movies that can barely get financing but go on to find huge audience at the academy awards. the result of long-term prediction is even more dismal. just think of all that was ruined with people dismissing the talking picture as a passing fad. culture is the realm of the unpredictable. çóstudying the history of cultural prophesies should be required for anyone who wants to predict progression of culture. if anybody had the faintest idea what the world look like in the year 2000 -- in the literary example, by the middle of the 20th-century, some of the best literature was coming out of latin america, africa, and asia. .

perhaps we can learn something and i want to insist that the cultural future is unpredictable. this is not a matter of my individual confidence, although i am ready to conceede that point.

we fundamentally go wrong when we invoked scientific methods and criteria and trying to understand cultural phenomenon. we need to drop in the middle distinction between the for the physical nature and the world of human culture, the study of people like me. the plants and or bids are not astronomers. jupiter and neptune are blind and deaf about any claims that we may make about where they will be in 10 years. in the cultural realm, human beings are making predictions about other human beings, and to predictee might have something to say about the predictors. in short, culture is a realm of

free well where participants may change their mind at any moment and often well. in studying the history of cultural production carefully, i come to the conclusion that cultural prophets will be wrong because the people creating the culture are more creative than the people predicting it. they may well be the least likely to predict accurately because they have established pattern of culture, basing it on the model of the cultural past. this is just another way of saying that that these are usually academics, and here we are. academics have perfect 20/20 vision in hindsight.

they can be very good at analyzing artistic quality, but they are not good at discovering it or recognizing that when it comes along especially in unexpected places. they are often among the last to a knowledge developments and culture precisely because of their role as custodian and conservators of the cultural past. this is particularly true when it comes to develops with the cultural media. they established media and judge the new media at the efficient. motion pictures for a long time look like bad stage plays. but ordinary people realized it was the great new art form of the 20th century as early as the second decade. as the director academics, it does not inspire my faith in them.

academics often seems to be fighting the last cultural war. expect films to be like novels and plays and complained when they did not develop the interior of their characters. when television came along, they did them substandard movies. the history of culture since the 19th century has become increasingly bound up with the history of new media. academics have had a hard time keeping up with new cultural developments, let alone getting out in front of it. it may be painful to give up our faith in the predictability of culture, but that the price of uncertainty we should in fact welcome the unpredictability of culture because it means that culture remains a realm of human freedom. having totally undermined any credibility i might have as a cultural prophet, i will pursue my assigned task of protecting the cultural future in america.

i will do with the truly remarkable example of prophecy, a book published in 1915 called "the art of the moving picture." this was a prime your american poet, and moving pictures were generally unknown to the general public. he was the first to deal seriously with the cinema, if not the very first. and this book offers a good lesson and cultural prophecy, that can restore people's faith in foreseeing cultural future but it can serve as a warning against the pitfalls of outlast the creative forces in a new medium. we can begin with the simple fact that he was writing a book on the art of moving picture at all, in 1915, and a time when virtually all cultural authorities dismissed it.

this was the earliest possible moment that a book could be written with any degree of plausibility. evidence was at hand for the first time that motion pictures could be a genuine art form. "cabiria"had come out in 1914, and of course "the birth of the nation" had created probably the greatest sensation that any film ever has, even bigger than "avatar." don't critics would say that these were the first two great films in movie history. they both pushed the existing limits of the cinematic art, introducing new camera techniques. and he managed to proclaim these films at artistic masterpieces at the point that they came out. this immediate recognition is very rare in the history of art

criticism. to draw an analogy, if someone in 1588 had viewed "tamburlaine " and instantly proclaimed a golden age. he pulls out all the steps in his place. griffith is the on -- is the bayh run of the films. i for one am willing to name him marlowe. he was the first to reveal the first artistic potential of the medium and with an unprecedented commercial success. the way that lindsey, writing when the films are being released, singled out master places in the price is words that film critics this day holed

up as the triumph of the early silent cinema. to be sure, he talks about many works that do not appear on anybody's list today. sometimes he talks about movies that simply no longer exist. "the island of lost wheels," such a little treat. neptune's daughter. oil and water. and two of the more provocative titles -- the wild girl of the sierras, and my principal favorite, the land of the headhunters. those films that he values highly have disappeared entirely. he backs is particularly eloquent about another film that has been lost, calling it one of the two most significant

photoplays' -- motion pictures were called photoplays' then -- the other is "judith." every student of american art beach to see these films, he said. he says that this film should be studied his to the canons of art for which it stands are established in america. most people thought of them as something to give audience of moments pleasure and then be seen no more. by contrast, lindsay actually predicted that these films would be archived, available at certain sites collections, and in the encyclopedia britannica. without exactly for seeing the

