aspect to that and there's a risk element. there's a question of people won't give it to you. if it's never been collected, it's very difficult to get it. :

>> and what role does the emerging technologies play in providing solutions for any money laundering? >> fantastic. i mean, the fact you can gather so much data and put it into a database and then interrogate it, looking for -- [inaudible] is something you could never do manually. the fact you can have a shared utility where particularly as we move forward in some years' time to legal entity identifiers and unique identifiers for customers, you can have all that data stored once with everybody accessing one database rather than everybody trying to create their own database on the same companies, the same correspondent banks, even the same individuals. so i think data will make that process a much better, will enable us of the day that that can be shared -- data that can be shared so there can be security around it. and, you know, it will mean that there's a common standard around the world which, again, will be

a huge advantage to the integrity of our industry and the efficacy of keeping the bad guys out. >> under your leadership we've been much more engaged in the technology, in fact, it's a growing practice area for us. how do you think about it at hsbc? it's interesting, one of our board members yesterday said i'm not a banker, i'm a technologist. so the whole mow 9/11 clayture -- nomenclature has changed. how do you think about technology as you go about evolving your institution into the 21st century lending institution? >> my guys keep telling us we employ more programmers than oracle and ibm which doesn't make me feel good in terms of just the numbers. but, no, i wouldn't say we're a technology company. we're a bank, banking group, but we have a huge commitment to technology. i think at the moment too much of the resources allocated to

all the regulatory change, the structure changes are being commanded in surgeon countries, massive -- in certain countries, massive program of work on financial crime prevention. again, because that's the way the industry has been mandated to go. but having said that, we're exploring. i think one of the great things about our industry is we test things to destruction. our technology may be, i won't regard it as clunky, but it's been built for resilience and to do large volumes. i mean, one of the things that i often say when people ask about brexit is, the interesting thing on the 24th of june when, you know, a completely unexpected result against the pundits, the markets, all the experts that britain was going to leave. in that morning the stock market went crazy, sterling fell 15%, volumes were five, six times

what they were, volatility was extraordinary, european banks that were predominantly, you know, focused on european business fell 25, 30%, commodity prices were all over the place. and yet nothing broke. all the trades settled. there was liquidity for any kind of trade that anybody wanted to do, and in the following days the collateral and the cash moved. and so when you've got systems like that that are built for resilience, maybe they're not as sexy as they should be about identifying whether everybody who did a trade was wearing the right color of shoes with their suit because, you know, apple could have told us that or google, but it did do the stuff really, really well. i mean, so we're exploring a whole bunch of stuff, block chain for work finance, we're looking at voice recognition, biometric identification. but i think in a sense that will evolve as our customers -- you were talking about your kids --

that generation will have many, many more tools they'll take for granted whereas we still have a lot of customers in all of the traditional banks that are traditional in the way they access financial products. >> right. >> and, you know, we need to cater for both groups. >> you raised the b word, i didn't, brexit. how do you -- look, you're sitting in canary wharf, you're looking over the city, you're thinking about what does your institution look like ten years from now. you've been thrown this curveball. how do you plan for it, how do you think about it, how should the rest of us think about it? >> well, it's an opportunity. i think anytime there's a structural change focus i think you stand back and sort of say what does it mean, what are the range of outcomes that you might have to respond to. every institution will have a different set of risks and challenges and opportunities from it. i mean, as far as we're concerned, we have a big bank in france. so in terms of passporting and

so on if we have to shift some activity to the continent, we can -- we have a very substantial bank in prance that we bought 15, 16 years ago -- in france. but i think much more important, you know, i think the debate gets -- the debate will be the wrong debate, in my view, if it focuses on what's in the u.k., what's in the continent because, you know, there are three time zones in the world, north america, europe, asia. the european time zone hosts the largest or second largest depending on how you want to count it international financial center of the world. and if the regulatory response to crisis has achieved many things which it has, one of them has been consolidation of activity into party exchanges, greater transparency, mitigating capital through offsets and

compression of risk. london does that fantastically. it's an asset, it's an international asset, it's a european asset, it's a u.k. asset. so to think of it as somehow, you know, u.k. as opposed to the continent is, or i think, a narrow way of looking at it. we should look at it from a financial stability point of view. does that cluster of activity serve the global financial community in a way that we want to retain, and if it can't for whatever reason because of politics and negotiations be retained in the shape it is today, how do we continue to get the benefits of that cluster in some other form be, and that's what we're thinking about rather than the sort of is it london, is it paris, is it frankfurt, is it milan, you know? who knows. >> you see, frankfurt is outside here. the city of frankfurt has welcome gifts for everyone here. >> well, that's good to know. >> i know we've got to go to lunch. just i ask you to be fill soft to call for a moment in the last -- philosophical for a moment.

as you depart the stage of the if chairmanship, what do you see as the great a i chee.s of -- achievements of this association. a lot of young bankers here, what advice, what wisdom do you give to them as they're starting off their careers in finance? >> well, i think the if continues to evolve its relevance. i think that one of the things that has been achieved under your leadership is that the voice of the iif is ever more respected, and i think, you know, an organization like this that is representative of the entire industry, asset managers, up surers, banks and so on -- insurers really only has a relevance if people listen to it. and i think you have to earn that voice at the table. and i, over the four or five years i've been chair, i have observed how the reception that we get from policymakers,

regulators, central banks, commentators around the world is ever more inclusive. it's a broader reception than it was five years ago, and five years ago it was pretty good. but it's evolved. and i think in an industry that is continually challenged as to whether it only speaks with self-interest to have a body that is broad and is trusted and respected is, i think, or essential for the industry. and, you know, i would say to anyone whether they're starting out or finishing in the industry to earn the respect that allows you to have a voice at the table and earns you the right to have a seat at the table is the greatest measure of successing you can have. success you can have. and and i want to pay tribute to you for actually delivering that. so onwards and upwards. >> wisdom to future bankers? >> listen and learn from the mistakes that your predecessors have made and be kind to us. [laughter] >> douglas, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you.

[applause] >> it's everybody's favorite time of the day, or at least mine, which is lunchtime. so please move to the atrium hall for lunch, discussion on all things u.s. with jamie dimon and james gorman from morgan stanley. it'll be great. go have some lunch, we'll see you soon. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a brief break here in this forum, and webbed let you know that -- we should let you know that we'll return with live coverage at about 12:45. and here is the latest on hurricane matthew. it's currently running along florida's atlantic coast following the storeline there, and more than 476,000 homes are now without power. the storm has been downgraded to a category three, but it still threatens hundreds of miles of coastline in florida, georgia and south carolina. a 107 miler hour gust was recorded in cape canaveral. hurricane matthew will hit landfall in south carolina tomorrow afternoon.

