. . .

. . .

the fundamental driver was that we are the minority partner. it's partly about partnership. it's partly about innovation. you know, back there were a few courses around this country. now the course at berkeley that

has the single most attendance. you have kids in high school and college setting up their own ngo's and traveling around the world. now days all spend time in developing countries. so -- and you have huge amounts of innovation. the development breakthroughs are not necessarily coming out of development agency or their partners. we did our great challenge of ebola to deal with the fact and it's so hot in south africa and enable people to work longer including a baltimore seamstress. a new york city fashion designer. i mean, that is an amazing collection of people and now

that's going into production in use for hot climates. so every -- when you start thinking to implications, also relationship with the private sector hugely transformed when you think of yourself more of -- as the minority partner. that's part of all the changes. to me on the ftg side, there's a lot of traditional development, the goals on energy or health and all of those things are incentives where all the bilaterals have been working and talk heavily in terms of the idea of partnership and -- and good governance and things like that. we have that expansion. so they in some ways it will be

business as usual and in other ways profoundly not be business as usual. >> so you emphasize the issue of migration and displacement and in the category of not business as usual, let me ask you a little bit more about that. it does seem -- you had this very visible tragic situation playing out in our newspapers and, you know, there's always a silver lining that brings more attention to an issue that didn't occur overnight and, in fact, this placement has been with us in many parts of world for a long time and i think with more attention being paid now we are starting to understand better the nature of displacement that it is not strictly or simply a short-term crisis, it actually is long-term in nature for many of these populations and for the

countries that are hosting them. i wonder, you know, you've been a leader in the humanitarian sector. you have a new venture that has more of a development focus to it. can you speak a little bit about the nexus about issues that are apparent crises but really have longer-term development implications and how we should be thinking differently about approach, displacement populations or other types of disrumción -- disruption from complex crisis. >> you know, thanks. those of us working in the space between humanitarian and development realize more and more needs to be done as continuum, an organization like

care, for instance, primarily humanitarian in crisis is now as focused and when you think about the populations whether it's care or some of the work we are doing now, those same populations are very likely to have crisis situations from time to time and so, you know, the development, if you're committed to a community, you need to be committed to them, whether it is in a crisis stage or in the long-term stage. it's also important to realize that if you put into preparedness and prevention that a lot would have a lesser impact. as an example, when we were working on a lot of the issues related to food and security particularly during crises, we

were able to show that countries that we worked with on food security from a development standpoint with the same countries who rebonned more rapidly when there was food -- immediate food crisis from drought or even human conflict. we know that if we look at the work in climate change and looking at helping populations adapt to the impact of climate change, if you can shift, climate occurrences like drought or flooding, that you can, in fact, make those populations more sustainable. we have one that people often -- often remember this little

vignette, we were working in bangladesh where cyclones had become much more frequent as a result of climate change and we worked with populations to be able to shift income generating work and one simple one was taking people who use chickens as their economic engine and growing chicken, selling eggs, et cetera, and shift it to ducks because chickens will drown but ducks float, a single thing from moving to chickens to ducks in areas where there are frequent cyclones and floodings meant that you had people whose income stream was sort of a rice sis -- crisis situation. when crisis do occur, people are much more likely to withstand them.

again, that's where the continuum between development and humanitarian is so important to keep in mind. >> could you tell us more about the new venture and what it represents in terms of a new model or approach particularly the nonprofit role and development? >> mckenzie, the global consulting firm decided about a year or so ago that they really wanted to look at -- they do a lot of social impact work for clients but looking how can they use assets to be able to give back and make broader contributions to society and perhaps have greater focus impact, the real sense that today's solutions are no longer primarily going to be in one sector or the other.