video cassette, he looked forward to the availability of movies in people's homes. he thought photoplay libraries inevitable. admittedly, he failed to perceive -- to force the blockbuster or net fliflix. at least that is true of the birth of the nation. but not of "the land of the headhunters." and here we come to the pitfalls -- we're doing a press by his ability to identify cinematic classics, but we must be troubled by his tendency to get carried away by what was in retrospect a momentary enthusiasm. he ranks "the birth of a nation

was "below the now forgotten of the "battle hymn of the republic." that is why the test of time is crucial to the process of can information. it may take years to sort out the week from the chaff. it is better as a science. we need the future to find out what really is important and long lasting significance in our own day. lindsay is very impressive. he had a general grasp of the big picture, and wrote about one of the big apple's ships in media history. -- epochal shift and media history. he said, the state that realizes

this may lead the soul of america that day after america. he introduces a new issue that shows his understanding of the large context. the art of the moving picture has a california chapter. lindsay was quick to grasp the the significance of the fact that by 1915, the movie industry had migrated from new york to los angeles. he understood that this movement was made because of the outdoor filming. but the sense that something deeper was happening. a shift in american cultural geography at the time when the dodgers were still in brooklyn and the giants and new york, he intuited that the balance of power between the east coast and the west was finally tilting toward the pacific. "california stands a chance to achieve through bill an audience

of her own. will this land furthest west be the first to capture the spirit of this newest and most curious of the arts?" he realizes how much is at stake. he talked about the longstanding place of boston and american culture. they have discussed with mingled irony, boston cultural control of the english text book and dominates our high school. he saw -- he wants to see the cultural domination of boston broken. the prospect that loss angeles may become the most of the photoplay. we can see that we -- we can see that he was right. but now we do that with a

peculiar car. he described this in terms that ring true to this day. this is that the state is magnificent but then. the citizens of the state's lack of richness of religious tradition. and then he makes perhaps his most astonishing and provocative production. this apparent than this california has in common with the photoplay which is at times as shallow in its spot as the shadows it throws upon a screen. this newest california has in common with all photoplays' unless it acquires a spiritual tradition. hollywood has about as much debt as a flat screen tv. his doubts about california have been shared by many cultural critics. lindsay hope that the state in

the movie industry might grow together into a mature culture for spirit by standing for friend is an open, calif. epitomizes much of what is best in america. but lindsey recognizes that california stands for something else in america, a lack of cultural traditions. california is the last outpost of the wild west. he writes, "the captains of industry like the gold rush of 1849 made colossal portions and have the same responsibility an occasional need of the sheriff amazing claim. we cannot fault him for leaving unresolved of whether this cultural leadership is better bad for america. we're still struggling with this issue a century later. what is impressive is that he

was able to formulate this problem as early as 1915. this is the sort of development that usually flies right under the radar of most cultural critic. he was "enough to spot of cultural tsunami where people saw just a ripple on the water. be on the lookout for seemingly insignificant developments that may have unintended and widespread consequences. on the basis of all we have learned, i will venture a few modest predictions of my own. the future of american culture will be very different from what we expect, are what is currently predicted. some of the things we value to date will survive into the future and be valued then. but the same token, many things we value will be forgotten and suffer the fate of the vast majority of cultural productions in history -- oblivion.

trans we barely notice in the moment will have all sorts of unintended consequences and will transform american cultural in ways we cannot imagine. i would love to be able to tell you where the shift is taking place, but unfortunately i am not up to the task. i will say this much -- it is likely happening in the last place most of us expected it. that generally means is not happening in the media realms that we've gotten used to and we think are all important, namely motion picture and television. whatever new media teaches us, is that it has ways of sneaking up on us and ambushing us culturally. this may sound ominous, and it is making people nervous thinking that only bad things will happen. so let me end on an optimistic note. let me take back what i have been saying and questioned whether cultural has been

culturally transformed. if you look at the develops in the media, we cannot but be struck by it. a victorian would be amazed by television and confronted by a new medium, we are always struck precisely by its novelty and usually feel unnerved by it. what it petreaus may not be all that new and different. that would be shocked by the simpsons, but it could settle down to the show, he might overcome his initial dismay and see something familiar in it. the fact that it comes in weekly installments, the way it combines humor and sentimentality, the huge cast of characters, the creation of an entire imaginary community, a topical references and political satire, i hope you can hear my

eminent victorians saying that it is like charles dickens. we can get so wrapped up in distinctions among the media, we forget that by and large they are used to do the same thing, to tell stories. and all the mediums change, the stories remain the same. but the stories that keep circulating in movies and on television. i will end with a quotation from a true classic american popular culture, in which our hero ronald reagan did not get the girl. i am talking to course about "casablanca." it is still the same old story, a fight for love and glory, even as time goes by birkie -- even as time goes by. and that is the prediction that i'm going to make. [applause]

>> if you and i are alike, we need to catch our breath after four outstanding lectures. is there hope for america? we say, yes, there is hope. by the size of the audience here that would come and studiously sit and listen to the fall collectors -- the thoughtful lectures, and the quality of the electors that we have heard, there is hope in america. now when the hebrew, the no. 10 is the divine number for completion. and we are scheduled have a complete 10-minute break. but also in the hebrew, the no.