members of congress from the affected states have been tweeting out warnings, and this from south carolina senator tim scott. he says a lot of water coming our way, folks. please know your zone. in other words, expect flooding impacts. and florida senator marco rubio is tweeting out where people can go for help. fema director craig fugate has positioned relief material in central florida ready to respond once conditions are safe from hurricane matthew. president obama also updated reporters on hurricane matthew following a meeting with fema director craig fugate and homeland security secretary jeh johnson. this is just under ten minutes. >> obviously, everybody's tracking the course of hurricane matthew, and i just received an update from our fema director, craig fugate, as well as the rest of our national security team, and i just wanted to make a couple of key points. first, what we're seeing now is

matthew having moved above south florida and some of the larger or population centers working its way north. and the big concern that people are having right now is the effect that it could have in areas like jacksonville on through georgia. and although we've seen some significant damage in portions of south florida, i think the bigger concern at this point is not just hurricane-force winds, but storm surge. and many of you will remember hurricane sandy where initially people thought this doesn't look as bad as we thought, and and then suddenly you get massive storm surge and a lot of people were severely affected. and so i just want to emphasize

to everybody that this is still a really dangerous hurricane, that the potential for storm surge, flooding, loss of life and severe property damage continues to exist. and people continue to need to follow the instructions of their local officials over the course of the next 24, 48, 72 hours. those of you who live in georgia, i think, should be paying attention because there's been a lot of emphasis on florida, but this thing is going to keep on moving north through florida into south carolina. there are large population centers there that could be vulnerable. so pay attention to what your local officials are telling you. if they tell you to evacuate, you need to get out of there and move to higher ground because storm surge can move very quickly, and people can think that they're out of the woods and then suddenly get hit and

not be in a position in which they is and their families are safe. so pay attention to local officials. in the meantime, i've been in contact with the governors of all four of the potentially affected states, and i want to thank them all for their leadership. there's been strong cooperation between federal and state and local officials. fema has worked diligently to preposition resources, assets, water, food, commodities, and as the hurricane moves north, what craig and his team will be doing is moving those resources and assets further north so that any place that happens to get hit badly, we'll be in a position to immediately come this and help. but i really want to emphasize the governors have been on top of this, state and local officials have been on top of this. they are the ones who are

tracking most closely what is happening in your particular community, your particular area. you need to pay attention to them, do what they say. do not be a holdout here because we can always replace property, but we can't replace lives. be i want to thank craig and his whole team as well as department of homeland security, my own national security team for really staying on top of this. we're going to monitor this throughout the weekend. our thoughts and prayers are with folks who have been affected. you know, it's -- even if the damage in south florida wasn't as bad as it could be, there are people who have been affected, and for them they're going to need help. last point i'd like to make is we're still tracking what happened in areas like haiti that were hit more directly. haiti is one of the poorest

countries in the world. it has consistently been hit and battered by a lot of natural disasters to compound what is already great poverty there. we mow that hundreds of people -- we know that hundreds of people have lost their lives and that there's been severe property damage, and they're going to need help rebuilding. so i would ask all americans to go to the american red cross and other philanthropic agencies to make sure that we're doing what we need to do to help people in need. and we'll continue to provide information if you're interested in how you can help the people of haiti and others, you can go to whitehouse.gov, and we'll provide you some direction in terms of where even the smallest contribution can can really make a big difference. all right? thank you very much, everybody. [inaudible conversations] >> fema is in a good position

right now. you know, we had some concerns last year when we were in the midst of budget negotiations. i think that we did a good job of making sure that fema was properly funded and not to make him blush, but we happen to have one of the best public servants in america in craig fugate and his team, and they know how to manage their money and use it effectively. so that's not going to be an issue. of course, we always want to be cautious about making assessments with respect to damage. we're still on the front end of this hurricane. we're not on the back end. so we don't know how bad the damage could end up. we don't know how severe the storm surge could end up being, and, you know, we're not going to know for three, four, five days what the ultimate effects of this are. if we end up having really significant problems and really

severe property damage, then the stafford act comes into play. our ability to provide through emergency declarations and other mechanisms more help to local governments, that's always going to be a question. we have, as you know, we still have needing -- flooding in louisiana that has left a lot of people homeless, over 100,000 people lost their homes there. we still have to rebuild. there is a backlog of need from natural disasters around the country that we'd like, hopefully during the lame duck session, to figure out how to fund effectively. so the issue's not so much fema's funding for immediate emergency response, the issue is going to be making sure that after the, you know, in this case the hurricane but in other

cases flooding or wildfires or, you know, other natural disasters, after they've happened are we in a position to properly help people rebuild. and we'll obviously make those assessments after the fact, and then we'll talk to congress about how we can help out. all right? thank you, everybody. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> i'm not going to go to the precinct. i'll probably do early voting. i'll fill out my form. don't worry, i'll be be voting. i'm going to be doing a little campaigning and a little voting too. all right, thanks, guys. >> well, u.s. employers added 156,000 jobs this september. even so, the unemployment rate went up to 5% from 4.9%.

the labor department says more americans felt confident enough to start looking for work though not all of them found jobs. as a result, more people were counted as unemployed. the director general of the world trade organization will be speaking at the national press club this afternoon. c-span will have live coverage as robert azevedo talks about slowing growth and in global trade and the potential impacts of a listening slowdown -- long slowdown. that starts about 40 minutes from now. and tomorrow c-span will take you back on the campaign trail for live coverage of a rally with donald trump and house speaker paul ryan. they'll be in speaker ryan's district. wisconsin senator ron johnson and governor scott walker will also take part. that will be tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 eastern. the second presidential debate is sunday night at washington university in st. louis, missouri. watch our live coverage at 7:30 p.m. eastern for a preview of

the debate, and then at 8:30 the pre-debate briefing for the audience. at 9 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction with your calls, tweets and comments. the second presidential debate. watch live on c-span. watch live or on demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with the free c-span app available on google play. house ways and means committee chair kevin brady now on trade policy. his committee deals with u.s. tax laws that cover trade. he spoke at the peterson institute for international economics, and he called on the obama administration to address concerns with the trans-pacific partnership trade deal. this is about 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, ladies and

gentlemen. welcome back to the peterson institute for international economics. i'm adam pozen, president of the institute, and it's my distint privilege today to -- distinct privilege today to get to introduce and host chairman kevin brady, congressman of the 8th district of texas in the u.s. house of representatives and, of course, chairman of the house ways and means committee. kevin brady, as many of you know, is someone who we love to hear from because in a world where many poll constitutions purport to -- politicians purport to speak their mind, many of them either don't or don't have much to say. congressman brady speaks his mind genuinely and always has something substantive to say. and in that regard, we are delighted to have him here today addressing rethinking trade and reframing the trade debate.

there's a time, as we discussed at our launch of our presidential trade policies briefing last week, when the bipartisan and arguably nonpartisan justified consensus for open markets and trade is under attack from both left and right in a way that is unprecedented at least in decades in the u.s. one of the few people to the stand up and speak frankly, substantively, coherently and, in my view, persuasively about trade and america's interest is chairman brady. before becoming chairman of the house way asks and means committee, he served as chairman of the influential health subcommittee, and he was previously chairman and vice chairman of the joint economic committee. i got to know him then when i had the pleasure to testify before his committee on issues of federal reserve accountability. until 2013 kevin was the leader

of the ways and means trade subcommittee and led the successful effort to pass new trade agreements with panama, south korea and colombia. prior to his election to congress in 1997, chairman brady worked as a chairman of commerce -- chamber of commerce executive and served six years in the texas house of representatives. we, obviously, have a full house of people who know the significance of the chairman's role and the chairman's thinking, and so i will now turn the podium over to him so we may be enlightened. congressman brady. [applause] >> thank you very much for not just the kind introduction, thank you for your leadership of the institute. this is a -- thanks for hosting this event, and you continue, this is one of the most respected organizations pushing, i think, the boundaries of academic thought in public

discourse and policy formation, the work that you are doing now, the work that fred has done for many years has really put you at the center of many of our key issues. not just trade, but the federal reserve, monetary policy, tax policy as well, so thank you for having me here today. this is a perfect day to be talking about rethinking trade. history, it just so happens i'm not much of a historian. turns out this day in history is a bit unique on sort of game-changing, thought-changing actions. on this day in 1825, the world's first public railroad to use steam locomotives was opened in northeast england. it made america rethink its transportation network. on this day in 1905, albert einstein introduced the equation e equals mc2.

