certainly thought it would and donald trump was elected the president of the united states and thank god the american dream still has some life left in it. but it's good to keep in mind a lot of quotes from ronald reagan, but particularly when i'm about to repeat his freedom is always a generation away from extinction. and if you look at this generation we are dealing with now, maybe we have something to be worried about. poll after poll tells us that millennialist view socialism favorably and capitalism less favorably. [inaudible conversations] let's do a test to make sure the people in the back can hear me.

good evening everybody. i am julie zielinski, the director and on behalf of warwick's, welcome to an evening with nomi prins. let me thank all of you. when you come out of their homes and spend the evening with us in support of your local bookstore, it allows us to keep bringing you wonderful people like nomi to the areas of these give yourselves a round of applause for doing that. we have exciting things happening and i'm already setting up things for the fall so if you are not on my e-mail list, get on that. we have a packed schedule. or you can check the website or take one of the flyers, whatever you like to do. remember to turn off your cell phones so that you are not the neighbor doug the dirty look. during the q-and-a, sean over

there is going to be handing you a microphone. that microphone is for the wonderful c-span that's here tonight. you're not going to hear yourself through the speaker but you will be on tv so you want to make sure you are actually talking into the speakers so they can hear you to keep track of that and wait for him to hand you that. tonight, nomi prins a former wall street executive is a renowned journalist from international investment banker, public speaker and tv and radio commentator. the author of six books including all the presidents bankers her writings have been featured in "the new york times," forbes, fortune, guardian and nation among many others. she was a member of senator bernie sanders federal reserve reform advisory council and is on the advisory board of the whistleblowing organization expose the facts. she's here tonight to talk about her latest book, collusion to

receive amazing reviews and press i'm going to read a quick one here. paul craig roberts, former wall street journal editor and assistant secretary of the u.s. treasury said, quote, the u.s. doesn't have the financial press. it has something better, nomi prins. read this book to understand the central conspiracy against the world economy. please, ladies and gentlemen give a warm welcome to nomi prins. [applause] thank you. one of the great things about writing books is that you actually get to come into all of these places around the country and around the world and the people that read them or will read them and be in these amazing independent bookstores where a lot of stuff happens and they are super important. i will probably and if end if they don't ask questions about

it talk about how all this of this stuff impacts everybody at a local level and therefore i always believe what important to be supportive of local and independent bookstores and i thank you for being here tonight. you are all great and with great on camera. so, what i want to do is kind of take you on my journey to this book and while i was writing this book and from their talk about what's happening in the world today as a result of a lot of things the book talks about and that you're probably experiencing any way on a daily basis in your own personal economies and then open up for questions. so i was an investment banker and one of the first things i did was go to china. china wasn't on the map in terms

of talking about whether it is manipulating currencies were any of these things are being discussed. it's a place i went with a team of bankers from lehman brothers which is about to have the ten-year anniversary of its demise coming in september got the start of the financial crisis. the reason i went to china is because i had been working on something called the futures and options vest, which was sort of the nascent types of financial instrument that ultimately became more and more complex and risky to the global economy and financial markets. but at the time, i was having this fight with the sales guy on the desk because sometimes in investment banking, people try to take credit for other peoples work and get people out of their way. there's been a lot of heads that could. i am the analyst writing the code and doing the analysis and looking at the numbers and all

that stuff. he was like this flashy kind of salesperson. every time they would come up with an analysis he would basically take credit for it, say that it was his and get paid more because of it. but besides that, it got to a point there was a lot going on in the early '90s and i wanted some credit for the work i was doing. coming to work at five, 5:30. i wanted to have what i did make a point. so i went to management and is that i was going to quit. why do you want to quit, you are doing good. i can't deal with this. he's angry and jealous of me on the floor. but they decided to do this rectify the situation by sending us on a trip to asia together. they decided that this would be a good idea because either we were going to kill each other, someone was going to survive or we would wind up things and make them money but the point was