7 is the divine number for perfection. [laughter] we need to perfect our break, reducing it from 10 minutes to 7 minutes so that we can get into our question and answer session more quickly. so let's take a short break, return, please line up here at the head of by the rile. bernanke. -- thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪

>> we have quite a lineup on this isle. only a couple on the other. we need a few more folks down here. we've already had to pull some day -- a fulsome day. let's proceed to our question and answer session. we have three other excellent speakers, so a lot to look forward to. i want the banking for coming and your excellent attention. this is our fifth symposium and they seem to get better every year, if that is indeed possible. thank you all for making this such a productive in event. all right, we will begin with

our question and answer is, and because there are more of you then of view, we're going to start on this side. >> this is a question for mr. kantor. and cultural prophets redeem themselves with accurate insights? >> i am not sure that i understand the question. >> you are talking about cultural prophesied and you believe that they cannot predict accurately. but can the kid rick -- redeem themselves? >> i am not sure what you mean by that. i do not believe that that cultural future is predictable. again, because i think that people created -- creative people are so much more imaginative.

they cannot be redeemed in the sense -- i think lindsay doesn't awfully good job. someone writing in 1915 as much as he did about movies, but he makes so many mistakes in that book. he predicted sound would never work, that it would make movies worse. it was ridiculous to us now, but he had so much reason for that. he was used to silent movies, and the earliest sound movies were bad technically. so that was the problem. i don't think that there is anything that a cultural prophet could do that was better, unless you study the record of failure. when i set out with this task in mind, i said i thought i should take a look at how people have done this in the past,

predicting the future. and it is a lesson in humility if you study how wrong -- even at someone as intelligent and successful as lindsay, there are so many messages, the way i came to see ed is what looked like a limitation turns out to be a challenge to the artist. when you go back even the 1925 or after sound movies have been introduced, the vast majority of critics are saying sound will not work and motion pictures are better off silent. the actual people making motion pictures were taking up that challenge, making sound work and incorporating it into motion pictures. they were actually looking to the past and not to the future, the prophets. i would be hesitant to make

culture predictions. >> i'm glad that he touched on the same thing. if i may, i would like to extend that invitation to humility to people in political science and the social sciences. [laughter] [applause] because they're too they have these models with great certainty about the future of american politics and how things will all turn out, and they are consistently wrong. i think that humility is a lesson that needs to be learned more generally, perhaps. and not just by people here. >> it that, my model of thinking

was the notion of spontaneous order. culture works the same way that the economy does, and it is such a common phenomenon about so many different factors that they fail. culture and the economy is not a linear phenomenon. >> but to put the accent on the permanent things, it becomes the framework for culture. we will still not be signing labor contracts with dogs and horses. but we continued to think that those people deserve to be ruled with the bid of reasoning. we can expect that the things that we find good will be

praised, the things we find that will be repulsed and penalized. but there will always be a moral framework and culture, and i was thinking of this new thing by madonna, where a youngster is trying to download things from the net he should not be downloading, and madonna comes on and say, what the heck are you doing? as much as c is in the vanguard of the culture, she still wants her royalties and property rights. those things -- property rights will endure and we will find any other -- many other things in the arts and during. >> as we turn to the next question, we invite our afternoon speakers to participate in the discussion. >> this is for dr. carlson. my home state of oklahoma has the dubious distinction of leading the nation and the percentage of 4-year-old

government in the preschool. there are encouraging places of resistance. we have a thriving home school sector, and the only state that has a child tax credit on the state income returns. that is something anything -- that is something. what from a public policy standpoint at the state level can be done to encourage and embolden these pockets of resistance and to promote the natural family? >> i'm a great believer and tax policy to shift the incentives. in oklahoma, if you have all the tax break that helps. oddly enough, we have a nice tax credit against a flat tax, 3%,

but a nice tax credit for all kinds of educational expenses. it has been a real help to home school families. it adds constitutional -- passed constitutional muster, and it is a way to help people and christian schools and private schools, private academies. alan bond whatever possible way to put a credit and for families. i think that is a great help. i've been pondering ways to do with with sales taxes, or property taxes, but a look for tax breaks. and non intrusive way of expanding what i call liberty for families to function. >> other comments on the platform?

next question, then. >> this is to the entire panel. how much influence did the reagan doctrine have on the fall of the soviet union? >> is, the reagan doctrine. if you look at the fall of the soviet union, i think you will find as we've insisted up here, a complex pattern where there is not just one factor. but certainly if you put together the policies of the reagan and ministration, if you put together the economic troubles of the soviet economy, and then one has to baadd the powerful witness of pope john paul ii. you cannot leave that out. so many limit the role of john paul ii, and his first

pilgrimage to his homeland after ascending to the papacy in 1978, his first trip home in 1979. spontaneous, many millions turned out peacefully, these enormous crowds. the regime at that point realize they have lost control. once people are brave enough and hopeful enough to take certain risks, then the as authoritarian apparatuses are in real trouble. i was in poland in 1983 on his second pilgrimage. i thought that would be something not to be missed. and there was a moment when we were in warsaw, heading across the bridge to see the pope.

