>> using these trillions of dollars to buy up other companies. >> well, the trillions of dollars to less to say, artificially propping up a lot of things including the bottom line is a lot of these firms. everyone is deeply concerned with what will happen when they turn that spec it off. and we -- they're worried about what they call the taper when they taper off this ongoing welfare program did and they are worried another bubble might burst. the fed is something that people have to learn about more. they need to learn about its rules. it is a strange extra democratic force. people on both the left and the right have a common interest in understanding what is going on. it is a good question. but at -- it took a hundred

years or 80 years to even get that little sliver that they got . rex thank you. >> below, mr. matt taibbi. >> matt. >> i'm sorry. >> i am a young journalist. >> i'm sorry. [laughter] >> i'm doing my best to bring awareness. i am currently a news correspondent hot for a not-for-profit trying to do my best. to be honest i feel extremely powerless, and i am doing my best to try to bring awareness and inform people. i have done my research. the only thing that i can think of doing because i no -- like you said on the daily show, it is a fixture.

this system is almost impossible to tackle. you have to work from the ground up. basically we are trying to get the power back to the common man. even though it kind of sounds like -- and accused of being a communist. people bit edgy about it. but your thoughts on workplace democracy? i have seen an organization called cinco. different organizations basically have open transparency, profit sharing with employees and allows them to have different models. they feel like they can actually be a part of the system. and i just want to know what your thoughts on that -- >> i am all for that. hopefully that is what my new company is all about. i don't know exactly yet. it's always good when people take ownership in what they

do. this gets back to being more of a capitalist. it is also just good business. when people care about it they have a stake in what they're doing. they tend to it stay later, put more creative energy in. i am all for that. you know, despairing about being a journalist and worrying about whether not you are having an impact, just don't worry about that. it is not your job to worry about changing the world. i grew up around journalists your job is to do what you do and make sure that you are not lying when you do it and make sure to catch people when they are lying. that is an important public service already. it is more than most journalists do. so don't get down on yourself. [applause]

>> thank you. >> hello. we have all been writing about issues like this since 2008. it is almost as if the wall street tycoon, almost like caricatures. everyone in between, what do we look for to see if that is happening? >> well, there are couple of things. first of all, good question. i did it all the time. i am in the middle class, so this does not matter to me. that is actually -- that's a couple of things. if you're in the middle class do are likely to have been a victim of white-collar crime by the financial-services sector. if you own a pension -- how many people here have a pension? anybody in? anybody lose money after

2008? so that was likely. fraud played a huge role in what happened to pension funds after 2008. if you have a credit card, mortgage, any kind of floating rate investment you were affected when the banks started monkeying around. basically a gigantic antitrust case where there were playing around with world interest rates to suit their needs. if you bought a can of beer or soda in the last four or five years you were affected because there has been manipulations in the metals market, aluminum, zinc, copper. there has been manipulation of currency rates. if you have savings in dollars or savings inovings in n

affected. if you have just a savings account you have been affected by the bailout and by the fed policy because you are no longer earning as much interest as he used to. a lot of elderly people used to live off of their see the incomplete you can't do that anymore. interest rates have been slashed to nothing. people in the middle are affected by all of these things. on the justice side would argue that -- i interviewed people in this book who became victims of police abuse because like anything else stop and frisk ran out of its normal cash of victims and started fanning out into other neighborhoods and types of targets. i am not saying that is likely to happen to anyone in this room, but it is important that we all learn about what is going on over 2 million people.

that is a major, national crisis. whether you have or relative in prison or not, that is the biggest prison population in the history of human civilization. something weird is going on. we all need to learn about it. >> i was wondering if home five when you speak of restitution i was wondering how often that money is collected? where that money actually goes? >> that is a good question. in the case of the settlements from what i understand when they collect settlements that money basically ends up in the budgets of the regulatory agencies. it for them. again, this is part of the argument they give you. well, we can fight them for ten years in criminal court and loose with a can give us

2 billion tomorrow. i have like, well, my going to get any of that? why do we put people in jail ? i had to ask this question. in no, when law professor told me it's for three reasons. this stops the individual from doing it again. that would be true of this. also it would be effective with this kind of offender. the third thing is justice for victims. so even if you have been the victim of fraud, the victim of a financial crime, one of the reasons to put someone in prison is because the victims should get justice. well, are the victims getting justice? i am not seeing that. in the case of the foreclosure, for some of

that money to end up going toward helping people in foreclosure, but that is not typical. typically the money disappears we're who gains from that other than the people who concluded the settlement. many times class action, private class action complaint that the government rushing in and making settlements prevents them from also giving settlements out of the same group of actors. the private claimants, the victims to bring a private suit, less left over for them. sometimes those settlements actually work against the victims of these crimes. >> to questions. >> are you his brother?

>> i am his son. >> many years ago the professor wrote a book called rich and super rich. one of the problems, our tax system, so many of the loopholes of the rich, you know, we are definitely leading toward a plutocracy. he wrote this back in the fifties. do you think that is true? >> oh, yeah. >> okay. if it is, what are the chances of people like us in a suit against the corporation, product-liability or credit-card manipulation or monopolistic practices?

they don't enforce the antitrust laws anymore. >> there have been a lot of successful private class-action lawsuits. that's a good question. for instance the sub prime mortgage loan. while there have been no criminal case is really there have been a lot of private class action suits filed by state pension funds or city funds or foreign hedge funds. they want money back. a lot of these companies have been seriously gained. if you are a victim of that then you have a decent chance, especially one of the futures of this is the nobody communicates any more there are all committing grotesque conspiracies in writing everywhere. when it comes time it turns

out to be pretty easy sport for a lot of them. and quickly -- i know everyone has to go. the answer to your tax question. come on. when the match romney pays a maximum to 15% rate on his private equity work and a fireman, whenever, 20, 25 percent for and come, something is seriously wrong. most of these people are not paying anywhere close. they have a tiny amount of what you would call and come and everything else is either capital gains are carried interest. that is a scam. has to be fixed. >> thank you. sent you very much. >> it seems to me, they seem

to be doing their job in terms of protecting. there being used as pawns. i am wondering, what do you perceive? >> there are a lot of questions commander know everyone has to go to read a lot of frustrated policeman. it is a numbingly inefficient way to do things police do not have the leeway that they want to have to make quality cases anymore. they have to write tickets. they hate it. and the people who tend to rise in the system are the few who enjoy it. they tend to be this sadistic, dumb ones. and then that is the problem there has been -- like in

many professions their is a day the emphasis of appreciation for the person who actually knows how to do the job and more of an emphasis on the person who is able to deliver the stats we have to stop now. right? thank you very much. [applause] hrna lf

>>lce,evyby. thksorranghe wth toaktomeca enrprisenstu tay na iarnd a a sintcharnd dec t stieere. toy'evts pel scsi ofohyo's les

ok "inofttk: prenvearinrniol w,ndlol lfe". r atisngo sile weilha the dcuio a th ot uueions a ve a gd btscsi t e iroce mha lis anary chof as y cee fmatial inur hndheha diinisdcaer chl is rossft oh ivsi,e anav lo a graduefhe top n proam araatof

rvd. asrien ohe lawof wa haeyai te tinal serityomttnde a rm pfeor a t war lle. was lalouil tthfb dety decr t l 0s ank yoo f jni us da no l minode jn yoo. he h bn tehi lt univertyf cifni beel lchl fore th 20 yarndaseen coeae reae f t pa ca rm dutsian attney nel dawlef jti thasndlvma adutr felusnd sols

wswaredeiapor aninrniol w. s st receooisik s he bksn tt tres noinquehy otingn hi gument noohe lacor teatnalure. olse cldeviti hor drihathur inraq mht nha bn imrtt w clm. case jei fed co ctrctit td o rekinnn'siv acahaceoivar a an. inf aac iep seou wk th gatitn shreer thk and reewhr dpl hd coumio. ilprocts sk t

