which of course with a primary rationale president bush gave for invading iraq. so i feel like that has been pretty well opened up. i will say this i think the iraq war is so dated from the conscious today i believe there were a series of car bombings that killed dozens of people and you had to look hard to find the story and it says something about americans interest in a news beyond our borders like we can only handle one at a time so there is like one country and that is where most of the attention goes to the estimate of a story about why we failed iraq. >> you didn't quite phrase it that way.

you know, i don't want to get into the pros and cons of the iraq war but the inability of the press to discern what was really gone in iraq before the war and something the press has actually come to terms with it took awhile as another organization. i can say again i think the american media has by and large lost interest in iraq especially in 2008 and -. semidey want to tell the lost interest in iraq? >> if you can keep it short because i see other people lining up. >> the truth always comes on top sooner or later and when the truth starts coming through the grape vines, then everybody gets very, very upset.

thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i was curious people taking followers with them when they leave an organization. we are doing anything to combat that and is their something they can do? >> there's some organization that makes people actually attached the name of their news organization to the treuhand will. i can't remember which one it is. does anybody know? >> i would be curious i know that you are doing social media. i would be curious to hear what the policies are in the newsrooms in terms of if you leave your news organization to you have to turn over your trigger handle and start a new one or how does that work?

>> district of turning the answer to something over in the crowd. >> i'm the manager at the media group in 2008. i can't cover for other companies but they seem to be fairly decentralized. so as corporate we are more advisers and consultants, so in the case they have their own social media policy and they've decided all of their journalists need to have not only branded but also it branded as the beach, so i think -- >> exactly. it is the radio tv. i have to look it up because i want to tweet you earlier. >> if somebody leaves the company do they turn that over to the company? >> it depends on the newspaper with a tv station. it also depends on the contract

that that specific reporter, anchor, personality negotiated with the tv station. so it is a question on everybody's mind that there isn't necessarily a blanket policy. >> do you have a question also? >> i do actually. [laughter] >> so we talked a lot today about the middle east and as well about columbia so i have a question that relates to the figure that's become an the arab spring from npr. one of the things he has been acclaimed for is often retweeting and he will sometimes tweet unconfirmed facts but label them as such and i wonder if that is something you teach knowing that in the u.s. if you

see some of somebody who can sue you for defamation maybe that isn't a good practice. >> so, does everybody know who emt is? he is a social media guru he's been told of the same during the spring of but beyond that he developed a significant following by taking had lots of tweets and trevor feeds from egypt, tunisia, the other countries that were exploding and retweeting certain things he thought had built a level of reliability over a period of time but a lot of times he would say i'm putting this out there i

don't know if it is true. they have a blog called leeve and they do stories on the air on the uprising and stories and sometimes you are confronted with something. a video getting hundreds of thousands of page views from one side of the other that's showing they think the readers obviously do you just post it, do you say this comes from a source and we believe there is credibility and i think the key is filtering through the key is better damaging to the institution or the person that you are covering

the consequences are not true and significant, then again, they have to engage but at a certain point if there is a video hundreds of thousands of people have seen as a news organization that seems like there is a proactive obligation to say here is this video and we are going to keep on to try to evaluate the authenticity. it wasn't something that was worked on in photoshop and there's a lot that can be done with the digital video is that gives one pause. the same thing was so low wall street journal not that that ever happened, right, john? >> he would come back at the next day even if he can't confirm his self it's down 8.2%

based on some reports of the altercation that we aren't going to mention. journalists have had to deal with this a long time it's just now you don't have 24 hours to evaluate. >> thank you. >> if you would like to hang around in the insert any other questions. >> i am an independent journalist and background tv and print without making it too complicated how does the social media become a part of the journalism than the on? >> how does it or how did it? >> how has it accepted? because no matter how expedient the means of information, they were always vetted.

and today a tweet is 15 words is not invented and that seems to be the violation. second, how much is it driven by the advertising dollars of the needs because it does compromise when you mentioned the story of a colleague, very frequently publications you or media outlets that one who works for demand you to be a part of their facebook page, so it is twofold. >> okay, so you can break this into several parts. one is social media is a very important distribution platform. i don't know how many of you are on twitter or facebook but a lot of what i read during the day is links that my friends or people i follow on to better are saying something really interesting. and for a number of people, twitter has become the home page

in a way "the new york times" is not their home page and that may be hard to imagine, but in fact during the 2012 election if you are following the best political journals on 22 you know everything that was going on in real time and you didn't just know what they were saying, you knew what they were reading and talking about. think of the value of that. journalistically that is a very valuable thing. >> i will stop you right there. if the distribution you post things on the mail or call somebody and say read my article that isn't a part of the journalism. >> part of what? >> the journalistic realm. there is a fan why in of saying what is the verbatim and the other one saying i am following so and so because they are a

good reporter but those are two different things. >> there's also -- life work at the miami herald or even the journal? i just assume it's the circulation was 480,000i would send 480,000 people that actually read my story that way. believe me it was a very small fraction of that so i don't see any personal responsibility for ensuring people read for praying one of my editors to get it on local page one journalists do have a responsibility and one that is encouraged by their employers to get their stories out there and part of the way you do that there is an advertising mode on that because

the more pages you have to sell, so one more. >> getting people to see the printed word in the articles you put out in the stories so twitter has 15 words. where do you slice that? >> twitter can be very effectively for journalists to find sources as well she said she uses it to find out what is going on. this gives you a starting point in a way that is one more tool in the toolbox it isn't the only thing a journalist should be doing but it can be an effective way to find.

>> christopher paulson at cnn. i wanted to hear more on your thoughts of the media policies of employees i've talked with a lot of colleagues at different organizations. it seems like a lot of them have gone with a blanket policy of you can't express your opinion on any social media forum, and a follow-up on matt, you mentioned a couple of new students here. that generation in particular has gone a long period of time without any filter so now they're opinions although young opinions are out there already which can influence their career so where do you think this is going to go? >> the short answer i don't know what the long answer is -- i am sorry can you say the first part again? >> it was basically looking at

the direction a lot of the large media companies have gone which is a blanket. you have no opinion. >> so, i mean, certainly for many years the was the way the newspapers in particular handled things and got to be when most cities became a one newspaper city in the interest to ensure that it didn't lean too far one way or the other because they are trying of the largest single audience. fighting dysart to understand where they are coming from and they can certainly see on a case like "the new york times" once they started saying some of the things they said they had to read her in because they had an institutional interest as an observer in the middle east and it's not so much in terms of the advertising. they aren't getting many ads from the bank in cairo but in terms of their ongoing

credibility to the use of, i certainly understand why they are doing it and what we are going to see is the big institutions will continue to do that and that is why the policy is so strong. but in the meantime there is a surge for the news organization or the website that feels the operated under the same strictures and the chair to make up their mind and how they want to point to the career. >> something else that you alluded to that is important that journalists, young and old need to realize they are leading a digital trail wherever they go and one of the things when they make a decision to come to columbia when i worked at the baltimore news american in the early 80's i dare you to find them. he would have to go into the basement of the baltimore public library to go through the

corrections but if i want to find a correction it would take me about two minutes and they can be corrections going back seven, eight, ten years. so i think that kind of digital fingerprint that we are leaving, you know, kind of the above and beyond the immediate and that can happen when you send out eight weeks or a post, the kind of trail that you are leaving is something that journalists are not made a conscious of. >> full disclosure and not in the industry though i am a big fan and avid reader. the quotient i have is similar to follow-up on the previous gentleman and it has to do the object to the and how you teach

object to the. i see that from an article to an editorial sometimes it gets a little blurred then you get to the social media and it can get even more blurred. i'm curious how you teach that and that made - in as well. >> so, what we try to do at the journalism school and really if we -- every news organization that we have worked at is to try not to fremont and activity has i'm going to devote 50% of my story to one side and 50% to the other and let them make up their mind because at that point you are really a stenographer rather than a journalist and you do have an obligation as a journalist to use your analytical abilities and your knowledge of the beat and understanding forces to provide the readers. so i call more independence

rather than object to the beef which is if you basically kind of decide which side is right and which side is wrong, then you basically throws herself off to the kind of multiple opinions that might in -- in form and might go against the grain. it's hard for journalists to cover the anti-abortion movement because they feel that this is a right that's been decided by the supreme court and i often do a session with my students trying to help them understand there are reasons people feel the way they do and if you close your mind off to that and kind of categorize them as all then you're really not doing your job as a journalist. when you agree with them or not is really besides the point.

