host: there was a lot of -- has bill daley pledged his support for governor quinn? guest: he has not taken a role in the primary. once he dropped out, the point quinn had the best luck because not only did bill daley lisa decided not to run. s, who both come --m big political families they decided not to run. host: as you look at this republican field, illinois is

traditionally a blue democratic state. can a republican who has won in the past defeat the sitting governor? the last time we had -- we have had illinois isernors -- this governor seen as vulnerable. that's why there is a lot of national attention on this race. governor lieutenant .rob laboy o going whi he is a populist. he is an organizer. is bill hiresgist deblasio's campaign

manager. he is an underdog financially. steve has tremendous problems. higher than the national average unemployment rate. field is openg right now. host: there are a couple there are a couple of number primary race is shaping up including the illinois tenth congressional district. can you explain what's happening there? >> guest: that is the district likely to michigan district hugs the lake shore and goes north to chicago. brad schneider is going into a rematch with republican bob dole after disturbing one term neither of them have a primary

today. they have been raising a lot of money because it is an extend media market and schneider as the democrat ha democrats has bn fashioning themselves as a bipartisan centrist data by the way is how he was in the house. >> host: i want to turn to some of the news of today. i'm not sure if you have seen by reporting but in response to the sanctions yesterday by the president and got some key officials of lanier putin is expected to pose his own sanctions including forbidden senator dichter been a traveling into russia. your thoughts on that. >> guest: when he headed to the office we are looking for the quote that i might have to paraphrase it. the senator's spokesman told me

that the lithuanian mother would be proud of that he's on the enemy list. >> host: the democrats and republicans because we are a year out of the autopsy from the gop will be hearing from the committee later today and covering the remarks. the chair of the republican national committee the new cbs generic polls getting in a to the republicans as we move to the midterm action this is the headline from cbs news and i want to share this ad from the gop aimed at what many call an approach to broaden the appeal of the republicans not only for 2014 the 2016. let's watch. >> ibb based on military equals a strong america. >> there shouldn't be so much red tape. >> i vote for religious freedom.

is that every life is worth protecting. >> i am a republican. >> i am a republican. >> iab leaving the opportunity of the law and i am a republican. >> host: from the republican national committee. so in illinois where you are at the moment and around the country how do you think this is going to play out? >> guest: there are 14 spots it is playing in illinois perhaps because they knew that it was a primary and it would get lost running here for all kind of local and county candidates and also because our congressional races that are contested are scattered through the state and would have a hard time finding a place to make it effective but here's what is interesting about that piece for the diverse voices. it seems to have a standard

message that is a reach out. a year after the autopsy report probably one of the honest questions the chair man is going to be facing as he's making the rounds today is have you improved on broadening the appeal? >> host: else are you looking at improving on primary day? >> guest: durbin in the senate race doesn't have a primary, but on the republican side, we have a state senator running against a businessman and in kind of a weird term which is how the politics always goes, the state senator that has run multiple times, his wife decided to take up official residence in the florida condo because they could save on taxes, so he left to be with her on her birthday so it

gets rid of an unorthodox campaign strategy so the attention for him in the end but on the house races in the congressional district in the western suburbs the incumbent is a democrat bill foster. there's multiple candidates in the republican primary and i will be seeing who he merges from that. >> host: joining us live from chicago bureau chief for the times and this is the headline available online at "the chicago sun-times." it's politics and the home stretch primary day in illinois. thanks for being with us. >> guest: and obama voted absentee. >> host: is he going to have an influence in the governor's race? >> guest: we don't know, that i asked the governor about it and i said some democrats want to distance themselves. he said i will be happy to take the time. he will pick them up at the

airport. >> today's adults and the millennial generation who are having a lot of trouble getting started in life because they come of age in a hostile economy are paying money into a system to support a level of benefits for today's retirees that they have no chance of getting when they themselves retire. so there needs to be a rebuilding of the social compa compact. not only social security and medicare and half of the budget it is by far the biggest thing to do, but it is symbolically the purest statement in the policy that as a country we are a community all in this together. these are programs that affect everybody and the old map of the programs doesn't work.

now a discussion with some of the foreign-policy magazine fingers of 2013 create a scientist, a civil resistance expert and a graduate student who comments on an economic report on austerity participate. former u.s. ambassador to iraq

-- [inaudible conversations] thank you all for coming. this is a panel in the session we are global thinkers and very pleased to have three of our foreign-policy magazine's top 100 global thinkers here at this panel which deals with global challenges, climate change, austerity and the return to authoritarianism. so, we are going to have some science, we are going to have some i canno cannot mix that woe the abysmal science i guess, and

then we are going to have some issues of politics and security questions return to authoritarianism so i'm going to do now is introduced or three panelists, and i want to start with erica chenoweth who is sitting in the middle and the co-author of the award-winning book why civil resistance works. the strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. erica along with co-author maria found that the campaign of nonviolent resistance is more than twice effective as the violent counterparts. the research showed that successful nonviolent resistance assures an more peaceful democracies less likely to regress. the second panel on the mad if left is thomas herndon, a phd student at the university of

miami. we are going to have 3 inches of snow tonight. the university of massachusetts and the co-author of the influential essay does it consistently stifle economic growth a critique. thomas herndon and michael ash and robert point out a widely faulty economic study whereby underlining the intellectual foundation for austerity programs that slashed budgets at a social studies around the world. so we look forward to hearing from comments on this and finally, we are pleased on the extreme left of the stage it's not on the political spectrum is stephanie herring. she is the weather and climate extreme lead at the national is he a neck and atmospheric

administration or noaa. she and her researchers published a groundbreaking report between the human caused climate change and extreme weather events like hurricanes and the herriot we are very pleased to have you join us. so, we are going to start with erica and i have a set of questions you've all had a chance to work with these questions. the research showed the nonviolent resistance has been more than twice as effective as the violent resistance and overthrowing the authoritarian governments. >> the main finding is that nonviolent resistance is quite a bit more effect if and the reason is because of the power participation.

so people win because the people power involved. in fact what we saw his average nonviolent campaign in the raw numbers is four times larger in terms of the active participants than the average violent campaign and if you look at the number of participants as an overall portion of the population they are reliving times larger than the campaign. what happens when you have these large numbers is tha that of the campaign generally it's much more inclusive and representative of the society as a whole, which means that the participants in the campaign might know somebody in the police forces and might know somebody in the internal forces they might be friends or neighbors. and those are the sort of pillars of support of obedience in the authoritarian reliance and maintains power of the more people involved, the more likely there is to be an opportunity to leverage those internal relationships in society. it's important to point out we are not making the argument that

the resistance is better. it's not taking the high ground. it's actually just choosing a method of conflict that allows more people to participate in who ordinarily wouldn't participate in a violent campaign say you get more women and children, people who are elderly and people with disabilities who are going to participate in a variety of tactics and that's what starts to build power from below and draw the power away from the authoritarian regime. >> so, it sounds like extreme weather there seems to be in your field as well a lot of data planes in the recent research. i don't know if it's captured the era area springs so given the cataclysmic events around the world especially in the middle east and the recent

years. >> we've started updating what ended in 2006 and with the help of research assistance the most amazing thing that we found is that through 2013 with a success rate of the nonviolent campaigns back from 1840s through 2013 is 51% and the violent campaign is 26 which is almost the exact same proportion that we found in the buck and one important qualification to that is that we are finding the campaigns that are already developing the significant following so we are only looking at campaigns where there are a thousand participants. so, they are not a small demonstration industry that just goes away. it is already matured to a certain point, but then when we look at the violent and nonviolent campaigns they are twice as effective.

