where the international comparisons are unfavorable in becoming worse. some of the times i've been to the plants, the question i ask is, which force do you bet on in a race? the one that is out on the front or the one running the fastest? the answer is, of course, how long the race is. if we're in this for the long run, weapon can't afford having people out there running faster than the economy. one of the things holding us back is education. let's get after the education piece. the next thing -- i put together a number of things that create uncertainty. nothing is worse for business or investment in manufacturing than uncertainty and we have elements of uncertainty that can be addressed. hiring is -- i view it as a long-term commitment. you don't want to take that on if you don't know what your future is going to be like. you make investments and need to

make a return on that investment over the ten-year pecketnd inve jurisdiction where you understand or sense uncertainty. uncertainty around tax rates, uncertainty around r and d policies, around energy and climate policies. all of these uncertainties result in a reluctance to invest. so i think what this town can do is really drain the uncertainty for the manufacturing investor. >> that's great. dominic? >> i think it's similar. i would have three that i would do. one is around the immigration issue. what i feel is, we need to jolt the system and i think it would give business a lot of confidence if a move was made that way, people would say, we're serious about trying to build this. so i would debottleneck that and get that to happen. the second one is actually around the r and d -- getting a tax credit on r and d.

there's the uncertainty issue because it's for a year and is does that really link with what people think about r and d? you do r and d not for a year. you do it for longer. and we have a trillion dollars in cash outside the country, you know, that's by the way earning zero. we heard about that before. this is, i think do we not only need it for r and d but for the velocity of getting things moving. so i would try and do something front, tax a holiday r and d. i think someone mentioned it ite lab coats. nufacturing to go along with it because we'd get all kinds of tax loopholes. so i would do the immigration and the r and d and setting up some sort of a body a. fasttrack

mechanism where they can go and deal with all of the convoluted processes. part of the challenge is a chinese client sid, we would like to invest in a particular area, a semiconductor area actually. it's like chicken talking tod don't even know where to go or what to do. i remember larry summers was there. we actually don't know. >> we're a giraffe. >> we're a giraffe. right. so some sort of fast track mechanism to be able to work -- where the issues can pop up and people -- we can hear what dupont is dealing with or toyota is dealing with and they say, here's how we're going to try to move it. >> in some ways you're arguing for a level of transparency.

>> yep. >> about these regulatory barriers that obviously don't make any sense whatsoever. i'm going to open up in a second. i already have a question here. just one last question about the states, the local teas, and universities and the rest of this. and jim robinson is sitting here and he was on president reagan's advice council on federalism. we are a federal republic. washington doesn't really act like it's responsible for galvanizing. it sounds like it's an inward focus on the national government. should we be thinking of a race to the top? should we be thinking about saying to the states across advanced r and d, across inture, across export policy, across fbis since the states mostly do the direct

enforcement. not the government. we want to challenge you to basically come forward to us with your own strategy. most likely the states would have a strategy and then the national government will have a strategy. is that something we should be thinking about given the political fiscal and otherwise? any initial response to that? >> i'm not just saying this, bruce, because you're up here. the next vital -- we should be heading to the state and city level. you'd have a better perspective on who's more open-minded. we've just seen three or four places where there is a huge appetite to actually do this. and when we think about it, it comes back to the world in many way is a congommeration of many cities. it accounts for 60% of the world's growth. if we talk about singapore, you

may say they are too small to do this analogy. they do this integration phenomenally well. they think about the forces at work, the jobs of the future. they tie -- they have a regular -- it's every six months. they have the minister of finance, the minister of education, the three polytechnic heads and business leaders and they literally map out -- water is going to be a big opportunity. we're talking about skilled manufacturing related or research and water. how many jobs will that create and therefore how many educational spots will we have? they teach history singapore and they teach philosophy which is important but the number of spaces are limited. there's more spaces to learn about water technology. so i'm not saying we should go the singapore model. there's a lot of examples like that and i think we have a lot of places like that in the u.s.

where we can get a lot of things going. i think when you mentioned this to external players, investors or organizations, if they could actually see and meet people like that, these states and cities are like countries in and of themselves. so i think it's a very big push and if we could provide more transparency domestically and globally to, where are the people that actually really want to make something happen, who can we communicate with? i think we can get something moving and your race for the top idea is a good one. if we can get other cities and states seeing that we can do it, i think people will start to push. but you look at ataska in minneapolis and you look at how business government and a social sector have come together for big issues, there are places like that that actually really want to move and i think we

should really push on that. >> that's great. questions right over here. and can you identify yourself? >> my name is keith roger and my question is for tom connelly. if i understand, dupont's harvest business relates to the industry and harvard relates to lower-tech grassroots industry in terms of suppliers. my question is, are those types of local grassroots industry actually having a tough time these days because banks have gotten bigger and internationalized and investment firms are big and internationalized and at the local level, to get financing for their peculiar local