poan qstions thki outha the sws shod wh i ceso hag obosri. hnve yo >> i is gatleur t b he a ae. has bn yew fm ho f t lst t a. kell heswaroho, e op a hpi he, t foset ret iu to eenve f m t le he. t as en are t yes. issy10 aivsa a ae thoois acalth odt of tse t yrs ard woin o ithen i meerefte tera war th i myfft toa see ohe iq a afanta w aheth

nf nfctweavbe gng thugas cotr i gatoavary ashe deto hes ohefeweoe tt ar iert tams, naonecitnd inllen. an iou bemif h di't itoenn of h easrisisrtio o jeern' vwfpo ae ha t vw jeernad a bu vw tredey prti a n ieoy. ted t ssine. itss paso he thikle ary - mi wnhentend haeya o t rr lest e naoncoeg s gat tbe wit tm th d iooorrdo diuson i ntoakon rogti

mymeor, jn w lree siern is. iany the wtihe ck sin itotr m d idt di sl iut heidt blshas ou. g herefit. is seosttwoin foritft lchlnd coin lk my o u o the pal e iert tial secitn l wch islloora. hes spatn f the ok hes rpoib ful mht d. ju wt tyo t sim thisndheaytt lkg aut rsi a t im aay aut est ia thsile thsind ihi th rsi ioviof crea

st hilite ts isha th creinrniol leg syemolcte cutyi thk,a il. thon tat cterodh uned nti a teri unl. the pma re fcis imallenfefse orutrid tun scuty unl. thk atul i sticallyinrrt. an ts i tky odrow wionstliin t agf naon thid tt t rulehi crinizioofar haen ck o the cer a tay thugthgrt dial inrs y lk at tust wr adioan tor wich is ry wppnatli lel torccdio e ur. star tortuly is muc

mouae a l abtot of tng wekboutod kemataan inrvti d prmpvear iwa tt bondhe spl iah ufortherha sel denses ilga asohiha initiollani in cotrs e n fainh laof jtar hioral a i don'thk ey a dng it dehaar iel toy. initiollthere veee en ors taver enutrid t a we nn sfefse ahe unaseeirporls to opit. h vaon of uai i st arfit

ifoueqrembs t cuty cncoutri meurof areio a cna isoigoetnff t reond toia o a mitaengentat mht are t sth cnar ereerhe re bng accedndhe arin le efrt cat ste magecoliftorar iioesn't wk a it rll n'gog oorkn e future atsn mnha we watetae or w caot reo an coro dungheerd,hemot o deh and dtrtisaln a lon han sty.

thwher of gnud e dehsmre werrs haalno lel sce t benngf t mdeatn atst. th ian cribecd bt i n'thk snyin to doi inrniolla. liticascncanstia y eraran ass. eriryean nle weaponkethaed a peivananro f the grtporso meo nfct thbanc ofheup we of t cdar ppss t eapors ainhe coapfheovt io a thrif e it ste a aupie oeand sti abit thgrt urf wa the two rl tat kl to pele han sty,oth ard iure a we

beeen eopn wend re tth rt oherl speusavaon rae a gd rrentio ofha preed. tilth, tre weodehs mb inure. awg ofewborderof eupeyrc th one aa tat pdud all ofhe colis ataud ny deasbeme aeaful ac th ireonblfo nle ap a t sugeeten th unid at a t sie unn a tnid atol matainnaonorr. the a tea tha ord whic a binos b wte us tca ruenaon a noits resiistis li an mbe iclrly

ss. chalngauedhe olerioof wmd tenogy thri ofteationa teort ou. v lge mataan taopes th i wre i rhto y ve w cncwch ulha gves tit o is bok bo'rke aea toit ctain of ws der pp bauf thea o teatnala o y tng el oer t slf dens it stssro teeng in alr ac lkeaq so,he rae,h sut

ch s -here aras at diougeti fm usgorecseheas t thworld eog t b mh hierhan acof nflict unr teatnalaf oscoflts wld legal. thk inrniol ste ad seofulndug t coagth pors tse foeoonolhoinf thatsh t rniol st s itoe't ndo wrybo wa bwere wefor inrnio l dsna ch eecnd tieas be kpt f oth reon. th i ot unrsndhe tsi a tis isimarohe w lnd onic solshibo contra oor la thlaenur you bach

thotr i y c do meinmoffie and atsomthg lye thghov for my cas unl jugenhe '7s ath ivsi o ico isie gatoreil a i taw acw. lemeurno th ts anabusand waso respdoruiand mbe ts a gocoint f scsi, ou it dsn haveo . shgt ipa paled a thlty sms paryz ato donesns the insi o rae. cnoheun o oth orgazaon coere.

he are sme tinhi weou dtosp to rsi icw hen wch tnk wod nste wit ts prch teatnal lahiay se astrblom orlel. th sulrmat tta trty th litthnid at an rsi t 1,55 nle weon ami o t devehies buits afrt tat t unedtas d ss t sa on thrsal eve tug ss i'tojti power ou t wldnd tnid at i dsn meenor te unedtas tatusa a rtr.

soonwaesibghe sion psintbaoo ouayannd it e t uai w lkit ll trdris. th oy mity ide a vi tokrnes mlsea ea ev uerrede caer whe thsoetinde ahast didor tangi t be fo. th wldeifcund e arr t uerth i thk is fe ndiv liryido rae pp relsh mhte unrusanonol. thd in tinks ste the atialst msi st i eophatheba

adniraonuld f a seoferio. these id. ifruiaano grod a inditsnehbs t unitedtas ulse a sialf ppt who ot onhe gund ocoli wh ruiay pti tsyems . rkedfo. ysm hpe soetso baru aeld ctrut t f of t sieunn whyot gveitnoer and sulen or opatn thruian ria. i n'se why t ute steshod ptns wh ss wn it isshti the cilar towdhe gi. d initioll cate an

alrniv t the un w we n'ive voeo unie liusandina. decriewhere y n an initio ad proes t letme d c b fose uny unieth a decrs a hvehea lu an t utestes thk u vy ch lk fwao tcoen. tnkoullorom ou thaveavg me. thk e pfeors rit. thecitouil i bren hemeiodhatheumrf grt w wars t pple

thatavin eapor rs i dowor zoince th stutnf t ute stes- un t e nfct aun t wod dhenumber a gin a ove trl andhe ide sin youan prum wfa b teeng tse coli an evti the fro havg thhunirisaerhey bemeaseis u force t s usef rcth i rbde bhe arr le wca gt r ss t are tss whee wanto u foe. rtle ofefseoeant apy i ny acs.

otrointheross ma i tres an unrcurra otishat ha tou satacce inditeawiines tgo bendhe tarr sys ey areupsedoo tms usior tevt mataanris o oth saer whhe itsietna in mb ordi inngde. a cleiv inrvti keatancovo. os he encriced a so lel ernoer bhe veeen pistom lel ornoerhe kdsood th h ne. thcerathe, or of the cerathmeoheoos t sahoo w furuthe

wasoing toe tt befito han lfe. h and enoen d yiouavto calla anhe t nets tt e gngo aru fromsi rcan here ahe ves th wl sed aer a e livehawi be imov a rultoi wter ppsheert bi rianret. anwhe ihi tt a horae eaut iraic itsoi tbe diffult. okt e ame rhan anveoneayo co t nyeoe b killed wh chesn e cenry ileupendheest ohe wod oobyndwatcd. ateeiket ul c t

r teention buookingt e on thaas haen ithlaewar by iaoodxalehe od tt de. whev y inteen and inrvtis ne wd t atoure din i llg op. yongoo ind ll op. etr the byonol domniti op, orhe aiefsepeleoromf thbypealrc groundors eatck. yoargog kl tse pelend setes y wl llh wng oe. yowi k viannd h ller ma. the fncnrisher itizorhe amntf llerdage in ipli yowill hd u asayhe artulypele w dd

wh ty ou nha. an y t we v. i n'kn howo tl u h ma ppl we kle in lia. t the stouans sang i wha no t th ihatou hhaed d y wlaoonnc pele w a oos tth aconhi ihecase hawe inrved and yre gog onncheor you sad 0,0livey inrvinthe oay yo wld bie you. wld act bhe frchlgms americs t goacn aretais ntl eros connd non wld bieou sed 8000lisoi d eate ofhiea whe ge eris vaed

inrvti a ishlde kendouav t bele eyatone ioio s w are tinou at o itein usha fr lia aq. lg a you d'txpt peleo an yndll ppt everyinyo d beusfopotil rso i guane rsi and cna llrici t tis ke yoha tbe ppado ce tt ao test y n bk tha cim isshefote fatue avde --cote-- m.