the one reason to blip on the radar is the success rate of nonviolent and violent campaigns have gone down. violent campaign success is way less than 10%. it's almost never happening. the nonviolent campaign success has gone down about 13 percentage points. this is why i was interested in the sort of return of the authoritarianism and what you might call upgrading and in my sense what has happened is this kind of sweep of nonviolent challenge is as made of the way that authoritarian leaders are a bit smarter and instead of going out and doing the coercion and instead of things like the narrative that this is a western conspiracy that may have been trying to mobilize the sentiment using those types of narratives that second one is the political dissidents are terrorists and

whether they are using violence or not, we do not distinguish if they are threatening the political system they must be terrorists. but everything they do is tend to rule the opposition by the sectarian tensions. they tend to count her mobilize groups of people even if they have to pay them. they bring their own people out into the street and he do that street fighting and the fifth thing is of course modern technology is easier to engage in surveillance and that's undermined the technological advantages in the social media. >> so it works on the oppressor side of the divide that even the authoritarians are doing better with nonviolent methods? >> most use these methods to divide and rule the opposition that once they get them plenty divided the 20th violence they

use against them. at that point to the legitimacy is optimized and it doesn't produce the same level of backfire that it might if the opposition was quite united. >> so you would agree with the overall that everyone these days the authoritarianism is somewhat on the rise due to the more sophisticated method? he still have way more democracies in the authoritarian regime. there are too many more regimes coming around that haven't done so before but what is happening is the authoritarian regimes are more durable than they've been in a long tim time if it is thee kind of protected themselves in the more recent and i don't think this is a permanent trend. i think that's what happens is that anytime that we get some kind of new knowledge like this couldn't be other side gets a chance to as my friend was saying last night. there will always be a strategic

interaction but historical records reveal to us when people rely on the nonviolent methods that are locally legitimate in a way that undermines the debut really increased the chances that any method the government uses to try to repress them will backfire. >> you're not pessimistic about democracy. >> i'm a little pessimistic about the way that we countered the authoritarianism and i think that authoritarian has done a pretty good job of protecting the opposition in recent years and so it's up to us to think more creatively about the tools we have at our disposal and maybe nontraditional tools. we do more to step out of the way of people's power movements but engage in the ways that buy them time to see their own

course. >> on behalf of the student body there is more about the human rights and like you wouldn't be the. you've done so much for the students to understand the empirical nature of some of these issues and the fact that one can go int into the nonempil subjects with him. call means and then come up with a very sensible and conclusions that i think allow one to understand these phenomena. let me ask you what should the u.s. do about all of this? should we have more people on television talking about it? what can we do as a country? >> when i look at the recent failures of the civil resistance

campaigns and one involved in the violence recently, i think of maybe four different things that the u.s. might try to mitigate the repression or the way that other government acquire the means to continue repressing their own population. second is tthe second is to deme movement said on that the journalists must be allowed to observe events. many are taking out the journalists once they perceive the threat and that allows them to enforce their own narrative on what is going on and it deprives people on the ground of the opportunity to be witnessed in the world opinion. the thing that u.s. can do is developing so when there are forces that want to lead how can it be made easier for them to do so and how can it be made easier for them to do so without taking

the weapons with them setting up shop on the border of the country they can launch on the attacks? the third thing would be to consider freezing the aid to countries that are abusive and i think in the recent cases, we have seen even the threat often does provoke those within the loyalty so the civilian bureaucrats, economic once they get the threat to the assets might be frozen and they are quite willing to change their loyalty so coming up with these types of tools which are not coercive in the sense they don't require a lot of loss and the treasure but they are using a political power the u.s. might have at its disposal but not directly supporting the campaigns in ways that would undermine their own legitimacy. >> and i would say one follow-up question. what is remarkable about the group, and you will soon hear

from the degree that is the basis of this. it's the data that is leading one to conclusions not serving one's conclusions already reached. you mentioned the possibility of using sanctions and i would like to ask you think it is possible to put together a kind of database of the kind that you have done on this issue with nonviolent change, nonviolent movements. can you put together a database to determine whether sanctions actually work? >> and has been done by the international peterson institute for economics sure a colleague is a fellow and they have a database on economic sanctions.

many scholars have a question on of whether they work and i have to say that the jury is still out on that question. it's very controversial. there are all kind of reasons why you might imagine that. once you have two but plaintiff sanctions the chances that they succeed come down because you take a difficult environment in which the sanctions are being used and at that point there may not be a lot of willingness on the part of the targeted sanctions to cooperate. on the other hand, we know that sometimes it does increase internal divisions among the regime e. leads which is the way they divide and rule the other side. and so in that sense there might be some conducive effects. we actually look at whether the international economic sanctions directed specifically at the regimes that we are targeting on the resistors and help the campaign. we found that they have no

affect in some cases and not others and the net effect is zero. but what we are doing now is collecting more data on different types of interventions and targeted sanctions might be more productive than generalized sanctions to read so my guess is it is a very contingent relationship as many things are and more will be revealed on all of that. >> thank you very much. and i should mention after we talked to thomas and stephanie weibel had an opportunitwe willr questions if people can pose down and maybe you can figure out how to make this microphone more mobile in case people have trouble getting out of their seat. your experiences extraordinary you take a couple economists who have a certain conclusion about the role of fiscal austerity and you look at the data and you

find those problems. so why don't you explain to the audience exactly how that happened and what your conclusion was and where do we go from here click sign always worried about when economists talk about something and now you've made me completely frightened about it. [laughter] >> i mentioned earlier the project started as a homework assignment in the economy tricks course. it was to replicate a major work in the field and that means reconstructive from scratch to learn the new techniques at the research frontier and things like that. what surprised me is to reconstruct the result is is not at all what i expected to find.

i looked at the results that they had and i thought they were a little bit and plausible the results of a hat i thought their interpretation was wrong and they probably got the plurality in the wrong way. the plan was to replicate those results and use the more modern economy tricks techniques we have available to ask the questions about whether it is their interpretation, but i was not able to get to that step and throughout the process when i was not able to replicate the basic average is it was really, you know i lost confidence at the beginning. the well-known study has been cited throughout the media and policymakers in europe at the highest levels. so i thought i made a mistake.

there were some conversations that i thought i could do better as well but he was incredibly supportive every step of the w way. >> the techniques while i was doing this, you helped me out every step of the way. i should try to reconstruct the results. but none of us thought i was right when i found this. it was only through the process of triple checking your work, making sure there were not any typos in the script you wrote for the program and as you do that we did find a couple i made but they didn't really change the results and so by the end of the semester i think that i had convinced the professors and myself that more likely than not

i wasn't the one making the mistake and it was only when we got the working spreadsheet that we were quickly able to identify the set of problems. one was a straightforward where they were to average 40 to 39 and others were how they selected the cases and process the data and we thought they did things that didn't accurately depicts the distribution. once we published this if set off a firestorm and it was quite the honor to contribute to that discussion. i learned quite a bit of seeing the other side of the media and it taught me the interface between, you know, economic research into the telephone game in policy circles etc. so i was honored to participate in that

process. >> i assume you at least got a b+. what you did well enough on that and you have kind of come out of that. at some point in your career you will be putting on a policy hat. so what is the deal with austerity policies? how do you look at them now having researched it extensively quick >> it was interesting the policies have a long history and there's been a lot of times you can test to see if it works. a lot of the common wisdom in the economics perspective that you see in any textbook is that during the recession cutting the government budget with austerity policies is damaging.