enterprises, you know a. home builder, the bank meet certain underwriting criteria, however sound or not, and that mortgage can be sold on a secondary market. but if you have a local enterprise, it's a very localized specific characteristic. it's probably not going to insight a big venture capital firm. may insight a big international bank. in your perception, are some of those types of enterprises being squeezed? >> well, i would certainly say that the lower-tech industries, in a manufacturing-type situation where they face competition from other parts of the world, yes, they will be squeezed. dupont itself and our portfolio don't have many of those types of product lines. but we simply sell to customer basis. for example, the construction industry, your example, they are local operators with a lower technology mix. but i would -- i would suggest that for the future, even in the

industry such as construction, there are opportunities to bring much more technology to the building industry in terms of energy efficiency, to name just one dimension, and for that producer who is feeling the pressure and is being squeezed, i think it's time to innovate. i was asked recently whether innovation costs us jobs. failure costs us job and i would say that to the producer who is feeling the pressure. >> questions? there's one right back here. >> hi, my name is marilyn. my questions are, first of all, as we talk about these advanced industries and the need to put as much as we can behind it, both political will and also the necessary resources, my first question is around quality control. i mean, i think we've seen lately in this rush to roll out products and services, it seems

we've seen more of an increasing number of recalls in products and services. how do we marry quality control with making sure that we can get the best products out there utilizing technology? and then the second question i have relates to a survey i saw recently about china's wealthiest class wanting to immigrate to countries like the u.s., canada, and england and raise the issue of health and education between the two reason, apart from the policy. what are we missing in terms of opportunities that they have at home thanks. >> let me start with the first question which is a product to the marketplace and are we missing something and let's say first of all that business is

always in a hurry. it's part of doing business. it's a part of being faster and more efficient. but the ground rules of product stewa stewardship, for manufacturing products, it's about how do you make the product, first and foremost. what emissions do we have in connection with making those products? how energy-efficient are we? but it's also about how the product performs. how it performs in its intended use, how it performs when misused, how it performs at the end of the life cycle. i think what you're seeing is a lack of focus on that product stewardship process and leading manufacturing companies are backing more and more rigorous around that.

within dupont, we have a chief sustainability officer and that role is really about understanding how a products performed under the intended use and how it misused. there are checks and balances and processes that need to be in place to address that. maybe dominic on the second part of the question if -- >> sure. i think your question is, what are wepeop wanting to move here? that's the gist of it. i think you have to segment it. in china, there are a lot of people moving into the middle class. they are very happy with where they are. if you look at -- it's interesting -- trust in business in china. it's one of the highest in the

world, believe it or not. so there are a lot of want to l they are and they put a focus on education. i think it's more in the very high wealthy group. there's an interesting question for the u.s. i literally think there are millions of people who would like to buy houses in the u.s. i don't know whether we want to do that or not. but there's a large number of wealthy people. that's kind of how i would look at it. i have to say, there's an asian advantage. if you look at the emphasis and

importance of how that is compared to how we see it, and i know i'm generalizing it, i'm amazed, for example, in korea at the size of the private tutorial market for children between the ages of 4 to 8. there are billion-plus markets. itaustralia's fourth largest market is education primarily to asia. >> questions right over here? >> there is a cognitive question that i've detected. here a lot of people have said the technical institutes and community college is part of workforce and job growth but we have a strong message in this

snags about everybody needs to have a four-year college degree, we need more kids going to a university and local governments use that as a measure of success don't you see that as contrad t contradictory as lawmakers? >> we need to broaden and maybe we're simplifying too much when we want more education. and i would be emphasizing the polytech. it's really a bad image to have there that you go there if you haven't made it. a lot of people have gone to the polytechnics, they do the work for a while, there are a number

of ceos that have come through that group for all sorts of reasons. i think we need to get the story about that and broaden it. the aging population, you know, why is it that -- why is it that we think once someone is over the age of 55 they can't be -- why are universities focused on 20 to 30-year-olds? maybe we're going to have to start thinking about educational institutions focusing on 55-year-olds if you look at the world and where that's going? so i think our mind set on education needs a reset fundamentally. >> if you look at this question back and forth, how many folks in the room have either read the book moneyball or seen the movie? so brad pitt, right? and it just seems -- the whole

premise is you've got to measure right. it's about baseball and the oakland athletics and the general manager would insight from a young statistician basically decided there was a better way to measure baseball performance than just rbis and the traditional measurements. we're measuring the right thing and it's a little bit more comprehensive. we do these cartoon measures and we need to have a much more textured view of our economy. and i would say it's not just

post-secretary education. i went to see an academy on the west side of chicago, which used to be the big manufacturing base of chicago. they set up a public high school that is basically in charge of the curriculum. so people are getting the normal education and then for a portion of their education they are being trained and at the end they get the credentials. they can literally leave high school and go on the factory floor on the west side of chicago and when you look at the class coming into this high school, many people are coming in in third-grade reading and by the time they leave they can leave into the workforce. we can push this down further into our system.