that was their decision. so we take off on this multiple city country exposition that starts in malaysia. it winds up in china at the peoples bank of china and a number of other banks where we proceed to try to sell u.s. treasury bonds which they have a lot over $1.1 trillion to the peoples bank of china and also briefly to these future options and lehman brothers will make more money and be able to sell more treasury bonds and the bank of china will be able to buy them and everybody will be happy and this kind of repeated itself throughout different parts. we did wind up being friends but it's not because we are working on these products together. he was trying to get in front of anything i said. we wound up in this kind of drive from where we got to the philippines to try to get to our next country which was taiwan or

something. the taxi guy had to get to the airport in like 20 minutes and it was 40 minutes away and basically the salesperson said i will pay you a stupid amount of dollars if you get us there on time so he says okay great and he jumps into oncoming traffic, i am on the backseat during this companies doing this come he's in the back seats next to me. he probably thought he was going to die and we made it to taiwan and we became friends so that is how banking works. it is a life or death kind of thing and that is ultimately how i got to china. what's interesting in this book if you think of the circles of life in financing and everything is that i wound up going back to china for this book and i've been in between, but to go to the same peoples bank in china many members of years later and to go to the same great wall of

china and dubai have done that in this world where everything was different yet i was doing similar things. as a result of that, i was able to kind of work the book around what was happening and what has changed. what had has changed mostly was the power of central banks throughout the world and the influence they have in particular since the financial crisis which is a perco for which i've written this book because they've been able to produce in different countries for different reasons a lot of money in order to subsidize the banks and markets. china did it in different a different way. the main actor in all of this was the federal reserve and the way in which i depict them in the book is not to give their own chapter. i specifically had it as the main character in all the chapters and regions that comprise the book which i call

pivotal countries or regions and he analyzed them to see how they behave relative to the policy, whether they supported or tried to go against it and what happened to them and how the world sort of changed with major ramifications that are not even related but because of the level of interest rate other central banks are at and the amount they produce to subsidize their markets and these areas i went to were mexico, brazil, china, japan and in different parts of europe including the uk that doesn't want to be part of europe right now and that was also part of the ramification of what happened since the financial crisis. this all started because i was asked to speak at the fed

basically in 2015 so before he started researching this particular book i'd written a book called all the president's bankers and basically gone into the history of american finance involving individuals involved and institutions involved in how they relate to and influenced and created domestic and foreign policy over the past 100 years so this book was more narrow. i have been asked they have this annual conference before the federal reserve, the international monetary fund and world bank all located in washington and they have this thing where there is a day at the fed and world bank and it's not public but there are central bankers from around the world come to talk about the issues of the day and it's always a central theme that each of them places. but when i was asked to talk

about is by wall street isn't helping main street and this was a conundrum for central banks in particular the federal reserve federal reserve could determine this particular subject manner. when i got the request to speak i was confused because i had been critical since it began and i believe how they subsidize the system rather than reformed it, but i asked them you know, are you sure you meant me to a. i speak in the morning session the first day of these three days and the former chairwoman from the fed at the time had spoken first and one of the things she basically conveyed was that everything was fine, the banks were reformed and they've are in place to protect

the population and there wouldn't be a crisis again. then someone from the treasury department and said the same thing but for confidently. then a cardinal spoke and one of the things he said to the central bankers is that i don't know anything about finance or economics or what monetary policy is that i do know that there is a world out there that could potentially be in pain and that it your responsibility to remember the poor.

why is that wall street helping main street. you never made them come the major central banks around the world never said look we are going to give you a boatload of money and reduce the rate and make it very easy for you to access money very cheaply. wall street is in the background with finding having people sort of going on and to oncoming traffic.

