she joins me today to discuss her most recent work, "all the presidents' bankers: the hidden alliances that drive american power." nomi, welcome. congratulations on such a fabulous book. washington wall street and the family that had such a nervous impact. >> guest: thank you, so much, larry. both on wall street and now off wall street you're doing very well. it's truly a pleasure to have you. this is truly an incredible history of the relationship between wall street, the large fingers in washington. what motivated you to produce

this book? >> guest: insanity and the intensity. but actually, black tuesday was a historical novel on the crash of 29 had he seen in it that i'd researched lately. nothing near the research i did on the spoke about six acres and 23 wall street to decide to try and save the market that were crashing around them in later toe brittany and 29 by themselves and a fellow named tom lamont, acting chair of the morgan bank at the time, his real chair, jack morgan is gallivanting around the world elsewhere gathered by other bankers together. the most powerful families of bankers running the most powerful banks on wall street tuesday we need to do some aim to save these markets. they decided with 20 minutes to turn $25 million into a buying

pool, saw one of their guys to buy a lot of stock in basically by themselves try to boost this market that was falling all around them. i found that fascinating. the idea of these pigs experience. i noticed today while we have six thanks i looks back and time and there is expense 100 years ago in 1907 and they were all marginally the same banks are the first century from the same families. now similar legacies. but i started to say what is that relationship? i was fascinated in other works i've done that the political association and others. i decided to look at these are fat. in the real relationships between six tankers, whoever the most important one was at any point in time in our nations history and what their connections were two presidents. but i found because i didn't however is the president of teddy roosevelt through barack obama has strong associations not always at the six key

bankers, the certainly the subset through documents and letters and phone calls and other forms of communication as well as social connections through other types of places they would need. >> whether people promote relationships are not. let's go behind this. let's take a step and go behind. could you take us into your research. where did you go, who did you meet to honor some truly incredible material? >> guest: i decided to go to all the presidential libraries to make the research even and always there for the president how to whether they had it since

the nations of particular bankers. for a repaired in time i wanted to make sure i at least had the historical event that would've occurred at that time. for example, used to joke with my editor nation books and say i just don't want to forget world war i happened. so i had a sort of outline of major events that happened in each president of course and treasury secretary. i went to all the archives, presidential archives for the material listed throughout the country. for example appling can say is, looking at the archives of president dwight eisenhower from where i went to independence, missouri to look at the archives of president truman. i started in on it with lbj and went back several times throughout the period of research because i found that. very critical in terms of relationships and changing attitudes in america between president and bankers, citizens

and president and so forth. i really just dug in deep. i didn't know what i would find. some cases i had to submit freedom of information acts to unearth certain documents for the more recent president that had not been unearthed yet. in some cases, the reagan kind of took my project to heart and spent seven of her own time really trying to look for documents for me as i was sitting there going for the boxes that i've had to meet the research they bring out cards and boxes. it is almost like a raise. you're going through the boxes. what can i find? terry chernin, anything from letters about why did you drop the atomic bomb to letters from bankers saint thank you very much for your support. 10 rating vaccine i couldn't have done it without you. there's also some things you

find anything into this mode of being a nighttime in that time and that president with those people going through just an immense amount of documents and typing everything up while you're there and throughout the process insert of going onto the next location of the next president. >> host: were there any libraries that you became somewhat relax and to share information? >> guest: until reagan, fdr through the reagan library era, there was a certain code under which everything is classified for military information, finance information, economics and and the personal relationships and it's a very clear identification and now most easy information. shortly after the film argot came out ahead in a team of argot researchers looking up information about the iran hostage crisis and what happened in the hunt for school rack

system you could go when and not digitally. not every library has that. but the more recent libraries come in the clinton library commit. that'll already open because there's an imminent amount of information and now you have e-mail and everything is to go through security clearance descendents in a different code after reagan came in the codes changed. it's a lot harder to find information. the reason i could find this because the archivist had worked above the prior libraries and she kind of the difference between the mucosa note codes so she could help me. i didn't have the opportunity. >> host: was there a point in time where the pictures started to share. in terms of the nature of some of these relationships where you started to realize this actually

goes deeper than perhaps yourself as well as the public. >> host: castro yeah, because i worked my geography inflate patterns, who is doing a little bit of jumping back and forth. zero, the lbj library would see his relationship with disney wine or come as chairman at the time and then i would be at the fdr library and see how they've been close friends because something lbj has said to sidney weinberg in the 60s, is so good to have you i'm 18 again. they were on the same team. when i went to the fdr library to see, for example, the beginning of that relationship. a lot of times the middle of history going back with allowed me to then catch up in the middle and go to the same tankers and see what the