>> thank you. larry from checko communications. we were told that gdp in this country is back to where it was prior to the recession. with six million fewer workers, that's a very disturbing statistic and is this a trend that we're going to see? a big hill. it looks like a mountain to me. >> i think that's why we're here. i think part of the answer is more manufacturing in the country. because manufacturing addresses not only the domestic ma rkaddresses all those emerging consumers and other parts of the world. heard represented a smaller fraction of the economy that they do our exports. they can create wealth by sales to consumers elsewhere. on one level, the fact that we're producing as much as we did before the recession with

fewer workers says we've had an increase in productivity. that's never a bad thing. but what we need to do is take those additional resources. put them back to work and manufacturing is a great place to do that and they are emerging developing markets are a great lace to sell u.s. products. >> dominic, mckenzie came out with that study. i guess it was in conjunction with the president's job council where you really looked over the decade and we were trying to sort out different scenarios in growth. one end of the continuum was 21 million new jobs. i think what is the hole that we are in now and how long will it take to climb out of it? how big of a deal would manufacturing be in contributing to this kind of job creation that has to occur, whether, you know, the factory jobs or this

broader continuum of jobs that we're describing? >> again, we have scenarios on it but i think that it's very large and it comes back to what tom had said. that there are a lot of -- our sense is that a lot of -- we're very consumer-driven economy and how much we are going to have opportunities for jobs and consumption. it's its own virtuous cycle. taking aside the number of jobs that can be created from these advanced programs, health care is going to be one of the biggest industries in the world. you look at the demographics going on. there are a huge number of jobs that we think can be created in

that, from the basic level back to the point of we don't have enough nurses, radiologists, which is one level. but there's a lot with big data. if you think about what we can do now with data and our bodies and where things are and what is happening, i think this is just going to erupt into a big area. so it's not only sort of the basics of what we're doing now, but i would say where it's going to be going. that's why i say with food. some would mention before, standards. there's big businesses to be built on standards. i'll tell you chinese consumer would buy that. if you think about what happened with milk and what happens with drugs and -- that is a very high value-added area to develop just standards and how we do it. and on the whole big data area, we think that's going to be half

a million jobs. but, again, it all depends on how different we do with these sectors. >> that's very helpful. comments, criticisms. >> thank you. thank you. interesting discussions. my name is gina and we're talking about jobs and creating jobs for americans. would you say that we have a global level playing field and are you having troubles with the wages and labor lost here for us american workers compared to china and would that create problems? the secretary said that we want to create it here and export it around the world between the

labor lost between here and over there. >> so if i understand the question, can we a u.s. base compete with a competitor based in a different part of the world with different standards, et cetera? is that the standard of the question? and i would say it is an issue. no doubt about it. there are parts of the world with lower costs of capital and lower unit labor rates than we have. so that's a statement of the problem. it's not a reason to give up. through our technology we can't bring enough to that sector to make a sustainable business out of it and we will exit those businesses. but what we have found is that there's enough places, thanks to our intellectual property, where

we can create a product that has value for the consumer in those developing regions and where they are willing to pay a price of a u.s. manufactured good. dominic is right about food products and food ingredients is a new and important business within the dupont company. part of it is the consistency of our products and specification driven. goods manufactured in southeast asia and the materials will be specified at dupont international standard. there are ways to compete and some markets where we cannot compete and it's up to the business leader really to find out where and how his business or her business can be successful. follow up? >> so we're talking about the high level -- so we're talking about a value at a higher level

of products. >> i.p.? >> i.p. protections. because the minute that we have some products coming out, shortly after they all imitate it and -- >> absolutely. and i mentioned i.p. earlier and it requires a constant vigilance. and don't think just because you have a patent that that is sufficient. you need to construct an i.p. and protection strategy and the patent is the outer shell. you need to build layers of i.p. protection that go well beyond simply holding a patent in one part of the world. we study the applications, we have proprietary ingredients, proprietary processes that we use. we worry about cyber security and penetration of our intellectual property and it requires constant vigilance and government private cooperation to build that i.p. fortress

around our ability to manufacture in the u.s. and succeed in global markets. >> question earlier? >> yes. thank you. my name is peter. it strikes me that there's been no discussion of what i see as a contradiction between the need for national investment infrastructure and the climate in the united states where nobody wants to spend anything on anything in the congress when in fact they want to spend on everything. so what is the appropriate role of the private sector in publicly advocating for these kinds of greater expenditures in areas like education and infrastructure? i recall a program here about a year or two ago where the case was made for an infrastructure board and the argument was made

there that even republicans support that. but i don't think anything has happened. >> nothing is happening. it's happening at the states but not at the national level. >> i think we've confused investment with expenditure and we treat them the same and i think that's wrong headed. i think we've got to get back to the basics about accounting and how we look at things. just on infrastructure, because this an area that i'm very passionate about, we feel we know that if you were to invest 250 to $300 billion a year in u.s. infrastructure and we know precisely what areas as in roads and grids and so forth, you would create two million jobs. by the way, that 2250 billion, 300 billion will come from outside. the china investment corporation, tom thornton talked about that.