that is a learning process and something the good news organizations infiltrate in the way that they do journalism. >> i want to thank you for your talk. it's interesting. i may former san francisco chronicle editor writing for international ngos and my question is the degree to which your colleagues at columbia and former colleagues of the journal talk about when i look at friends and colleagues who were in the media, i notice that facebook seems more appropriate for the columnists to some degree and twitter is great for the reporters. if you see the day coming and the differences in the way the technology works to help the journalistic organizations come up with guidelines.

>> i guess i haven't really thought about it quite that way. but facebook their tend to be a more defined audience like old high school girlfriend and cousins that you are embarrassed they have the same last name as you rather than twittered the audience is and the net and if you're interested or provocative enough, you can easily have, you know, as we have seen, 7500 -- many people have hundreds of thousands or millions of followers which is impossible unless you are doing it through the white page. so, and there is some interesting research and around about how they use water and facebook differently. it is a different sense of discovery. twitter often tends to be more topic based so you may have eight writer feed for people who are going to be covering the atlanta braves or people

covering politics rather than facebook it tends to be more of a social environment. i'm not sure that the news organizations have thought that through very much. >> last one. make it good to use the mick no pressure. >> thank you for being here. my name is shannon and and work for cnn. i think like a lot of people that work for a larger news organization, our experience with social media isn't so much within our own personal account it is a lot of managing an account for the organization. one of the things i find doing that with one of the cnn brands is sort of having a voice but also staying within the constraints of the brand, and you had mentioned earlier people were trying to become sort of brash and that sort of thing and

how they use social media in order to bring more people to their sites. do you think that there is a lion or what is that line the transfer of having your own voice as well as staying within the constraints in the personal or the company account. >> i would imagine they are very anxious to get more and more followers as they see the ifill yet in des moines iowa have 30,000 followers and maybe had only 10,000 them you have to take care of them. how can this be true. then of course what you need to do to triple your audience on twitter. i think a lot of it as kind of the news organizations to figure out not just for the

individuals, but what is the social media brand, what do we want to be known as on facebook order and how does that overlap with or defer from the institutional brand, and i would assume that is a big issue. a lot of news organizations especially. i'm not quite sure. it seems like you may have to draw somewhat different set of rules around how you portray yourself on one of these platforms and how you are doing it in the general public. >> we have one question -- >> do you have a tauter account? >> i do. [laughter] thank you for coming. >> thank you very much.

[applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> the intelligentsia is driven by this certainty that religion and reason are in different

boxes, that the funds and religion are in different boxes, and but to actually are at war with each other. they are amenable to each other. someone that is rational was not religious and someone that is religious is not rational. france is rational and the antidote to religious rationality's. now, this itself is the ultimate irrational idea because the believe that religion as amenable to the funds and the reasons and the west is completely not true. religion underpinned funds and reasons. >> ronald reagan massively made mistakes on defense. the defense budget wasn't just a

waste of money in those eight years. it's creating the war machine to create so much havoc in the world and so much, you know, anger and problems tour will the world but for totally unnecessary that made this an imperial humorist imperial power on the other hand, he did for the first time since eisenhower standout for limiting the state. the government of the state is not a solution to every problem in fact it can way down the private economy, and therefore the idea of technological change, the idea that people should make their own decisions without some many in washington. he stood for all those things. i agree with all those things and so that puts the plus in his column and so of course fiscally

he lost it. he really needed to stand up for closing more of that deficit. the idea that ronald reagan spent a lifetime before 1980 as the greatest surge opponent of the spending that there ever was and he lost a legacy of the massive deficits which permitted his followers to say he proved deficits do not matter. that was a historical error of enormous proportions. ..

first presentation will be by dr. janet, who is vice president and head of microsoft research international, and as such, is a visiting india china, even u.k. cambridge and supervising research for microsoft. she's apparently been with microsoft for a few months now for five months. before this, she was at the carnegie substitute. the president's -- computer science and headed the department there. an outstanding department. of computer science and information.

she has a special affinity for me. he's at triple threat out of m.i.t. she got her bachelors degree -- master's degree and ph.d. degree at m.i.t. before moving on in her career. doctor is going to talk today about asian perspective on science and technology policy contrast in commonality with the u.s. [applause] good morning. it's honor to be able to speak to you on science and technology policy in asia. my mark remarking will be from my experience and perspective as professor and former department head. second, as former assistant director of the computer

information science in engineering directorate at the national science foundation. third, as vice president, head of microsoft research international in charge of labs. two countries to watch are china and india. the stories are different but the trends are the same. the main trend is that both china and india are investing heavily in research and education in science and engineering with ambition goals in terms of increasing numbers and improving quality. to this audience, i think the reason is clear. investment, insight and engineering and investment in basic research and education at all levels are investments in a nation's future. it's economic growth and an ton my, quality of life for its

citizens and international leadership. china started ramping up the investments in the late 1990s. india followed suit by the early 2000s. first and foremost, it is about investing in people, students, faculty, and researchers. second, it is about investing in infrastructure, campus, facility, and industry university research parks. third, it is about investing in ideas. funding for basic research improve pursuit of scientific discovery and technological innovation. let look in more detail at china first. since the 1990s steady investment by the ministry of science and technology, the national science foundation of china, the ministry of education, and the ministry

information technology has transformed china's higher education and research enterprise. through multi-year big investment program with numbers remains 895. 211, and through double digit percent increases in funding for investigator driven research, china has pumped money in to science and engineering, research and education. this money supports faculty and students and universities and scientists at research substitutes. this money supports special programs to nurture young faculty, attract world class faculty to china, attract overseas chinese back to china, and send cheese faculty and students to visit universities abroad. this money goes to support the development of technology including computers and spacecraft. so that china need not rely on

foreign technology. this money supports education in stem discipline at all level from k through 12 to graduate school to increase the numbers and raise standards. let look at some numbers first. in the six-year period from 2006 to 2011, the number of chinese students enrolled in a science and engineering higher education degree program has grown from 1.27 million to 1.72 million. a 35 percent increase. in 2011 china produced over 37,000 ph.d. in science and engineering. these numbers sound even more impressive when considered in the context two of other trends. first, since 1991, the number of chinese newborns started to steadily drop. even so, the absolute number of

children going to college kept steadily rising. in this recent six year period, the fraction of college age chinese going on to higher education steadily increased. second, in this six-year period, the fraction of students in science and engineering involve student in higher education has been steady at over 40%. 0% of students studying science and engineering. what about investment in infrastructure? ten years ago equipment and facilities were primitive and in short supply. today almost all chinese universities have the most modern facility that rival the top private universities in the u.s. specific to information technology, in the early 2000s, china built a software college program to produce more