just as you talk about development agencies becoming a minority partner, we recognize development funding is different. who the actors are, are very important and a firm that firmly rooted with very strong ties to the private sector, very strong ties to public sector and also the nonfor profit sector could really bring together solutions that could perhaps different than the traditional solutions where we had those kind of approaches to solving problems. and so the mckenzie social issue that's really about how you bring the kinds of partnerships, the collaboratist together to be able to develop different kinds of solutions to problems and you mention the issue of youth and youth unemployment, one of the first programs that we launched is a program on youth employment, it's now in five different countries, the u.s.,

méxico, spain, india and ceñ yeah and really looking at the reality that there are so many young people who want to be employed but don't have the skills, a lot of employers who say they can't have enough and we reached out to the private sector so that we have employers working with civil society organization that is do training for young people and working with the public sector that set policies where areas are most important for locality for young people and jobs. you know, we launched this program, we have now trained and placed over 10,000 young people and, you know, we expect to be to 30,000 and hopefully a hundred thousand over the next couple of years finding high

return on investment. employers are willing to pay for those programs and really by bringing together all of these sectors, i think, we are at least putting a dent in one of the big global problems of youth unemployment, a problem that we know is only going to continue to increase. >> and i know you have a fan in eric in this program. >> yeah. usaid is a partnership. we are please to have had a partnership with usaid. >> they use the skill sets of mckenzie and those relationships to first understand what is the situation and they basically scower the planet where our model, this could work in a very cost-effective way. in my view usaid has historical approach in doing this stuff and have had many successes, the cost per student was too high

and wasn't leading in all cases to the direct connection of jobs, so i feel like this is a huinl effort at scale that if it succeeds, you know, we will want to take all of those learnings and in view that into everything that we are doing and that's why we are supporting this and taking this on. >> the role of technology is huge in order to replicate in scale, we haven't talked specifically about the role that technology with play in development. it is one of the being optimistic, it's one of the things that makes me very optimistic when we see all of the advances that are helping to really leap-frog development in many ways and it's something that really has helped us to scale this program very rapidly. >> great.

>> the financial requirements are huge and no one organization is going to meet them andst imperative therefore that we cooperate with one another. and i think the efforts are very excited. i've gotten to know them in the past few years since returning to washington, but i hate to using the surfing analogy but we have seen a lot of waves of development at least in my lifetime and this is a god wave coming up and i'm pushing hard to ride it. it's really a sea change in the way we can work and the partners

with whom we work and in the end whether ideas when it comes to meeting some of the development challenges that we are up against are as important, more important than the financing that we are making available. >> craig, let me stick with you -- with your institution and the multilateral development banks. i think it's hard in particularly in the midst in the brexit. the events that played out in the u.s. and the investment bank but there really was a sense of almost crisis occurring particularly through the united states and approach nbb's.

i think that has calm down and we have moved forward, beijing, but nonetheless i think it's useful to think about the aib particularly through a development lens because we certainly during that period of drama, you know, plenty of discussion about what it meant for the u.s. strategically, diplomatically and if you bring to those issues as development actors, can you talk a little bit more particularly in the asian context about why the aib matters, what it was responding to, infrastructure in the name, i think by all accounts the next five to ten years there will be an infrastructure development

bank, what is that agenda all about and how does the aeb adopt to go try to respond more effectively to what we would call the infrastructure imperative for the development. >> sure. we estimate that the infrastructure needs of asia and the pacific totaled $8.3 trillion, 300 billion for regional infrastructure. to sustain the current levels of growth and development that we are seeing, that works out to about $750 billion a year and if you look at what 80b is providing to the region it's a drop in the bucket compare today what's required.

if you look at what is provided for development internationally, regionally, locally by multilaterals, bilaterals, the civil society, governments and private investors, globally it's still addressing only 16% of asia's infrastructure needs. just to give you some idea of the amount of resources that are required to address what we see across the region today, pollution, water pollution and air pollution, traffic, mass transit needs, hospitals, schools, and you know, i could just run on down the list. so others were simply not providing the resources that --

and neither federal government nor private investors to what's required to make much of the dent to the infrastructure challenge. aeb has gone so far to call it infrastructure challenge. aib, therefore is welcome addition to the need for infrastructure. they're capitalized and subscribed capital is $100 billion, they are paid in capital, $20 billion, aeb paid in capital, $70 billion, that's what is use today bar in international markets, we leverage that assistance to provide support for our member countries so aib, we have to make a real dent in terms of what is going on out there. aeb's hope that we are able to work closely with them. we sign mou for a roadway project in pakistan last week.