when solid energy explodes and there's middle energy inside made us rethink everything. and on this day in 1954, school integration officially began in washington, d.c. and baltimore public schools making us rethink the concept of equality in america. so this was the perfect day for us to be rethinking and re-examining u.s. trade policies. i'm convinced, done right and properly enforced, free and fair trade allows individuals, families, communities and countries to raise themselves out of poverty and into prosperity. free trade lies at the heart of our nation's post-world war ii prosperity. in my view, the freedom to trade is perhaps our greatest economic freedom here in america. and as we look to the future, the importance of re-examining or rethinking our nation's trade policies can't be overstated.

just in the past couple of decades, we have seen dramatic changes to nearly every facet of global commerce. these advancements have opened incredible opportunities for american businesses, workers and consumers, but they've also posed significant challenges for policymakers. in our mission moving forward, it has to be to pursue trade policies that reflect the challenges and opportunities facing americans while also promoting competition and growth. i'm convinced that as we rethink trade, you know, part of the challenge going forward is we need at every opportunity to make free trade more free. our trade agreements should be more aggressive, less protectionist, they should be bolder. selling mediocre trade agreements is hard. selling bold ones are more valuable. we ought to, at every opportunity, reject early harvests in any trade agreement that we're in and push trade

negotiators to dig deeper on behalf of consumers. and make sure that those trade agreements have the strongest implementation plans to assure that they actually achieve what they're laying out to do. secondly, i would hope we can continue to focus on trade -- not necessarily adding more social issues to this. the may 10th agreement was a good, solid balance that has allowed both parties to move forward in a positive way on trade. i think the more others try to load these agreements with non-trade issues from climate change to social rights, i think it is, it is tougher to achieve the original goal. just lifting families and countries out of poverty and into prosperity is powerful enough. and, frankly, that's tough enough to achieve. but doing that, in my view, you

know, when you -- when a family is going to bed hungry in a third world country, you know, shivering under a makeshift tin roof, you know, they're not focused on environmental advancements and labor rights. but with prosperity, the opportunity to sell their wares around the world, to stretch that meager budget farther with better-priced goods, that's what helps lift them out of poverty. that alone is, i think, one of the greatst powers of what we're doing -- greatest powers of what we're doing in trade. and i would begin to link trade with tax reform in a major way. ..

, watching the presidential campaign as it runs itself out to november, i think it's crucial for the american people to understand that freedom to trade isn't about china, mexico, europe or asia, it's about protecting our individual freedom to trade as americans. to americans. to buy and sell anywhere in the world with as little interference as possible. that's the heart of our free

enterprise system. that's what freedom to trade brings us. for the entrepreneur toiling deep in the night in the garage working on their new breakthrough product, this ensures they have an opportunity to put that product on the market and make it available around the world. for that single mom, the freedom to trade protects your ability to purchase whatever product you choose and keep prices for your goods as affordable as it needs to be for you and your family. one of the reasons i love economic freedom and the freedom to trade, it really answers the key question, who has the power. who has the power to decide which products you can buy and that which price. is it washington that has the power, special interest group or you the consumer, free trade that ensures it is the consumer that ultimately has the power to decide what to buy and at what

price. i am also convinced that while we live in an antiestablishment era, both here and around the world, the freedom to trade is the most anti- establishment power americans enjoy. it guarantees that when the new product is designed or a better service is unveiled or a new breakthrough technology is produced, special interests can hold you back from selling it, buying it or even disrupting entire industry if you discovered and delivered a product or service better than it is today. >> i'm convinced that this is what thomas jefferson meant when he wrote commerce with other nations isn't just necessary and beneficial to all parties, it is right and a duty. the freedom to trade is a right in america. we ought to keep that in the

forefront as we work through this debate. he also, thomas jefferson explained in order to function properly, free trade must be established on a reciprocal basis. this. this is another crucial part that shouldn't be left out of this debate. free trade agreement tell our foreign competitors they cannot sell one way in the united states unless we can sell into their country and their markets. when we do that and level the playing field, america is incredibly successful from a sales point and also for that single mom looking for the best products at the most affordable price. that representative or prosody while it isn't a language you hear and most of our debates, it's sort of the golden rule on trade. countries don't live up to their obligation and our trade agreement provide us with the tools to challenge them. if necessary, retaliate.

holding our trading partners accountable, that's part of the commitment we make to the american people. i'm proud to say that this year congress has acted to give this administration and future administrations a strong enforcement tools that we have had in modern u.s. history. so, when we open up new markets for american made goods and trading and strictly enforce those agreements, america will win. today, where are we on the trans- pacific partnership? i think this represents a tremendous opportunity to open up more markets, more critical markets into a trade and give us a chance for the united states to write the rules of the 21st century global commerce and provide unmistakable geostrategic benefits. as the recent book makes clear, transpacific partnership partnership represents the major opportunity to grow our economy

and secure u.s. national interest in the nation. my view is that is exactly the same. in my town hall meetings on trade, and i do a lot of them, in texas, i always talk about the asia-pacific has being the area that will have half of all the middle-class customers on the planet in the asia-pacific region. just as when reporters asked willie sutton why he robbed the banks, he said well that's where the money sat, why do we want to be specific, that's where the customers are at. we want our our workers and farmers and businesses competing on a level playing field in that market. but, as we pursue this agreement, it has to be done right. there are still several significant concerns by some members of congress that the

administration has to address to get the necessary votes. these aren't minor details, they are key issues for american businesses and workers and consumers and as i have said repeatedly, the substance of the agreement will drive its timing. ultimately congress controls the clock and we control whether the agreement is approved. we will move when the administration addresses these concerns otherwise we won't have the votes to pass it. if you remember nothing else today, i think here is the key. we are running out of time. if the white house wants to get it done this year, as i hope we do, the white house is responsibility to address these long-standing concerns quickly and make sure it's getting support from both sides and we are certainly working in the house to facilitate the meeting, the discussions, the ideas on how we will resolve these outstanding issues so that we

can be in a position to move this legislation, hopefully again this year. let me sort of conclude and i'll be glad to take questions. as i said, we have to carefully examine and re-examine our trade policies to make sure they are hitting the mark on the 21st century. we have to to lead on trade with this white house and the next and with the american people. to do that successfully, we have to re- frame the debate back to the power of economic freedom. we have to make clear this is about protecting our freedom to trade and buy and sell and compete throughout the world with as little government interference as possible and given all that's at stake, we can't afford to disengage, we have to stand up and stand up aggressively for our freedom to trade. i would be got lad to stop and take some questions from the

audience here today. [applause] thank you so much chairman brady. short, sweet, to the point, historical references. before i open it up to our distinguished audience, could i pose just a couple easy questions. >> i knew that wasn't going to happen. obviously, as you said, said, we are all aware that this is a

time of much more pushback on trade, much more fear among congresspeople who recognize the worth to come up and stand up for as they once did. whoever wins the presidential election november 8, we know two things, first, almost certainly your party will maintain a majority in the house and we assume you will maintain chairmanship. secondly, whichever candidate wins, and we've pointed out that one candidates trade policies are a lot worse than the other, but whichever candidate wins, neither of them want to pass tpp, neither of them want to pursue new trade openings. how do you and your role expect to work with the administration that has that kind of attitude?