graduates to immediate the -- meet the demand of the growing china i. t. industry. by july 2011, the thirty seven software colleges have graduated 100,000 students. what about investment in r&d? from 2000 to 2011, the growth domestic expenditure on rd climbed from 11 billion to $13 2 billion. an annual increase of nearly 23% over 11 years. what about quality? ten years ago, a ph.d. in china was more like a master's degree in the u.s. little real research was done. now top universities are producing top quality ph.d.es. one progress is when a ph.d. trained in china gets a tenure track faculty position in the u.s. this is just beginning to

happen. for example, recent hires at stanford, colombia, and university of michigan got their ph.d.es in china. another yardstick of progress is evidence that microsoft research asia. when it started fifteen years ago, msra recruited many overseas chinese to come back to china and build up the lab. including all four of the past and current managing directors. now nearly 90% of msra researchers many whom of are student intern receive the ph.d. training in china. i would like to share with you two standout in term of research quality. in my personal opinion, these two standouts put china on the back in computer science. fist, and i mean speak objectively. microsoft research asia.

as with many u.s. and multinational companies in the late 'out microsoft invested early in china. unusually, microsoft decided to open a research lap -- lab in beijing first rather than start with a development arm. as with all microsoft research labs, they foster academic environment that supports open, basic research. msra quickly gained visibility in the computer science research community through the outstanding research especially in computer graphics, computer vision, data mining, multimedia, information retrieval, and internet search. msra consistently publishes in the premier constants in computer science which is a measure of excellence in the field. for example, in this year's highly competitive international conference on computer graphics, msra authored 10% of the

accepted papers. msra changed 350 -- trained 350 interns for year. now they work in the chinese i. t. industry. university and the chinese academy of sciences. each year msra university's outreach program trying 15,000 students and thirty top universities. msra grew from a handful of people in 1998, to today's 230 researchers and engineers and 250 visiting scientists students. if you ever visit msra, you will sense the energy, confidence, and determination. the spirit is inspiring. my second story is --

[inaudible] in 2004, china recruited award winning professor andrew then at princeton university to elevate the quality of chinese academic computer science. at the university, he quickly built up ab substitute of computer science now merged in to the institute for interdisciplinary for sciences which attracts hundreds of visitors and post opens from universities around the world. and put them through an extremely rigorous academic program including research experience. members of the class are found in top graduate programs in computer science in the united states. including carnegie university. these two standout helped improve the quality of research and computer science in china.

so now as a result of the pipeline of talent produced, the gap between research quality and msra university and research quality in the rest of chinese industry and academia is rapidly shrinking. these numbers about quality, however. are just the beginning. i believe that one of china's top priorities now is to improve the quality of the research that is performed in china. what about research ambition? china thinks big. b g.i. is the world's largest commercial gene sequencer. in 2011 it started as a 3 million genome project. china plans to invest $3 22 billion in smart cities already built 430,000 data centers to support cloud expiewting and

plans a 20 percent growth in investment in bio tech. just three months ago, china announced targeted investment in big data. my guess is that big data could be a potential deferuater for china in the future. china also thinks boldly. professor yao is now leading an effort to build a quantity quantum computer. in term of technological innovation it hit china and relentless. msra, for the fist time in the fifteen year history, feels competition in recruiting talent not just from chinese companies and top universities, but also now from china start-ups. as much as china is growing its own and establishing world leadership in science and engineering, the u.s. has not lost the luster to the chinese.

for two reasons. quality of education, and quality of life. while china has sittingly increased investment in stem education and research, the chinese still desire to come to the u.s. to study. indeed chinese students studying abroad are getting younger. wealthy chinese families can afford private school tuition. the number of chinese students studying in the u.s. reached 200,000 in 2012. representing an annual increase of nearly 23% over the past six years. the number of high school students studying in the u.s. has climbed from 65 in 2006, to over 6700 in 2011. achieving a hundred-fold increase in five years.

while the u.s. gets the the biggest share of the top quality chinese science and engineering talent. significant number of chinese go to europe, australia, and canada. the huge pool produced by the policy focus on science and engineering, the pipeline for the rest of the world. also, while the number of chinese students abroad has increased, so has the number of chinese students returning from their overseas studies. in 2012, the annual growth rate of number of students returning to china was 47 percent. finally, the chinese looked to the u.s. and other western countries not only for better quality education but also for better quality of life. for example, concern about pollution, food safety, housing, and traffic are now effecting

recruiting and retention in china. that was china. now let's look at india. india's story is different. india's increased investment are motivated by two challenges. the number of indian ph.d. in science and engineering, and the quality of india's science and engineering undergraduates. india produces 1010,000 ph.d. in science and engineering per year. 70 percent are in the sciences, 10% in engineering, and the rest are in medicine, agricultural, and other fields. in contrast to india's 10,000 ph.d. in 2011, the u.s. produced 36,000 ph.d.es in science and engineering for a population a quarter in size. let me focus on just engineering. the -- the story centers around

the indian institute of technology commonly known as the iit. iit, to this day, are famous for producing top quality undergraduates in engineering. many iit graduates have come to the u.s. for the graduate studies. many now are in leadership roles in academia, industry, government, and r&d organization worldwide. today there are fifteen i, t with five more to be added in the near future. most ph.d. and engineering and india from the it. the overall number of ph.d. is only about 1,000 per year which is tiny compared to the 1.24 billion people in india. beyond the iit, india has 4,000 colleges producing 700,000

engineering undergraduates a year. with the expectations that this number will cross one million in three or four years. these numbers sound astonishing. there is one problem. quality. while it produced top quality, the vast majority of the engineering undergraduates do not come from the iit. more over, the large number of students unemployable and further train. the low number of ph.d. and the quality of the undergraduate, the government and india recently adopted the 2010 recommendation of the [inaudible] committee. set up to produce a road map specifically to take the i. i. t. to the next level. the committee recommendations are many.

they include >> --: one, by 2025 they should go from producing 1,000 ph.d. a year. to 10,000 ph.d. a year. two, in ten years, the iit should scale up the faculty from a current 4,000 to 16,000. three, in ten years, seventy centrally funded institution include the 20iit should graduate 100,000 high quality engineers a year. so india is thinking aggressively in building the talent in engineering. i would be remiss if i did not mention microsoft research india. in bangalore the lab that celebrated the eighth first day. intratalent from local university and abroad. it's a standout in computer science research in india.

especially theoretical science and wireless networking. and anyone in the world who does research in the area of technology for merging marnghts probably -- market probably is at microsoft research india or aloom as an student post open or visiting faculty or visiting researcher. like a sister lab in beijing, microsoft research india has extensive outreach and student internship programs and works closely with indian academia and government policy makers. looking ahead for science and jeering, -- engineering india's 12th five-year plan for 2012 through 2017 proposes earmarking $24 billion for r r&d in six scientific departments. more than two and a half times what india spent overthe previous five-year period. the counsel of scientific and descrail research plans

investment in biology, bioand medic material, and solar energy. the department of science and technology wants to create twenty five nano technology start-up company and build a computer. in summary, the differences between the recent past and today for china are dpramatic. -- dramatic. the forecast study it's a u.s. government investment in r&d continued to decline will remain flat. china could overtake the u.s. by 2023 in ten years. the bottom line in terms of numbers china is catching up and india is not far behind.