it was four was four and a half trillion dollars of the quantitative easing that wants you to come out of the policies if they won't deter much how much does the money cost and how much does it cost you to get money and how much you have to pay in interest to get a loan at the base level of. but when you look whether they are going to look and say thanks for the $4.5 trillion brought two things, $1.75 trillion worth of mortgage backed securities which basically are the things that became known as toxic assets that were related to other mortgages going into the financial crisis of 20 of eight at 20 of eight and you pay top dollar for them. it wasn't like you even analyzed them. you basically said you have a bunch of security you can no longer get rid of because they are no longer toxic and the various and they don't have

anywhere near the value and they certainly don't have it now so we will pay full price on them and that is basically what happened to the tune of $1.75 trillion which is unlocked from the banks. the other part is that the federal reserve created, or i talk about this work a lot in the book somebody did a review review in the book and decide if they had a drinking game for the amount of time they would be blacked out completely before the end of chapter one. it's used a lot they don't believe that is the case. they were able to electronically create money for which they received the bonds including the 1.75 trillion the rest of treasuries. why do they come from the banks they are basically bonds that are created by the treasury department and effectively the u.s. treasury department saying.

if left in a particular term for a bunch of money going back to china. it's which the u.s. government pays interest. with the fed did his decided to conjure the money in order to buy these bonds that they are were supposed to sell elsewhere so the treasury department creates debt for basically no reason which goes to the banks because they are the brokers that are supposed to use it for the rest of the world and investors and it goes back to which they pay interest to the banks. if you cancel all of that out, you save a few trillion dollars but that isn't what happened. it didn't happen throughout the world and this is one of the reasons i talk about the term collusion not any sort of russian voting sense but in terms of an actual effort between the fed and central

banks of the world to have this process work in such a way that the major banks of the world can all benefit from having the money rendered cheap and having these subsidies and central banks create because if it is just the kind that helps big u.s. banks the u.s. banks and the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009 and going onward it wouldn't have been enough to have our interest rates rendered 0% so they are receiving money and receiving interest from the bond they are getting from the treasury department and receiving the subsidy of the total $4.5 trillion to continue to do what they were doing. that actually was not enough philosophically or ideologically it wasn't enough financially so what they had to do the beginning of the crisis is an sure ensure that the other major central banks particularly in the g7 could be on the same page

and as a result they ultimately have to get on the same page and render 0% were negative and also engage in this quantitative easing process because producing them wasn't enough. they have to create all this money and take bonds out of the market to reduce the rate even further. but that. what they did is create a $22 trillion worth of subsidies for the major banks in the major countries of the world. no it didn't just stay in the pockets of the banks though a couple of years ago they had on average four times the amount of cash they have on the books before the financial crisis so they managed to take some out along the way. but $22 trillion is more than the gdp of the united states.

they needed needed to save the u.s. banks and keep the rest of the financial system from imploding under the guise that it was the economy of the world they were trying to save is still out there. it's still sort of the layer now that bullies all of the major banks as well as the major financial markets because what is allowed to with this allowed to happen is banks to say alright well you're getting it cheap we are getting it cheap with splendid out to companies and they will in turn pay us and amount of interest and we will make the spread between what we lend and get nothing and and what we effectively take aim at the interest gets paid to us. as a result of rape stay low and the bond is higher.

then the stocks go up because they bother with it so cheaply or they are borrowing back from the banks because the money is available. you don't take it into the government bonds because they are paying nothing in the major companies of the world are participating in this exercise so you put it into the stocks and assets and basically create these financial bubbles in the world where the economies that the process was supposed to be be implementing at least if not helping in a lot of ways have become fragmented between the companies that have been recipients of the process and the ones that haven't that created a greater inequality and anxiety and it doesn't matter what the political persuasion as

persuasion as it is into question whether it should go to one place or shouldn't. the reality is it's gone to a system of people involved in institutions and wrecking the economy and financial system to begin with and not to the rest because if you take $22 trillion now and you give it to the real economy come into the infrastructure and development projects to get from san diego to la you would have a situation where people are put to work, more engineers are involved in the process, more technology was involved and so forth and give it a different economy that is more sustainable. when you just use capital and free money to speculate with that is where we've gotten to now. but what we are going to talk about in the book is a bigger ramifications and just how much was created to save the banks and financial systems that have gone into the markets and what happened politically and also