>> i am sort of waiting between the lines on our nominees and i think back to years where even in the democrat party, both senators clinton and obama where fighting each other to decide who would rip up the quickest and who would join charles schumer and lindsey graham on a tariff increase on china, but we saw governance much different than that. president obama quickly determined trade as a major power for us. economically here at home and throughout the world as well. i'm not surprised trade is struggling in public opinion right now. this has been financial crisis that is tough. it's been a very slow recovery. two out of three americans still think we are in some type of recession and they take the blame for that. to be expected of this, here is what's frustrating.

i think both of our presidential candidates need to be making the case, they have occasionally dip their toe, enforcement first, isolation and trade isn't acceptable, he's, he is correct in both of those and in both candidates, that's terrific, but we have to be aggressive and outreach as well. i'm hopeful we can work with both to improve and pass tpp if it isn't done by the end of the year, which i hope it is, ready for and consider for a vote, i'm convinced again, if for serious about growing the economy, it's not enough to simply fix the way we tax. we have to have those markets to trade and it's so critical of that. i think the economy is going to

be the two biggest issues for that new president. they have to know we can't do it if were building walls, protectionism, and isil is him. >> there so much there to your answer. one of the the most interesting things you said in your opening speech in your reply just now is this potential linkage between how american multinationals and corporations who trade are taxed and the trade policy. again, an issue that keeps coming up whether it's apple in ireland or pfizer for any of these is the issue, how do you see that agenda going forward. >> i'm hopeful, and speaker ryan, what he's given us as a green light on some of the biggest challenges facing america. certainly it means health care, medicare reform and then a new tax reform system. we laid out our blueprint and the speaker.

>> we will leave the rest of it, you you can find us online at cspan.org or. we will take you back to the conference where the ceos are discussing the financial industry. >> i been able to work for some of the most interesting and dynamic leaders in the corporate world. i say corporate world, the three gentlemen and i are heads of major global corporations. they influence events, hire half a million people globally and have a sense of what's going on around the world. it's great pleasure that we have him here with us today. there's an endless number of issues that we can discuss and we have a short period of time. were going to try to hit the highlights, maybe not everything he wants. i will try to take some questions from the audience. german, mike, jamie, thanks for joining us today. i know you're busy.

i did see stan fisher and it looks like a goldilocks economy. things are pretty good. i don't know what the fed's point to do in december or january. he didn't say, but how do you see the u.s. economy, do you see the front line, do you see the order books in loan demand, how do you view the u.s. economy? >> if you look at where we are and you go back and think about the u.s. economy coming out of the crisis, the first thing we had to solve was consumer confidence. when you think of the u.s. economy, it is primarily about two thirds driven i the consumer. two things we had to address quickly, one is we had to get housing going in the right direction. >> the second was jobs. we had unemployment somewhere around 10% and swift action around the various type in the

u.s., we got that back so they were at or above in most markets precrisis levels and we got unemployment bouncing between 4.9 and 5% and we saw while not an off the charts job number, pretty good job number. we looked at the sectors within the job growth and it's fairly robust. we have a consumer that's largely recovered, confident, we look at what's going on in terms of saving and spending and we see a good dynamic there. the u.s. economy, being driven by the consumer is in reasonable shape. the other side we have to pay attention to is when we talk to corporate around the us, there's not the same confidence. the challenges of topline growth, the challenges of regulation, the the challenges of a lot of things we know and feel have led corporations to be a bit more conservative in terms of inventory and investment.

in many ways, managing shareholders, managing the business through inorganic means , but all in all, the u.s. u.s. economy is okay. >> wages are going up 15 million more people are working, 15 more americans in total and we welcome all the immigrants, if you're an immigrant here, the corporations are doing fine, capital, small-business, middle-market, it's all in very good shape. have plenty of liquidity and wherewithal and let me lead to these national parts. i think we should be doing better. i think maybe later on we'll talk about why it's not better. it goes back to the corporate sectors. there's two chileans in the cash sitting in corporate balance sheet. why are they spending? >> first of all, a lot of it's

being held because ratings and these in funding, if you look around the world, there's 50 trillion of liquidity sitting around. somebody's going to figure out, why all the liquidity. sometimes taxes but i think companies are just being very cautious. if you look at the average credit rating, the fundamental financials of the average company is what they were as a doubly company years ago. they were being much tougher on all these things and it's just the aftermath of a crisis. >> let what brings back animal spirits in the boardroom and how do you see the economy? >> i tend to question around a little bit. if we have a goldilocks economy, why are interest rates near zero? i think it's a recognition that things are actually doing fine as mike and jamie said, they could do better, but it's certainly not an economy that reflects the distressed rate

environment. i think that's the fundamental question and that actually feed into your follow-up. what brings back the confidence and animal spirits and a chain that change that makes it a consumer consumption savings rate and that's the sense that the economy is on track. that comes to the political sector which i am sure we will talk lot of time, it comes from another sector and i think you would have the average signals that you are getting is that were not doing great. in fact, that translate into some campaign slogans. if that's the case, why am i going to spend, why am i going to consume and make the investments i should be making. i think from all of us, from what we see in our businesses and what we see in client balance sheets, it doesn't add

up. you can't connect these two dots and that's because for all the numbers that drive the economy, emotion and human behavior drive it just as much. >> there's always been political risk. is it exaggerated or are we talking too much about politics. is it too much driver of the way that we think about risk going forward and obviously there are places around the world that isn't directly impacted by election. the markets that you see that you like where you're putting money in investments, are we exaggerating? >> i will start. i think we've got to recognize, something different is happening and we were surprised by the british exit vote. a week ago, we had a piece vote in columbia. the negative vote there was a surprise. we got an election going on in the u.s. and what we are seeing

is in these elections, rather than people voting for things, they are voting against things. that's different from where we been historically. much more difficult to predict as we go forward. i think in some ways, the populism, negativism, you can define it in a few different ways, it weighs on the economy because when you surprise a population around these votes, it undermines the confidence of investment, it undermines the confidence of inbound money flow of people willing to spend and higher and all of those things. >> you were pretty vocal ahead of the british exit vote. is that the biggest event you have to navigate around over the next couple years. >> no. what we set about it is it reduced the gdp of the uk. that's not a disaster. it is what it is. it's create years of uncertainty.

that's not a disaster. at one point we will find out what we have to do in the financial services to accommodate the new rules print we don't know what that is. it's not up to us. banks are threatening us. we will be told what we have to do and then we'll know what we have to move and when. that creates a level of uncertainty but i think we can deal with that. the issue to me was always what did the impact long run, not next year or two years look like that was the issue about breck that. my own personal view is that it made the chance five times higher. for a whole bunch of different reasons that we don't have time to go through here. i would add to this list of why it should be better and the interest rate, i'm in a write a book one day. and they go through everything one of these about how much legal compliance, how how ink inherent policy was, we have failed to collaborate, we have

failed to have planning, we didn't get tpp ten, we didn't get the long-term fiscal report form and when i travel the world, i'm just overwhelmed about what they can't do or can get done because of rules and regulations and all of those things are true. it's all true. that's why it's 2% and not three to half. i'm almost positive, but i can't prove it. using big data, looking back ten years for now, i think it can be proven. >> any thoughts about running for office someday? >> know but i've said publicly, i'd love to be president but i'm not going to run, it's torture to those people. look at the politics. everyone except donald trump who has ever run in america came within the party and was really experiencing politics.