but numbers don't tell a whole story. the u.s. continues to attract top talent in science and engineering. because of the quality of u.s. higher education and research. the u.s. continues to spawn ambition research programs such as the national robotic initiative, big data, and most recently the brain. we are still world leaders in science and engineering. of course, we should pay close attention to the trends in the asia-pacific reeblg. country such as china and india aric mag investment to groom talent in the generations to come. and to compete aggressively in science and engineering on the international stage. thank you very much. [applause] i'll take a few questions. [inaudible]

identify yourself. >> what is moving to -- something that i was surprised about what i was looking at it during the speech from -- [inaudible] compared to europe, which is a very developed economy now is about half. of ph.d. in engineering. it's an engineer specific. [inaudible] >> half the number of ph.d. engineering.

that's . >> i believe the numbers. yeah. >> in your presentation you talk about the role of the rise of universities and traditional institutions of learning in india and china, and the effect it had on raising the quality of science and engineer in the location. there was a rise of new model of education centered around the web. i was wondering for you see that as a role of perhaps another path toward the emergence between highly educate personnel in places with don't necessarily have the traditional educational infrastructure. >> that's an excellent question. most, of course, are causing a lot of commotion where it is at interest is india today. there's actually a research

program and msra india working with the indian government to explore the use to increase access quality education for the masses in -- it would be a tremendous boom for the country and population. so this very much on the mind. i don't see as much in china specialsly the chinese university. there's discussion and talk, but, you know, again i cannot emphasize enough the u.s. is the world leader in science and engineering, research and education. and i going to many countries abroad they always look to us in

the u.s. how do you do peer revere -- this is opening up another -- and so they say these other countries still look up to the u.s. and when there's -- discussion about -- in the u.s. there's similar discussion but not any more advanced thought than what is happening today in the u.s. >> hi. it heather dean. to kind of follow up on what you said about peer review, one of the strengths in american r&d has been the lack of political interference in general and the ability of very young researchers to start labs and get funding and lead their labs. is that something you see changing at all in china or

india as they seek to improve the science and r&d? >> definitely. i also a few years ago served on a review panel for the national foundation of china. and this would -- the abroad science and international panel physic, chemist, material scientist from around the world on the panel looked at the national science foundation of china as its the representative agency that first of all, wants to be like and wants that same value system. the same integrity of science and scholarship on the review system and so on. so i -- and i see they are -- it's definitely moving in the right direction. i think in india, the -- [inaudible]

committee report speaks very specifically to that issue. so at least in china and india, the move in the direction to be like the u.s. >> over here. >> yes. [inaudible] my question is the lack diversity in research and development and who gets to do this. my visit to china, i see them making an effort to include ethnic miernlty. in india they make concerted effort to ensure collusion of the untouchable as part of that. i don't see the same kind of effort here. even though we have an african-american president, we have actually gone backwards in terms of representation in institutions of higher learning.

given that the demographic say that the united states of tomorrow is not going to look like who is in this room. it's going to be more diverse. where is the effort made where are we setting up center and institution. i don't see them in the inner city. where is the effort being made to ensure those groups who have been historically under represented in the science and technology are included in the vision for tomorrow? >> i believe you are asking a question about diversity effort in the united states. and again, i can speak with my old hat on and my old tc hat on, if you will. this clearly great import for all of science and engineering research and education. diversity of viewpoints and it's not just about gender diversity

or ethic diversity and so on. diversity among all is important for advancing science but also for indedication, idea. imagine each dimension of diversity whether it's gender or ethnicity or whether you come from a rural area or inner city, imagine that is defining your design space. if you were only looking at, you know, male life. you get this design space. if you look open dimension. you have bigger design space. that's one of the arguments for why increasing diversity along multiple dimension is so important for innovation and for scientific discovery. i hope i don't need to make the argument to this audience on this. i see that -- i do remember it

was a struggle because, you know, the bottom line is what programs do you nut place -- put in place that move the needle? how much money is enough? those are hard questions to answer especially in the budget times. i know, that companies especially i in my industry i. t. worry about it a lot in term of gender diversity and ethnic minority and so on. so it's a tough problem. >> i thought you did a great job in defining the problem and describing your strength. talking about how question move forward and address where we're potentially resting our on our laurels. where do you think our biggest problems are?

we are utilizing the full population, that our k-12 education program are not equitable, and a lot of talent is potentially not being given opportunities. so i see that as a very fundamental issue that we're potentially losing a generation of good scientists and engineers. and that we need to reverse that trend because we are -- you can see with our funding, we're not recognizing that problem that with i have been wrestling on our lawyers. -- >> i think the short term problem is the funding issue. i think the long-term problem is the education issue. i think that it's educating our

next generation so that there is, i think, john or maybe you were saying, so everyone is science savvy. in the future, we need people who are scientifically literate, if you will. who will be in policy making positions to be making hard decisions. and so they need to understand -- they need to have the basics in science and matt and technology and engineering and so on. so the children of the future have to have this understanding of science and math. and that's the best -- the next generation, if you will. i think also, we as a community in science and engineering, need to educate the public more about science and math but also about the importance of doing basic research in science and engineering. the impact that investment in basic research and science and

engineering have had on their lives. and will continue to transform society and humanity for the future. we have to make the arguments. the science community tends not to speak to the public. they would rather, you know, speak to their fellow scientists so we need people who can speak to policy makers, 0 who can translate science in ways that the public can understand but without comprising the science. that is not an easy ability. so i think it's education at all levels from now to all future generations. for the long-term. the short term issue are some of the very difficult funding budgetary challenges that this u.s. government faces right now. >> okay.

>> i'm jeff alexander with sri. we notice there's been a recent decline in the number of -- papers registered which is a different trend from the past. we presume because of the tightening of research quality standards and things of that nature. i'm kind of curious if you have any u insight how the vaimtion of research quality changing in china? also, to your recent point. are they trying to think about or talk about the return on investment on all of the money put in research? particularly talking about the impact they are expected to see out of all of this assessment. >> well, that's -- first of all, i didn't know about that statistic. i would like to follow up on that and figure out what is going on there. so i don't have a comment on that. i do know that in general, there's been a lot of pressure on the science and engineers in china to public, to get their

ideas out in to not just chinese publication but worldwide international internationally recognized and so on. i don't know that statistics you're quoting. so i -- then -- i forgot the rest of the question. >> return on investment question. i didn't show any charts. for china and india the lines go up like this and the x and y axis they would be different label. they would go like that. one thing that one digs deeper to the numbers in term of r&d investment in china and science and engineering one would see probably a skew, at least in the earlier years of more -- than

basic research. and it's natural. you have an emerging country that has to get there first. then they can start assessing more basic research. which is happening in china. i think in the beginning, they didn't really need to worry so much about roi because the bridges were being built and the trains being built, and, you know, and the university campus were cropping up at 18 months. it was amazing if you ever had been to china, you know, you go one year and you go a year and a half later, it's a different country. it's -- well at least in the past few years it's been like that. so i don't think they have to make any argument about roi. eventually there will be a time when china is in the position like the u.s. we will have to make argument for giving the budget, the

agency that funds basic research in science and engineering. but china is not there. they don't have to worry about it right now. >> i want to take a question here because it's relevant to the last comment. if i look at the research going on. it's going to have an oi. it's going to have to be competitive in the pharmaceutical world within fifteen or so years. they have to be international players. which i expect them to be. and part of that collaboration. >> princeton, new jersey. i would like for you to expand on the difficult you perceive