that's one of the reasons that i thought the research was implausible at the beginning and so i think that it was kind of it held my confidence to see that basic wisdom that we learned in the world economy is out of the great depression was actually pretty accurate and i think the profession forgot some of that wisdom. but the idea was debunked as far back as the hoover administration. >> that's an interesting question and it reminds me of something the economists said in that when you see an idea that gets debunked like the great depression era and the new deal he went into a double dip recession to balance the budget he was like okay we have the

initial round of public intervention but let's pull back. when they pulled back the economy collapsed. so that had been part of god baseball that as pretty good evidence but i think there's political reasons. it keeps coming back and back. they might be more political reasons and there is a lot of opposition to the kind of public intervention and to the economics sphere. this practical things that public institutions can and need to do when the institutions are capable of getting out of the recession on their own and i think that we need to be more open-minded. when you talk about the issues it is kind of difficult because a lot of the language is to

borrow at any time but when you look at the role the public borrowing has and the conditions under which we would expect it to do good which happened to be the conditions we are experiencing right now none of us were saying that you would borrow from here to infinity and forever but it has a very important role for getting out of the recession and the public debt if the economy has problems with aggregate demand what that basically means is there's not enough spending to buy the economy and the businesses won't produce that much output and it will cut back on employment. the deficit is a surplus and they can close the gap which is important. moreover one thing we saw coming out of the great depression and world war ii is that it's good for the banks to hold public

debt on the balance sheet because it is safer of an asset to ban ththan the mortgage-backd securities or anything like that and that can -- for this particular events coming out of the financial crisis where the financial sector is in shambles this could be important to clean it up and so i think there is a lot of reasons you would expect it to be effective right now and be evidence is on that side and there is political reasons. they supported them before the fine art paper and they still support them after the paper has been the dumped. you might have to ask them what their opinions on this are but i think it is a telltale sign of the more political than technical reasons. >> are we going to turn on cnbc

were some academic books about you and your money? >> it seems to me they are real possibilities. what i'm going to tr i am goings continue to do honest research. >> certainly that's the point is to do honest research that captures on the central public policy issues of our time and that's why i became anti-communist. i thought we could do a lot better. it's kind of an interesting thing because the slogan coming out of the great depression and world war ii is the unemployment was never again. the great depression was a perco where there was an immense

amount of unemployment like 25% and it destroyed the social fabric and caused so much tension but they found out during the war but with public intervention we could have the full employment making all sorts of armaments etc. but after if we can have full employment we can certainly have a freaking schools, parks, hospitals, all of the roads. from a technical reason if you have unemployed people and things that need to be done, you can do that and there's unemployed construction workers and potholes in the road. the above resources are there to do it and it's wasteful to not do it. but then again, there might be other political reasons why these policies are not pursued.

it's not a law of nature that we have to have on employment. it's a failure of our institutions and we can do better. >> we are going to switch from one installation to another. you are in a field where just listening to what training you have had in the field is quite extraordinary and better prepared for dealing for about that is almost as bad as the economics profession so affected by people of political or views of which many people don't like to be confused by that fact. so i wonder if you can talk about some of the challenges of dealing with this highly politically charged field and making people understand things in an analytical way.

>> i work for the national oceanic atmospheric administration. we are not the epa. we don't regulate things like carbon dioxide. i don't work in that field as much. i think it is important that the united states continue from the government organizational perspective that of the agency doing a lot of work to understand how the climate is changing and why it is changing and the impact of those changes is separate from the discussion about what to do with that information. so whether you are republican or democrat or moderate the information with different political parties should be the same. now what they choose to do with that information can vary greatly. they might have different economic models, they might have

different values they think is important, they might have different beliefs on the way to grow our economy and the understanding of what things may or may not hurt our economy. it's not universally accepted that they are good or bad and so science i think in particular for the climate change it's important that they are at the table and we continue to do the research and advanced our understanding of the science but it is one piece of information when it comes to making decisions about what to do about climate change and that discussion is important that we all engage in and that we look at the information we have and not try to twist it but acknowledge people can have different responses about what the right thing to do is.

it doesn't change the fact climate change is happening and to the extent obviously the jury is out in some of those areas and we have mor more conflicts n some areas than others. but it can be very challenging when people try to make more or less out of what is there. it's not a simple thing but just as environmentalists or republicans do. it's a trend in economics and physical sciences and social sciences where you have the desired outcome first and then you either pick the data that you want or ignore the data that you don't want or disparage the data that you don't like. regardless what field you are in

it has big implications for society. there's a huge implications from the taxes we pay to how the money gets spent so for the climate change because of god issue in the warning what we decide to do about it as a society has huge implications. >> let me drill down on this issue of extreme weather. you are making the point that right now we don't know. >> one piece i would say is for extreme weather i'm talking about meteorological phenomena or extreme participation -- precipitation. the degree to which we have certainty around the way the climate changes impacting those differs much like doctors have

understanding of cancers and you don't think of cancer is one huge thing we have one generic answer to, whether events are the same so extreme precipitation and extreme heat the confidence level is much greater. we are confident claim it changed hands and is impacting events for things like tornadoes and hurricanes it's much more difficult to say in large part because of the record we have. storm surge is another example we know the sea level has risen and we have good confidence is rising because award or expands, the laws of physics and glaciers have begun to melt and are putting more water into the ocean. in the future we expect the ice sheets and other areas to also impact the rise so the amount of water that can get pushed onto

the land is increased. we know it's increasing. we don't have a good handle on it yet but there are more and less knowledge. >> so like hurricanes and he is an event, and extreme events not necessarily related to global warming that the fact that it is extreme could be a global warming phenomenon. >> a group looked at this and that battery and various locations along the island and the eastern shore where the hurricane hit and they were not looking at the hurricane itself but the storm surge but they did show that because of the rise in the global sea level that there has been an increase in the likelihood and so those are

areas that scientists can say something about the individual event. they haven't said anything about the actual hurricane which is more challenging. >> i'm from rhode island and there was something called a 1938 hurricane comin, and people through all of my youth talked about the 1938 hurricane because in providence rhode island it was 10 feet of water. the whole downtown was underwater. i don't think we have seen anything since but the point is you can't talk about the individual events you have to talk about how many such events are you having where you get this and clearly it is on the increase. in terms of the foreign-policy issues and this goes into what some of eric has been dealing with. we have more and more of these effects of what we think of as

climate change we are seeing droughts become more serious. one thing we have to deal with this in the united states to help for people turning to us and more quickly then we'd have in the past. >> as a part of the global thinkers event in washington, d.c. as well and this book is much more on foreign policy and not just a climate change but as a science building. people tha but our defense advis and work at the pentagon at almost every single panel discussion that we have we are