they ripped up the central square in warsaw so that it could be held there. the crowd paused, there were flowers embroidered signs, and they were in front of the party building, which were shuttered and completely shut down. the crowd started shouting the solidarity slogan, singing hymns and so forth, and it was such a powerful moment, and it shows you the moral voice collectively speaking, and what that could do to help bring down in the empire that i was taught when i was an undergraduate with last -- would last as far as the eye could see. we would have a bipolar world, two empires, if you will, the u.s.a. versus the soviet union,

and that was it. and it was something quite extraordinary that happened. you cannot leave out the moral witness of people. they had it all wrong. the soviets supporters were absolutely stunned. >> there is credit to go around. john paul was very foreign, and a united front against the soviets, but also reagan said early on in his view of the cold war, they would lose and we would win. the denial of the assumption of having the ability, that was one of the great breakthroughs of reagan and thatcher and others. it was the mystique of the lesson -- the mystique of the left and communism was that history was on their side.

reagan at home and abroad showed us that that was not case. history is up for grabs, as it were. >> next question here. >> should presidencedent be parf the conservative jurisprudence? >> given that the condition of natural law, a place has to be made for positive norm, you may see signs on the road saying 55 m.p.h., but behind that sign -- there's no difference between 45 or 55, but the positive law is under way by natural law. there is a principle that tells us why we are being justified in

restraining the liberty of people to drive. it hazardous for innocent life, including your own. but it needs a regulation to convert that principle into a measure that applies the principle to the circumstances and terrain before us. we've always had a place for positive law. it at times reflects the move of statesmanship, where people recognize aquinas, they don't impose on the perfect man, those who are already burch was. it may not apply the principle -- i do not doubt that the principle bars racial discrimination, as applied to the choice of a spouse, but they

cannot be drawn that far and deposit a flop. the maine buys comes when people say that -- the main vice comes when people say they take their principles from what the possible loss says. -- the positive law says. some people say that there are no natural light-- there are no natural rights. we don't care what they say, as long as they do it in a democratic way, what is right or wrong has the support of the majority. if that is the measure of right and wrong, then we cut the ground out from under the constitutional rights and the rights of the majority, because as soon as the majority has spoken, it is given is the

definition of right and wrong. we have no other source to which to appeal. james wilson said that america begins with a revolutionary principle, because america begins with the possibility that you can have an unjust law. things that pass with all the trappings of legality that are still against justice. but against the positive law, we can appeal to another body of principles to measure what the law has done. [applause] >> next question. >> mr. arkes, this question is for you. >> i just came in to read the meter.

>> when you said that robert waiting to take philosophical principles and make them understandable to the majority of people, what is the secret behind taking today a-christian principles and philosophical abstract thought and helping the modern average individual understand them? >> i don't know anyone i have seen at any age who on hearing lincoln's lined, that fragment he wrote, imagining a conversation -- who does not get it? it is a sensible. they get this. this is what a political person should be able to do. scott browed caught trouble when he said we should tax the american taxpayers to buy guns to fight enemies, not by lawyers for our enemies. he caught something.

[applause] how did he do it? reagan said that line i quoted. he did this so often. for subsidizing people still lose their job -- not domestic. he just pointed this out and send it points out, it's so we always understood it. i don't think there's anyçó way that we can train people, just give the examples of the way it is done. the best things done in the past, like the federalist papers, that is the best thing we can do to teach it. >> i mayñi regret that i am undr command of the person who controls my life at work, my

assistant, that we have to take a recess now for lunch. that leaves two of you wanting to ask questions. i guarantee that this afternoon you can ask questions first. >> we will be back. >> that is right. we will be back. i have carefully prepared introductions of our three guests this afternoon, the point out certain things about their checkered pasts. [laughter] and they do not know what it is i am going to say, but anyway. let's come back this afternoon after lunch employees enjoy all -- a good lunch. thank you.