iavbe heeft i grt tha arum le is ey areedat t t inplof hin on dete ou terestg d rd tocs iss qteasnang for me caen jo's th nirsy hsreal hiel to a cadn teatnalidli inrvtialm ic i siting. dhe b wchoud inigng turnt amssor fothit tis ma h - mth pors-utfwe whsth?

ths class pce o wo. heresll oecsss. thma,eeks, agtu i ao apeng ad giin oinrniol retis. ea itdiertlha evyo end ces t a ffenncsn ou wt emdd ith dori. d atctnehe alws hi t mke an aumtfhy u n ve pncle o prenond t moli. d e raty is td toore of asn coeponoros befit alis hearesas on a picf glal cmood it iss reivarmend

clsiyo. is ttgo o d kevethgse, i dend hn jesheonptf th tdion a o adio taye tch is y ghr t ep wit stcae, ahotysues anth rptir st buhe dsn t authe dome o min mban an nocoatce. d oer prtnd aur ertwek tresoi ba dfentoreas.

e gat win isine tha yshesesheohnan inrv ire ryha, n nay pi. iha f my eranto tcth te ac hes yi ierni ith casoe'tol th you nheigo tr lv tmnheteenon cae e aumio is ppl yoar teeng itemac e vaes yave an s erannd thevaes y unrsndheoro be th iunea an ntnly ttuthe suti iou stath

ghevnd d y go onofheresyem iow oureame weavon tou a suge r qlifo equgh. tfou aerinro kertdojesheha a coepf howheom which n't aioti o eal gh swhaal dou nt phha w ss t amic wa nyarn e utestes ar restghearin y. erdoout o oron wol rgef isue ats eog o . enoutat tatev o exaconnd y th he to iv d io ecicsha is whe tdeils i t tas. are n gd aatn

budi. he enooatoccuin thmeca wayf w i coitna rrdewchs wh wse t dnd tn w cuederny andjan. we whewarbu l the netiio i t ionyf wh w sa. d ates wre w a afantaanratoy. wh ithgo. fod e ok scatg, puinorrdhoan armes ato rwd, b th togseayhee do o uerand wh o ntto ierneorhe mmod th cole case is t prenonocumndhe actu paswhh qte i thbo, dfe ta pas ulstevren e lirare he rerredocadi be. yo nereath. u ver hea t canaan

oliz t awengacn ches anth locf t dtre i wetereonng ats erelngnd leango chcefliraon th fce o britathiz emo enr e it ste andi nhing reonler ceivsiehe justiebyheecsi of lffee. is iaoenit alys lf feeusbe mid h nesty an ptitin . e obc wclr. th bw uhe ip thjefteening t naon lveso dfent anblinphe sh. i eave yithe pbl th veigyta a t

unedatnsavg tub beg efcte,heroems ito t b teawi hn roemand tma t de wh trsniol le ke t rmg ohe gba vinmt. we d't havchis, e ste,ut nhe lsshe steasron to rilnt cae ielvehe ste i e ef fce wit ain teity. at jnsskg f ie ullimeca tbeinhe ti stelond he ll i ilerly bs hao t doccioav rewer aunth rl th itheeppado o t

bo. sehe morit b not chis oft unrsndg dtoe'tnowhahe rld wld looki oour stce we aree wso wn east d aay yar bu i w t fir tim w eltea psint wh dgr inlica sennd we toeeit fm pncons a odle. th tha iilurt bko e dete asomne who hph.dn potil iee areat th ft sulev pridt. i gngo throw in tiits. onofhe ne thgsbo john boo iheege h unckthsclahian

teryn e adiond ow tport ofhet habe tenve t las ceurinarcurheas coup cas. d rend thn se sptshi his talki outh jt w tor or tainab w i beme ve cse to poci. teds t tink a mity efrtaseng de th iin ecoextf a maemrevisl b tre an aloo wt his tainabtnd theol the unitedtas dth moacs wn ces pl lingheor ahais vaab pt tbo.

dd siehe w a coleth,e aumrf thgs ianokbo b i n'anooghe me, he al talbo t hto of e vepmt o thechter anpots that ars thncsily swnha thamic p ptipa dn bie then i ce utestesehioth th need t d setngo mata teatnaltali anthe nhingn e arr eyhohtou sop fm doi d e tut iandf w al wld sayhechte hasn'ttopdohyot acce tac arobl mahe moe, kw,rot gunted un tunrs t drtifode anday

ner gn up a binth ki of reriio a wt res ourraicha lledhat on i spo tnsr to th is at mecans, cae the re decric ppik t gind t iue of hin hegrehat yre din eig tin unimpoan bui inth fpsnt e he thigsha tnk peapifohas wting t bo ns pod to aea agouou hendbo tresnoimm ou eaws ar nntes i rroranacisio a weavse in e se o ruiahaisot se w wry o cstt dly bas aut wthhaise for ches eyava l oteity ai o las, bg las,

sml las,ots olas inhe nghrhd that ty veotin . d enhe qstio is wth or n t u.chte h unrsodoeprida uful pae oeave tir sis dquitns lileseth otrwe. we oen t do, a jn ggtsnends t aec onhopoernd inin ouwh ty non the inrniol a. the a tismbo t ea we ttprad the okndneaonde th tisms waand ahat in b bcko e fal quti a tt jntaks

abt eorin ofe n inrniol der wa opinanoss out t ea a anogsohe cocifemrandro. d enou lkat, wch ins in rein tis d tt nssges ok an leinduwoelen y atwoed their w hentwe wi t rim aninerms ofhe ban o wefo, tysm peedponre bta and london taking an active hand and maintaining it. but castle guard failed and

brits did everything possible to stay away from an active role. and that brings us to today where there is a real open question on if you did have a counsel -- council -- of democracy the question is would the united states have the will por to pvide that kind of adership. he doub about itverhe last few year antheseedecd in is e her decratic we -- rmy, itain,ap- i n'thcas tyspding ch t llarsone nds abouth efctens tirbityo hp ininha iertial de sohe nu oheflf e rrt syste weroht up and h feiv thmeanms f ining atepros wldbe

my thri gerehe eoes a a fen ote a bo oenways t ban thit an ath wld o wt dohe fotrtu lk li e inreinguti f jo ihao y pcee i e r sucrehawode us a h dyou se the coepfit 1 tie 50 beusifouootusa anhe ise w th ttlsi rrat anno uer tle10 weivou foodor thgh anus wshldet y reon >>hat aotf rll inreinueiond

pots i n'thk ha eugim tospdoll ofem. wi sp t fwea ti f aiee eson spdi tross les' pot ctei gh. th itr. dot inits rsoo je t prch rigo ytile ffultout itoprti. puth misme oth ely anys o ct net anysndeoeadimar armes da autow doou nvonnt guti. wanou vueum le veuscoer autolti or gbarmgho voedayheamthin w yn f ctaty feas ve the augeffe ith itou wh theudt dertnthatri toh

buthe s a ppe tt shedcrshe fer en, chgey had dier vue fo hanli eyere ccuti i ffeny. s go ardan c seth. t tnk i ihe rht aran th heflyhen w ar dng i wwi g beert lstt uld aowo enfyheeacas wche n'-- wreth ste estlls t inrve. lia t rd c waa si tasyas wheouou s a mli lis wldavbe svef wead strps thhaer wneesrelor to bngil iak p on o gng