not scientists, activists either in uniform or typical inside the beltway. so this is not a convention of environmentalists by any stretch of the imagination. they are looking around and saying the overwhelming bodies as the climate is changing and that means things like where are people getting their water and other food? things are going to change with it and we may not know exactly where these changes are going to happen or be the worst but we better start preparing and thinking about these things. you can take it from me or the leaders and the national security community saying climate change is something we need to be conscientious of how the united states in particular

considers our national security and where the assets are located and we see the problems to occur in the world. the perspective of th the scient it is our job to make sure that we provide that information in a way that we can best make that decision. is there uncertainty? of course. all the time with on certain pieces of information and i think that, you know, at the same time is it something you should disregard because we don't have 100% confidence? no. it is information that can be palatable and help future issues might rise and one of the ways we think about that in the scientifiascientific perspectivu have your extreme weather events and exposure and vulnerability and extreme heat waves hit the united states certainly the followers have been impacted. economically we have been

impacted at really for the cause of disruption in the united states? no. we are pretty adaptable with great resources and we have a large perspective the average person in the united states isn't hugely impacted. take that route and extreme heat and put it in a country that doesn't have the resources we have war who are already unstable and it could have huge consequences so it's not just the extreme events but the vulnerability of people impacted and i think from a foreign policy perspective the united states needs to look around the world to identify and prepare. >> for the domestic issue there was a program a year or two ago ken burns documentary with was quite extraordinary about it was was.com a call of how we began to take these switchgrass and

plant wheat that had a different degree of going into the ground when an inevitable drought came and had catastrophic effects on the ground cover and before you knew it you had to dust storms everywhere. so that would be an example if we had understood that better in the first place we might have told farmers who are not going to meet so are there more examples where we understand the phenomena better and therefore we can prevent them from happening clacks >> absolutely but today many different parts of our economy are making major investments on the fact that the world is changing thomas of the coastal communities for example are a good place to work where we know the sea level rise is happening and rebuilding after sandy there's been a lot of requirements of people having to raise their homes.

certainly the insurance sector is very sensitive to this and they are for example whether it is linked to the climate change or not under the insurance rates are very responsive to natural disasters and extreme events. but i think that the othe for tr part of this is that we are talking about the adaptation side of things comes with a certain amount we have already experienced and if we were to turn off the greenhouse gas emissions today the way this works is there will continue to be a rise. so we will be forced to live with the consequences. how do we adapt to it? and where to live along the coastal areas and whether to do the fire mitigation of the houses of colorado because they are worried about dropping forest fires there is big companies investing.

with the climate is in the local area and how they can make decisions around that from the agricultural perspective. it impacts what cost we might be investing in the future and how we can be filling the cost of the future so this is not just some government rebuilding after sandy. this is something that the cities and corporations and towns are taking seriously and is spending a lot of money and it's important that they have good information so that we can spend that money in a way that is more resilient in the communities. >> i would like to encourage people to stand up to the microphone if they have a question. >> okay. good.

what you comment on the observation that in the united states responds to occupy wall street movement which was nonviolent consequently does that encourage violent opposition to government policies. >> you know what's interesting occupy wall street was a highly localized movement, and i think there were certainly places in the country where there was an accepted reaction to it. and in the short term the reactions actually have backfired. when i was scanning the

lifecycle of the movement i don't think it had any more popular support or legitimacy the day after uc davis that pepper spray cop pepper spray to the student and i think the day after that happened at any other time in its life cycle. that said, the lack of unity that was present in the movement and the lack of consensus among many of the different occupied local occupied about whether or not the violent means should be used and under what conditions it affect those conversations and drove away from the movement are good reasons for why it is demobilized somewhat.

it causes the nonviolent movements to become violent and she finds the answer is no not always and a lo and a lot of tis repression makes the nonviolent movements bigger because people are drawn to it. but it depends very much on the organizational capacity and the ability to discipline themselves, the ability to connect even in the words of radicals in the movement into some kind of collect vision forward of the draws people into the movement and so i think that's the explanation for why it's demobilized it's less to the government reaction in many places and more related to the organizational structure. >> i would like you to turn to the question of the minimum wa wage. >> i would just say that i am lucky that there has been a amount done on the minimum wage on the third professor in the

course of the economy tricks course who has gone and looked at a loss of the evidence and found that the research designs actually were not as good as really separating the causality and you find that the minimum wage reasonable increase isn't going to cause the mass on employment and reduce poverty quite a bit and so there is an excellent research done on that actually and we respect quite a bit. >> one thing that may not be apparent is that they can be a very good investment. with the speakers have talked about and this can be addressed to all of them except the heart

of global change. and i wonder if people are thinking what would be the idea population for the earth and how do we overrate along period of time gets their? >> that is a toss up between the policies. >> it is a great question. we talked earlier about the vulnerability to the extreme and that is hugely based on climate change. when i look at the numbers that get thrown down in the disasters in the united states insurer generally those are on the rise to how much damage is over a

billion dollars we have seen it go up there is a pretty good argument the reason it's gone up is that the population has gone up and the amount of infrastructure that we have in the way of extreme events has also increased into the population has informed and also of course the rise of population and the rise of the global wealth has contributed to the amount of greenhouse gases that are e-mailing as a global population. in terms of the carbon emission i am not sure if it is a question of reduction or more thinking about what technologies we can try to make more pervasive around the world to limit to try to reduce greenhouse gases and make our lifestyles with intensive so that is an issue regardless of the population of the planet is.

>> i think something that is touched on the most important point is it's to go out and produce things but the question is about the carbon intensity and how the carbon intensive benefits are so finding some type of balance between that i think happened it isn't necessarily a trade-off between more growth and more carbon emissions. with the existing technologies there are but there's also a lot of research that shows a lot of the jobs programs produce quite a bit of jobs and help us become more energy sustainable, so for example in terms of the green energy, a million dollars in the green energy sector will produce almost three times as many jobs as in the oil and gas sector and one of the reasons for that is

not necessarily for the moral reasons but if you are going to read traffic building, you have to d do it here do with. so there is a lot of domestic content in that type of economic activity. .. >> may be to further that i wanted to see the to the would be willing to speak about just one sort of more ramification uc of the research. you are very dated driven. think that is why your credible.

i would like you to speak to the ramifications or dimension morally. in erica, i would be curious for your take on the wielding of non-violence as a tool for geopolitics and kneele political interest. >> will start with erica. >> the political -- preliminary a troubled that are finding spring for the standard on for use of violence is that, you know, over a thousand years we have tried to hammer out the conditions under which it is morally acceptable to use violence. that comes out in other ways, but one of the key conditions is that somebody has to make the case that violence is necessary for them to achieve their goals. that is that it is not casual, you know, being wielded go whenever. it is actually just one of violence is necessary, when it is a last resort, when it is proportional, when it is discriminating and so forth.

and what our findings present is a real difficulty for just a word theory because it is demonstrating that violence and in many cases it may not be necessary. moreover from what i've looked at in my cases in cases where people are using violence or armed struggle that almost never used concerted civil resistance for a significant time before they turned of violence. in other words, many people seem to be in these armed groups turning to violence before they have exhausted all of the potential muffins' of civil resistance. in fact, the average civil resistance campaign takes almost three years to run its course and almost every armed insurgency that occurred from 1900 to 2006 started with and maybe six months to nine months of the onset that of a real dissident movement. in other words, it seems like there were jumping the gun both literally and figuratively.

in terms of using non-violence to promote one's own aims this is the sort of current moral quandary because from the way maria and i argue in civil resistance is actually a method of conflict. and in very blunt terms of the weapon. so the question is under what conditions morally is this weapon being abused. a lot of the people ask me this now because they're watching what's going on in thailand and and saying, okay. people waiting so resistance to subvert the democratic government. many people have made the same claim about the ukraine to subvert a democratically elected leader, constitutionally legal leader. and whether we agree with those assessments are not it presents this real difficulty of when is it okay to use of resistance. given the fact that we felt comfortable spending a thousand years developing a just war criteria i think it's possible to use a few.