♪ >> the latest snow storm has moved out of the washington area and the federal government will be closed again. in a few moments, a "washington journal" segment on civic literacy. and then of form from the world economic forum. and then a look at the career of the late charles wilson, the subject of the film, "charlie wilson's war." he died today at age 76. one american in the course this week, the relationship between the supreme court decisions and american popular opinion. the event hosted by the national

constitution center and the university of pennsylvania law school is on c-span this saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> tune into c-span2's booktv for a three-day president's day weekend beginning saturday. authors include former treasury secretary henry paulson talking with warren buffett on the 2008 economic collapse. on "afterwords", historian and pulitzer prize winner garry wills on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of the u.s. in the world. "afterwords" reairs sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. and all day monday, books on american presidents. h.w. brands on f.d.r., jabari asim on president obama and our culture, and craig shirley on ronald reagan. for the complete schedule, go to booktv.org. >> now the discussion on seventh liberty -- on sick literacy with richard brake.

from "washington journal," this is about 30 minutes. but many folks are, and we can learn something today. guest: thank you for having his back. host: you put out a new report on civic literacy. what is the update on what people mill about six? guest: unfortunately, they're not doing well. we have made an assessment as to how well current college students know about their government and foreign affairs and economics. they're not doing very well. they don't know we have three branches of government and do not know traditional review and basic things about the economic system. host: why not? guest: it goes back to the curriculum. kids can not know what they are not taught grade civics is not a priority starting from kindergarten up through college. we think that college is a good place to start. that is where our teachers are trained. that is where our future leaders

are trained. host: speak more to the collection of american believes. guest: what we want to do other than looking at how much people know or don't know, we want to see what that impact is on public opinion. we also ask them a battery of questions about american ideals and institutions, public policy, economic policy. for example, is america a force for good in the world? are the founding document of america obsolete? does the free market provide prosperity? and then we saw ask them how -- and then ask them how they answer those questions? we saw a diverging impact on a per if you go to college, that impact is on a very narrow step of divisive social issues. if you go to college, you are

more likely to favor abortion, you are against school prayer, you are much more in favor of same-sex marriage. there is a question about whether there is indoctrination that might be going on on the college campuses in relation to civic ignorance. it is both sides of the same coin. they are not teaching well the foundations of the republic but they might be influencing opinion on some of these issues host: they are serious issues but we will try to have fun with some of the questions. the phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. education and civic literacy is the subject. one question you ask -- what was the mainñi issue in the debate between abrahamçó lincoln and stephen douglasñi in 1858? what is theñi answer to that question? guest: it wasñi actually the extension ofçó slavery into new territories.

that was important during that time because there was a border war going on between kansas and missouri. ñrslavery had been a huge issue through the republic. ñrthere had been a compromise which is important to know. ñrñiasñi we expanded westward, e was a question of how to balance ñieventually, it came to a headn the civil war. you get host: thisñi test to a couple of thousand people. ñiwhatñi percentage got that fit question right? sqáj than 45%. that was in college graduates. that was an interesting finding from the report last year was the college did not add to much to it. they did better on the question slightly but it was stimn a failing grade. host:ñr here's another one -- ñe u.s. electoral college doesñr what? it has five choices. what isñr the answer to this? question because resurveyed

elected officials asñrñr well. they got this question wrong more than the general public. one of the "-- one of the possible answ$y was "it trains our futuzez elected officials." maybe we need more training for elected officials but the answer ñiis "it picks our president of the united stats5" that was the issue in 2000. ñipeople found out for the first time that it was a general popular vote -- that was not a general popular vote for the president pretty hos. host: how is your general said acknowledged? caller: it is maybe 80%. guest: that is better than most americans. host: let me throw you want to put on the spot. what was the source of the following phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people,"

ñiñiñiçóçóóiguest:ñiñrñiçóñrñi caller: everybody knows that that is the gettysburg address. guest: that's not true. host: does that surprise you that less than 25% know it? caller: the president talked to the american people weaker so ago on television and there's a lot in the united states, our populace has never really

understood what a divine leader of the country as. the japanese imperial -- the person in charge of japan, the emperor, he was considered a divine person. now when the united states, obama is not, but around the world he is considered a divine person. now look at this point. when he was on television he said that everyone misunderstood him, calling him a bolshevik. guest: the american founders certainly agree with you that we did not want any kind of rock --

divine right of kings. we put into place as separation of powers system, the three branches of government. we ask that question and was about half -- and less than half of americans knew the three branches of government. r said that everybody knows. people are startled when they hear about this. host: 10, south carolina, a democrat. jzwyou are on the air. caller: high school. they talk to about city government, state government. would you encourage the public school system to teach six again? guest: absolutely, i sat on my local school board and that is one of the things i ran on was to try to improve civic education at the k-12 level. less than half of the states require even one course on

civics. this is something that was par for the course for folks when you grow up. we got away from it. xdwe rolled into social studies. the amenities that have taken a hitñi underxd "no child left behind." we need to have aw3 re-emphasis. we have to have an educated citizenry if we're going to make sound judgments. host: independent, from washington, good morning. ñiñrçóñrñrñiñiñiñiñiñican iñr sa ñiñrçóñrñrñiñiñiñiñiñican iñr sa ñiçócaller:ñi can i start you off with a question? in 1935 and 1936, the supreme court declared that important parts of the new deal were unconstitutional. roosevelt by threatening to do what? there are four choices. >> pack the supreme court.