tnk us ihihais ag. eris hesienveo lpheuniesnd inrve ywre thsoceinlv a gng bsoxpsindhy ou aatn deak t thkls . d rth i ow w ining is ste befi tthnid at a we aurli. th wl vere wit obmsecse ie te e lehaisppitefhe erthadniraons gog d re pliac omarfheor a i wenhce opoti a retoolhe d foes t pay is anitmake ioror o nalnd airpowe ande ndporan tt iskeing th the tritnal restruurth inrves

ankeeps e ban o powe inta. >>fehat it i gng to ca fcrsen fee enngnd wreeegraw dos athe prede a ngss agr o rhtwi th iathe tge t watheysemwos. natio sulha ienve torocehi kind oa enrcen or pce keing o whev i iut ts lelf wa onthing lacs tor o postelmnd tnk tt o thg ats aifia aut thwaweu war ihink toseshr diin things we stte a w ahrow out d ue thela o t w fitindn y a done wi atous it tnd

th rensuconla and ts wth l tt veedrensuconf t ut din tiv r. rt o thenasiif s gog cay iorrd and ats . remy tcffs ith dice and avbe lking aut h tren coepli t resf r. u ou nnk t pate antharyo uooo war shouldha tul oe yo a ithwa thk t iheeetf rk toet. ifou a tinth fien arohar it shld allowou tosell kis wfiti technies ich i wldeoubt und the rule

on emp wulbehe kovo wa and tiror dpp thgs in bl gde wcha viatn war atcng reivia inasucre rg. t od we trucon ecicy, rksllav echa youan atck >>e he entong wit t eain cerou mht quinpele t catea pate cneiofo the mitary andoseua us >> n u tualsend shinhoe me the fferen bwe mban and noo ncbantay ae to d >> y canttkerin infrasucreth

derong thm. yo wo jus gt tee e ea adfhaishease beal. if w aet wiseia daantrng t psue th t av. at if stdnheir ocart? chetrhan dppg mb t uer t lasouanto at ats vianrg. itee leouou heo to reame e inples. t'geto ga'soiefe rning or toueio a

scsi. eris ltf gat pots the. tarr, tnk iay tt usllf tme adincti and i is bierealner cotrs. the by ame. isdmisatn wte to gethizio t inrve inby ou teenonalstuil eebliasip and da you a a bte pe a ts tha a b op setesay or dey alweth ric eleno ve bgeoin e bybeio ybthobadmisatn dnanto teene yy d used tchrt a nvience exus iteshe emue mmtetot. sya, tacf auoratn wheea

eyav n inrvin mo iri thk ihangome eec buitsetng dedo e us ohearei ilgima a tra th fnc a gmand allies uedhecharr sn explofhy noel u i thirinsi. t is hard t fndts t so as buit dincti wn sof t wa wldetr f wedi go r. thk i h a tnk yo a rhtbt w t furelo likef u m ayrothar st. th cce ofures jt so onnagyo epa. e in tt scefus ou cleueoholn cme up wthhi iafhe

n-olerio initiiv atas a sysmuthe i rmal trty o pce wre thmet. th gornntslaacono y sphettk aro at uerand th a suesul i inthwa tgos ud th suesulinfoal opatn d eyonav eruis ioldnd ty e tetngus th i theodouan . haasee asueswe shld udha a useha a meloui aonrt o moac ifouetidfhechrt pleth nhi i thk u llav es prlef wnever y w letite th ssnsre sayinheir

teenons leg bau th ae precng rssn cize wer sodsikomhi hierai32. thk h t doit fuhe delmef t ia t is ry hrd bau i ettingoit-gtt tas h w degn t foownysm. thks hn sopeng i up toueio omur guend pas enfy urlf the a eson imr theaf untunti jas bi-ou he en vepi a newayfoi

sissarcurlwh y otth eventi ilga torte moor t bu adminiraon w arod bou sio visl anileneoue naaniten sodiouet eran tinsp? i ws bn ian b i am it ste cize >> y wld n bn e justiceptm if hlsooree thisind thki, wch iy inn,tsotly baar. ct mst heeoe thugutheorreot doit mae u n cvie a dil gh wier imeca an ty ul pbably flo uil itbeme iq and ghisn erheha t be ck o aei td thk u idtee yo.

anay tanu. ion tnkh to i gog alyoraca rgh ngs. ssef amecapoti esdays th t rht wi ofhe rubic paty tulyantswidrawro eor st ifouok,ay at ndaul thepseate th puicpay, itris m ve mhik the19'snhe unedtas d weer moacs. thk ey a ric in tt than cn arin pocynd thihe ute stesug tdotngn spse t uaend nhi spseo e sef cha. th wldaye ha put t onn inining acan w gotngutf . nobo gis unyrae fr

th. ion tnkts dil rit wg id. its -ou qte righ soeoeill crice e id oplinhechte st a bbac baets gog tonve cpetind oloalmgand i tuallyhink tt n fr beusi inthernd oscotr a noloer stngnoh ortest ou a y wl tee frce a grebrai a rmysgor toreimse th st. thk tnid at is dierent and aceptiol unv tutst mntnstemtsn eirik trishr enemre or the cne empi. isn'tinreingnakg ov triry t ao

rds tnid stes it dsee to gth unieasarofysm o onic adra ao ppssnfct hpesf n emre est y r t cotrs. iyo lk athwa stetoualtoy,he fnt pa, motres tat435 rct topation prer ilaonliy. dhenited at fei pocyinceroevt, tdy nor aayas saif oliorsteenon. itaseea claicdeman heot oals thaan berado the fode a diertevutn. e tnghais atheas d weavbeennvve i the

st2yers eris stint in e puic as jn iayg thano pll c an uspuli ba, wll haoskt he t befioro to tis. anonof texpl of llg bk is wt is pping rh now i im anth uai ihi w taedabt. soou aoap y a tse countrsow bau iteaouonehe foe toreon ess i wathenied stes rpoet the ragive enohe the msis d wod ke ateck i inwh tt ay i th y w gehe ssns and t eupes easeeha unedat wi bseouabt sppg eexnsn. heifre wa o th.

llg e ia y wl ve t oyo coin tdohnd w are seouth i nthe w y oue iold i inrniol laon how y do ttis trule weanto getnt a fiting r? weavnoad a nle chge so if u aelngt h enheigst suri, elngil syhanef ereesvaagf inrniol pliocy i en hwas a cator ofhe stctn ey tuge ulha sethingik25 nueapors on. atssue i we areow atn testg tpipoin rit? d t tpi points eang rl nef inntesnd diinnteso

w ueranteenon. ann eref toro cahrgh ted of powe angin tboer y hes maveonneou ats ke ti iue aut th bok. whe ul triipotn teenon paicar i th nle wldhewe a ry ncne aut hav whe rgefewunie gog nlen w are arngtacth sin wh hpe i a stes de ats it a tpi pnte e nd tis bk stts t coertiith h y wld thk oudog th. wh t cimfunrmin tharr a is bbac anomhios ofor wo cendhyhis ist tily ie boo poioofha jsalking

abt t stiae use o ur tprenevents wch s ot to dithhe - spsili -to prec itaseeebedn e unedal niondceed as a dicationn tse o rc n fna tcedome,he ed tecityouil apov b t iti ia hir2p tsaf t seriouil dsn a iss w fceou b us fhepremt hun lfe. .