we will be cofinancing with aib and the possibilities for more projects coming up this year and at least initially i think we will be cofinancing a lot of projects together using aeb rules and regulations, safeguards, what have you and aeb will assume major responsibility for implementing these projects but at the same time aib will be building capacity to identify, implement problems on their own. at that stage, tables may well turn unless aeb gets a capital increase, i think it's likely that aib's financial wherewithal would exceed that of aeb later on, but the concerns of last year about aib and what it meant for the region, aeb provides $11 billion of our own funds and

$10 billion more per year and in financial assistance to the region, $21 billion total. i think there was -- and 80% of that amount is for infrastructure. with that i meant transport energy, irrigation, those sorts of investments. and so the asian infrastructure bank looked in many ways in something that the aeb is doing, i can say having been in these meetings specially sin chun, aib 's president, my former boss, i think the aim at both institutions is to work closely together in parallel on things if not actual commingling of finances and i think aib has every intention of living up to the safeguards which we all

think are so important and i think they're going to be a good partner in development assistance moving forward. >> so empg you say -- i actually want to pause. i wanted to do this earlier and frankly i forgot to use the prerogative of moderator for my organization. the center development actually used the opportunity oh -- of all of the attention at the time. that group has been working very actively over the course of the past year and will be shotgunner a -- issuing a report very soon. i encourage you to look forward to that. i'm excited about it. we brought together a very good group of actors who brought their thinking and voices to this sort of big picture

question. it's really to bringing more capital to what inch agree is a pressing development need, you know. and agree that we either worry or pain we are not going to see it here and they have a particular near term to finance and they set themselves on rules and standards, so i wobder and this is a question for all three of you, actually, if you think about emerging powers and development, country powers, the chinese in particular, are they representing a different model for development as time goes on

we look at it more closely and say it looks a lot like the aeb. it's not that much different here. beyond that one institution, how should we think about it's the chinese approach for development in the developing world, outside of the borders to think different about our own approaches as development actors, et cetera, or can we simply welcome the additional amount of capital that is flowing as a result of emerging markets themselves becoming wealthier, any one of you? >> i won't start -- >> you're sitting in the development agency, but, i guess, i would say i think

overall it's a good thing. more money for development is a good thing. that said, you know, i think that the more we are able to strengthen country's capacity to really be at the core of making sure they are the leaders in how development funds are spent. i think it's less a matter of whether or not what china is doing is changing u.s. official development funds or not, but more are we all strengthening the country's ability to influence how resources are used. i think until that happens, you know, there will still be the chaos that exist thes. i also think as we said throughout more and more different kinds of actors are in there, i think the rules of the private sector, i think the role of remittances, there are so

many different flows now that i don't think we can think about it as simplistic as we did before. at the core of it, i think the more countries are strengthening to be able to really be in the lead the better all of this will be. finance is one thing but one only has to look at the experiences of japan and korea, taiwan, hong kong and singapur to see that they had their policies and institutions right and frankly that require a whole lot of support from us to achieve the level of success that they've realized today. and if more countries across

region were to work on legal and regulatory environment, foreign investment codes, their judicial systems so that there's accountability and transparency and predictability to what's going on, then they probably wouldn't be having some of the problems they're having today with foreign investors coming in and the fact that, you know, sop public private partnerships are not getting off the ground as quickly as they might. so that's the way i answer the question. finance is one thing. bank of a projects is a whole different story. >> and i would say that we are constantly looking at our model to figure out, we are all going to look at for good ideas and it doesn't matter where they come from. it's not restrict today china, it can come from some start-up in silicon valley or local community and remote uganda or anywhere else.