relationships were. but i found that men and says, you've had a relationship with many. going back further in time eventually lamont was the chairman at jp market during the crash of 1929. but i didn't know and i found this out is that the the fdr library in hyde park, he actually had rented out this townhouse on east 65th street in manhattan to thomas lamont for several years while fdr was the assistant navy secretary under woodrow wilson. so that's high that happen into the great depression had started way back. they're both gone to harvard. they been in the harvard paper over there. a young editor at the paper had

a very long history, which then lasted for several decades. so there was this onion effect, just layer and layer. it was his legally backward in a lot of decades of relationships in between. >> host: the relationships bring for not only business and political, but socialists well. >> guest: exact way. one of the other things during the great depression was a friend of roosevelt and also 1930% a night out. so there you saw that going back then as well mail server entries in now. of course jp market had a tremendous yacht at the time that was the equivalent of what we have now a third ellison. they are similar as well that came into play.

they were social gathering. going forward in 1938, f. year had at this point appointed a well-known name, joseph kennedy to be the first head of the sec when it was created and also ambassador in the late 30s after joe kennedy was head of the sec. so joe kennedy is having a gallup coming-out party, very social event for his daughter, kathleen who unfortunately died and another kennedy tragedy. but the young john f. kennedy was at that event. david rockefeller was part of a long history of estoril financial strength. in fact, he dated kathleen kennedy for a minute. the thais commend these connections who went through a series of social event that people would be involved in.

>> host: was not the social and individuals, but the strength of the families as well and has family ties, the morgans, rockefellers, kennedys. >> host: james roosevelt and jpmorgan can be immensely famous and powerful jpmorgan created together among a few other established families at the metropolitan club in new york, which was an exclusive club where these men could get together and talk about affairs of the day and decide to a small group. >> host: it is royalty almost. >> guest: it really was. today they are used for drawing up the hierarchy in terms of industry and banking today. the heir to the throne of jpmorgan chase. even the terminology has that

same to it and certainly back in the beginning erratic at portion of it there's only three or four families that were most instrumental in running the top three financial institutions in the country that also had the tightest personal and political financial connections with the presidents of the time. other thin cases the difference is these people don't get elected, they are family appointed. one of the other families who are running the national city bank in the early part of the 20th century and he had two daughters and together they produce a rockefeller and in the late 50s. >> host: when you combine all of them, but, money power, it's

a game of thrones. what happened? who was involved? what came out of that and what the motivation and the people in your opinion truly. since here? there's a lot there. just that they were sincere for themselves. what happene

they basically decided they would do these expeditions and see what was going on with the bank of england and for a see if america could duplicate him then that was more american, but still enable them to have a powerful central bank and the emerging current fee and the role of the dollar. so fast-forward a few years of fact-finding and traveling around with james stillman quite often who was ahead of national city bank and he got back with lots of documents at official level. jekyll island have been because it was time to make it official and jpmorgan said camino community to do this somewhere somewhat privately after his hit by a trolley car. he was in new york, discussing things and he got hit on 60th

street by this madison avenue trolley car. he then planned to have a big meeting at the state of rhode island. but now he's in new york, with the bankers in market has its club membership at the jekyll island club off the coast of georgia and was unsafe something i found out when i went myself, sponsored six people again to work together in secrecy away from the eyes to bash out this idea. the sort of cloak and dagger's death i think is a little bit exaggerated. it wasn't like you had paparazzi flying in. i jekyll island it is generally at the time you couldn't really get their and a repost of men watching them folks came in to make sure it was a pretty secure

place for not and a nelson won't go to washington to be sent to the senate. what happens was he was still not feeling well from the trolley car situation. two of the bankers at the meeting, frank vander lippi was number two at national city bank and henry davidson who was one of the senior partners actually presented the plan to washington, which i did not know either. they went to washington to present the findings. the actual federal reserve act was passed ultimately under woodrow wells and looked a little bit different from the plan, but it had a lot of similar aspects of it. they give the central bank a

confession that they would be in new york that kabul should be be closed and has continued to be close to the wall street banks and then there would be the federal reserve in which the president would appoint the chairman and so there was kind of the safety of a balance of power. everybody was happy in their and there's a whole bunch of stuff in the book about all the ring set midnight and 1:00 a.m. in the white house until they finally did get passed in time. >> host: clearly, the federal reserve is a lightning rod. especially currently given the quantitative easing programs going on. for free from the south side, it's always been promoted as an independent institution. in your opinion, can it be independent given the nature of the relationships as you've laid out exquisitely in your book? >> guest: now, it is really naïve to think it can be independent. one, the very structure has