>> so i think i discussed earlier how i felt this science is really a seat at the table and people have to bring there values. i think then the decision about whether we in the society or community choose to do or not do anything about the fact that we are changing our climate system is very much a moral challenge. i think that, in part, it starts with the question of what are our morals on this question. how important is it to us that we have -- you know, we get to enjoy certain things that we enjoy now. are these changes okay? maybe they are. i think that the other aspect of that is there are moral questions around who will actually be impacted. for us time and again there are a multitude of ways to handle that. you know, we will probably be

okay with a lot of these changes for quite a while to come here in the united states. for the most part. maybe. we live in a plan that is much larger than our country, and the people who are going to really be impacted don't all necessarily live here with us and enjoy the comforts and the economic growth that we do. so i think we do have a moral question of how much we as a society think of ourselves as global citizens and not just citizens of a very lucky developed nation. and there are going to be consequences -- there are consequences to much larger from other people around the world. for example with the coastal inundation issue, a lot of those communities will be impacted, second homeowners and the east coast. truly poor people who this is where we live and we don't have an option to simply go somewhere else "is that our responsibility

? think as a tough moral questions and i don't think it we have a lot of discussion about whether we think that the plots are right or whether the global temperatures have plateaued and whether we have to actually do anything about this in this country. we have not spent as much time having this conversation about obligation, the moral consequences of these changes and if we're willing to accept them. al think we've had that conversation to the extent that we have around the data and around weather, you know, again extreme events impacted by climate change. it's an important question. i certainly care about the answer, but as a society we need to have conversations around the moral impact of the answer to that question. >> economics is particularly challenging. like you mentioned it in your field as well between values and

morals. the scientific technical question is very much an economic question. they're top rates in the technical questions about what the model implies, if there. mount interpret the statistics, whether all your conditions are satisfied. but then there's also more questions about the type of society we want to live in. there are also questions about intense distributional conflicts as well. austerity is oftentimes distributional. and it's of really hard thing to navigate, a time that we can help to clarify the decision the moral implications. the letter from financial institutions, barring a lot of money to invest in assets the collapse and the public authorities have to take that bet on to their ballots sheep --

for example, to cut schools, health care, and pensions so that we can pay off creditors who oftentimes, you know, did not act with the best interest of everyone in mind. and so there are other really tough questions to. the political aspects of full employment he as the question of why this interest has opposed full employment policies to a large extent. even have a lot of good things, but these underlying distributional conflicts come back it's easier talk about

whether our correlation is statistically significant something like that. wendy's policies really affect things. it's really tough. sometimes you have to make judgment calls about whether it's susceptible, what's not, who's going to have to take a loss of two is not, who bears the burden of adjustment as well will ways you can bear the burden of adjustment. dick the international financial system, one of the main problems is that it was always on -- the burden of adjustment was always on the deficit country. and so there would have to a cut of wages and become more competitive with the other countries. could there be a more equitable distribution of the burden of adjustment instead tough the deficit countries having to cut their wages and have prices fall.

you could have inflation in the surplus countries and raise wages there. one of the problems between greece and germany right now. another thing is sometimes there are times to compromise where writing down debts can actually be in islanders' best interest. having a small stream of income is better than having none. so when there is room to compromise, but a lot of times it's very difficult. different forces will try to use political institutions to kind of very much for their own interest. so it is really difficult. sometimes tough choices have to be made. sometimes there is room for compromise. sometimes parties are willing to compromise and these are all really difficult questions. their problems of our time that we all have to face. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i am a practitioner of science, i confess. thomas carlyle channeled through our been.

so in that line along how to be better. but two quick comments tech erica and stephanie. i agree that the problem of the south is the greater one. in fact my last piece of advice to study before i left ho. and earlier we did a lot of work on sanctions, much of it is published. you are both local from us we can discuss. now, for thomas m. this question of economics of dentistry. it's really about chronology. one problem, it's not really about causal relationships, correlations. there are two aspects that i would like you to a discuss.

one, what happens to debt and growth. the other one is about the conceptual problem between debt and deficit of with hot the flow aspect and not so much to the starving aspect of that which is important, but in a way it's like barking of the wrong tree. those are my questions. >> thomas, go ahead. >> so you know, in terms of encouraging people to be more humble, it's difficult. like a mission before, it's kind of the critical spirit that animates science. these things are tough. it's hard to say how they will promote honest research. you know, that's a tough

question. more critical mines, more graduate students to replication another thing is critical popular engagement. when i look at the history and economics, so many of the times will we see the development of willie excellent new ideas and public policy tools to handle the problem has been when the public engaged with discipline and said, you know, your answer is unacceptable. you know, you can do better. and when you have critical popular movements questioning it really pushes economists to be more creative and think of better ideas buzzer actually reasons why i thought the results were impossible and things we discussed early on. in terms of the causality it was

actually the initial goal of the project quickly replicate the basic results and then ask those questions. we never got around to the second part. in terms of the temporal thing what he found is that current growth predicted -- on sorry, current debt predicted past growth better than it predicted future growth. past growth you very much correlate. that's a telltale sign of reverse causality. in addition he included some really basic controls or reverse causality and was able to cut the estimated coefficient by 50 to 70%.

there is very little evidence that it is causing flow growth. is probably more than a slow growth is causing the high debt. and the question about -- it is very much the deficit that is important. the new spending that is injected into the economy. and they're is a lot of different tools to manage stock and debt. but i think it could be employed in a lot of ways. more inflation could be one thing that could help quite a bit, but there are a lot of other tools that come out of the experience of second world war, the great depression and also dealing with a lot of economics of the 20th-century. i think public authorities have so many more tools to handle. the private sector, and that think we should very much look back at the old wisdom that

sometimes was discarded in the profession. >> thank you. >> this question is for stephanie. at lunch you have discussed your flex capacitor. what would be the best technology that you can see to get the best data. so my question is really about the use of technology in getting that new data. i am wondering what you're seeing in terms of drug usage to actually gather data points. i no they're using some of these drones and atmospheric research. i am wondering where you see the future of unmanned systems in gathering the data for you and what the landscape might look like. >> we have a program trying to explore more users run manned vessels in part because they're cheaper. that's important. but the one area where there would be coming novel in their usage is actually in the ocean and sending drones into the ocean to traverse the ocean and