from the standpoint of the trade war and everything else that has manifested since the process began. in the beginning we will take a country like mexico, our trading partner and so forth, mexico went through the tequila crisis in 1994 where the currency was slammed and it was kind of an awful mess and it got out of that by a lot of different ways and in different. however, the head of the central bank of mexico at the time of the crisis he was part of a sort of family of mexican officers and so forth involved in different aspects as well as trying to get out of the crisis. he went to the chair of the fed at the time in washington and said if you do this it is going to potentially hurt the financial system and confidence in the banking system and there

will be major ramifications going forward. ben bernanke ignored him and didn't write about them in the memoirs and it wasn't. it

the crash of 29 to facilitate among the reporting lines to talk about how the different policies impact the different countries and whether what was done locally makes sense and the opposite and he is now kind of more critical to the fed. something interesting that happened, going back to the beginning of 2008, the president is now in prison or a sickly and guided in prison, he was a major force in the brazilian politics

and was concerned about financiathat thefinancial crisit brazil so he was running the central bank and he basically was trying to do a little bit about the fed was doing and tried not to raise the rate so people would not be able to afford food and so forth. so he left, etc. area to the new person that came and tried to do with the u.s. and the fed was trying to do and that hurt brazell even further. so he became the finance minister under the government as the interim president and is now running for president so the other thing about all of this is some of the individuals do the surface through these roles of central bank ministry of finance, president and so forth. he's probably not going to win the presidency bu but he is some that's been around and had ramifications both positive and

negative from followin followine path following the fed. going back to the peoples bank of china, it's different. from the beginning they said it's critical to the policy of the fed and they didn't try to do what they were doing. instead -- and this is a ramifications of what was going on -- he got a very public in the community and some of the g-7 allies like japan and he said we have to worry about this whole thing because when the rate starts to go up, it's going to hurt our countries and emerging countries and so forth. what he managed to do more than any other leader is get the imf, which is a construct, out of world war ii to accept the chinese currency into a basket of currencies that supposed to represent the major currencies of the world. the chinese currency represents very little of the overall trade in the world but it got jumped into this basket of currencies that include the u.s. dollar and

the euro that had been the french and the sterling, the pound sterling from the uk and the japanese yen so it became a member of this group of currencies because of the criticisms that were made against this policy and because of their countries were worried. it goes back to what i saw in that room in 2015. i saw a lot of central bankers around the world that were not public of their country was being hurt by some of the others creating money out of nowhere when they couldn't and therefore creating a lot of anxiety and economic problems throughout the world. they believed that something else had to be done. and what have to be done was more of a unified approach outside of the g-7 to trading with each other to developing other relationships and so forth. and again that wasn't necessarily an ideological shift, it was because of money to reduce the risk that another

u.s. financial crisis might impose upon the world and it was to reduce the risk of what would happen when the interest rates rise too quickly to the fed or any of the other g-7 banks begin to unwind or sell off some of the securities they bought from both banks in our country, corporations and the european community as well as corporations in japan and ask for the money back. but the process of talking about doing a little bit creates instability and raising the rate creates a hardship for the individuals borrowed at a cheaper rate and creates more economic stability in the world and as a result of that and the anticipation of this, china as well as other emerging markets develop alliances with each other. not sort of him in opposition to a political decision, but again a way in which they consider to reinforce their economy.

so, when i went to japan from china, going through the order of my chapter, it depends because it is an ally of the united states. from the monetary policy perspective it was the number two bank in terms of creating money and reducing the rate to negative being on board of the policy the last ten years after the financial crisis. but one of the things i found a pair just being on the ground and doing research and journalism on the ground talking to people that have been involved for years as the ministry of finance for years and so forth is that there is a lot of alliances happening actually for years even though officially the government might not have necessarily blessed them between the members of the central bank community to talk about ways in which they could swap portrayed each other's currency were sort of help if there is a financial problem.

some of them are happening because the monetary policy and economic and financial fear of what could happen in another financial crisis. they become trade relationships. but they began as currency and transaction relationships where they have no choice but to start to be friends with each other and this is what has now happened more publicly. when i went to europe who signed a major trade agreement with japan, the biggest coverage in terms of economies in the world, they have a lot of ramifications since this financial policy is adopted and that could have been a whole book. i could have spent years with europe or china. but one of the things that happened there is the european central bank and any central bank made choices. they made choices to use the money they were creating to he

help. this isn't a political thing, it is a monetary decision and a money decision as well to do things to help german companies were french companies. the argument is there is no better bet. $5.5 trillion worth of money was created by the european central bank to help europe. ..