banks within the federal reserve bank or shares in the earth is a full entity. that is number one, but beyond that, the philosophical relationship, which is really the strong one but started back in jekyll island and has gone through today as the first had he was one of the guys who would win in jekyll island. so he got to be head of the new york fed and paul warburg, who was another is that jekyll island was appointed by woodrow wilson to be one of the governors of the first federal reserve and from the beginning through world war i. the from the get-go there was a connection between how it was established, why was published in the appointments that were allowed and physically done by the president at the time and

that really hasn't changed. there's never been a suggested appointment that's come through a president that has not been accepted by congress. it has always been a very slim that kind of situation. larry summers recently took his name out of him for the most part historically every time the president wanted someone at the home of the air but have you known from the beginning, these people tended to be bankers, particularly the new york fed, which is the most powerful deployment. >> host: a fascinating topic. they're certainly more it's always to be studied there. >> host: bill rogers overcome the secrets of the temple spent a lot more time on the relationships in the earlier years, but he did such an exquisite job i'm not that i have it.

>> host: obviously, having studied extensively the president as well as the bankers , in your opinion, have there been a couple of president who either really stood out in your eyes is just the truly magnanimous in the way they've executed your office or, you know, on the other end of the spectrum coming in though, woefully weak and far too willing to turn over the reins of power to the bankers? >> guest: back in the 20s before the depression of 1929 that the secession of president and party through calvin coolidge through herbert hoover, all of them allowed the bankers, who are their friends off of to do what they wanted to do because they believe this is an orton after world war i not just for financial power, but for

america as a political superpower that if you had tanks that could expand to basically do what they said they needed to do to become strong themselves are not as good for america in general, which is the same that continues to exist there today that was very specific because of the postwar and the emergence of america the superpower. calvin coolidge did nothing to fool any of this. he was famously talking about how business in america is business, but also his treasury secretary -- the treasury secretary that served for harding and coolidge and hoover come into mallon was himself a banker in himself or leave it was important to allow the banking immunity to do what it needed to do, not having any real rules. the ultimate result of that was a tremendous amount of speculation after world war i that ultimately led to a

tremendous crash, which ultimately led to great depression. so those presidents had relationships, but they did try and use them to get anything back from the bankers. go inserter of oregon history can all be with who didn't come from the same eastern establishment and some of the main bankers at this time. but he was such a master politician that he understood how to sort of stroke the personalities and positions of the people in the power banking at the the time as well as get that done. so he was very much a man about i will pass -- i will not worry about your competitors and smaller types of financial service firms. i'm going to not play in any of that. i will let you do what you need to do, do you need to not say anything negative in the press.

you need to be on my side. that continued into the beginning of the vietnam war. they subsequently turned against when things started to unravel at the end of the second term. he knew how to use the relationships you work for a broader public interest as well as allow the idea of strength to continue. not having long-standing connections for someone like fdr when they were on his policies. >> host: but stick with that topic of the wars. we had the two great wars, the korean crisis but also of the cold war. what sort of role databanks and the play in terms of our nations involved to both pre-and

postwar? >> guest: it goes back to the woodrow wilson thomas lamont relationship during the end of world war i. first, the morgan bank itself to the private investment that led into sending allies for war related arsenals and so forth if there is also a strong alignment between the morgan bank in the white house very regular, very much an i.t. of money that needed to go to the war effort was going to be consolidated through the private bank and of course there has to invest in the war, invest in america and ultimately that helped it grow because they had customers after the wars. sickout world were they sort of try to do the same thing. this point winthrop offered she

was running chase really stepped into the forefront because of his relationship with fdr in the chase bank you can as well national city bank relationship with the vice chairman of national city bank was working out who was the crash or a secretary during world war ii to allow these to continue private financing of war, but a much larger approach and take out accounts in the tanks so that was a way they combine helping the country and expanding the present. a better time you got to the cold war, all these new customers are there in the palace he undertreatment eisenhower to make sure communism does not prevail throughout the world and be the dominant is done. in eisenhower's doctrine, he basically states america would