you find in asia with regard to the peer review. it seems to be related a question that rose at the history of science department at the university of -- princeton. science has been successful democrat western world? as oppose to the rest was world. it turns out that paper was presented at the west leon fill philosophical society. which was it was raised. it's a religious background we tend forget. [inaudible] it's not an ingrained importance of societal behavior. the day-to-day behavior someone at the university of southern california. have you perceived that as a way

to explain the difficulty that asia people have with peer review. can you expand more of the difficulty is? the short answer is yes. [laughter] and let me give you a longer answer and -- i've give -- a few years ago when i was still at carnegie i was visiting msra, which is open basic research -- if you go to msra like you went to microsoft research and read it a chinese faces. it's really just like the research lab you find in the united states. and i was talking to a colleague of mine there and he said that he does not he deliberately refuses to review a submission

to a particular chinese journal in i guess in computing -- he's afraid, first of all, suspect the quality of the submission will be pretty low. so he'll write this negative review and suggest rejection. he's afraid that will get back to him in some way. he just refuses to participate in that system. now as ironic, of course, because the impact at msra has had on the computer science research community, china has been in some sense to spread the western value of peer review of the criticism, you know, scientific process.

you can see. i guess that open society that fosters open criticism which is very much like the western world, the u.s. is certainly is part of the whole peer review ideal and thus it does help to have that al churl value, if you will, and to support the advancement of science. >> we are going to be able to take three more questions. they have to be short. and right to the point. [inaudible] is growing community in science and technology. my question is how can we

constructively engage with the countries. we're moving together forward together and can understand where it's coming from. also going on with what you were talking about in open society. how do we make sure that. >> the scientific community in china and india welcome engagement with scientific communities around the world. scientist are scientists. they like to talk science. that's not a problem. i think the hint what your question is about is more political in nature policy makers from both sides would have to engage. science policy makers would have to engage. >> over here. quick. [inaudible] my question is you talk a lot

about the investment particularly in information technology and computer sciences in china. can you comment on the the physical sciences that is there as forceful of priority on that? i know that certainly the chinese academy of sciences had a strong program or theoretical. but do you see a transformation in china in things like physic and chemistry as well as the information sciences. >> from my very limited view, because i have not studied the science policy of china for, you know, decade or even a decade. but for my limited view having served on the china committee and so on. the answer is yes.

and i certainly think this is true of the life sciences. i would assume i can use the same language of pumping investment to science. and also i would argue that there are areas in science that china and computer science is not -- there are areas in science in china that they are highly competitive worldwide now. >> quick question. >> stewart graham, georgia tech. until recently, i was serving in an agency in the administration. i had the opportunity to help work with team that was facing the innovation strategy. and one of the highly placed economic advisers asked us a hard question. he said if we are generating a

fewer engineers or scientists than we ought to, why is -- isn't the market responding and correcting that? why don't salaries rides to the point at which the clear incentive for undergraduate would be to change the direction of the plans? switching that around to the chinese context, what is it about the opportunities for students in china that leads 40% of them to be pursuing these? what are the institutional defenses? is it that alternative are less good? that there are other institutional pressures that lead to 40% to pursue that? i wondered if you had an answer? >> that's a really great question. let me just qualify your statement about demand for engineers and scientists in this country. i think a certain sector, for instance, information technology

the demand by companies far outweighs the supply. and i can speak, you know, for they get six digit salary offers from the major it companies, they are in high demand and not producing enough of them. so the ph.d. slefl a little different because of federal funding, university are tightening up. they may not be hiring as much. now in china, i just see it as maybe is particle churl. i don't have any scientific answer to the question. it's culture. chinese families respect science, engineering, math, and

technology children feel like they go to the area. there's no pressure not go to that area. if you're good at math and you study math and science and whatever it is. they're not -- so then, of course, the i. t. industry is exciting in that causes a lot of enticement to go in to technology and engineering certainly. thank you very much. [applause] on to the next treat. the next presentation will be dr. who is a president of the science and technology policy institute for the republican of korea. he preventionly served as president of the korean society for technology management in

economics. and you can see from his vd he has a long history in governmental cutting he's going to present on the creating economy and innovation. >> thank you. good morning, everybody. i'm from korea. today what i'm going to present to you is is a biggish -- [inaudible]

the new government is to be paradigm shift in economics and -- [inaudible] and social progress and direction of govern governess. one of the priority goal is creative economy centered around -- [inaudible] and very deep issues -- [inaudible] so i'm going introduce what is the creative economy career. and i'm not going to speak too much time on that, you know, explanation of a concept of creative economy.

i'll try to -- explain why the korea government needs such a -- [inaudible] economy. and then i will would like to show you some -- for the economy. then i conclude with the opportunity for collaboration with the u.s. okay. this is a framework for a korean government who is -- this kind of [inaudible]

here the vision of, you know, korea's new government is people in a new era -- [inaudible] to do that, they set why priority the first one is creativity economy on the center on job creation. and [inaudible] promoting creativity. and the fourth is integrate society and the fifth for korean reunification the [inaudible] centered on job creation.

to get this is -- first [inaudible] for a creative economy, second, engine for job creation. third, empowers for immediate- medium size business. science and technology created by innovation. the fifth is a market economy based on fair trade. the sixth is -- [inaudible] creative economy. for creative economy centered on job creation. let me give -- [inaudible] the creative economy purchase

what the government pursued. creative and imaginative idea. to create new value added products and jobs. why the new government suggested this priority -- [inaudible] create what the korean economy is. as said china and india is chasing up korea so fast.

and the u.s. is getting away from korea we are in that -- [inaudible] we have to escape this difficult economic the new government to creative economy. okay. let me talk briefly about the korean economy situation with the several indicators. the growth rate is expected from 12.2% in 20 to 1.7% in the 2030. that that with that kind of

situation, i think to your memory -- [inaudible] has been seven, eight, nine percentage china is doing now. but the future is not going to be -- [inaudible] a crucial element expect to evolve from 1.5% to minus 0.5%. on debt of emerging economy but of the -- [inaudible] you see here. it's emerging economies gross rate and it's -- [inaudible]

the blue line is the evidence of the word, you know, average economy grows. the korea below that average. now -- [inaudible] we are in big trouble. we have to escape it. how can we do so? that's the mission of this new government. let's look at this graph. this is a, you know, you see here -- [inaudible]

okay. here for the conglomerate, the big largest care companies -- on to have performed so proud, i mean, the same -- [inaudible] what they have because the volume of ten large companies in korea in 2007, you know, was 9

billion toward 9.7 billion in 2012 assist -- [inaudible] it's just decreased. as i told you, korea, you know, we cannot, you know, obtain with that. therefore we need to take a new strategy to move forward. okay. let -- which can be korea

economy that's a very, you know, i mean, the in korea is [inaudible] in korea is decreased. you see here korea -- i cannot see the number. okay. here the international of business honors for -- [inaudible] active people it shows that india's diagram gate number of the u.s. -- u.k. you see the -- [inaudible]

the average is 4.2eur9. korea is just 1.52. it's low over everything, you know, number of uk the future of korean economy is not so not so promised. [inaudible] activity compared to other other nations. cop traited on education system emphasizing creativity as well

as creating an environment where young people can choose to start business -- [inaudible] we need to establish a very sound and for start-up companies. that is -- [inaudible] i think the new government has to do for five years. let see -- [inaudible] in terms of entrepreneur process, korea needs to serve urgent issues for the stage of r&d, financing and create basic

research as -- [inaudible] research but not yet enough. the second economy system forgiving honest effort we call it the third is -- [inaudible] guide some start-up companies to, you know, global market.