we are constantly looking because the situation keeps changing and, you know, we have big, big goals to try to reach to we need every good idea from wherever it comes and i would simply say that that's true for everyone including the chinese. i mean, we have a strategic dialogue, development dialogue with the chinese. my boss was in beijing in the last month meeting with senior officials there talking about con credit projects and talking about also general development architecture-type issues and they made clear and described some of the ways in which they're evolving in early days for them. they don't have 50 years worth of experience. they don't have staff who have worked in it for that long or the number of staff and so it's going to be a constant evolution

whether, with regards to the intersection of our work with china but also our work with everybody else's. >> let me ask one last question before i turn to the audience and frankly more political in nature and i want to note that eric you have a particular responsibility as an administration official here but frankly i think all of us on the stage are probably u.s. voters and taxpayers so, you know, we do have to think about this issue about how the electorate is feeling these days when it comes the question of globalization and particularly the role that our enterprise play, of development, what is the receptivity but elections will have consequences when it comes to pursuing the kind of

agendas that we want to pursue. and specifically i guess the question is this, i would argue that when it comes to political support to the agree that it's a function that we are doing direct poverty alleviation, we are helping with the disease eradication there's always been core of support in electorate. it is becoming more of the challenge as we broaden the scope of activities. if you look at fpg's, there's a lot on the list that the average taxpayer would say i would like some of that for myself. do you see a challenge here and how are we adapting and making the case to our taxpayers and -- and, you know, again, this is a

particular responsibility but i wonder if any of you have thoughts, are you seeing a rising attention and something that actually maybe development remains under the radar or something that we have to confront. >> you know, it's a constant discussion that has gone on for decades with american taxpayers and there are some to it as you suggest one pilar of the work of our agency has incredible support from -- there's widespread support. if anything criticized, in criticism, can you go faster to help stofl humanitarian crisis or that, i think increasingly,

one thing that has made it easy in terms of the discussion about the development parts of the enterprise because in my personal opinion you could go back to the cold war days and reasonable people might justify being say, you know, we don't really care about country x. it's not geo political important to us. they are trapped in a terrible cycle of bad governance and terrible development indicators and everything. let's ignore it unless when soviet union and the united states. i don't think many americans have the same view these days

because they have seen what happened when you don't have a good global house system architecture and someone combs down with ebola and remote west africa and 24 hours later they're in the dallas hospital, right? i think more and more people, you know, the globalization discussion -- as i go around the united states, more people when you get about discussion, they realize that there's basically no spot left on the planet where you can just let it fester and, of course, if you're having a discussion about national security and terrorism, it's the same thing. we can't have the places where things fester, so i think from that point of view knew dialogues are possible and new understandings and you see a lot of bipartisan collaboration. i mean, midst everything else

going on, actually on a bipartisan basis, congress passed a bill about power africa, there's one getting very close to passage involving feed the future and there are at least two others with people working across the aisle on bills which the president has or probably will sign. and that shows that people do see that we need to have development as one of the 3d's that the bush administration described, development, defense, diplomacy and we've got 150 generals working who passionately feel that way and i think the conversation is never simple specially when you have

misinformation -- missed information and the response is 20% when it's the reality that everything including affairs is under 1%. you know, we have to keep having the dialogue but there are new ways to have the dialogue these days in the past. >> that's great, that's encouraging to hear that. >> yeah, again, this is one where i'm bipolar. adding to your poll data, not only do people think we are spending 20, 25% on foreign aid, whatever quote foreign aid is which people don't really understand what that means and we are spending less than 1%. if you ask them what we should be spending they'll say 10%. i would love to have 10% to

spend on development aid. and, you know, my optimism is in seeing some of the things that you talked about, you know, a lot of the work that i have done over the years in global health, for instance, as you said, people will give to global health, people belief that it's wrong for people to die in malaria, from hiv, malnutrition, et cetera, that's very tangible. it's very concrete. if you ask people about funding governance initiatives, you get into a different sort of dialogue, but again we used to have every day our lobby, every year our lobby day where we had volunteers and there would be people from across the united states usually 45 to 50 states represented anywhere from 500 to one year, 2,000 people who came