picked up data and of course be able to do so at different locations. so i think it's an area that's going to increase. certainly as the technology gets better and cheaper those are really important things. on the other side of that interesting technology that is emerging is that the satellites. spend billions of dollars loss in the satellites, big, expensive, but very accurate and good. baena satellites are sort of the opposite. you put out a lot of them. the technology at this point, the sensors are as good, but they're cheap. you can put a lot of fun out there. the technology is changing. hopefully it will continue. >> i wanted to thank you. a very refreshing conversation about science with regard to the

import and moral questions. i ran across an interview. my stepdaughter goes. and i think amherst and the program iran, people are encouraged to think about the emperor's new clothes were social science has often been. and near times saying he had not believed in before. it cited larry summers says he is not going to be famously involved with the federal reserve, actually recovered himself as an economist and has pointed out that we have permanent unnecessary unemployment -- an employer and the millions of people. the reason we have this, the emperor's new clothes, a political aspect of what is saying is they don't like

government spending money on poor folks. even if it will benefit them, it would stimulate the economy and make their business is more successful year. the most extreme example recently is apparently it's necessary to cut off food stamps for poor kids. i don't know what kind of people want to do that, but it's not one that i want to live in. so this is the question. you spoke about it very eloquently, but it seems that we have a conflict between the scientific conclusion that in a depression you should spend money on poor folks. and a powerful wealthy, a political interest which has created this great environment, including in the economics profession reaching to congress.

is there much that we can do about this aside from some sort of big movement from below? is science enough to persuade those who want to be persuaded along the basis of all this evidence that spends a little money on poor folks is not a bad idea even from their point of view. >> we will let you take that idea. we want to talk about methods. >> so i -- the point you raise is really important. you know, i think it's really interesting. within the economics profession i think it's a little more politically homogenous. some of the other social science professions. at think that's one reason, you know, research like this came out of the department's that was open-minded and critical, mission evergreen and umass

amherst. i think there is more political diversity and people seeing interpreting things to a different light. it's like it was really get from a scientific perspective. you have people who question received wisdom and ready to put -- critically interrogated. terms of dealing with the political problem that conflicts of interest, it's really difficult. he mentioned that one of the reasons why some of the more historically opposed some of the employment policies because the idea that we don't have to depend on private job creators for jobs or the public can actually do that is actually if you take it to its logical conclusion it implies big changes are possible. in the past we have also seen compromises. there has been times where we have seen compromises. over the past 30 years there has

been kind of an attempt to kind of renegotiate those compromises in no way that was more resembling older social contracts before the new deal era, before all these types of public interventions. and i think that's serious the problematic. about how to change it i would lose less sleep. foreign policy. it's kind of, you know, mentioned that it's hard to get someone to understand something of the job depends on the not understanding. it's a difficult thing. that's why i encourage popular engagement. it's much more democratic. the principle of democracy, people who are affected by policies should have a say in

those policies to the extent they are affected by them. there is something undemocratic about the image of technocrats and computer labs, you know, creating the optimal policies for everybody. we should just do that. the critical popular engagement is really important. think that's what we have seen, the best ideas that have really addressed the needs of the many. that is why we have seen the numbers of times or there are more critical and popular engagement. i think that's what i would -- >> thank you. >> his clothes with an active related to that. when fdr was elected president he got a visit from a delegation of some african-american activists, many of whom had spent years in india studying ghandi and spending time. and they came and presented a plan that they thought would be fair for people living in this country you're african-american.

the number of other social programs, social safety nets, things like that. they explained it and laid out the whole idea for justification and said, that's great. i agree with you. now make me do it. what he was telling them was i cannot stand in front of the congress and sell them an idea unless you show me that there are millions of people that are willing to show up in the streets in support of this. and so that is where these sorts of social movements in the mid 20th century came from, politicians say we are not leaders. we are followers. so if you want something done make us do it. >> yes, sir. >> making people this stuff. if you look at regions in africa, for example, west africa , places that see media coverage and stuff like that, how exactly do you think that environments to push

non-violence and how exactly do you -- who exactly is the best actor to bring about the type of nonviolence movement? what would you advise? and cheating. what is the argument that austerity is used as a tool to rein in spending in europe? once the economy gets better governments don't seem to stop spending in europe. >> thank you. you take the last one and then erica will have the final word. thomas, go. >> i'm sorry. so all right. the argument that we need to rein in spending now because government just doesn't stop, if you look at the history -- i guess i would say two things. one, it is not really accurate based upon the facts. there has been a time like or after world war ii having tab

the public-sector de leverage and pay down the debt, they did that quite a bit. the other thing is that public spending is not necessarily bad. it really depends upon what it is. certainly if you have public spending that is used to give a politician's best friend, you know, like a lot of money that they can abscond with, that is terrible. a lot of public spending can really kind of put a glove underneath the economy. if you look at the history of kind of tell a lot of the industrial powers grew, it was very much true public intervention, public spending on things. they're really good. they can be good at developing basic technology, industrial policy. there are reasons why those are really good. markets can provide certain glasses of things decently, but things that have kind of a public good aspect to them more positive externality, they are not always give that person in a way that will get them produced

an adequate can't -- adequate quantities. so i think on a couple of rounds, one, you know, i don't think it is actually true that politicians always are doing runaway spending. but then the other thing is there could be very legitimate reasons for those programs. and especially in a slump you just for basic mechanical reasons you would expect the deficit to happen because more people will need public services if you have mass unemployment. and so i think the question is really asking how we can do it better and how we can make sure that there is accountability from the political restitutions, the things that are benefiting all of us, things like infrastructure, schools. right now what is actually really interesting that real interest rates are lower than the inflation rates of the we have to pay back less than the bar. it's almost like free money on the table. the time like that, as long as

there is targeted, you know, and for structure developments, a global center, that can be incredibly useful. so it is really asking the questions about to do it well. i think getting away from the narrative that public sector is always bad and inefficient, i don't think that stands up to scrutiny based upon the historical record. >> thanks a lot for your question. research on where these nonviolent movements come out of his pretty inconclusive. they seem to come out of any type of environment under many different conditions, literate and a letter societies. it is all over the map. and poor places and rich places. we don't really know what the causes are, which means that it is kind of universal emerging phenomenon. personally i know that when i was a kid i knew how to make it really hard for my parents to pick me up, become a bag of potatoes. that was, you know, civil disobedience. came from an intuitive talk.

i believe that most humans have the capacity to do it. and then to answer your question more broadly with an anecdote, martin luther king asked a young reverend to go national and desegregated. the beginning of the civil rights movement. and imagine being 30 years old and having martin luther king tell you to go somewhere in desegregate the city. so he goes to national. the typical model has been boycotts, you know, allowing people to either boycott buses or sit at the front of the bus and places where they were not supposed to. that is our rosa parks example. the rev. was not sure that that would work everywhere. what he did was instead of starting read of the gate with these types of citizens he spent a year going into people's homes during the day and asking them what bothered the month daily basis. turned out that when he did that he was usually visiting when others were all with their children. most of the people he talked to

were women. he asked them, what bothers you day today. they said, the main thing that bothers me is the indignity of my children having to wear is a fitting clothes. it was something that had not occurred to him, when it would go into the shopping district there were not allowed to let the children try on clothes because of racism, and they did not know what size they were, so there would pick what the shop said, take it home, but they were not allowed to take it back and return it because it was considered dirty. so he heard the same kind of story again and again and again. but he realizes the thing that is resonating with these people is that day to day in dignities have segregated stores, not so much desegregation, but these shopping stores and lunch counters. so they started with lunch counter sit-in's and tried to desegregate the shopping district of natural. that was the goal. and ultimately what happened is that through this very skillful sequence of events he was able to draw on the support of that

common grievance that these women had, the movement was huge, thousands and thousands of people, students from the university and also these women and men alike. and they would sit in at these lunch counters. now, the disturbance that this cost was so great that the lunch counters were close and the police would come and round up the students and taken to jail. in the jails were completely overwhelmed, but they still had people coming to do these events ultimately it became so disturbing to the general public to a white business owners shut down their stores. they lost 80 percent of their income. and they went to the mayor of nashville and said something has to be done. so what they did was try to resort to terror. they started burning crosses, beating people, taking them out of their homes and when after the one black lawyer who was brave enough to defend the students in jail and bond his home. so that's totally backfired.