and also, a government procurement market we should take care of that one. this is paradigm shift from, you know,. ..

the second factor is the market. the third one is securing -- securing market for startups. okay, previously, what is ingrained into the learning and capital created with thinking was what the korea, you know, here in the stories. the financing of this sense unforgiving admin account -- attempt. however, the market structure

can now find customers. we have to change these three sectors, open to cultivate. for the capital market, providing investment and transitions. for the initial market for startups, increase private markets. we have to cooperate with large size. okay, we established these three factors for ecosystem of, you know, learning startup companies that we can take the economy i'm

sure. but is the direction towards an economy? the first one is cultivate a creative resource. to do that, we need to try transitions to trains. i know mr. obama -- president obama, you know, mention many times the korean education system. that is very good. i don't think it's enough for us to move to another stage them in economic level. this is the young entrepreneurs. before i can see here, i visited

uci's then about that kind of start a program inside a vcr stand. in korea, we need to introduce that kind of program for young entrepreneurs further in a startup company. the third broad is a research environment. as i told you, we have to allow research. we have to learn it from the uss. you have a very good peer review systems, but in korea i don't

think we introduce that kind of system. okay, the sack at his improving the capital market. you know, the courier startup company, you know, they don't have much opportunity to sell their company with mna because of a poor capital markets system. we have to at least have a capital system for us. it was investment and also we need to expand the market and reform kosdaq.

we need to support startups that target the global market. but the company are doing very well, so we need to benchmark that kind of stuff. the third one is cooperative ecosystem with the larger size. it is a symbolic corporate pack with it between business of all sizes. the market and the defense, aerospace and environment this is what the contents of the economy. what kind of cross mention the

korean economic return by his son u.s. and european country. we are trying to get on the frat. so we have to find a carefully. my cats is risk up here. some areas of biomedical sphere incendiary as of cogent industries combining the equator and imagination with acid tea.

okay, the best of power structure for start up companies is collaboration -- collaboration for the reprioritization of startups. cooperation in the private sphere is joint ventures or opportunities. we are going to make an ecosystem provide opportunities for young entrepreneurs as i mention. you can have some opportunity and also they can have an opportunity in china and india,

two. okay, to summarize the power direction and paradigm shift -- shift of, you know, korean government, let me summarize. paradigm changing economic policy to balance their growth strategy we have to move to innovation strategy. we have to move from government economy to private sector economic to. we have to move from economic

development to strategy. and also, we need to deregulate many things in market economy. also, some areas we need to strength in fair trading. we need to have partition among public research institute to cooperate. the last one, balance between domestic service industry in the manufacturing industry.

if we have this kind of economic system, the korean economy can be prioritized in the near future. thank you. [applause] >> questions? >> one of the things i'm not sure that is recognized in this country is how entrepreneurial many of our universities hire. i had a chance to look at these numbers at m.i.t. historically, a third of all m.i.t. graduate have started companies. they used to do it over 30 years. now, a third are starting companies within the first 10

years of leaving m.i.t. we're lagging behind stanford. we are in stanford nv because of the entrepreneurial nature of that environment. the entrepreneurial ship and creating new innovations and transfer technology is an enormous driver of our economy. [inaudible] >> there's been a chorus for many years as you know tens of thousands of u.s. troops stationed on the north-south korea border. as i understand it, the u.s. is paying for the majority of the cost of deploying and training these troops. korea pays about 40% of it. so this in effect amounts to a long-term subsidy of the korean economy by the u.s.

so there have been some proposals that the u.s. could save billions of dollars by pulling out some of these troops. i wonder if your economy has developed tremendously over the last few years and possibly could provide the technology, the weapons in trading and so forth to maintain that defense position, self-sustaining. what is the conversation in korea about this issue? >> well, it's not easy. if that is my specialty. that's kind of political theory getting involved. sorry. >> christine burgess.

i really enjoyed your presentation. one thing that's particularly interesting is the education piece in terms of changing the way your students are educated to make of our creative. i think to hear martha palacios that are going to be pursued to fill this culture change. >> yeah, what i mentioned, you know, to move to a creative economy cannot be certain ecosystem depend on the changing, the changing the way it thinking in the conventional behavior. that kind of thing is first conditioned, but most important thing is education. you now, as i mentioned,

president obama mentioned several times about the korean education system is very successful. yeah, it has been so successful so far, but to move to another stage of economic brother, we need to change the education system as i mentioned from the entrance based education system. it is the most important task for korean government. >> hi, my name is to tally the gaia from units each capitol hill. the culture part is important been in the university entrepreneurship community, you see that mentality is important

that kind of extending on the question for young students to be entrepreneurs, it's not just their mindset, but probably been supported by parents, families, that sort of thing. do you in creating this new culture of entrepreneurship is going to happen to think korea? bringing korean entrepreneurs, highlighting them for relevant golf taking korean students out of korea to see other things, bringing other people to serve as examples? had used to that happening? >> both cases important. the korean government is trying to give more opportunity to do for the student. also, the korean government try

to give incentives abroad. >> hi, steve nelson. i want to thank you for your insightful analysis of the strategic directions the government is trying to move in. surely after viciously plan is that, they would be sources of resistance within the political and economic system. i wonder if he could discuss what those are and what the plans are for overcoming not. >> as i've told you, you know, korea is here since the 1960s

were economic development. we have taken already 50 years, but to move to another stage of the economy, i think we need more time. so we have to try. i don't think we are too late. >> hi, my name is mooncalf at the deer attack research institute. my question as we all know he created a home for multinational companies like samsung, lg, so forth. from my experience of interact team with young college graduates and so forth if they want to work at samsung. they don't want to compete with

samsung. so i am wondering, what is the mindset of young college graduates are young businessman that want to invent something are become entrepreneurial to get into their own start up? how do they envision the competition that they have that these companies and if you talk about their mindset, talented incentives they provide. >> you know, it is very successful and very famous person now. korea people is very talented at it. the only way is for government to bring up that kind of current from the young korean students.

the only thing is there's not much for the government to do. the only thing is that i told you is to have a baseline of ecosystems are learning startup companies. so we are securing many tasks in detail. these tasks here. i don't have enough time. >> in a lot of these discussions , the emphasis seems to be on small businesses. something that makes me curious is it just seems like large companies are successfully exporting the risk. they are allowing small companies to take the risk and

then they observed a successful and diverse. and so government funding are different things like this is a danger we are going to socialize the risk revamped entrepreneurship. how do we see the government's goal in maintaining within large companies? >> as you know, the korean company are already creative. they are very competitive in global markets. so what the government has to do is they have to do some policies in the area of the market value. so the new government power is not a kind of anti-conglomerate

company. it's just, you know, the new government wants to do with the government should do. i mean, the area of public goods. the area of public services. the area of market values. but so far, the government has not done the march on their own. so this government will do what they have to do as a government. >> i like your stress on latina culture, having taken two companies and biotech elegy. the business managers, technology and capital is an

ecosystem that all three pieces have to be there. they have to be incentivized to do it together because if you don't have the right incentives, you will go off and do something else. and you'll lose. the building the culture is for me. low-level is really going to be a multitask. i wish you the best in doing so. it's a terribly important thing for missing tech knowledge and growing tech knowledge innovation in society. >> that's another, you know, is basically here. the purpose of visiting russian nbc to learn more about the u.s. system on those kinds of things.