and paid their own way just so that they could come and be able to be a voice for these issues on capitol hill and, you know, to see this crowd of people who, you know, represent a broad flock of america learning about these issues and feeling luke they really want to make a difference in helping our elected officials understand why these people -- these issues matter to everyday people. it can come out hugely optimistic, on the other hand, you know that there's a large swath of the public who really feel very differently and i think that's come out in this election period, you know, in very strong and very disturbing ways that, in fact, everybody doesn't understand our obligations, our commitment to the rest of the world and why it matters even for their own individual lives. i think we have to do a better job of being able to paint the connections and help people to understand why it really does

matter and why it isn't just charity but i think when you -- as you said, once you get beyond the tangible things like education and health, et cetera, i think you do have a much harder job and, again, you talk about governance and people think you're out in different countries and they don't get the most tangible underlying cause that we deal with in development. >> actually i'm going to pause there because i neglected the audience too long. we have time for a handful of questions, i think. this young woman here, we will start with her. >> hi, i'm student at george mason university. so you have talked about aaib in terms of being positive addition to the development, but we are

seeing practice imperil to initiatives which is the chinese policy banks specially export and import bank of china is very actually funding infrastructure projects all over the world, and i don't know about the numbers but it might have surpassed many banks, so how do you see this practice as effecting the ecosystem of corporate development, what kind of impact does it have? thank you. >> right here in the front. just wait a second for the mic. >> thank you. i also have a question for craig, you mentioned the shortage of projects, so what is the aeb's concept of project as

compared to the aiib, is there a difference in how they view risk and if you can't directly address that, i just wonder if you can be for explicit about what the criteria is for the aeb and determining whether the bank -- >> why don't you answer the questions together and then we will go to another round of questions. >> sure. i think you're referring to a recent article in the financial sometimes that said that china development bank combined provide more resources for development and trade than the multilateral development banks as we know them combined. and i guess you want to know how their -- what i think of their

role and whether or not it's a good thing. [inaudible] >> the developing countries when they pursue infrastructure, how do they approach the different entities. >> i think here i'm sort of reading between the lines, this is nothing that my management or aib has ever said but i think that my former boss, he has a pretty broad experience in world bank and aeb and i think he was concerned about what china was doing in the name of development given what we were all reading in the papers a few years ago and he was concerned about it because he thought that china could do a better job and i think aib is in part sort of resource that would otherwise be available for development by china through a multilateral

development bank to ensure that the same investments are guided by the same safe can guards related to the environments and procurement and resettlement and gender and community participation. the aspects of project development that the multilateral development banks believe are important. and for china to develop the capacity to process projects the same way, even to exceed what we are doing, i think that's its hope. and i think he also we wanted to get things done faster. [laughter] >> i know he wants to get things done faster. it takes two or three years for consideration and another six or seven years to implement it. and i think their concerns

around the world that that's just not fast enough and so he'll be at least for the foreseeable future working with aeb and world bank and other afi's using our procurement rules and regulations and our implementation requirements and monitoring arrangements and -- and aiib will develop the capacity i believe in a short time to do things the same way we do. and then it's any one's ges on what happens. but otherwise to get do into the marketplace some level of competition, our resources are needed, sure, but i think the countries -- the bar rowers have

-- borrowers are going to question how things will done. the role of aib in response to your question has been positive to the environment, and the infrastructure realm in that part of the world because it has introduced a new dynamic to what is being provided. >> any questions on bankable projects? >> bankable projects, i thought i sort of addressed that. it goes beyond financial rate and return and doing things by the book and bank refers to investment codes that are bankable to -- to bankruptcy and other forms of investor protection.