stand ready to fight from a military foreign economic retreat respect to to protect its allies effectively, the ones on the capital side of the equation. that helped the bankers because now they had military support and the branches into these countries. as a result they expanded into cuba, the forecast the cayman out of cuba. they expanded to beirut because he was going to be a stronghold at one point into the rest of the middle east and all this was done with the protection of the u.s. military. the light yet -- the whole reason the international aspect of banking happened with these major bank with the connections for have entered presidents policies and they also run the pulpit to promote these policies, one around the country, talking about the germans marshall plan and help

in aiding countries on the side of the u.s. and so worth developing trade and free trade. there was an extensive alignment amongst people that know each other and have similar interests and use each other to ask and. >> host: it is really fascinating stuff. you talk about the sense of alignment and clearly coming out of the depression, anti-banker, look what you just did to us in terms of speculation. working our way into world war ii for the sense of collaboration and now it seems to have come full circle again. so this cycle is, these and down. are the bankers in your opinion, how do they balance that profit motive and sensitive versus national interest? >> guest: that is a big cycle. that is something interesting to

me in the boat. the fact is working with fdr, for example, to pass the class he thought, commends the reform bank and reduce speculate of those people money and depositors funds was really interesting to me because you wouldn't assume on the surface that would happen. under the surface it does make sense because when you have a more stable economy for everybody, then a banker who understands that is actually good, that the ground up stability is good not just for the country, but all of those four the bank actually wins because today jpmorgan chase is the most powerful bank in the world and the most powerful bank in the united states or the fact they went from ostrich pushed his bank to be split up in the 30s because on one hand he wanted to take over his competitors and how the government backing. but on the other hand it worked.

jpmorgan chase exists today. so it's a sort of gamble, but it worked out. but these guys were out doing food drives and lamont spent a lot of time to raise money after world war ii to help the chinese so there is a different mentality of what you could do for your country as well as balance beam what you wanted to do in terms of your powder from the banks to sort of have everyone on the same page. several decades of days in between is nothing remotely like that. you can imagine jamie diamond running a food drive to help anybody. so it's a really different form as patriotism that existed then

versus i'll do this for you on the country. there isn't anything expectation. there is a man to have that kind of relationship. >> host: to that point, was there a point in time where you said were you pinpoint where the balance of power in these relationships? >> guest: it was two points. a kind of happen in twos ages. after this period of alignment between fdr through eisenhower for the needs of -- the political needs and financial needs of individuals from the same page and closely connected. uhf jfk comment in on a family basis had relations ships with

the people rising that the major banks. a lot of the service and office asking for favors and as a result they were as nice to have publicly. in fact, in 1962, david rockefeller that had a famous set of letters they were being collaborative, but if you read the text, it sounds like david rockefeller was critical of some of the initiatives that jfk. in particular, with respect to latin america, jfk didn't want to folly have latin america open to the private insurance of individual companies. he thought they should be strong rather than simply pushing their leaders were as david

rockefeller and people that were coming into the fold of the bank at the time saw this as a tremendous opportunity. branches are growing up left and right and they really wanted the government to support much more of their private endeavors in jfk kind of thought latin america should be strong on it don't. that is kind of a divergence, but of course he was assassinated and lbj came in and as he mentioned before, lbj first of all was much more about private interest and much more supportive of what the bankers wanted to do. he knew how to stroke their egos. there's a lot of indication, a lot of back-and-forth between members of the national debate and not at the white house invited to his ranch. he had these monthly dinners in washington where he would write particular members to make them

feel better on the same side. after kennedy was shot and lbj came into power, there is tremendous support. yet more public support in the press and on wall street again i got back to connected. nixon was more like jfk were a lot of people would say. but from the standpoint, if you know, the collaboration, he didn't want any part of that. a two-point during his presidency though he did suggest david rockefeller should become treasury secretary and walter risser and should become treasury secretary's. they both said no they were busy expanding their homes. lbj would get on the phone and have an invitation, dinner, he just didn't do that.

at that point they had gotten together.we could take policy from here and they actually pushed nixon and people in its cabinet to get off the gold standard, which has been in the beginning of president in all sorts of other things and now they started making demands without feeling they needed to give anything in return. there's a lot of stuff in the book and they came out is that this alignment. >> host: so was it your sense at that point in time that the bankers felt, you know what, actually have more power run currently situated than one might think they would have weather says the head of treasury or elsewhere in washington? >> guest: that was exactly it. they had just gone through this expansion. they were still going through

it. because none of the presidents have gotten the way of having that consolidation and concentration have been. so it was much more lucrative from a power and as well as a money standpoint. money wasn't even a thing. it was more about the influence, power to not have to work on dirt of the public international side and having access to the 70s was also a big point of departure because all of a sudden you don't necessarily need to open up branches. you can then return around the world, which it turned out when into the format that, which was spelled out by the government. it started today fact. >> host: that stick with that in. the american public we can't do