>> is a great opportunity for me. >> it's great fun to be be involved. thank you. [applause] >> soy very interesting morning. there is a lecture for lunch. i think the audience for their participation and all the speakers for their very interesting and put. thank you very much. [applause] ♪

>> is a small airport back in the 20s. the military came and established a training base during the second world war. it was a very active days and it was quite an attribute to him that until after the second world war ended in a close and everybody laughed. the little town of you that had about 9000 population was

dwindling because there is no construction going. jurors had not been established as a miniature stained big for you matt and the town had not a very bright future. the population of 9000 dwindling, the junior chamber of commerce said something that they do. we have to attract attention and try to get the airbase reactivated. they came up with an endurance site because every time i was mentioned, they would say yuma, arizona and getting interested in reactivated their base. their first attempt failed and again i'm not a base hit up several days and had another major problem. it's really hot here. will go up two or 3000 feet and beware at school. it took a few months to get parts and repairs done and get it ready, but they took off on the 24th of august and never touched the ground until the 10th of october.

>> mrs. grant was always so interesting. there is this extraordinary roller coaster existence. for most of their lives, u.s. is regarded as an abject failure, unable to provide for his own family. and in almost no time at all, suddenly he was the most popular man in the country. the man who saved the union on the battlefield and president of the united states. >> surely about her time in the

white house. and her memoirs was like a bright and beautiful dream. most wonderful time of my life. that gives you some idea of how much he enjoyed being first lady and salter has been had finally achieved the recognition he deserved. >> the economy in china and the u.s. were the subject of a conversation hosted by bloomberg in washington d.c. last month. participants included former hewlett-packard ceo and an economist at rbc oho. this is about half an hour. >> we are thrilled to be here, although we are aware of one thing. we are aware we need to stay on

time because this panel is the only thing between you and a free lunch and we would hate to interrupt that, so we won't do it. peter helped out on introductions of our panel. heavyweight panel in terms of knowledge and expertise about the u.s. and china. in addition, you should know she was also named one of time magazine's 100 most influential people in science in making and curly fee arena almost needs no introduction. the first woman to head a fortune 20 country in charitable works mentioned in alexandria doing extraordinary things using tape elegy to leverage the donations that impact people's lives. just as one example, 1.8 million

books, 500,000 articles of clothing. 11,000 mattresses. ntc panky, not only has approached the cato institute at johns hopkins, he was named one of the 25 most influential people in the world in 1998 by world trade magazine. if you really want to know why you think he has credibility, it is important to note he grew up in atlantic, iowa, which is a very trustworthy place. iowa is the place where things grow, so we're happy to have everyone here. your book, winner take all looks at how china has embarked on this research rash if you will of commodities. talk about the political and financial implications. if they could income isn't a bad thing? >> thank you. i'm glad to be here.

i think it's important to set the global context of where china is operating. very quickly if i may come remind people that have been elsewhere there is obvious on the one side is demand pressure and effectively supply constraints. on the demand side has grown incredibly rapidly since the 1950s where we had 3 billion people rapidly increase of 7 billion. expectations will plateau at about 10 million people. china is a large piece of that. perhaps macros terms, but absolute numbers. of course the increasing wealth of the organization. these pressures are effectively hampered or constrained to constraints on supply-side view some of its arable land, minerals, we can detail in a

moment. should this approach has been to adopt three key aspects in the systematic and deliberate approach of natural resources. the first is what i consider reliance and biases. going into the world not just in developing countries, but also developed countries to secure natural resources by giving countries what they want. 90% of the world's population lives in the emerging world and in those places you have populations 70% and higher. they need jobs, infrastructure and our delivery not. similarly, ken and i were the largest transaction is underway from the chinese, $15.1 billion to the energy company. we know the canadians have been a producer for many years, but in terms of attractiveness to china, it's quite attractive.

system biosis number one. number two, when we use cash flows in the west, we think time is over pain and the approach makes sense and very friendly terms of the three-pronged approach is china is heavily focused on being a man being a monotonous, basically the key by of natural resources. is china is a key determinant even in the public market. in terms of the political and economic implications, they are obviously so sizable, so large that the implants market prices. in terms of political implications, china has become the go to country for negotiating trade contracts for investment, for many countries around the world and that is

actually a big piece of the political dynamics occurring along the way. >> is this a plundering by china are prudent free-market exploitation of the resource? >> i would say is the free-market exploitation of the resources. they are growing at double-digit rates and have been doing so for 30 years. they are in the market for things. they want to buy and of course this has raised a little better firestorm. a lot of people don't want them buying for whatever reason. on the selling side, they face the same firestorm. they replaced japan as a whipping boy for the united states and the united states has a variety of completely wrongheaded policies in my view vis-à-vis china and the big one is the currency.

the currency is one of which you hadn't ever depreciating one until really the t. 94 from 81 through 1994, it is declining in value and of course i was happening at thoughts of instability in china. not only variance in gdp growth, that the inflation rate went from 7% below the inflation rate in the united states to 20% above the inflation rate in 1994. then they fix the exchange rate. from 1994 until 2005, the exchange rate was fixed to the u.s. dollar and they had stability. stability might not be everything, but everything is nothing when you talk about a big place like china.

then we continued beating up on them and now they let the wind and very stages and it's been completely wrongheaded. the chinese should have a fixed exchange rate pretty much like they could in 2005 and now it gives them a lot of stability. because those bad economic ranking. japan in 1971, the yen was 360 to the dollar. by 1995, april of 1985, the appreciation it depreciated to 80 until finally robert rubin realized japanese economy was going to implode if this

continued. said this idea of manipulating exchange rates to favor the united states is that wrongheaded. it's dangerous. it's destabilizing for not only the international scene, particularly china which is contributing 35% of all incremental growth in the world. they are the engine driving the world. so this idea of u.s. policies that destabilize things because probably they are just wrongheaded and never been thawed out is the key thing vis-à-vis china. they're getting pushed back because they want to buy natural resources. they get pushed back because they are expanding attribute about 40% of the bilateral trade deficit with the u.s.

contributed either chinese. not as bad as the japanese contributing about 60% at the peak with the united states. but still, china is facing a lot of problems from the united states with regard to trade in other countries. not just the u.s. >> when you look at the research question and wonders of messieurs. if china is the big winner, who are the losers? >> loafers, i assert me a great china is getting pushed back for obvious reasons. i agree as well some of our policies are wrongheaded and in effect is. i think railing about human rights is totally irrelevant. they have a different balance

between individual freedoms and collective progress. i say that i'm a pejorative way, but a factual statement. the chinese get pushback because they are not a benign act your in all cases. they think about it from the point of view of their great degree in economic, cultural and military terms. i'm not suggesting they are the enemy, but i'm suggesting the chinese think about winners and losers and i am suggesting they behave it must then than benign ways. for example, there is no question the massive amount of hacking in this country is state-sponsored. i say that as someone who served on advisory boards for both the defense department and the intelligence agency. they are concerned as they luck out and they've managed those

challenges in a superbly effective way that in many ways their challenges going forward are even more difficult. difficult because of what is going on in the world with regard to freedom of information. difficult because their own population has grown frustrated with huge income disparity and massive amounts of corruption. difficult because people in their own country are no longer as content to be, for example, forcibly relocated so something new can be built or have their private property taken away from them. so i think they face some very difficult challenges and they think about their place in the world as wanting to achieve leadership across multiple