i hope the next president does the right things and drops the rhetoric at about democrat, republican, who cares. period p people who are in jobs who have experienced those matters. if there next to it, get of him. were doing it in a lot of places where faxon policy matter. >> i'm not how to go from here to there. my slogan, make america fun again.

how do you bring that decision into your decision, how do you plan for it i asked him, what's the title of the book. you don't want to know. where were we? on the british exit, we've had a lot of discussions with the k and the europeans. i totally agree with what jamie said. it's all about the survivor of the union. it's been in place for nearly 70 years and has been economic success. income disparity and etc., but that's but that's me was the main game. somewhere that message has been

lost in this narrow discussion. this is tapping into a vein which is existing in spain, it exists in italy, it exists exists in a lot of parts of the european union where a lot of these countries have changed hundreds of times. the configurations are just what we experience today. i think the broader long intervals, we have 25, 27-year-old kids working for our office in london who have been in the uk for five years. they are german and who have come across to work in german companies. what happens to them. do they give residency? we've got headquarters you got to build, what sort of resources you need to move.

what happens to that? the cities that you consider moving more activities to have the fundamental plumbing and infrastructure around the accounting, legal and the other banking capabilities that you need in those cities? there are issues, i think the big winner is going to be new york and the u.s. i think you're going to see more business moving to the u.s. and that's not our design, but that is one of the potential outcomes. i'm very hopeful, were getting to meet with the various ministers that this can be done in a way that continues to encourage as much business as possible because it works well. the rule of law is great, the regular authorities are great

and folks want to work there and lived there and is a huge ecosystem built around the financial sector which is a big give up that's been put in place over five decades. >> your long new york real estate. >> nor is donald trump, it sounds like you're cautious, you're saying all the political and potential rapid political change, how do you think about europe in general. is it a place for you to expand your business? >> it's an 18 trillion-dollar economy. it's not like it's a discussion, is it's not do you want to, of course. the u.s. is dashed the third largest is japan china and the fourth largest is japan. there are parts of europe that are doing great. germany is doing much better. there's been economic miracles

along much of the east eastern european, hungry and so forth. it's a critical part of running a global financial institution. that's not even a remote question. this is now down in the weeds of how many people do you need and you have the infrastructure to support them. how do you deal with the fact that you have all of these employees who are there on a passport situation that they thought existed that may not. these are the kind of questions i'm talking about. >> mike you might feel the same way. you're going to be there. business is really about the plumbing and how does the plumbing work. >> if you look at our history, we have been in the uk and we have 8500 employees there. we are fortunate in some respect due to the flexibility that we have. we not only operate out of the uk, we have a bank in ireland

and operate physically on the ground. we've got flexibility and it's not a question of being in europe, but it's how are we going to be there. if you look at what's going on in asia, again while growth isn't what what we would like it to be, we've got to get our heads around the paradigm that it's lower longer slower growth rates but again if we look at what is going on in china,, we see other economies doing quite well. then you look at vietnam as an example, phenomenal things going on there and in latin america and the change of regime and what's happening in argentina.

you have a phenomenal demographic around a great labor force that sits at the u.s. border, has that same energy sitting on their side, all those things. i think we have to get our heads around it but there are some great opportunities. >> every country is different. more likely than not, over 20 or 30 years, this will be really good. i envision myself.

[inaudible] they said this democracy income it's a high-yield country, it's undeveloped and has this racial problem. the world's going to be okay. there are these big risk. the eurozone. if it ever comes to that someone's going to leave the eurozone, that's an issue. contracts, currency and all of us will be going through the real detailed analysis of how we had all that and how we deal with the complexity. >> let's take questions from the out audience. i will screen them but i will make sure it's interesting. >> forget about our business model for a minute. it's horrible if you are a

saver. this is the fundamental problem. if you want spirits to come back and you want people to engage in consuming, then you've got to provide some sort of stimulus on the other side that they're not running down their capital. who in this room thought five years ago we would have a negative interest rate environment. who thought that if you put together a set of economic metrics around the world, all the rest that's been going on, who would've thought that would've translated to a box on the right-hand side, who would've put this in their. i just think it's an anomaly that is sort of a last chance action with very uncertain outcome and at this point,.

[inaudible] >> they gave a speech yesterday that we referenced today that long-term rates may stay low for a very long time. how do you incorporate this into your business strategy given these, interest rate margins. how does it change your business? >> from a business model perspective, the things that we can control, from the corporate side of things, there's probably more flexibility because they have the ability to it adjust and move capital and move money to either stay away from negative interest rates.

many cases we have a bit of what i would describe as the y2k problem where many institutions don't have the system to process negative rates today. it can be fixed over time. in a world where people are living longer, savings are more important. there's a psychological impact that goes back to the under mining confidence that is there. the adjustments around business model, again you pull the lever, it's a burden, if the tax. are you ready for a long-term time period of ultra low interest. >> whatever it is, we will deal with it. we are opening checking accounts today and now at the hundred $50 a year. it still earns a profit but we

have a new client and you can do that in the corporate world too. i don't buy this longer forever argument. i think you have to be very careful. [inaudible] i think there's a huge issue around why, my own view is a little bit of pushing on a spring, no corporation is going to build a new plant because rates are low. the behaviors, i'm not sure were getting the behaviors that generally we would have gotten i discounting and keeping rates low. in the old days, the money multiplier, when the bank system

, when they bought a security and create a deposit and deposited into the bank, money got multiplied five times as it filtered through the system. because of these requirements, it simple he doesn't happen and can happen. i'm saying we should have changed it, it simply doesn't happen. in america today, why do you have 2.5 trillion of excess reserves? the callback says they want you to lend out and be more aggressive but you can't. we could talk about other rules that do exactly the same thing. i just don't think the system is functioning the same. i think they're trying to figure out what these things do. fiscal policy and monetary policy, i think if we got these right you have to grow. the natural reaction is to grow their business but i've never met, in any country, going

around the table. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i think just to pick up on this, you don't make corporate strategy based on where interest rates are and you don't make it based on what you think is going to happen for the next decade. who can get out of bed tomorrow morning and tell me if the dow is going to be up or down. it's just not how you run a business. there's much more drivers around corporate strategy which is the opening of markets, demographics, regulation and capital, scale advantages and accountability, those of of the things that drive your strategy. over the next ten years, i would ask where were the eight years ago.

the smart people in this room and others represent the race and the last eight years and how many times has it happened? once. >> our own forecasting is a standard of deviation. there's a new book out called the hundred year lie. my children have a 60% probability of living until 105. how do you how do you think about savings products and financial products for a generation that will live and work into their 80s. it goes back to the issue of savings and low interest rate. if were not saving enough now for people who retire when their 65, how do we save for people who retire when they're 8585 or 90. are you thinking longer term? >> very clearly, the consequence of low and negative rates have significantly impacted that.

we see the defined benefit programs really struggling. we are forced g alternatives and it's forced to go down. >> does that work? >> it does. there are very successful money managers who go in wide open but for those living on a fixed income, it's worse. the second piece around it, here in the u.s. and many places around the world, we have to get some performance done. the current economics of the system don't work. there are probably many people who are here, u.s. citizen in this room and depending what age you are, you're probably thinking by the time i get there to collect that check i'm not going to get that check. we need to deal with that today.