host: that is right. it is on the next slide. caller: i could not see the screen. guest: but you knew it right off the top of your head. host: what is your question for our guest? caller: a comment that he made in the early part, he seems to feel that the colleges are doing, in conservative terms, a leftist indoctrination job on the college students today. is that the case, or did you miss a beat? guest: one of the reasons we did this new study is that we were finding definitive results that colleges were not teaching basic american history and government.

we said, what other impacts my college have on civic life? so when we ask those questions, the only impact college had were on these very divisive, polarizing social issues, and it moved college graduates toward on "left wing" view on abortion, same sex marriage. things he would identify with the left wing of the political spectrum. would point out what to think, is that study after study, not our studies, but independent, objective analysis one at the college professors are 10-12 -- 10-1, 14-1, identify with the liberal democratic wing. i'll leave it to you to make your own conclusions. explained again why you think they are not teaching this and the lower grades. guest: clearly, the curriculum

is getting crammed with so many other requirements. there's a huge focus on math science. that is not a bad thing. we believe that republics are special and fragile and the founders realized this and wanted -- and jefferson want to make sure that he's carved out a school in every town so they could educate future citizens. self-government is tough. we have gotten away from requiring these courses and teaching them well. there's an over-reliance on the part of teachers and textbooks. this gets back to how the colleges prepare our teachers. it is much more how to teach as opposed to what they know about the actual content. host: guest is a doctorate in american politics from american university. he has taught all over the

place. he is currently chairman of the civic literacy program. what is that? guest: it is a division of the collegiate studies into a sinst. we do that in the k-12 level. we are always assessing how much money we put into k-12 and what are we getting in return. we do not do that in college so we want to try to enter that debate and give parents and taxpayers some information about how well or not will colleges are doing host: here is another question host: montrose, pa., what do you

think? caller: it is the power to defend the united states. guest: absolutely. caller: the senate can declare war. guest: many people -- over half of americans think the president can declare war. that is a big concern. caller: you just exhausted it extensively in the previous callers discussion. this was about the indoctrination or whatever you want to call it that our kids get. ii have a son in law and a daughter who are both k-12 teachers. my daughter got her master's

degree a couple of years ago. my son-in-law got a bachelor's degree at about the same time even though&qíjy are non- traditional students. neither one ofw÷ them --8v1 theh have learned what they know about this stuff from watching things like cspan, not from what so4they learned at school. they learned?íp --]v what they learned at school would lead him d-astray and they know that. guest: in our study last year, we ran some statistical analysis to demonstrate that you can actually learn more than a college degree by doing the same things you are talking about, reading independently, reading independently, discussing current affairs by participating in the life of your community, that self education got you to do better on the six test and actually going to college. that was startling. host: what is the lack of civics

education mean to the person? guest: some of us might -- some might accuses of playing gotcha with the american public. but is deeper than that. it is about exercising what socrates would call judgment or wisdom, right? we're doing almost a radical thing to expect an ordinary human being to be able to exercise common judgment about our political leaders. we choose them and we say, are they doing well are not well? how do you do that in a vacuum? now you're susceptible to talks to resume -- hucksterism on the campaign trail, as opposed to, i know what this policy is. i know how this policy is supposed to be produced. i agree or do not agree.

. caller: you've got made. -- you got me. guest: i will give you the answer and you could maker, answer and you could maker, agreed the answer is that it helped lead to the adoption of the bill of rights. that is something that is important to teach because there was a big debate about whether to adopt this new constitution and states were concerned that the federal government was getting too powerful. doesn't that sound familiar today?

these things occur over and over again. they said they want to make sure that the same limits on state government also exist at the national level. caller: i'm amazed what the college graduates don't know about the constitution. guest: i was watching the television show "are you smarter than a fifth grader." the fifth graders have more knowledge than college graduates about the constitution. guest: maybe there is some hope there. maybe we are doing it better in these earlier grades.

good point. host: we keep throwing these questions the callers and most of them are doing better than the general public. we have dave online, an independent, from north carolina, are you ready? let's throw one at you. jut tqcaller: thomas jefferson's letters host: there you go. guest: 8 people think that as part of the constitution. jefferson was riding in the context of trying to write in the separation but that cut

incorporated in our lot in a supreme court decision. . people confuse that. caller: i have a question and comment. north carolina is adopting a new high school studies program with the board of education, part of which would have a high school district courts beginning in 1877, the end of reconstruction which is the beginning of progress ofism which prep them for college, liberal college in north carolina the actual question would be -- is there a good way to get the constitution taught starting in middle school and through high-school and make it mandatory for high- school graduation? they could even have supreme court course is to get people to let them know they actually control the government?