dimensions. >> what ways do you think the u.s. is fighting the wrong battle? >> in the following sentence, first i agree policies with regard to currency have been wrongheaded, but beyond that they don't have much suasion with the chinese. in part because the chinese believe and i happen to agree with spent a lot of time and energy manipulating our own currency, manipulating stock markets so they look at us and say, why are you talking to me about this? likewise it was then treasury secretaries from multiple administration to talk about this, i don't think it has much impact although it may irritate as he suggests the recent secretaries of states talk about human rights record, it is not relevant to them. what i believe is relevant to the chinese is their perception

of their own economic self-interest. no more, no less. i also believe the chinese are extremely strategic and long-term thinkers. they have come to realize they could weed out a lot of policy enumerates that no one in this country because we tend to in some cases change her mind, change administration. the battle when he took that with the chinese is how is that we can continue in a productive interdependent economic relation ship, which will require them to play differently with regard to a couple key things. they need to play different with regard to protection of intellectual property in with regard to the cyberintrusion. they need to play differently with regard to certain global challenges that cannot be solved with participation such as

gullible warming. i believe we need to press onmi. i believe we need to press on those issues with consistency over time and exact consequences to their economic self-interest if we are not making the progress we both need to make. >> one of the things carli said that it's on the top of the minds of most international corporations is the notion of hacking coming from the chinese. from your perspective, is that state-sponsored and what are the implications? >> is part of my area. i cannot for an opinion and the general story through the paper and listen to media, it's not that it is state-sponsored. it's interesting listening to the commentary here. i believe the united states is

inaccurate. the reality is china will be the largest economy in gdp terms. someone said we expect is going to occur by 2016 according to the oecd, which is three years away. all these issues will fall by the wayside. human rights, cyberstalking and so on will become irrelevant. what will be relevant if they can deliver economic growth to their population? many countries and many people around the world heavily dependent, but more than that when i hear comments, one of the things that's interesting is china's is exactly the same as united states that point were seven. the trend has been positive for chinese in the united states has been on the decline.

we should care about intellectual property and human rights, but the ideological political and economic model under which the united states and western countries operate, private capitalism come of liberal democracy are antithesis of the way the chinese operate. to focus on cyberis incredibly because it's the very nature of what we believe to be honorable and correct. >> steve, if all is going well with china, one thing that would be a cloud for them might be inflation. what is your outlook for inflation in china? >> as long as they keep the currency tied to the u.s. dollar fairly rigidly, it's not going to be a problem elicits a problem in the united states.

the real problem is right now you have the quantitative easing type programs in the western central banks with the interest rates have been manipulated down to a reasonably low levels, either negative real rates are close to zero. what this has done, the central banks don't realize implications of this innocent top money that goes out of quantitative easing countries. it goes to the emerging market. i think he'll chase scene a hedge fund is going on a massive scale. the reason that held up so well in the crazes. but it's all about the money supply. economic activity is about the money supply.

forget the fiscal stimulus in a sturdy. it's where is the money supply? if you look at the trend rate of growth since 2003, right out the money supply is about 12% over the trend rate. the hot money is coming in. same thing in indonesia, 10%. all these emerging market countries are suffering in the context of currency war. there is no currency war. that's what they've labeled it. massive flows of hot money coming out of the united states and now japan into the emerging market countries and this creates a big headache. so we're back to inflation. their problem is going to be fighting too much loose credit in inflation in, specifically

because of the hot money flows. that is not an indigenous chinese thing. they are just the victims basically. >> when i get into the money thing in the currency thank him again this is another aspect of doing everything wrong, at least from their point of view and giving them a big headache. the trade they come out one thing i forgot about as they started, the u.s. is involved with negotiations with europe or is going to be negotiating with europe on trade. this annoys the chinese and makes them very anxious and say what business is the united states if they went to europe and u.s. is doing. it comes to the western countries. western europe has a habit of regulatory protectionism. under wto, we can't have old

fashioned tariffs and quotas like in the good old days, but there's all kinds of consumer and environmental regulations that can be put on products and essentially raising the bar. by raising the bar, imposing protectionist barrier and protect the market said a chinese as paranoid as they are, rightfully so, then the u.s. and europe put it together to cut a deal and raise the standards and keep chinese products out. >> we differ on this. this is an example of the u.s. act team and having an impact on china's interest is fantastic the u.s. is negotiating. i hope they concluded negotiations with the european union here that's precisely what the u.s. should be doing and it is an attempt to raise the bar

will have a consequence. >> just to follow up, carly. i was on some program chinese television debating this and they were wringing our hands in my view is whatever the standard is, the chinese will need it and can p. if they change the rules of the game, they will play by the rules and meet the standard. in the meantime, diplomatically you see this is another realm, where you're basically throwing sand in somebody's face. they don't know why they were really matter assaulted about all of this and why they don't have some seed on the sidelines anyway and why they're not involved in some way. >> we may be staying on it too long, but i think part of a productive policy that the u.s. would apply to china and vice

versa if it's fair to say china is at a point in their maturity were played at them doesn't work very well. they are not even done. they are a major actor. for china to say woe is me, please. i don't recall the u.s. getting a seat on the sidewalk having deals for resources in africa. >> the notion that the chinese would expect the united states not to act not to act in their own self-interest is laughable. the united states is not just in terms of the recent announcement with the europeans, which i have no faith is going to happen. i'm hope i'm around to see if it does. this trade manipulation and other interventions and trade, but obviously the whole list of policy tours using today to

point out the impact the policy environment for emerging economies. the notion anybody would think that is to think the united states will actually do the right thing in the interest of some external entity is misplaced. i have very little faith and i think everybody understands the case. >> mutual self-interest. peter. >> will put this to her, miss. the global rebalancing requires an increase in chinese domestic demand. as much progress on that front. >> again, the chinese revising the export story will not last if they focus heavily on policies that increase the domestic demand for 30, 35% to somewhere closer to 50%, which should be considered ideal. it's difficult to do that. if you look at the five-year

program that came out a couple years ago, they are explicitly encouraging subsidy programs to be a local population to buy goods refrigerated and more domestic demand that way. is it going to be an easy thing? no, it's incredibly difficult. inflationary pressures could come from that. i'm not sure they're ready to manage that aspect. >> the story on the imbalance is it comes back to the united states. there's been a trade deficit every year since 1995. savings is less than investment and therefore the only way you can get rid of that imbalance if you think it's worth getting rid of, you can cut down private consumption. cut down on private investment. we are not talking about china. or you can cut down the government consumption. those are the only busy convincing act to balance.

forget about exchange rates and so forth. it's a savings and investment equation that drives these trade imbalances are global imbalances. my own view is you should let the market take care of it embrace a lot of the chatter last time because they don't understand it and they invariably take her on policy course to supposedly correct the theme because it's a problem. >> master of ceremonies prerogative. one more question from our audience. china has enough credit problems. they've overinvested in industries oversupply. why should we be concerned about china when they are the same position as japan in 1989? >> dib's headline as their population. not only population, but the

network they created across the world. many countries are heavily dependent on the chinese start working. you'll be familiar with the recent transaction the chinese have embarked upon with the australian to basically do swaps directly with them. many countries around the world are heavily reliant on functioning effectively. there are huge inefficiencies in the economy. obviously it's an artifact of the state capitalist model en masse x-rayed to reject the economy towards consumption. i do worry about commodity constraints. that's a big thing for them, but also i worry a lot of the pressure domestically to satiate demand and minimize on the ground will basically incite the class to do things that are perhaps not market principle,

but much more politically expedient. >> with that, like to thank our panelists. .. good evening, thank you so much for being here tonight.