what you think about the demographic challenges. >> the sooner we do it, the better. it's a plus and a minus. the declining population of japan hasn't been dealt with before. there will be new products, new savings, new products and people having to work longer but fdr put social security in place and the average person lives till 65. they died at 55 on average. if you live that long, you would live another seven years. the average person retires that 62. [inaudible]

the average income would be up a hundred $25000. there might be a huge federal debt but as long as it's not owed outside the country, there's a huge wherewithal to take care of our country. it becomes a huge generational thing. right now if you go through the numbers, the older generation is taking it out of the mouth of babes. i don't know exactly how it will work, but products will be invented for it. >> bismarck at the first social security program and i think that kicked in a sense 60 and the life expectancy was 58. that was a pretty good deal. >> the 65 came from bismarck. social security was created in 1932 and the idea was that no one would ever collect. imagine if your living and working, the system will have

time to adjust. >> you been talking about regulation, we had a board meeting yesterday. we've spent hours talking about regulation when we really want to talk about banking and market opportunities. we have basel three, basel basel four on the table. how do you see that coming to fruition and are we able to see past the regulatory. >> no, that's the short answer. we are in an interesting place right now. the banking system and all the numbers are out there. there's dramatically better capitalized on a market basis.

if you look at regulations that are being talked about, japan potentially has, i think that gets to a dangerous place when investor investors do

comparisons around safety and soundness. i think we are better off trying to be in the same place but it appears for a while we won't be there. >> you are binding in strength with the car. >> yes. >> it was 22000 pages wrong long, does that that seem right. >> that's probably short. >> that was the executive summary. >> again, you have the regulatory issue started. are there changes that you think were damaging, harmful if the next president were to call you, and what were you doing with respect to regulation. >> it's clear being down here, japan, china, europe want to stop, digest and not add to capital liquidity. they are modifying some of the things that the united states wants to push for more things.

i would love to get along. i think the issue is compromise and get things done. it doesn't have to be exactly the same so we want a level playing field, okay, were also right with that. i do think getting it done is really important. it's just another thing. i believe that there's a sympathy for the european bank and there's deleveraging and catching up. let them stop, adjust and respond to the economy. i've asked accumulative effect of all these things. no one really knows, let's do it the other way around. if you picked out one that you should change and have very specific things, i'd pick out capital, why do you have

reserves? because of that you have the interest rate swap going negative, the repo problems and it's so high that you can't remove it and someone's going to look at that and say i think the u.s. is 400 billion of capital. they say why do you have all that capital allowed. i think those two things, and maybe other things, i think people should be prepared that sometimes there's a knee-jerk reaction. were not changing anything. that's the way it is. if a bank suggest this, it's not going to get changed. rational, thoughtful people, when they look at all the things that happen should look at this

modify, calibrate, coordinate for the people of the nation, not for the banks. the banks will get through this somehow. i'll try to get through more of that and see it affects the way things were. >> are there requirements you think should be changed or dropped, how important is this? >> i don't really want to get into which pieces i'd be changing because obviously he could give the appearance of self-serving. we'd like to change the things most harmful to our business so it would be different, but that's not very helpful. i think the points jamie makes are legitimate questions. i think listen, this has been a surge of activity in a very compressed time. and there are definitely some areas where there has been access and areas where there's

been too slow and lay it all out there. overtimes you will find some bids that are not working. the financial system is safer than it was going into the financial crisis. the returns are lower because they carry more capital. i'm not going to get into piecing which parts we want but we need to absorb, digest and live with it for a bit. >> to think the european banks are getting a bad shake? in other words, jamie said we

have economic growth, and po's, negative interest rate and it's really not the best environment to be raising capital. do you think the banks are facing an unfair set of challenges? >> i think the banks have been given time and they need time. they need to rush in around some of these things that are not in the best interest of the economies and the client that they are serving. we started on this path but it's going to take time with the recognition of that and i think we need to see through it. >> i find it interesting that you talked about the cost of capital. i think many don't understand. with had many institution where it would be return on double digit. that math doesn't work. it's unfortunate that we have that set of conditions but that's probably one of the biggest challenges. when i look at the u.s., i saw

this number. >> city is tangible. >> one of the questions from the audience is given that you're so well-capitalized, why not play a greater role in europe, stop the [inaudible] >> in acquiring? >> yes. >> you try first. [laughter] there is planet this and planet something else that he is sitting on right now. i don't think there's a lot of enthusiasm for the banks getting

bigger right now. i think they would like you to adjust your level to get it above your capital. >> the issue is as big as that and how do you get consolidation in europe? biggs not bad at all. there's a presumption that big is bad and you can't get scaling consolidation. >> i don't think the facts have supported actually. i think if you look at the balance sheet of some of the largest banks in the world they are bigger than they were pre-crisis. natural organic, if you've got a global economy that is growing, this sector is going to grow. it grows with gdp. the big is not bad, it's how they're managed if you choose to be big in business acts which is a high charge, execute that to the best of your abilities and

good luck. if you don't think you're going to do that so well, go to a different business that has a lower capital charge. every but he has to make their business model decision. absolute size, there's political rhetoric. >> we don't wake up and say, we think we should be 1,000,000,000,008 in assets and 100 countries sounds good so let's operate in 100 countries. our balance sheet, our risk and our presences are all a function of our customer and client relationships and where we can support it. >> this is an important port. everything we all do for our clients in front of our people is direct ancillary to that and how do we serve those clients a multinational around the world.

how do we serve those consumers in a way that we can do justice with them. that is why you're in business. there are reasons you upside and reasons you don't and business. >> there are a lot of markets you're pulling out of because of regulatory costs. we were at a meeting yesterday at the imf looking at ways to stop the de-risking process. some of it may be technology driven, maybe there's changes in regulations and rules. is. is this a big issue for you? >> for us, we have gone through a pretty radical transformation of our company, really refocusing our company. that being said, we went into the day operating in 100 companies. there are businesses, in our our case we had consumer segments that were below scale and around our lack of ability to buy growth and a lower longer rate environment, hyper competitive environment where it's tough to organically grow and we did a

pretty disciplined capital allocation of where we could take that capital and employ it in this environment and earn returns and some cases it wasn't in some of those businesses so we've tried to recycle that capital back into other areas of our business and move away from those things that we didn't see over the him and their immediate or longer-term. >> i can make a great point, you are constantly reallocating capital based on return based on your different business divisions. jamie, how do you think about markets you may be pulling out of because of regulatory costs? back what you think the public sector can do? >> we would not pull out at regulatory costs. we consider permanent folks in the country. we optically modified the business. you should standardly cleanup and simplify nd risk, we all do that all the time. honestly when we came to certain businesses overseas there was a large de- risking. it was both because of the cost

of the new rules and cost being simplified. were trying to make it better for us and client but we need governments, not just governments but we need them to come to a common set of goals on what were trying to do here. maybe even with the penalty, if a mistake is made, people are so afraid. were not trying to take risk or hurt clients inadvertently. we have to protect our company too. i'm hoping we find a better balance with this overtime. it's not going to reverse right now. >> i think they will say whatever they want. things are going to be very very careful. >> that leaves us into technology. the lee belief is that we have a number of young computer scientists who are leading experts on artificial intelligence that can be applied to some of the issues but it

really is technology that can be applied to financial services generally. eighteen months ago you said it was time to spend more of our focus on technology. we are trying to get there. what you think about technology and are there particular technologies that you're employing? >> it's not like we all work woke up a couple years ago and somebody said there's this thing called technology. it's been front and center of the banking sector for a very long time. maybe the most important innovation was that he said he might be right with the atm machine. :