>> because one of the things that happened and historical is that whenever there is economic anxiety amongst a group of people or countries or people to look at jobs

attentional or look across the border to see problems they want to vote for whatever doesn't exist. they want to vote out where they are. the governments involved aren't listening to nobody blames central bank and so that weekend people are demonstrating in the streets because it was the lowest in 17 years relative to the cost of things with the financial crisis. no one is marching in front of the central bank.

but nobody was doing that because you don't think that we will march. not outside of the central bank because the level of influence it is not only understood so when the u.k. voted for whatever might happen for that id one -- the idea is that they are not helping them economically so now they are making decisions so whatever it was, the reality is there was a lot of economic instability imposed upon the u.k. with the central bank with almost $1 trillion $800 billion worth of many out of nowhere to not put into the real economy.

and that bothers people. with our election in 2016 show that that there are a lot of people here who feel disenfranchised economically that is very much a byproduct of who can help them. one of the ways that government shifts, there is swaying to nationalism for helping everyone is to basically help yourself. this is what banks do all the time. but on a country by country basis, that isolationism does not allow partnerships to be built better to help everyone gain more economic stability as a result. so to conclude i look at these

extra factors come out of this ability of the said to basically fabricate in the unlimited manner they are not elected they are appointed. technically it is unlimited. they decided to stop at 4.5 trillion there is no actual legal limitation which means if there is another financial crisis they can continue the deeper ramifications. in creating that artificial supply that has manifested itself but with these types of issues and connections not

trying to restructure the reform system for creating infrastructure with long-term beneficial growth. that has high ramifications on geopolitics. with the economic financial crisis. so if they don't change what we have on this is after. of corporate scandals beginning in the 2000 finance by the same banks of the financial crisis there is no way around it to those that

are not understood or regulated by the people like the central banks so we are not really that different right now except the fact there is a subsidy than there was before hand. so that is what concerns me and why i wrote this book to explain and hopefully get more dialogue among people everywhere. and in terms of what is happening and how we can protect ourselves what kind of policies should be created and people instituted to make those kinds of changes. with that, thank you. i want to open it up to questions and go from there. thank you.

[applause] and i just want to say there is a microphone going around that allows your voice to be heard. >> if you were ahead of the fed what would you do? >> here is an idea. what i would like to do, not just the fact that other central banks, because we are where we are is the discount rates that are so low we do have massive assets so i think what should happen is we should do what the subsidies were supposed to have done with real growth and infrastructure development. there is a way to do that to create a infrastructure bank

to take money that is already extended to use that which banks do every day of collateral for assurances for other types of finance to be raised or money to be raised for projects or to build trains and bridges and highways that technically this was supposed to do. if the fed said ten years ago we will give wall street for a half trillion dollars wouldn't that just annoy everyone? but if you say now it's different but unfortunately we cannot go back. but we can't divert that capital to the stuff we said it was supposed to do, to begin with it's not hard to do from a banking perspective. it is quite easy and two different congresspeople as

well as other legislators it is a way that it was supposed to be created to get to. >> thanks for visiting us here. i like that idea a lot we do need infrastructure for the future. i'm just remembering back to the political situation after the subprime crisis which led to the greatest recession since the depression with 10% unemployment and the economy was in horrible shape and spreading around the world but yet after early 2009 fiscal

stimulus of $780 billion when congress changed over they wouldn't allow another dime of additional spending with fiscal policy. so the fed whose job was to look after inflation and employment both as a dual charter almost had no choice but to create a big money supply because there was no fiscal capability of that point. so we started to buy bonds. so on the one hand people were really worried to be hyper inflationary with $4 trillion but on the other hand others believe that is what helped us crawl out of what could have been a depression.