guest: that is a great question. to back up a little bit, when you were talking about when this stuff should be taught, you will through judicial review -- you will through judicial review and other things and those will go over their heads. should they be starting to reside portions of the constitution in third grade? absolutely. how'd you get this done? it has to be through a good old- fashioned democratic mobilization. you have to put pressure on state legislators and governors to require this stuff. if you think that is important and if you don't think it's a good idea -- to teach american history after 1877 mrs. a heckuva lot -- misses a heckuva lot. we are not very old country. that first part is important host: what is the parents' role

in all of this tax guest: parents are the primary educators' of our children. kids' role model after their parents. some of it has to do with how you spend your free time. i live near philadelphia. go down there and check out historical sites. they are all over the country. the kids will balk at it. you get them out there and they start remembering it. it starts building up a kind of civic culture within your own family. host: we have a republican from fairfield, california, good morning. caller: have a question -- with gun sales up to a high in the united states, the u.n. is talking global gun-control plus new law's being talked about. how was the second amendment covered in high school and college? guest: the entire bill of rights

is not covered very well, i think. people do not know the difference between that and the constitution. the second amendment is probably the most neglected because it is kind of a debatable issue. there are two parts of the second amendment that sometimes people don't get rid the first close talks about a well- regulated militia. that is why we have the right to bear arms. there is a public function that was supposed to go along with it. knowing that kind of balance actually might de-polarize some of the debate that is going on host: here is a question for the yen, a democrat.

caller: guarantee women the right to vote. with all due respect, i agree with your conclusion that the need to be much more civic education with students but as my daughter was going to high- school and i was going back to college for international relations, she took ap class in historyçó and social studies and did quite well. she had a wonderful time. i found that in college and high school, the kids could not wait to get out of the classes. as a professor would say his last line in the hour of the class they had to attend, all the students would be slamming their books close. there is something wrong with the way it is taught. as far as a liberal bent, i

think that is a low blow. the class is that i have attended and i went back to 30 years, the class as i have attended gave no indoctrination. i think the kids like to think aboutñi sex, talk about sex, tht all has to do with sex. civics is boring. how can you make it more interesting? that is my question. guest: i think you are right, we don't do a good job of training college professors to be stimulating. many times, you do not get ahead in 10--- in tenure and promotion by being a good teacher pay is the research and other things like that. i absolutely agree with you there it on your experience about the lack of indoctrination, i'm glad that you had that experience. however, when we do a random sample of college professors and

all americans, you get to factor out the anecdotal case by case examples. that's tough washes out a little bit. that is all i would say on that. you are right, we need to do a better job of getting our college teachers to teach welker and host: how long have you put out the studies? guest: since 2006. we will look at support dissipation next year. -- we will look at civic participation next year. this might factor into public opinion but might factor into how often people voted we will look at that next year. host: what is the role of geography in the role of teaching our kids? guest: if we did an assessment of geographic literacy, it might be worse. that is even within our own

country. i am from indiana and i am on the east coast. host: if you gave a test like this elsewhere and the world, how would other countries corte? guest: new citizens to this country, a lot of these questions were taken from the citizenship exam. the three branches of government question, new citizens who have never seen the question did as well as college graduates on identifying the three branches of government. that could be an indication that the people that are trying to become citizens are may be more educated than we are host: let's go to fort lauderdale, fla., max is an independent. here's a question for you --

caller: teaching evolution. host: thank you. guest: i think our callers are 90 percent of. they are off the charts. host: what do you think about the idea of civic literacy? caller: i don't see how anybody could not be all for it. the reason why listening -- blisters are doing so well is because they watch your show and are interesting in this. i want to follow on something you said earlier. disregards colleges and you indicated the college's seem to push their students into liberalism and that sort of thing.

the fact that many of them are that way indicates that where is the college leading them. i take umbrage with that. perhaps the reason that many college students and graduates are leaning that way as far as not being anti-abortion, is that they are more intellectually curious. they go to college and hopefully the college does not just shove and permission down their throat. maybe they teach them to think for themselves. they come to these attitudes on their on, maybe, because it is open-minded and it will -- they will not just follow what their parents or religious leaders have forced down their throats. guest: i think that is an interesting observation.

i think it bears repeating that it -- impacts on public opinions are a vast parade just going to college will have an influence on what you think and also your race, your gender, your religion, where you are from, all a kind of stuff. i would point out that what we are trying to do is to demonstrate the impact independently in college of opinion. college graduates are only 20% believe in abortion on demand, only 40% believe in same-sex marriage, we are not saying that going to college makes you one way or the other it may push you and we think that there's some scrutiny on the part of the american public. host: your ticket to this show

is the following question. name the two countries that were our enemies during world war ii. caller: germany and france. c-span.orhost: good morning, si. caller: have you read about the dumbing down of america? the campaign for liberty? the entire global lists? -- the anti-globalists? host: are you familiar with that? guest: i am familiar with another book, and maybe they are making the same observation. caller: there are the speeches, like david rockefeller, the project for america. this is for all of the americas.