jts st htoca no, teenonm aque pais i tisotr wa't rpuic gh ng anth wentnt t baan wa't e rht wngraha ntntafca soeha aiptin

adioof inarri y c'tav iery. u' lk offit. ian ask aut jn gh tory o globelre eecto cme b diutfrhetrsi. emoe [inaudle >>ee t enre plsie yjuo th fm a vyabract, ob lfepo oieo sa tize o im a ttffecse ty' n bebrghn aicr cotranatrge cnt andotrit a mhmo feivceragornnt dany w t morityofth e ssnsnd sm tobe hay. sowh cn'ut s, ohe whey,it bache.n

chartebuwan efien brch >>as sw. >>t'not car toehahe pelentheg nt i soon tngouou wt to-herereesf e pele whoiherend is rdo ll bauheas ectn t ias alaic vi ectn. -pntheve pernt vte fo netiuthe o chceasdoghe aex rht wr aex aitsler >> jtanto esyo beust vyplsith thmari o pplncrea fare is itreyle e mory nyre uai ddnfar th. tot ea whicis cotien tt tts u mht sy, tsus inre pblilo lfe. u cn't aglalolal e me soowlwsa t

woerarweondenghe pelen an o h t igor fel th nigor wldthan't ke t iteenonnyy. iake yr pnt re. e ltchte teso ape wth ts. oufaed at. naib] i sr wlla -we te pe 5 inhahaer ie fure ouwh ts mns. e t b penenna o t st 194wod,thuro in dtsrntstear and er wnmo lpniv rs almosto e pnthear plin--lmterct reac tumr at frinrste wrsndow deinwi iraat wrs th'sprleouav op that apeaping tetr sathireot able stesan tyctll te ea oerengh wr,

ansohe otrtastha iser ierti idung eas70 yar t ute stesas omoted ts ian ca -has tnhe siegtif at io smletas. eum at h ipd. nyeopl i t utetas at dfentimhgh wateibthg in 9099 the budmisatn oos e olionf tov io atoer goav an in iaqanfgnianwe veeersi kp unietothnsad o ttg emomapt. m tca ttcal ob wfare axizh u l pplitomn hnittoive geer the' in to bbeerff rt i u tthrwn wies. se t datro cil rse'rng mata ntisogheth n'be tetr.

ob lf culdbennc byetomhi cntesco ar th wresiotis saee thghto t bstsoti fo iaq woet vve tohr dn't cntes bad three dfent cotrs. otrshoughtt w bteo ep e cnt tgeer a a un. e hailu t t the lg-n se >>ethe rcosh tt hn yeanvi psintidre no grme. tth - tonof the onis so t oerve ousao at i stki aou ta,an peleayhetring en po-15 i tuly t coniti oth rl e coniti tt lp sp etas, a jems esons en yskf

e sneer obm, theea sorenele at e szeofthnou fe comfoabangheot no what tywaodo f coecvi. d u y,ay t pop creautheelen t rae n' it's t szeofhe pital itwhhishe prle thhee-kwn fis a morn ste as aestf thsefor. yohaomhi cle18 to86haen hreif meeroecy. e it ste caef th e frcifyooo at enan i y'r abr, e brit teumagfoure a atann d ysaoue enis th g n mcoh,r irh. di'toltalyoihi ou move eitth yee th i wer h relt a al--ak gma

prsigeradorn gean so whenoutt uacnghe ise,thogal w is onal, e em t ttada- ece o eate, cad cadaasedalm, ad que - eb deced vo iel oof coedatn, d'thi ta wldse frc i tinttaod ve h to ve sd,hishe ll o thinvialofth gup th t qesonishi e eirquti,ill essmlntie eyusinheels dhe geusfnohwesteogic i u stn urlf sni uptour maet vue wchs otr ok at iuo b jo, icisthhobet alish wjue

at ateiors onic su. e obm he vue prle the ffen satan hn gouhaoi ffen lu. iave nontesin mong cna genth vue i yavnonteresn mong tondginh isapni inheelior, past oafanta gin oiak we que,egimelnd rc thr liouvisnho op, m ninreedn ats ari. biethheal o seraonfchchnd sat at aos uhedofnhe re of t wor. ll, at oal ad at wt igngo a stethissshe stt tnkg tou wn y teenan w u ierne dhaurse uinrve, whaepreconou want it t b >>ha u,ross yw. inreindiusonnd lo fwa to radghe ok ef avit les a

esys i iteatna laon n ewtil, erinheid a exaoiny alis -e ys h u dl whth obm e r? the brismren di heash le,hi i tang sghyutf cte. e rle iertial retis ripci b baarnsil t rep prndat fr ttyo--eprat d uca nete a aalis icis pallhi cos toshioupu inrsho a onth nell lbeli. rtnlno cnsvave sid henasi didus kebuwod fall in ts cegyase. iwatck ur cmmt junohoue spio ofheumrftasu the,ecseanyofthre

ticial i o sseor anhe iak theontel thea mtothkhe mior ag oo aumt. wh y gaivar noay wt' tir reon? .nor ath --ro of pwe,usin wh peekpirosa theior e eisng ste. that wtherehe r. dh t cfltonnu becaus theee popal ner dupely rolng th obm. ey plohe w. so, i tao in tily ouinrniol w prentingntveio b inrniol w ao enuresceai kinof inrvti, eif teenonhadon' acal bnghe wron d, tt est aowngnd rte t uteinom est allopasorte frce dsnllor usa tortegean vepmtsntnaon law t th ys,deruivin

teenon aestrucve oierntn. ihi is rlre in i insomehghnd reon. sothere in in t wod'delozaons onenheprad fee rks other, i yav inrniol eemaet th'snoerean u dn' hao scktoth yon ed a ctoni anymo. e he oiscal thkhi aroach, t ia of ok a te itstes apridofecit a abitarnd tors anhekenednthyo seei cntespl art, beusonof e hde -- r has ben a mivin ct fo t catnfaon a naonha uedefseas as gigr. t ute sat treis aa,orxple, ro, arteng tea,hehy do ily ned tstk geer amo? whdoruia ed t he t oerern

prcilies amo. e it ste pic reinfrrae, guartengntnaon stily,isn causing collapse ofht. ri response -- i share your criticism international law, swimming against the tide. or trying to reverse this national decentralization of governments around the world, and sometimes we act that way as a government, we try to keep -- the u.n. system is committed to keeping the status quo intact. so when you have peacekeepers, you want to keep the u.n. initiative wanted to keep yugoslavia together, and you're right -- so at the end of this book, the part jeremy didn't read, i talk about how to use force in very discrete ways, to allow this kind of decentralization of countries to happen more peacefully than

before, and i look at the iraq surge. gary mentioned this part. why did the iraq surge work? so, there were more people there. they did produce this area of security. it didn't look like anywhere near the numbers that people thought we'd actually need to be on the ground to protect the population. if you look at early examples lykos slow -- like kosovo and so on. my view of the occupation was that the -- these groups of civil wars, no one force them to reach any kind of agreement to settle the peace. it's impossible for them to trust each other. it's impossible for them to sign an agreement and live up to it next surge became the enforcer of the grandma between the shiites and the sunnies in iraq and becomes the enforcer in other civil war environments because then they can make it a peace agreement and someone has to keep it.

that doesn't mean you have fuming forces involved. maybe keeping so thousand troops in iraq after the withdrawal or keeping a force in afghanistan rather than pulling out, really could contribute to stability in those countries, and to me that's the lesson to draw from the surge. that's a narrower use of american force. that's not going to be as violent and destructive as full occupation. one u.s. soldier for every x number of -- >> the issue you pose is -- which i think is -- as john just stressed -- at the war college asked do you think america is a revolutionary power or status quo sister and that is- -- status quo power, and that's the irony. but you look at what we have been doing in iraq and afghanistan, one marine said we're doing expedition area

counterterrorism. a contradiction of terms. unless you have a center of gravity on the location you can trust and has that legitimacy of the system, you're on a very difficult errand because you're building on sand, and that is the issue that this book raises. if you're going to be doing these interventions, -- i understand the principle but the post-bellum problem is, who is your legitimate entity left on the geographical territory that will assert and have legitimacy to have order inside that geographical area to control force? that's the problem in afghanistan now and that's the problem in iraq. it's a core, as i said, problem of no legitimate, and we are in a very difficult box because of that. and that is -- both a you problem and our problem generating with the principles based on very sound principles,

very noble things, but that's why this is almost more than idealist and a realist. >> i've got a question and a comment. i won't defend the surge. just on this issue of -- what is the sentiment in the book, which is little bit of, we can get by doing these things with less force than perhaps we have done in the past, and just so it's a classic line is, if we'd only let the iraqi army stay in place we wouldn't have had to be so deeply involved. the truth is, -- this is true for other interventions -- the iraqi army didn't exist. there was no iraqi army. it was a bunch of shiite conscripts led by sunni generals