so why aren't we using that? first of all a lot of that $4 trillion did not make its way into the economy it is on the balance but cisco wasn't an option through government spending which is the more traditional way to do infrastructure. policy -wise would that even happen? now they try to reverse quantitatively how does that come to verify that banks that were forced to create the infrastructure bank with all that cash to use that for infrastructure for the future? >> gets a really good question they will not do it on their own they don't need to however the way this could work is for

an actual act with the infrastructure bank. one of ways but there has been quantitative easing with infrastructure building not just within china but throughout with former partners of the u.s. dealing with argentina and brazil and want to use the funding for that rather than the financial markets. either through state legislation and at the federal level but i have spoken with a number of senators and congress people on both sides of the aisle because there are positives one is that from a

conservative perspective acknowledging debt has been created over the decade this is a new way to diverge that not necessarily sell that off but to use it. that has to be an actual act because on the democratic side there is an idea rather than a financial crisis if you're going to get back to normalcy. with the real economy. that has to be a legal construct funded in different ways.

so different sides of the aisle with funding bridges and with homeland security they want more funding for the port areas. so rather than have an argument within the walls of congress can we trade this for this and rather than do all of that there is a construct with the banking system they can find to gather the bridge of the national bank and work as they did there are different ways to do that.

>> and in the proverbial crystal ball what you have witnessed with your life experience working in the financial sector based on what you see currently given the political climate and what is going on with monetary policy what you anticipate is the future. >> a couple years ago i anticipate potentially financial crisis to opera with european central bank promised it would stop the quantitative easing after had to do a lot of that. there have been in and out on a global basis that when they

go on the rails but then they didn't stop the program but they don't have the exit plan short of diverting that they don't want to have to do to get out of their positions to the private sector to call it a day. but if that central lung -- central bank at the time so that means there is another crisis brewing. so the timing, i don't know because my experience over the last ten years not having been available in crisis before that, is that central bank had become use to their ability to provide money when they need to to smooth the rough edges

so now the fed starts to raise rates. is not sure so it starts to do things with those emerging-market i forget the word it is like a teeter totter and we are in the middle there should be another crisis because it is subsidized not by real stuff but on the other hand there is power and desire to keep things in balance so as a result i think there should be a crisis but because it has been and can be i'm not sure when. >> this is not new because we know to follow the money it

always ends up with the bankers so who benefits from the trillions of dollars? there will always be somebody who has carpet bag because that money is somewhere doing something. i'm listening to and i love listening to but the question is why? why would you put the world's economy in the tank deliberately then to shore it up if there isn't a financial benefit to someone somewhere? >> really quick with the financial crisis i wrote a book called it takes a pillage. [laughter] it was in the beginning around 2009i don't even know what i predicted but i do talk about that is what was going on and would grow to fix the system

and the amount of subprime mortgages that line the toxic assets was half a trillion dollars so just think i have to. with those asset u.s. banks created off the bank a long -- off the back of that moving stuff around was 14 trillion. lend money to down the streets. so they could buy those assets. it was much more than that. because half a trillion of subprime mortgages with $140 trillion worth worth the financial stuff.

and take care of it. it does not actually get created in the wake of -- of -- knowing how much was available from the fed or how much would be available from the fed so that didn't enter the subsidy idea but the idea to bring living wills, merge the crisis happened xnz we need set aside handle on our thrown was things that came on the of that consumer financial protection board has done a lot of good 12 billion dollars worth of getting back stuff that has been stolen, different types of activities committed by banks in the year since 2010 created what dodd-frank act didn't do is separate banks for bringing something back glass-steagall act 1933 in height of the great depression designed by the