that. stay away from it in washington promotes taking care of that. we will never have to have another bailout. 2008 was not an individual effect. where there was a bailout of penn central, bailout of third world debt, savings and loans, mexican bailout, want term capital management. can you talk about the role that all those bailout pad in terms of behaviors within these banks? >> guest: those bailouts were really open invitation to have another crisis because if you risk money, and it isn't yours to begin with to take that risk or you know someone else, i.e. the government is going to the taxpayers is going to have your back and you're your consolidating merging and

increasing and you're getting more citizens money as well. you tend to do things that are and rat is an illegal any combination of those things. the ethanol craze says that the regulations certain types of financial instruments and services that enable lots of speculation and we saw more recently, but to crisis showed anchors they basically don't want washington. are these billions of dollars on the hook. if you don't help us, if you don't help the world bank, everything is going to go to and the american people will suffer. the idea if you don't help us, the americans will suffer, so help us, but we won't help back

was manifested out these bailouts. from reagan through bush for obama >> they continually play that card. how blessed we can help them. >> guest: not obviously doesn't help and. there's still bailing out because of the way the federal reserve works. the quantitative easing. the fact they continue to buy security that is a tremendous amount of help. they were helping everybody pay their mortgage insider mortgage security for the bank. it would be a different stability in the economy rather than the big banks. >> let's compare and contrast to

the regulations put in place in the 1930s basis what we've seen in the 2008 crash with doc frank. what is your take on that? >> host: the classical act before fdr came to power, was a very clear line between acting a big can-do and the deposits it back to regular individuals with a very, very clear distinction. as i mentioned before, the key bankers at this time, james perkins also friend of fdr who came to run citibank after his predecessor charles mitchell also is on the same page as fdr. one of the things i've done in the research in the fdr papers

was that james perkins is at the white house three days after the non-duration about how he would set up his bank first. he would tell his shareholders this is how it's going to go and he did. before the classical act was signed in the summer of 1933. there is a fine line between banning and traditional services. and things became stable for several decades after that. you contrast that to what happened in the wake of the two guys in a crisis, which has been a much more extensive crisis for the general actual unemployment level, not the tagline unemployment level for what was lost to individuals throughout a

relatively bailouts and subsidies had been given them and they came along and gave nothing remotely like the effect depositors of traditional banking activities. nothing. it's really, really loud. it has lots and lots of pages and it does absolutely nothing significant. >> host: to have the political will come the leadership in washington to take on that battle? >> guest: no. president obama a sickly sad it was sweeping reform. if you can look at something that is not sweeping reforms in compared to sending fdr did, which was sweeping reform in a bout with a straight face and have her treasury secretary say that with a straight face, we

don't have the leadership that would do any thing to stabilize the situation. that is pretending it has, which is more dangerous than not doing anything. i don't see anyone coming into play right now in terms of the potential as we have been debated in terms of who might run for prez event in 26 team that would change that at all. so we don't have the leadership asking campaign of those relationship. even if they are less about family connections, more lawyers and lobbyists in between. there is no demand is and there is no giving because they're so demanding. poster that's a dangerous proposition . >> guest: exactly. >> host: was really incredible. a couple quotes from the book. what is your take on the following quotes? first off, who controls the

money supply. >> guest: this is what we have right now in the six banks today we have the money supply that the federal reserve is technically in charge of. for what it has done in its policy, it has bought over $4 trillion worth of securities from treasury bonds. so they have a say in rate. this made rates close to 0% for the longest period in u.s. history for the history of the fed. the control, you know, is retained by the banks to get the money. you couple that with the fact that today there is more concentration of capital in the hands of fewer banks running them then never been in our history and are not just controlling the capital.

they are insured by the heat in the top six banks. 85% of assets. ish remind us of not. forget the invitations. that is a tremendous amount of capital to be in charge of. again, we've only emerged when i say march, was on the on to have these sorts of statistics than we have before and banks bigger than they were before controlling more than they did before. that is very unstable. >> host: is a scary proposition . the elephant in the room in terms of too big to fail.