very different from electronic trading, very different from the system supporting program business. it's not a generic category. there's a business category. i think it's incumbent upon the banks to understand where customer behavior is going and have the capability to deliver whatever their services are in the most efficient and effective way for it. some of that is with human beings, some of it is remote. a lot of the new technologies that are coming up are things that have low barriers to entry, will be functions that are effectively given away to clients. their algorithms which can be written by a number of people and i'm not sure what the so-called advantages are. there's minimum entry, but it's

not clear to me that they are going to radically change all sectors of finance. then you have to sit back and say, okay, payments are different consumer credit different from wealth management, is different from m&a, different from project finance. you two through the long list. everything is affected as a different level. more customer, the more retail client indirected activity which can be done electronically, the more that's going to happen it. you embrace it don't throw the baby with the bath water here. we talk about this every week. these issues permeate every discussion you have about every business. it's not like there's a cat tboir we shot and open up technology book. >> right. it's a part of your dna. how much time do you spend in employing new technologies in terms of the product that is

you're selling? >> well, we spent a lot of time. singapore, tel aviv. we don't try to drive a top-down technology strategy at the firm. really what we are focused on quite simply is what we call just removing frictions, technology is all about friction, friction is money, fees, friction is time, friction is aggravation and what can we do in terms of firms, services, regulatory interaction, et cetera, where we can take those frictions out. we can make the journey as painless as possible. it's interesting, i remember five or six years ago, we love kind of the big bold vision slogan, aspirational statement. i remember we came out and going into a meeting and somebody said, our aspiration is to

become the world's digital bank. i went home and slept on it and i came up the next day, that's a redundant aspiration that in order to be a bank going forward you're going to have to be digital. >> right. >> again, it's that -- the mind set that's there and it has to be a at local level. >> one banker said i'm not a banker, i'm a technologist. do you agree? >> banks are huge to technology. we all need to use these to serve our clients through processing, we bank 20 million people together, you can get alert, move money, invest money. we are all going to have will be robo investors. ut all works. it'll be a continuation, recusing costs. it's different for every business, different for every product.

>> taking costs out -- >> collaborate, compete. we've always taken -- we have been doing it forever, trying to reduce. even straight through process we need to take -- i think it's good that fin tech wants to disrupt us, either way is fine. >> james, we have a session this afternoon on green finance, some of it driven by climate change but there seems to be a great movement no creating intruments and is that important to morgan stanley to facilitate into green finance and infrastructure technology? >> yes, it ought to be important to us. there's a plan of 6 billion people going to 9 billion people and the planet is not getting

any bigger. how to figure out, how to participate in this, we have credit something called sustainability which is really just a vehicle with a lot of outside advises to shake us up a little bit and points us as to where we are thinking. we do a lot of things charitably but where our clients need help and we have a lot of investors, for example, who want to invest in portfolios. how do you create the right product for that? listen, it's like a lot of the activities. weare trying to help our clients who are doing the same thing raising finance around it. >> is there anything that policy

makers that might do that facilities your launch into the business or should they get out of the way as ways to facilitate ? >> government has rules on carbon, emission trading, it's their responsibility and they're doing it. it's a tip of the iceberg and very helpful but not going to change climate. >> agree. [laughter] >> i will go to infrastructure then, one of the issues that's commonly discussed at these meetings are the lack of infrastructure. mckenzie says we need 50 to $60 trillion, are regulatory issues making it challenging for you to provide infrastructure

funding? i >> i'm sure all of us travel the world, there's really an appetite for financing on a lot of infrastructure projects, and by the way, probably as we go forward in the u.s. as jamie mentioned probably more effective going forward, some type of infrastructure projects here in the u.s. we are absolutely engaged. if you look at big things going on right now, we have a 14 billion-dollar new airport going into méxico city. we just built -- helped build a metro rail system in panamá. the big challenge and requisite answer is how do we get government, banks and private sector together to create the right structures to fund it because today demand around that is going to far exceed supply.

>> so capital charge with respect to regulatory changes and providing some guaranty or risk coverage, jamie? >> let me talk about public policy for a second. democrats are saying we need 50 billion a year, it should be 100 billion a year. republicans are no more taxation to build bridges to no where and i'm sympathetic to both. we need better roads, bridges, i don't think new york city has built a bridge or tunnel for almost 50 years but i think the republicans are also right that sometime the money gets taxed on the citizen, goes to washington, the money get dulled out to their favorite, you know, favorite members, mayors, governors, projects, i was driving by a project in boston the other day, a little bridge, probably five times the size of the thing we are sitting here,

four years in the running. don't tell me it wasn't fraud. i don't want to wear -- so both sides are right. i hope the next president calls up the opposition party, come on over cocktails, how can we satisfy you, how can we do the 50-100 billion to make you comfortable and there's million ideas how to do that. the banks should be part of it, public-private partnerships, they all could work. that's what we need to do. that's where you're going to get the real benefits to society to create productive jobs to also con deuce long-term growth. >> same question. we have trillions that wants to be deployed and long-term investments, enormous need for infrastructure, what's the market failure? why isn't this capital going to infrastructure funding? >> before i get to that, you have to look at it by region in the world. maybe the most exciting infrastructure stories for the next ten years ironically going

to be the youngest democracies and one of the oldest. on the other hand, china you could well argue has overbuilt a lot of infrastructure, going to second, third, fourth tier cities. southeast asia, in singapore with the government there, major push on infrastructure spent. so i think the world is beginning to wake up to it. how to do the financing, a lot of the projects kept on the bank balance sheets, how to sell off very long-term project finance effectively and how much can be picked up with private equity infrastructure funds which is we build our own, raised a 4 billion-dollar fund, this is a, you know, tinny part of what needs to happen. the next decade, it's very exciting.

becomes more interesting in a much administrator investment environment. infrastructure is long-term and not very exciting. >> right. we have a minute and a half left. let me just ask you a broader question. we are in an era of antitrade, antiimmigration and unfortunately antifinance. as you go out in your business every day you're seeing employees, clients, customers traveling around the country, how are you telling the positive story that your institution is playing with respect to economic growth, capital formation, jimmy, i know that you're doing a lot in detroit. how do you go every day and tell your employees and customers, look, what we are doing is really, really important. what's the story you tell, mike? >> well, going back to the earlier point. we are not doing things because we wake them and want to do them. we are supporting clients all around the world. i can tell you in the conversation with u.s.

multinationals they are looking for opportunities around the world for that growth. sometimes the growth is at home and it's not or it's not and our ability to lead and follow them to those places to support it and we don't see that in retreat. i think what we sometimes describe as protectionism or people talk about is globalization debt, it's a bit more personal than that. really what we see today and we see it in the u.s., it's about how do i protect my job in the uk, how do i protect my border, and that mind set is there and we have to understand that in terms of what is going on, we have to be prepared to deal with that mentality and show the benefits of what -- what -- >> jamie, what's your stump speech? >> i'm speaking for all of us, i think. i'm so proud what this company, jpmorgan. so proud of what we accomplish

around the world. god knows how many in the united states where the clients actually like us. they want us they want more of us, they want our capital, brain power and middle-market, we all fund governments and -- and customers never been higher, it's not always understood by the population, so the best job is we could do do the best job we can every single day with every interaction. it goes way beyond that. training people. we train people around the world in how to do certain things and we start -- we all do this, we start black entrepreneur fund in detroit. these are fabulous things. we have lunch and dinner. every now and then you make a mistake and could be a doosy.