next idea you could depend upon that force, which had no legitimacy, to maintain order, was -- just didn't exist. i'm not wanting to pick a fight about that particular thing but just to indicate that when you do in fact do these interventions and you almost inevitably wind up taking takine government down, you're left with being the government, and i think you do a good job in the book, by the way, actually sort of pointing out how much there's involved in that. one of the things i thought was striking about this, you do cover an immense amount of literature interesting ways. one thing that didn't seem to actually be sort of taken up in a sort of intellectual -- serious way, bass the democratic process. i think that a lot of the problems you're pointing to, in practicalities go away to the degree that democratic states don't go to war with each other,

and they tend to wind up being more peaceful and more prosperous, but of course, the radical implication of that is, we should be in the business of regime change when it comes to other great powers like russia, iran, china. so, i'm just -- i don't anyone put you on the spot for something you obviously didn't write, but does seem to me that's a-in the discussion. >> a great point. i thought a lot about the democratic peace theory because -- the democratic peace theory, since -- is it the 18th century, i think, the idea is that no democracy has gone to war with another democracy. a lot of it depends on how you define democracy, because there was the war of 1812, which -- i wonder how does the war of 1812 when we should have invadessed and taken over canada and left the job undone. there we go with canada again.

the articles of confederation actually have a clause inviting canada to join the union which they never exercised. would have been smart to do so. all the smart ones just move here anyway now. we don't need the rest of them. >> the canadaans are to the americans what the greeks are to the romans. they don't need to explain how to run an empire. >> that's that the british say about themselves and the french. the radical implication that democratic peace, if it were true, would be we should try to converts as many country in the world into democracies so they won't attack each other. the reason i didn't adopt this no one is sure why it works. so there's no real theory about what the democratic peace theory actually is true. it's a statistical correlation but there's no convincing theory that anyone agrees about on causation. i had difficulty because people have different theories. the other thing that is

interesting about the democratic peace theory, democracies don't go to war with each other but love attacking nondemocracies. so actually if you're a democracy your rate of war is higher than an autocracy because you attack a lot of nondemocracies and trying too do what your saying, which is convert them to democracies. >> in your book -- >> i think that actually does -- if you were to draw a project out that trade to link -- you said bellum, and the war after the war, the peace, that might be actually the third part, would be if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty what kind of regime are you going to try to help create after you have gone to war and after you -- then after you fought the war, and this does seem to be what we tried to do in iraq and afghanistan, is you try to go all the way in and restore it with a democracy. then i think that does bear back on the first question, because

if it's a question of cost versus benefits you have to factor that into the overall cost of the war, and our experience in afghanistans and iraq, if you want to take that kind of reconstruction role on, that raises the cost of the war way up and actually dish would think actually may produce a lot lower interventions, where you can still save a lot of lives with a minimal amount of intervention if you're agnostic about the regime you're going to leave after. so that goes to your point about the iraq army. if we invadessed iraq, removed sad saddam and left, your cast of war would be bet for the united states and things could have been equally bad or worse or just the same as they're ending up turning out to be now. i don't know. >> this is -- john begins the book with the can arizona that only the dead see the end of war. we can never eliminate it.

used to be the notion of only democrats don't go to war, tom freedman -- mcdonalds don't go to war with each other. >> i admired your citation until now. >> you quoted plato. the issue is there was an underlying assumption that is deep in the dna of the west, is that if you have economic development, rises of middle classes, middle classes then support democratic institutions. it's the old -- a bad barrington other moore argument. moore demonstrator's it's actually the relationships that form between the elite groups and the people -- can create a very dynamic economic market with a great deal of growth, with the middle class that sells off democracy for economic stability, which one might argue

is -- putin's economic trend, and then the issue is, that is fine. we're willing -- we are willing to deal with you as long as you stay in your box. if you're willing to maintain the economic religiousships with -- relationships with us and trade and partner, the long games that eventually we think that you'll have internal development and pressure for more democratic institutions. that's the assumption. historically unclear if that working assumption is true, and then it becomes a different type of format. one professor used to say convergence used to be russia and the united states. now it's russia and brazil. that's a different way of understanding mass integration as trying to figure out what to do for stability and order. that's thing anything ma for the book. the -- thing anything -- you may have great stability with

economic development, and nondemocratic regime. china. so, this is one of the more interesting modern-dayphone na when i wase graduate school we didn't think like that. we thought stages of growth would make for the mid. class. that has proven not to be correct. the same we thought 30 years ago, that religion would fades out, that religious ways of thinking about the world was an old way of thinking. absolutely incorrect. what happened over the last 30 years. also fascinating, explain that phenomenon. >> we're about to wrap up. i want to give everybody a final word. michael. >> one quick thing on china, as you mentioned, the mcdonald's theory that two nations have mcdonald's don't go to war. the south china sea is going rapidly test that, whether it's china and vietnam, or china and the philippines and me a break

that paradigm. the chinese reaction to the conflict they're having with the various other states bordering the south china sea are interesting. they're claiming it's the democracies that are dangerous. the democracies, like the philippines, are dangerous because the people have this sway over their government. if the populace wants to go to war and your democratically elected you have very little choice than too go to war. the chinese don't have that problem. they'll do whatever is right in the claims they have made in the standoffs with other countries around the south china sea. obviously the flip side of the democratic peace theory in some ways but worth thinking about. >> i just want to thank -- what is great about john yoo, the -- or louie hart.

he basically explains there will be more books based on his footsnotes, the classic akerman move. so i look forward to coming back again debating books six, seven, and eight in the trilogy. >> i have been insulted repeatedly. first called sam plan that power and then bruce acker felony and the ultimate one of being canadian. me a cause me to stop writing books. so i just want to point -- based on the headlines today there was poll out that harvey and gary referred to that said americans are weary of war, they don't want to pay the costs for maintaining a system. they don't want to pay for the big military and don't want to intervene, and this combines our common interest in the presidency and national security and international law. this is exactly the same attitude the united states had in the 1930s. you could almost take the poll

results very similar to inter war period. might seem we well save money. seemed in 1930s we saved money on defense. its cost the country and the world a lot more. so this is actually a moment where congress really by itself cannot do the job you. need presidential leadership to explain and justify to the country what is at stake. i have to say, it is not a partisan -- i think franklin roosevelt, his finest moment is he did work on persuading the american people they had to bear a burden to make sure the world came out a certain way, and i think that's the responsibility of the current president, and i worry there's a lot of war fatigue and we'll regret giving into it. >> just final, final footnote. actually, not so much in this current poll today, but there was a similar one that came out in pew a couple months ago, a colleague here who is spending time actually going through the

pew data, and there is that headline which is, we reside rather leave the world alone. but you ask a second, third question, do you still want america to be the primo country, overwhelmingly it's, yes. do you want american leadership, the answer is, yes. so, implicit in that was, get back to john roz point, there is -- john's point, there's still something to be worked with. with a little better bit of leadership -- not only the president but somebody who works closely with a lot of members of congress it's only in the last couple of months you have gotten members of congress who are interested in reviving some of the discussions about what needs to be done when it comes to america's defenses. so, the trend line potentially there is, somebody picks up the mantle and runs with it. i want to thank everybody for coming out today on a miserable day in washington.

not that there are many great days in washington but nevertheless, it's a particularly rainy one. i want to thank harvey, michael, and john, and i highly recommend that you pick up john's book, do not wait for the movie version. i want to thank you all, and thank our panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> so, welcome to a special edition of huff post live. we're near boston at the old south meeting house, the birthplace of the annual tea

party. >> uh-huh. >> the real one. >> the real one. >> so i'll be your host. i'm joined here by two people who have written books that have surged to the top of amazon, "new york times" bestseller list. the first one, "capital in the 21st century." by professor thomas pickerring. [applause] >> the second by senator elizabeth warren, "a fighting chance." >> uh-huh. [applause] >> senator warren's back makes the case the system is rigged on behalf of the rich and against the middle class. [shouting] [shouting] >> how is this?