there was a huge silent march and the movement demanded a meeting with the mayor of nashville who met them on the front steps of the courthouse. and they asked him out right with the camera rolling in the microphone in his face whether he personally thought that it was morally right to discriminate against someone on the basis of skin color. and in the face a 5,000 activists staring at him he said the only thing any rational human being could say which is, no, i don't think it's morally right. that was the moment that completely changed the city. again, it was not the moral pressure but the destructive capacity of this movement that was rooted in a very personal grievances that led that change. so my answer to your question would be i don't know what would lead to a change in a country that you're talking about, but i know that it could not be exported are imported or built from the top down but would have to come from ordinary people were expressing a common grievance around which the could unite.

>> the university of denver, it has been an extraordinary privilege to be here with stephanie thomas and erica. you really -- this has been truly, truly a fascinating time. allow lasted just keep up the good work. even if you are not on the top 100 list next year, don't worry about it. keep going forward. there will be other lists. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> secretary of state john kerry said the russian president's move to begin annexation of crimea places and on the wrong side of history. secretary perry made the remarks of russia while talking to a group of students today. >> today i had a chance -- i did not see it, but i had a chance to read the speech given by the

russian president. in the kremlin with respect to the ukraine. and i must say i was really struck and somewhat surprised and even disappointed by the interpretations and the facts as they were articulated by the president. with all due respect, they really just did not jibe with the reality of what what is happening on the ground. the president may have his version of history, but i believe that he and russia for what they have done are on the wrong side of history. and what is clear to me is that international law mean something , and it mean something because the international community came together over time to give them meaning. there is well established law about countries seceding from a

part of their own country, existing country which is supposed to happen according to their constitution and their legal process. if that is not available to them then through certain rights exercised in the international community, but not at the butt of a gun with a bunch of troops coming into a country to augment troops that are already there and then have the president of that country's suggest that there were no russian forces in crimea. so we need to deal with reality as we go forward your and it is very dangerous to see this rise of the kind of nationalism that is exercise unilaterally to the exclusion of the international legal process in ways that can really be dangerous.

that is what we have worked hard to avoid ever since world war ii the vision that many presidents have brought to the international table of the years and if you have a grievance try to work those grievances out through the process. i do not believe that anyone has a sense that self-help in this situation was the last resort. so as a result we have this tension and this challenge in the international structure. make no mistake. president obama has been clear, and i have been clear. there will be a cost attached to this, not because we wanted, but because we are seeking confrontation but because when people move unilaterally in this way to test the world's structure it is important for

every country in the world's behavior that they understand that the law does mean something and that there are costs attached to a breach of that duty and responsibility to live up to the international legal standard. >> you can watch russian president putin speech on crimea followed by all of secretary carries town hall tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. watch all of our programs any time at c-span.org. white house spokesman jay carney reading today on russia's move to an ex crimea. the u.s. also asked about the health care law in the november elections. >> quiet.

good early afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. before i take your questions i would like to mention something. as many of you are well aware with over 5 million people now signed up for private health insurance plans through the marketplace is in 13 days left to enroll this week we are doing a march madness and roman push to reach our fellow college basketball fans, especially young adults before the march march 301st deadline. yesterday we released our 16 sweetest reasons to get covered bracket in a video by the unc and duke on coaches. today we are lucky to have n.c.a.a. and nba champion joining us to release a new analysis by hhs that looks at the economic cost and the incidence of common sports injuries like sprains and fractures. the report finds that almost 2 million people every year suffer sports related injuries and received treatment in

emergency departments. and if you do not have insurance these types of injuries can really set you back financially. for example, a treatment for a sprained ankle could cost over $2,000. treatment for a broken arm could run you as much as nearly $7,700. the state also finds that the rate of these types of injuries is especially high among folks under 205. so this is yet another reminder of the importance of getting covered, whether you are an athlete, a fan him more like so many of you here of. with that i will take your questions. [applause] >> a complement. >> that's exactly right. >> jay, on the crane, putin and next crimea today. what is the definition of success?

this is being labeled as a test of president obama is lead. what is failure? what is success? before you were trying to stop something. it seems that now you have to undo something. a much tougher task. what is the goal for the meeting of the g-7 in the hague next week? >> let me say a few things. we condemned russia's move to formally annexed the crimean region of the ukraine. such acts -- such action is a threat to international peace and security and it is against international law. we would not recognize this attempted annexation. as we have said, there are costs for such action along with our partners in europe and japan. the united states imposed sanctions yesterday including an executive order that gives us an expansive tool to the sanction russian government officials, entities operating in the arms sector in russia and individuals to act on behalf of or provide

material support to senior officials of the russian government. you have seen some designations already, and there are more to come. we also continue to be focused on how we can best support ukraine. we urge congress to pass legislation as soon as possible that will enable us to provide ukraine the resources it needs. we also support the imf ongoing work to negotiate a package with the ukrainians. in addition as you know vice president biden was in poland today and will be in lithuania tomorrow. to our nato allies our message is clear. we have a solemn commitment to our collective defense, and we will uphold this commitment. lastly, i would note that today president obama invited his counterparts from canada, france, germany, italy, japan, the united states command the eu to a meeting of g7 leaders next week on the margins of the nuclear security summit in the hague. in answer to your question, the

meeting will focus on the situation in the ukraine and further steps that the g7 may take to respond to developments in to support ukraine. as you know, the u.s. and the other members of the g-7 have already suspended our preparations for the g8 summit. the actions that russia has taken in clear violation of international law, and clear disregard for ukraine's constitution, ukraine's territorial integrity and you can't -- ukraine's sovereignty has not been and will not be recognized by the international community. those actions have incurred costs already. they have done damage to russia's economy, to its currency, and to its standing in the world. further actions, further

provocations will lead to higher costs the goal of our policy is to make clear that in the 21st century, in the year 2014 these kinds of actions are not tolerated by the international community, that they are responded to bring about consequences. and leaders of russia will have to make their own calculations about the cost that they are incurring further country and for russia's future. and russia's standing in the world. in the meantime the president is focused on working to build and

sustain the consensus that exists in opposition to these actions and to ensure that we collectively both years in the united states and in europe and asia are working to support ukraine and to make it clear that these kinds of actions will not be accepted by the international community. >> the goal of the policy is for the russians to disavow any steps that they have taken for the crimean peninsula to become -- to be part of ukraine. and for -- or is it more to just get the russians to stop threatening the ukrainian people. >> the answer is both in the sense that will russia has done the referendum held under

circumstances that are unacceptable their actions taken by the crimean parliament and the russian duma are not there will not be recognized. engaging in activities that violate a sovereign state, territorial integrity. >> none of that has changed. why not a full arsenal over your economic power against them initially instead of doing it

piecemeal which does not seem to be -- >> what i would say is that the motivation in the calculations of the leaders in russia are for them to describe. will we have done is make clear that these actions will never be recognized by the international community. they are illegal and they have -- the violetta sovereign states territorial integrity. we made clear that we support the ukraine government and the ukrainian people and we will make sure that there are costs to russia for the actions that russia has taken. and the assessment as to what costs russia's leaders are willing to pay on behalf of their nation and at the expense of the russian people are ones that they will have to make. but they are real.