what is your take on too big to regulate, prosecute and trust. >> host: today to follow, too big to rein in. amnesty said before, no leadership at the highest echelons to do any thing about it. >> host: that's very troubling. chapter 16 you write, quote, the scratch me. no longer was a pretense of alignment so take that quote relative to what we had coming out of world war ii. that's a pretty strong statement. >> guest: i don't remember about exactly what year in the 70s that came from but that i was referring to, but the fact is that this alignment that we have used the government or what

is worth, we used to have this sort of relationship where we would give them there would be give-and-take. we don't need that anymore. the government really proceeded into a position of having less power the power base shifts back and it had been that way in 1907 when teddy roosevelt had asked jacob morgan to save the country. they had more than the treasury department. then it was like real money. nowadays leverage cap at all. all sorts of complicated money. and with broader power. >> host: to that very point, the power and often times power

is equated with often times area games. there's one quote in the latter part of the book that really grabbed me and some people in the public have heard this quote. that is why i am richer than you. >> guest: yeah, that was jamie timon and the impetus for that quote and basically what it means and what it says is this isn't about a greater good. not divided public interest. it is not about even a profit motives been sustained by something reasonable. it is about my ego and my money as it feeds my ego in my power as it feeds my ego. that is part of why it is also much more dangerous now. there is a fellow who ran chase

back in the 30s as well who have quite a big ego and hubris choked out when winthrop aldrich came in under fdr and he didn't work to run the bank anymore. and so there was a humility that sort of existed after that depression and into the worse it doesn't exist whatsoever. >> host: that is truly troubling. early 1900s we have the six large banks dominating the market place. we still have six large banks. there have been endless numbers of mergers. has there ever been with a major bank has felt like and what ever happened to the sherman and clayton antitrust act in the world of major banking? >> guest: at august back-to-back panic, what happened after the panic of night and 87 because they came

back to the federal reserve and when world war i hotbed, woodrow wilson and it's an interesting story in the book called jack morgan, chief market time after having campaigned on this notion of breaking these money trusts that were run by people like morgan because there was all sorts of speculation in the press at the time. why is market at the white house? what is wilson doing? it turned out a couple months later they were trying to figure out how to finance the war and we now half the situation where there is nothing keep that page. >> host: it clearly seems is your just reference them, the percentage of capital and asset that it allows for ultimately

manipulation and scandalous activities in the market. >> guest: which is why you need well-defined structures throughout these on lawyer of all against in to at least create more risk to everyone else in the economy. he talked about a government is supposed to protect. they should never stop ability to protect from the standpoint of its economic well-being. in a situation where the concentration of wealth and power and influence is so out of whack, then a government that is allowing the presidency, any president allowing that to happen is not doing it in is not

doing what is best in the interest of the true democracy. >> guest: the question begs doesn't matter who sits in the white house? all the crises that of pat and in between come internationally between the debt crisis, the s&l crisis that stickley versus the 2008 crisis and all this continues to happen regardless of whether ayers a republican or democrat hasn't mattered. >> host: let's just touch upon, let's try and look forward to the future. obviously, a lot of unknowns. we are sitting here at a point

in our nations history, which having come out of the crisis of 08, kick the can down the road. lots of issues. what was she like to see and how are we going to make that happen? >> guest: i love to see true inertia coming out of the office with regard to issues we been discussing here today. i would like to see return of the classical act, not a pretend returned two of these create structural reform because there will always be lobbying and lawyering a personal cost to ask for things. a little more balance between what is required for stability of the country versus putting all the eggs into the basket for the largest banking institution. an scm point. that would be good to see. it would not be good to see another crisis, which is very likely what will happen instead

because these things. the periods while things were better to move up from there. and the things that were worse for the general public the anatomy of how the work between the white house and wall street and the country and how they impact policies on the foreign and domestic bases. also what made sense for the general public and the greater public interest into that more.

>> host: those who fell from his church and repeat it. the crisis of 08 in your estimation, will it take another crisis to bring about change is that we see and from this most recent one? guessed that there is no way that won't happen. whether we get the changes after that crisis and its astonishing to me. but the fact that we are still subsidizing the banks that were involved is very incredible to me and truly we need to be in a better place. >> host: well, nomi, i can't thank you enough for the incredible work you've put into this and the national service and for those who watch in the show, share with friends, family and colleagues.

congratulations on a fabulous piece of work. >> guest: thank you so much. ..

on saturday, under21st, the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library will hold the reading festival featuring numerous author talks. let us know about book fairs and festivals in your area. >> duke university professor martin miller spoke with booktv about the foundations of modern terrorism, which he dates back to the french revolution. this 30-minute interview, part of booktv's college series, was recorded at the washington duke inn in durham, north carolina. >> host: duke university history professor martin miller is the author of this book, "the