>> fortunately i won't be doing much of the talking. these two will be doing most of it. so, professor's book makes the same case as senator elizabeth warrens does except he makes the point this has been happening for 250 or more years. so, senator warren, i actually want to start with you, and ask you, tell us what you made of "capital? ." >> i'll get to describe your book in front of you. i like this. i saw it as a book that had a pretty straightforward thesis. the rich get richer and everybody else gets poorer. that kind of says what this book is about. and what dr. pickeny has done is drawn the data together to show how this has happened across countries, across time, and the first thing i thought when i read this book -- one of the first things dirk thought, president

george bush, sr. was right when he called trickle down economics voodoo economics. he assembled a lot of date to show that in fact wealth does not trickle down. its trickles up. it trickles from everyone else to those who are rich, and he demonstrates with his data that it keeps happening, as i said, over time, and over country. >> that sound about right? [inaudible] >> education, issues on education and knowledge can be a -- a reduction between countries and also region countries, assuming everybody has access to the skills, the

job, and so institutions in the labor market, minimum wages, what can make a difference. right now is a real -- minimum wage is the federal wage less than what it was in the 1960s, which is peculiar, in a country -- country has a lower minimum wage, and of course, taxation of income, which to a large extent was invented in this country. we can make a difference. so all the difference -- education, social institutions, taxation, can and sometimes -- in the past have been able to produce different outcome, but this country -- >> going to your point about whether or not this is inexorable and has to by this way. it's two points made

simultaneously. that's why i started witch the question about trickle down economics. i think that the myth behind trickle down economics was that if we let the rich retain more of their wealth, somehow that's going to flow down to everyone else and it will make us all wealthy. and so i -- the first part of this message as that's just simply not true. doesn't work that way. it's not like gravity, that it will trickle down over time. but the second point is also powerfulfully true. what happens in the distribution of wealth over time depends importantly on the government, on the policies that any government follows, that can either make this problem a better problem, that we can get more equality in an economy, or that we make it a worse problem and exacerbate it.

>> we took a lot of questions and a lot were about this issue, specifically taxation, this is from a move-on member. lars wants to know how do you propose to convince more wealthy people that taxing themselves at a fair rate is actually in their own interests as well as ours? >> so, the difference between taxation and volunteer voluntary -- taxation, you tax -- not everybody actually agrees. so the short answer. if you wait for each to be willing to pay more tax, this can take a long time. but -- >> however, we're not exactly one person, one vote here anymore. >> right. >> we're not in a post citizens united world. >> writing that at the end creates a rising access to political -- can make it even

more difficult. but at the same time we are better information technology to spread information and to have new forms of political motivations than ever. so i think -- a number of people seem to be -- have read my book and i feel really sad that some people were depressed. so i think there's room for reasonable opinions. >> you know, your question about how you persuade people says we should -- they should pay more taxes if they already have a great deal, think part of this goes to the question of the integrity of the tax system itself. a world in which anyone, rich or of moderate means, looks left, looks right and says, wait a minute, that guy gets a tax loophole, that guy gets to move this property overseas and doesn't get taxed on it. this guy gets a break for moving

jobs overseas. that one over there gets a special deal. the cost of that is not just the cost in dollars. it's a cost in integrity in the system, and when people feel like we're not all in this together, we're not all sharing, we're not all paying a fair share of our income or our wealth, then i think that what you get is you get this sort of -- it all comes unraveled. everyone moves toward i will pay the least because he is paying the least. he is cheating, so that means there's no reason for me to go ahead and be scrupulous about what i pay. i think partly this is about -- we're in a moment in american history that our tax system has become so riddled with loopholes. you talk to small business owners. small business owners pay and pay and pay on taxes. they pay. because the loopholes aren't as

available to them. but you look at fortune 500 companies, companies that are profitable, and end up paying zero in taxes? when that happens the cost is more than the dollars. the cost is the integrity of the system and the sense that we're all in this together, and so the first place for me that we have to start this is we have to clean up the tax system we have. that has to be the first step. applause [applause] >> so, speak offering integrity and the -- speaking of integrity and the power of big money, you have recently been on the serving up end of some of that power. you rebutted this week basically they said he made some math errors. turns out the financial times didn't understand how to do the

equation. so even after that was pointed out, though, they followed up with this and i want to read you the followup and get your reaction to it. this is chris giles writing. i further debate on many of these items is difficult because professor piketty still makes undocumented adjustments to his data, the source he has appears to be secondary to his prior expectations of what the data needs to show. beyond that being an incredibly unself-aware statement, what -- how would you respond to that and do you plan to respond or is this over? >> to me this is over, but what is not over is -- what i take from this debate, people be afraid more and read my book. my book is not the problem. the problem is the -- have been

writing three times faster than the size of the economy. also in europe. you take the 19 or so billionaires all over the world, and have been writing three time -- rising three times faster than the economy of the world. apparently -- what i take from this is that there is a strong lack of transparency, particularly a sense of wealth, and this is what is saying right now. if you make interests of everybody, the rich, big companies and the "financial times" that everybody gets a

fair share from globalization, and so we have -- between europe and u.s., one -- one half of gdp so a lot -- we cannot just go for more trade variation. we also need more regulation, social and -- we need to make sure that multinationals and individuals pay their share, their fair share in taxes. you cannot just make huge profits from free trade and pay no tax anywhere. you have to find some balance so everybody is ready to make an effort. i take from this debate, we -- too little about the dynamics of wealth and income. trying to produce more data but you agree with this, in fact the main reason why i am in favor of some form of taxation of wealth and exchange of information and

rich -- is so that we know more about -- sad that today all we can do is to beg magazines to know more information and it would be better if people could read the official government publications or imf and better understand what is going on through the different groups in society in terms of wealth and income. without this democratic transparency and democratic -- we cannot address our policy and we cannot have a rational conversation about this issue. >> senator warren -- >> i was just going to say sounds to me like you just explained why there are lot of people who won't want to see more data about wealth inequality. >> you're right, you're right. but democratic institutions can be stronger. >> we hope. >> you have been on the receiving end yourself of

counterattacks. any advice for professor? >> hit back. [applause] >> so, you argue that it would be a shock of two world wars that lessened inequality throughout much of the 20th 20th century. i'm wondering if the reverse might actually be true. in other words, was it a coincidence that on the eve of world war we had historic levels of inequalities. you look at the situation in ukraine right now, you have high inequality and ol' ohe guards battling. could there be a connection between inequality and war? >> i think sometimes extreme inequality, you don't manage to address it in a racksal and

peaceful way. sometimes response to extreme circumstances so you start to blame foreign workers or to blame your neighbor or to blame -- so in france and in europe, we could see that a week ago and people are -- don't know how to solve their domestic inequality problems, so they blame the european union, blame germany, blame china, always someone to blame. so, yes, national response and sometimes war or conflict can be aggravated by inequality. now, let me say that there are many, of course, histories, wars -- the distribution of income and wealth in europe, but there are more peaceful ways to change the distribution. in fact the democratic response and the rise of free schools,

the rise of social -- a rise of progress in taxation, which occurred after world war i, where partly response to the world and also partly response of the democratic process themself, and particularly i guess in the u.s., the way progressive taxation of income and wealth was invented in the 1920s and '30s. not just due to world war i or the bolshevik revolution which is less important in america than europe. and still this new institutions were invented by u.s. democratic institutions. so, there is a lot to learn from our common history and we should not just believe that the issues are ten years ago. they have been with us forever, and there's a lot to learn by putting them into the broad history.