you know, russia is taking action that reverses some of the work that that nation had done to establish itself as a responsible leader on the international stage. isolates' russia. it undermines faith in russia's commitment to rule of law and therefore undermines the incentive that global investors might have in investing in russia. that affect has a negative impact on russia's economy and on the russian people. and those costs are real. and what we can do is make sure that the costs are imposed, that

the international community speaks with one voice in opposition to the steps and that we together take action to ensure that the costs are imposed. as we take action to ensure that ukraine is supported with the assistance by the united states and our allies and partners in the imf. and as we take steps to make it clear has vice president biden has done in poland and will do in lithuania that we consider our commitment to our nato allies as sovereign commitment that of course will be upheld. >> the ability to not only collects phone calls that are reported in can be played back. these are foreign countries.

can you comment on that? >> i can't. have not seen the report and don't have a response to it except to say that we don't have a general comment on it. specific allegations and report. we made clear that activity the nsa and the intelligence community engages in. the fact that they are bound by our laws and the oversight of three branches of government. we also know as i did the other day the steps that the president announced in january to significantly reform our activity in order to provide the american people even greater assurance about these programs. but i don't have anything specific on this report. >> u.s.-backed the expulsion of russia, expected to come up the meeting next week? >> we and the other g-7 nations have already now announce that

preparations for the planned g8 summit has been halted. i don't have a preview of all the topics that we discussed in the g-7 meeting on the fringes of the national security summit -- sorry, the nuclear security summit. certainly ukraine and russia's behavior will be the number one focus of that conversation. it is hard to imagine a meeting of this group taking place in russia under the current circumstances. >> not interested in the ukraine beyond crimea, do you believe him? >> the presence of with bruton the up -- putin the other day. one of several lengthy conversations. we provided a readout. we don't have any more specificity on that conversation what we are monitoring his

activity in the eastern ukraine and near eastern ukraine. we are making clear that further provocation will be met with further cost to russia. we are making clear our support for the ukrainian government, working with congress to ensure that bilateral assistance is provided and that the imf has all the tools it needs to provide even greater assistance to ukraine. we are in conversations with the cream government and others about other modes of assistance that we can provide. i am not going to judge the truthfulness of the statements. we are going to look and see and evaluate the actions that are taken. >> the last couple of days

effective if they're not really paying a cost. >> that thing down for the year is lost value. the long-term effect and actions taken by the russian government in clear violation of the united nations charter, in clear violation of its recommitment that are destabilizing and illegal will have an impact on their economy. all by themselves. there will also incur costs because of the sanctions that we in the eu had imposed, and there will be more actions taken under the authorities that exist with the two executive orders the president has signed. so i would not if i were you invest in russian equities right now.

unless you're going short. >> given the last few days, the administration considering this additional steps the would like to see congress take when they return in light of the fact that the annexation is now going forward? >> additional steps that congress can take care should take. but congress needs to do soon as it is able to pass the assistance package that has been moving through the senate, we strongly in courage both houses to pass legislation that not only provides a bilateral assistance but insurers that the imf has all the tools necessary to provide the maximum amount of assistance to ukraine. our bilateral assistance, everyone agrees, is meant to complement, not replace the imf resistance. we all care as we say we do about making sure that the ukrainian government in this

difficult moment has all the assistance it needs to stabilize its economy congress is to make sure that that -- that those imf quota reforms are passed as well as the bilateral assistance. what other steps congress can take, i am sure we will be in discussion with congressional leaders about that matter. we are in regular consultation with the ukrainian government with the ukrainian government's needs are and how we can assist them. right now our focus is and continues to be on the escalation and non doing what we can to help ukraine stabilize their economy in this difficult moment. >> after that performance in moscow today does the president believe that putin would actually give crimea back? >> we are not judging motives or intentions or predicting future actions. at think president putin spoke

for himself today. everyone can evaluate what he said what is unquestionably true is that the actions that have occurred in crimea, the decisions made by the russian government are all in violation of international law and the ukrainian constitution. we have said all along and so has the ukrainian government that there are legal means by which the residence of crimea could take steps to change their status within the ukraine or change their relationship with ukraine or russia for that matter, but they're is a legal code in place and the constitution in place for those kinds of discussions to take place and decisions to be made.

rather than -- >> the legal code. >> no question. >> how do you feel -- how you deal with the russians? not abiding -- >> we are imposing costs to russia through sanctions and other measures. the international community is doing the same, and there are other costs incurred by russia because of these actions that have an effect on russia's ability to grow and prosper in the future. so, you know, what the motives of the russian leaders are, you know, i would have to appoint you to statements by russian leaders. >> a sense of urgency that the west needs to step it up quickly in order to the have putin and russia reversed course. is there a sense of urgency? >> this is certainly a serious situation, and we have taken

steps accordingly. we will continue to do so. as i indicated earlier there are more designations to come when it comes to specific sanctions under the authorities created by the executive orders. and i noted that the executive order that the president signed yesterday is an expansive tool that allows for sanctions to be imposed on russian government officials. that has happened, but also on entities operating in the arms sector on russia and on individuals to act on behalf of or provide material support to russian government officials even though they themselves to not hold office and the government. i think we discussed that yesterday. they're individuals to fall into that category who have of a great deal of influence in russia and on the russian government and to also have substantial assets that can and

will be affected by these kinds of sanctions. >> you read the critics in the last couple of days say that because the president showed weakness to russia that that invited this move from putin to take crimea. what is your best argument that that is not the case? >> here is what i would say. in response to those criticisms which lack an alternative approach or proposal. the idea that bombing another country, in this case syria, would have somehow been of right policy in order to send a message to the leader of russia so that he did not take action against the ukraine is preposterous in many ways. it is also probably wrong.

as others have said, the fact that president george w. bush invaded and had to ongoing wars in the middle east did not seem to affect russia's calculations when it came to its actions in georgia. so there is problem with the logic. i would always say that when assessments are made and judgments made about the course of action the united states is taking with regard to the ukraine, most of what we hear call for we are doing. and we will continue to do, including stepping up our assistance to the ukraine, including retching of the cost to russia for their actions. if they are -- if there are

other concrete ideas that lawmakers and others have they ought to express them. certainly if they are good ideas we may take them up. .. here in the united states. consequently the united states was noted by the syrian government today that it must immediately suspend operations of its embassy in washington d.c. and is honorary cla