corporations and others that are thinking about investing in a place are okay with. everyone remembers the experience in 97 and more recently in 2008 when a lot of investors got burn and it's hard for them to carry projects to their boards that they could do with without lots of assurances and everyone has to sort of up their game to software-related issues of these projects before approved. >> yeah, let's try to get -- we have time for another round, so let's try to get three or four, start here and then we will move over here. right up front. >> thank you for your presentation. i'm courtney, my question probably will expand on the two

that were asked earlier in the context of risk. is there any concern for the types of infrastructure investment that is china is making across border in countries that are probably vulnerable specially when one looks at critical infrastructure which normally countries like the united states do not allow foreign government to invest in. not necessarily foreign, but the chinese private sector that's investing in the infrastructure. that's one question and the second question is the bankable business plan, from the u.s. and a number of projects some investment banker economies have looked at number that have come out of african countries and i know usa leads there and the number of transaction advisers in recent years, even with the africa projects now, it seems to me that their needs to be some education on the u.s. side as to

what u.s. private sector companies look for, investors look for, what incentivize them? often times even in the united states there are incentives that would provide to investors here that one can consider. other than the cross-border risk that one has to look at among other things, i think that there's a look of education as to really what u.s. investors are looking for and how even taxations drive in the u.s. >> i'm going to try really quickly and we will go to wit any and two more here and i will ask the panelists to make the responses or concluding remarks, go ahead and we will pick these two up. >> maybe the case that we have an interesting moment to reflect

onsetting up multilateral institutions we have aiab, the initial concern was that there was not safeguards. they have their own safeguards but they only work through implementing agencies and the world bank aren't good enough which is going to lead to insufficiencies, but again that's a un organization and, you know, sort of a paralyzed board and so forth. what lessons can we learn from the three start-up institutions as we think about the development process? >> and really quickly both of you to spare your questions right here. >> yeah, i'm going to put you on the spot, i apologize, you're

doing great work through mckenzie but i'm reading reports that mckenzie has facilitating shall we call gray money outside from developing and developed countries into tax heavens and is there a conversation within mckenzie consistency across its work and support and development? >> last questionight here. >> i will try not to ask a question like that. what i'm concerned about is that our field of international development had as its fundamental rational the elimination of the worst forms of poverty and now the bank says that those under the poverty line or less than 10% and declining, so i'm wondering

whether you see the need to bolster the rational for development more in the spirit of feg's for creating growth for our own markets and whether there's more to what's going on in your work that is of domestic benefit as you mentioned in the employment creation that -- that could lead to a broader justification. >> okay. one minute each, answer what you like, ignore what you like, please, we will go down the row. >> quickly on two of them, on power africa, the whole concept of the transaction advisers which is something that i introduced as the five or six of us put this together was based on my citibank experience where i felt we had people to get up every morning and go to sleep every night thinking about how

to get the deals done. that's a concept that applies when you're the minority partner and, of course, the countries in some cases do not have the standard or the -- the processes or the laws or whatever it might be, in some cases that facilitate the private capital and that's part of what private sector was telling us they needed, right? yes, they want some risk litigation, capital to mitigate risk and yes, they want investment but they want also the engagement of u.s. embassadors and u.s. -- senior u.s. people as well as people on the ground to be working with the government to make the changes necessary so that some modest portion of that huge wall of capital that's sitting out there in some cases, negative interest rates but is looking for a return. so agree and that's part of what the transaction advisers and all the different agencies involved

from the u.s. government side are -- are about. and then i would say to bob's question, i don't think the u.s. government has a policy per say about the point that you raised, my personal opinion is that all of the development agency aside from the humanitarian function, so we ought to make progress on these extreme poverty and ftg things and at that point, let the countries do it for themselves and that's why it's drm so important and let us go out of business as we have done in dozens of countries already. >> on the question you raised about mckenzie, first mckenzie social issue is ngo, it's not directly part of mckenzie so i may not have all of the information about that -- but i think you're talking about the investment group that is also