>> he proposed, as probably most of you know, global wealth pact, an extension of the property tax to include a tax on other forms of property, stock, investments, et cetera. it's been called utopian but some but the income tax was called utopian. can you talk about the u.s.' experience with the income tax? >> it's partly about the notion that we were pretty appalled initially about the idea of an income tax, but we began to tell ourselves a story, and as i've listened to tom talk about this, think about every time -- it's the story of our understanding of ourselves and why we're in these economic circumstances. so, you talk about one of them is, in cases of extreme inequality, people blaming. political leaders blaming, it's their fault. it's that group or that other

country and this can lead us into war. there's also the question of how we describe at any given time the pressures on most people, on the economy. if you feel like, look, this is a work-hard, play by the rules economy, and, sure, there are some ups and downs in it, but mostly, if i work hard, my family's going to do okay and better yet, if i cinch my built a little, work hard, my kids will have chance to do better than that and their kids can do better than that. and that sets the stage if you believe that. for everybody to participate in an economy, you have a lot offsetable, a lot of production, a of stability, production, and hard work and investment in the future. you bailed strong and robust future. and at that moment, an income tax is part of it. it's part of how we finance the things we do together.

and we do it progressively, partly because people have more, partly because people have been rewarded by what we have done together. and we all have this sense of shared responsibility and shared investment in the outcome. when the thing starts to break apart is when you have people beginning to feel, wait a minute, that's not how the game works anymore. just to pick an example, those who are rich have managed to help rewrite the rules so they get more and more so they get breaks in taxes and get to keep more. so the regulations tilt in their favor. so they have better business opportunities so they have better ability to earn than everyone else who is out there working, and when that starts to happen, when that starts to happen, then what we get is we get a country that is headed in the wrong direction. when people start to feel like

it's not about how hard i work, that i face the risk is will work hard and end up with nothing. that is when the pieces start to break apart. and so the way i see this is we are right to talk about taxes. , where taxes should be appropriately placed, which parts of wealth and income we want to tax. but it's fundamentally this question about whether or not the game is rigged. and the game right now in america is rigged. it is rigged so that those at the top keep doing better and better, and everyone else is under increasing pressure. is under increasing economic strain. my view of that is why that is happening is not because it's inexorable, not because it had to be that way but because those at the top can hire the lobbiesses, hire the lawyers,

can now, under citizens united, affect the electoral system so powerfully they get a set of rules written over and over and over, year by year by year. the rules don't get better for america's middle class. the rules are getting better for those who are a thin slice at the top. and that is the profound danger that we see from great inequality. >> a very particular way that the system in america is rigged which you describe well in the book and just now. in your research, is it sim floor other countries or does inequality grow in different ways? in other words, is the power dynamic the same but the particular ways it plays out in different countries different? >> i think some countries have been able to be more inclusive institutions, and educational

domain and in stiff competition with one another, including the tax system. billion able -- been able to keep an investment of skills so that when -- not everybody is going to -- most -- tradition of excess to -- high-paying jobs, and also domain as well, i get institution regarding the financing of political parties and political life. certainly one of the important difference between the countries and the united states these days. so there are very different social and legal and international institutions that can make a huge difference at the end of the day in terms of inequality. >> but notice the first place tom goes. he goes to finance

opportunities. it's about education, about making sure that everybody gets good education. so that you have talented kid weather may not have been born into wealthy families but who will still have opportunities. i just expand that by saying it's about investments in infrastructure, little business wants to start, it needs power to plug in. it needs roads to be able to get its goods to market, needs to outside indicate the workers to come in. making those kinds of investments are the kind of investments for which everyone feels like, i got a piece of this. i i've got an opportunity. i work hard, i play by the rules, i'm going to succeed. but a world in which those investments are undermined -- look at something like the ryan budget. which in effect has -- but remember -- >> sorry, ryan. but look at the basic premise behind the ryan budget. preserve lots of loopholes for those at the top. cut taxes for those at the top, and how do they plan to pay for

it? by cutting the investments that create opportunities. cut the investments in education, in infrastructure, in research, the things that help build a future. that drives us towards more inequalities, but more critically, undercuts the biasic premise of the country, work hard, play by the rules, you have a stake in the outcome. >> not to drag this in a more pessimistic direction but another reader, diane from florida asks. how will the costs and consequence oversize climate change interact with economic inequalities? >> more important than sharing banking information and if we

are afraid and they're too strong for us, then what are we going to do about climate change? so i think we -- yeah, we leave to solve this financial opportunity problem, this lack of transparency, right away so that we can focus on the real issues, and part after the real issue is investments, dedication, in clean energy sources, and do something serious about climate change, and very sad that we are losing so much time in a way on secondary issues can just making sure that -- i am from a country where even the president was unaware that the budget minister has a bank account in switzerland and the budget minister says, no, i don't have one, because he was sure that the french government would never get information. so, what is this world where we are losing time, where are we going to be able to get transmission of information and at the end of the day -- actually the united states government put sanctions on swiss banks that made a

difference. so the good news is that you can make a difference. this small territory is...

make immediate profit. in the effects of the pollution will be felt by lots and lots of people around the country and ultimately around the globe. now, it is in their interest to continue to be able to pollute because they can make short-term profits and every one else will bear the cost. think about it. they are able to amass the lobbyists to go to washington lawmakers, influence the regulators to do everything that they can to maintain their opportunities to foul the air and poison the water in order to promote short-term profits. everyone else who has to pay the price on that does not have that same kind of organized ability to make their voices heard in this same way with lobbyists and lawyers in washington. and so for me this is just one more example of how we have inequality, how we have of rage

system. a handful are able to reap the benefit. i think that climate change, like economic inequality, symptoms of the same problems. the same problem as those with power writing the rules too much in their favor and everyone else the left bunt rome -- left behind. >> we got a ton of questions submitted on one particular issue that jumped out. i don't know what the situation is in france. here in the united states there are two people appear that have student loans. a variety of different questions

barbara from arkansas and robert from morgan. some outright forgiveness. >> the facts on student loans. right now we have $1 trillion outstanding in student loan debt. 40 million americans are dealing with outstanding student loans. mostly young people. people 60 and over collectively as well about $43 billion. >> sixty and over. >> we have a lot of student loan that out here. now, it is starting to be so much that it is dragging down

the economy. the reports are starting to pile up in the fed's to my the consumer financial protection bureau, the department, the treasury department. and what it shows is that people are not going home there up buying cars we have a situation. we are getting bigger data pieces. it is growing, and it is growing fast. less than a decade, the amount of student loan debt has grown by about 70%. think about that. we are on a fast slope. what can we do about student loan debt? there are multiple things. the outstanding student loan debt, forgiveness programs. that is a piece of it. we can bring down the interest rate.

[applause] here is a critical part of that. now that we are and at lower interest-rate environment. they refinanced. is to raise your hand when i have your number. there we go. student loans. interest rates. the idea is this gets to the heart of what we're talking about. the co-sponsors in the united states senate, the title of the. let's refinance that debt. that was the rate. the republicans and the house and the senate agreed last

summer for all new student loans issued last year. that one worked. we will take that number. but let's refinance. here comes the trick. why don't they just refinanced? and the answer is because 7%, 8%, 9%, 10 percent, producing tens of billions of dollars and profit for the united states government. in other words the government budget, just one point. from 2007-2012. a little slice. we have to find the money somewhere else. the proposal in this bill is to say fine.

close-up the loopholes so that billionaires' pay at least the same rate of taxes that their secretaries' pay. [applause] it's critical right in the middle of the inequality debate. this puts us directly -- i can slicken the better way to put this. the united states as a country can invest in young people by putting tens of billions of dollars toward reducing the interest rate on student loan. this is even getting to the forgiveness question but reducing the interest rate or the united states government can continue to invest tens of billions of dollars in tax loopholes for billionaires' and millionairess. think about it for a minute,

there are lobbyists who will protect everyone of those tax loopholes, who will be there morning, noon and night to make sure the buffet rule does not go through. those loopholes stay open and billionaires' hang on to every single penny that they can now get through those loopholes. what have we got on the other side on student loans? all we have god is our voices and our votes. that is fundamentally the best place i can describe the inequality debate in america today. is the country going to be run for the millionaires and billionaires or are the rest of us going to say enough of this? we want to invest instead in billionaires', in our students, take back our country, make our voices heard, make our votes heard? [applause]