government as well as by the bank torz separate the deposits loans of people companies from all the securities creation speculative type of activity so our deposits loans wouldn't be collateral for all the other stuff therefore when there was an emergency, it couldn't be collateral for requirement of extra in that margin has not done dwoevent part the glass-steagall act, was on a platform democrats and republicans, in 2016 election. but it has not been pushed republicans -- back from it democrats also dialed back, there was bill hr790, in congress 0, or 80s signatures that asked to reinstate glass-steagall act a similar act

in the summer if that championed to do same thing on a bipartisan basis but has not been done yet that is kind of what happened. >> thank you so much for excellent presentation, i just want to -- go back quick, to your -- some of the things that you healthed highlighted about with china is it validity hype willing to call in more debt so the reality of money over politics, money in the pocket of the person or country, is that when you have something that is valued at certainly level if you show it you will lose money? even if you want to do that from the standpoint of china, if they

decided for some political reason to sell all the treasury bonds, a large portion of treasury bonds would be shooting themselves in the foot economically that is why they are not doing it why they on the won't do it might buy less neuter that is more an economic decision if you think that the country inhere ently might see another crisis from financial system has not rectified whatever in the future you just want to simply be hedged protect yourself from risk of that might buy less going forward as percentage what have we have outstanding the amount of debt outstanding but you are not going to dump treasurys, i think said something about dumping treasurys recently but doesn't own a lot of treasurys, and so the impact to them and to the world, just from a sheer price level, would on treasury bonds would be valuable and biger

countries aren't going to do it for their own sake. >> hi very interesting, we talk a lot about china we talk a lot about the united states. but what economies countries really concern you let me throw out one venezuela. which give you hope? throw out one azerbijan. >> ten points on web site in january, venezuela was certainly a point of problem for financial perspective and something to definitely look at as argentina, has had problems, continues to have problems as well, as turkey. in terms of points you are

looking at something like iceland, something crunches whether they have the opportunity to sort of separate themselves from bankers in their country or sort of investing in their country and to the financial crisis decided, not to, and as a result, at least able to govern their country from the standpoint of their decisions that make sense for the country approach to having to potentially pay out money that they don't have, to investors that don't necessarily need it going to negative on argentina one of the problems argentina had was that a lot of debt it had borrowed was also entangled in a lot of hedge fund operators that were involved in subprime crisis extraktdz heavier violence as a bond hold you want you are money back.

>> central bank or group that is super entities decide that i see occult hurts real people in economies of the countries, and the financial elements people involved -- and try to take the money out come out. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> oh okay. good can you hear me? yes. two brief questions. i don't remember the author of the book is disturbing to me confessions of an economic hit man. >> john, correct -- the second

thing i am sure what you are talking about was -- has very much related to what you know what he his job was for years. and so i come to the conclusion -- things will change -- whoever is in power was in full -- wide influence a lot of resources usually money, when always did a -- have not driven change except few periods of history where there was some sanity. >> actually, that is interesting, like the book you are -- bankers i looked at period of the 50s, as a period of that kind of -- of sanity there was a lot of problems from economic perspective, because

the -- the finance and the country, and financeers of the country banks of the country as well as the government were somewhat on the same page in that they were actual trying to collectively build the country they actually kind of want to do that. day's banks, banks before them have this -- lack of need or desire or requirements, to actually do that when there is too much often there is in history there is too much of a separation between the money, and what needs to happen in order to you know sort of help a long term type or real economy, and it is too distorted that is when you have crisis and economic revolutionary people, government orchestration

financing tends to be more stable greed does have a way of history the more money that is available to fewer the more dee stabilizing to everybody else -- want to take play on playground often the case, but here is not the case where things actually are better. >> thank you. questions i thank you guys for all coming out here thank you again for hosting, and to c-span for coming here. i hope you enjoy. . [applause] . >> thank you. >> absolutely, before we go anywhere you know what we like to do has to have books, want people -- the picture of our

crowd -- >> there we go. perfect. already thank you. >> so you can head over there, hand your book signed we have books here for sale thank you all for coming out tonight, i appreciate it.