keep doing a great job for communities around the world. >> james, i will give you the final word. >> on the doosie? >> i didn't talk about it? >> listen, the exciting thing is the global economic growth needs someone to facilitate those who have capital and those who need it. that's the essence of what we do in finance. you wouldn't have companies like facebook and apple, they didn't exist if you didn't have access to the markets, start-ups that are trying to eat their lunch, god bless them, venture capital market didn't exist. you've got -- we are managing two trillion dollars of people's must be and they depend upon good management of that money to get the kinds of return that leave the life and get the retirement and all the other things they need to do. that's an incredible responsibility and incredible privilege, the ability to the that and help economics grow, merge economies, access to the

public markets, these are tremendous and necessary things that have to happen for the global economy to grow. if you're interested in that in finance, if that's the kind of career you're excited about, terrific, we would love to have you. but this is an industry which is essential to global economic pros. we are all basically in this together, there isn't a lot of separation in the public eye about which is this and that. we are all the banks. so the banks have to collectively raise themselves to a standard of sufficient, not perfection but world-class professionalism, we get to do a job that the public needs us to do. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, please give them a round of applause. [applause] >> well done.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> if you missed any discussion that is took place during this forum they're available on the website at c-span.org in the c-span library. more to the white house coverage. tomorrow c-span will take you back to the campaign trail. a republican party fall fest in speaker ryan's district. that'll be live tomorrow afternoon. starts at 3:30 eastern. you'll be able to see it on c-span and also c-span.org and listen to it on the c-span radio app at c-span.org. here is a preview of that event. >> donald trump to campaign with house speaker paul ryan this saturday in wisconsin. cristina marcos is following the story for the hill newspapers. thank you for being with us? >> thanks for having me.

>> how did this all come together? >> it's been quite a long road for paul ryan and donald trump. if you'll recall even as recently as last december when it wasn't clear trump would get the republican nomination and everyone thought he was a long shot. paul ryan was denouncing proposal to ban muslims from the country and since then he has criticized trump and then for weeks he declined to endorse donald trump after he effectively clinched the republican nomination. and payback, donald trump endorsing ryan over the summer and now here we are, they will make first appearance together this weekend. >> the wisconsin fall fest and sounds like a typical republican event in the sense that it's happening in the key swing state. you've got the republican governor, former presidential candidate scott walker in attendance.

what is going to happen? how all of this is going to unfold? do you have any idea? >> this event happens annually, ryan and other officials regular i will go to the event. trump expressed to do an event with ryan and the speaker extended the invitation to come to the event which he goes to every year anyway. this will be interesting because of right now there aren't any photographs that you see that are out there of donald trump and paul ryan appearing together on the campaign trail. so for someone who has distanced himself quite a lot from donald trump, even after he did officially endorse him, he could potentially be a little awkward for paul ryan. >> and cristina marcos, senator ron johnson being challenged by former senator who defeated him

six years and state if they want to capture or maintain seat next year. >> that's right. ron johnson will be at this event too but paul ryan and donald trump are going to on saturday and so it's interesting strategy compared to some of the other vulnerable senate republican incumbents this cycle like kelly in new hampshire, pat in pennsylvania who very much distanced themselves from trump and, you know, are generally, don't really like to say trump's name even. they prefer to say the nominee. ron johnson meanwhile, he's going to appear in person at the same event with donald trump. >> let me go back to the relationship that you talked about a moment ago between house speaker paul ryan, he was mitt romney's running mate four years ago, republican nominee saying he was advising people to vote for gary johnson.

he did so in a tweet. this relationship between the house speaker and donald trump or lack thereof, how is this going to change or evolve or unfold with 30 plus days of the election and will it have an impact? >> this event will come one day before the second presidential debate between hillary clinton and donald trump and the last ten days or so have been some of the worst ones of donald trump's whole campaign in the aftermath of his derogatory comments about a former misuniverse winner and so, you know, this could be a total moment for donald trump if he wants to make a comeback in this weekend's debate. >> donald trump in wisconsin this weekend with house speaker paul ryan reporting of cristina marcos of the hill newspaper available online at the hill.com. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me.

>> how tall are you? >> how do we measure the greatness of america? no, it's measured by what we do for our children. the values we pass on. i spent my life fighting for children and kids and it's our mission to build a country where our children can rise as high as their dreams as their work takes them, that means good school for every child in every zip code, college that leads to opportunities and not debts and an economy where every young american can find a job that let's them start a family of their own. we face big challenges, but we can solve them the same way families do, working together, respecting one another and never giving up. i want our success to be measured doing. i'm hillary clinton and approve this message.

>> what does electing donald trump for president mean for you, families making 60,000 a year, you get 20% tax rate reduction, working moms, paid maternity leave and average 5,000-dollar child care reduction, business owners, your taxes get cut from 35 to 15%, so you can expand and create more jobs. donald trump, prosperity for you, america great again. >> i'm donald trump and i approve this message. >> the second presidential debate is sunday night a washington university in st. louis, missouri, watch our live coverage at 7:30 p.m. eastern for a preview of the debate and then at 8:30 predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m. live coverage followed by viewer reaction with calls tweets and comments. the second presidential debate, watch live on c-span, watch live or on demand using desk top, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage of the debate with the free c-span app

available at apple or google play. >> before second debate between hillary clinton and donald trump we are looking back to past presidential debates saturdays on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this saturday the 1992 town hall debate between president george h.w. bush, arkansas governor bill clinton and businessman ross perot. >> pay an hour for labor, no environmental controls, no pollution control and no retirement and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a sucking sound going south. >> if all the jobs were going to go south, they are lower wages now and they haven't done that. i have just negotiated with the president of méxico the north america freedom trade agreement. >> reduce deficit by cuts in

domestic programs and asking the wealthy americans to pay their fair share of taxes. >> the 2000 debate between bush and al gore. >> if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we are sure military action will succeed and if the cause -- costs are proportionate to the benefit -- >> i will take use of force seriously. i would be guarded in my approach. i don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. we have to be careful when we commit our troops. >> if we do what i'm planning on getting, getting us energy independent, north america energy independence within eight years, you're going to see manufacturing jobs come back. >> we can't just produce

traditional source of energies, we also have to look at the future, that's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. any car you buy, you're going to end up going twice with a gallon of gas. >> watch any time on c-span.org and listen at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span or radio app. >> our c-span campaign 2016 bus is traveling throughout virginia this week asking voters what it's the most important issue to you in the election and why. >> my name is john david alan, i'm a freshman and the most important issue to me in this election is the immigration crisis slash refugee crisis and also the economy. our country has not been doing so well economically lately and i feel like the immigration

crisis -- illegal immigrants coming in, very big problem. >> my name is violet. to me the most important issue in this election is social issues, specifically abortion and also our immigration system. >> hi, my name is colin, i attend hampton sidney college. i think the most important issue in this election cycle is national security. i feel as though that we have problems with borders and also with foreign threats and i feel that that's important this upcoming cycle. >> all right, my name is alex, i go to hampton sidney college and i think the most important issue in the 2016-2017 election is the economy. >> class of 2020 and to me the most important issue for a candidate to address would be

constitutional rights and, you know, there's value to that, people like thomas jefferson preserving the principles. >> voices from the road on c-span. >> hurricane matthew blew along florida's coast today and knocking out power and authorities warned that the danger is far from over with hundreds of miles from florida, georgia and south carolina with threats. they warned too that the storm can take a turn inland. president obama met with fema director and took time to talk to reporters and you can see

that briefing on c-span.org. florida governor rick scott says he won't extend voter registration due to hurricane matthew. clinton campaign says the hurricane is cutting four days of voter registration in florida. registration there ends on tuesday. ..