somewhat a separate part from mckenzie itself. i think the article that came out in the financial times didn't have all of the facts, you know, and i think made more of a link than is actually there, but i honestly can't answer all of the information. i would be happy to provide you with names if you want to get more information about some of them. i think they feel very comfortable that the, you know, the business is being transacted in a fair transparent way and is not abusing development country money in any way. and just also on your question, i agree that we should be thinking about putting ourselves out of business and when i was at care we had the opportunity to see several countries that graduated, if you will, and became self-sufficient and that really should be our job, i also think that more and more companies that we worked with

particularly multinational companies, global companies that we are seeing that their future revenues were going to come from emerging markets really started thinking in very different ways about their responsibilities to the countries in which they were hoping to have future markets and it was also a way of being able to talk about how american jobs were being created because as they were actually doing things that made a difference to develop those communities they were actually building their businesses and so i think we can make the case for how continuing to invest in development goals will continue to also enable businesses, american businesses to grow as they move more and more into emerging markets. >> last, craig. >> first, i've spent 33 years in development and i -- i know how

much our assistance is appreciated in the field. it still is and for my part i, you know, have -- can't wait to get out of bead in the morning every day to keep working on this area. i'm just amazed with the debate that takes place when it comes to development on a daily basis. there's more seminars and round tables and things like this that are providing feedback to policy makers and planners to what is needed and i think we are pretty good at making course corrections an adjust members so that we remain relevant and third this is a related point i just like to acknowledge and supporting aeb to emerge capital

resources which allows us to boost our -- our support for development by 50% beginning next year. we are talking 50% more loans and 70% more grants. it was a fair amount of financial engineering involved but it was cost free to our donors and with things like that that are still possible to be done, you know, i just think that we are making it easy for donors to support us and i hope that there isn't a whole lot of questioning anywhere about our ability to do what's necessary to -- to help out, thanks. >> okay. on that note, please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> thank you all very much and thank you, panel, for a wonderful discussion. on a topic that left us with a lot of optimism and great points

before we leave, thank you to all of you for staying and being conscientious with your good questions. i want to say thanks again to our sponsors, as well as imf partners and obviously our secretary and staff out there who really put this program together and finally, we do have a reception right outside there if you're willing to stay for a little bit discussion, hope to hear from you and talk a little bit more. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> you're watching book tv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. book tv, television for serious readers. >> over this independence day weekend we bring you four days of nonfiction authors on book tv from now until 8:00 a.m. on tuesday on c-span2. on sunday we are live with our monthly in-depth program, author and film maker sebastián younger will take your questions live. also this weekend on after words, science writer holt

discusses contribution that is women have made to space program . and we visit utah to talk with local authors and take in the city ice literary sites. two extra days of book tv featuring mitch mcconnell and round table discussion on donald trump's art of the deal. those are just a few of the programs we will be bringing you this independence weekend on book tv. for a complete schedule booktv.org. book t96 hours of nonfiction authors, television for serious readers. now we kick panel with donald trump's the art of the deal. >> our country needs a truly

great leader and we need a truly great leader now. [shouting] >> we need a leader that wrote the art of the deal. we need a leader that can bring back our jobs, can bring back our manufacturing, can bring back our military, can take care of our vets, our vets have beena abandoned. [cheers and applause]ry >> and we also need a cheerleader. >> michael cruz, what can we learn about donald trump from reading the art of the deal? >> we can learn a lot, i think, and we should when you're studying donald trump and i think everybody at this point should be studying donald trump. the art of the deal is the foundational document and at this point it reads sort of like a campaign play book. first and foremost what we can

learn from the art of the dealar that he's selling fantasy. those are his words and not mine. >> well, in fact, his words of art of the deal i play people's fantasies, people may not think big of thims but get excited by those who do. people want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. i call it truthful hyperbale. it has worked for him the whole life. i did write an article for the wall street journal and asked him if he was was the play book hiding in plain sight and he first was taken back and he said, you know, it is automatic and comes natural to me so i guess you're right and he said, running for office -- running for president, the f o