we dumb down our country to bring the rest of the world up. usa first. host: thank you for pointing that out. is there anything else you want to say there? you are on the line. here is a question for you, frank. in october 1962, the u.s. and soviet union came close to war over the issue of soviet control over east berlin, missiles in cuba, support for the ho chi minh regime, or the marxist razzie and rigid regime. caller: the entity that would be b, missiles in cuba. what is the background of the intercollegiate institute? and where debt -- where do you get your funding? guest: we get over half of our

funding from individuals. we get funds from other foundations. we are nonprofit, nonpartisan, we are what i would call a small conservative group in that we're pushing for a conservation of a core curriculum and a return to traditional approaches to education. it looks like north dakota in washington d.c., right now operated as knowing a lot. caller: i ask that question because the examplesñr that you said were things that were definitely anti-liberal. i am wondering how objective your group is. guest: i think we are not saying that it is a bad thing or a good thing to be a liberal or conservative.

we are pointing out, and this has to do with reams of evidence that shows the political identification of college professors, that it could be, and this wouldñi bear further scrutiny, it could be the fact that some of this impact of college on people's beliefs and those issues has something to do with who is teaching them there are other impacts on public opinion and we will not sit here and say it is all because of that. if you teaching college the way i have for 10 years, it is pretty clear who dominates the academy. host: this book is "choosing the right college per-quo what is the idea here? guest: this is like a consumer's guide to college. instead of going by the u.s. news and world rankings which take the college word for how good they are, we kind of doing independent audit of not just

the academic client but the social climate of the place as well as the types of curriculum they offer, who was a good professor, who is a good professor or a bad prof. not in our terms but their own rankings. we think this is a good way to educate consumers of higher education about where to send their kids to college. host: revised student loan practices -- arne duncan wants to send a bill to congress. the want to address the ideas of costs and debt for college. what is your take? guest: it is clear that the price of college continues to go up. we have gotten ourselves in a catch-22. we're expecting anybody who wants to be somebody to go to college. we want to create more affordability but by increasing -- it is kind of a supply and

demand thing -- by increasing the grants to colleges, it will actually increase the cost of the price tag because every time you increase a pell grant or anything like that, you see an increase in the price the colleges pay. if you demand more for product, you will get a higher price. that is a question we ask on our test. host: out and folks take this test at home? guest: go to our website, isi.org and it goes right to it. you can't take the test online and see how well you do. i encourage people to do that. host: you go well beyond the constitution and utah grab economic matters. here is an economic question for our next caller, an independent. they are talking about a progressive tax. what is it?

caller: i am not certain because it is not being publicized but believe it is"c." host: that is the correct answer. caller: could george guest -- could your guest give a brief summary of [unintelligible] guest: dread scott was only the second instance where the supreme court had validated a federal statute. it was declared unconstitutional which create a line above and below the parallel of the state of missouri. they not only declared that law

unconstitutional and said the federal government could not regulate slavery, it also said that even african-americans in three states had no civil rights grid many people believe that dread scottñi was the straw that broke the camel's back and created such a climate of distrust that led to the civil war. host: one last call, it is from virginia, on our republican line. one more financial question -- ñr caller:

host: c, buying or selling securities. that is correct. you are on a roll. caller: ok, i have a quick comment and question. i and just graduated from college, and i have been trying to find a job as a history teacher, and i have run into a problem where a lot of the social studies departments, they want to put people in who are coaches. do you find there is an emphasis on social studies and to you think a lot of the problems with history glasses or social studies or there is too much of teacher policies being taught instead of the curriculum? i find that many people give

their political opinions but they don't necessarily know the political facts. guest: the question about priorities at k-12, you have to budget and some of the budget will go to athletics and some will go to academics. i share your concern. i'm a huge sports plan. i played sports, my father is a coach. that is an important part of development. the academic portion is important, too. i would be concerned that people are making choices not based upon subject matter. as far as k-12 influence on this stuff, we found that thereñiñr a small impact teacher and it had to do with being a republican self identification. college seemed to go one way and k-12 the other.

host: what should our takeaway be from this study and this report? guest: going back to the two sides of the same coin -- if colleges are doing a good job teaching thismz stuff, the question about whether they are influencing public opinion one way or the other would be moot. you could make an argument that enlightened opinion equate with liberal thinking. the fact that there is such a disconnect between the civic ignorance on the one hand and a suggestion of subtle indoctrination on the other suggests -- and the fact that if you do better on our test and the better -- it moves to the other way -- that suggests that is it the case that this is being neglected or is it the case that maybe it is not being taught for other reasons? we want people to get into the game. the first order of business is to teach this stuff straight up and teach it welker it lets students make up their own minds about their politics.

leave the subtle indoctrination at home. host: the intercollegiate studies institute put out this report, "the shaping of the american mind." you can take the test and also re >> on tomorrow morning "washington journal," the congressman from illinois. they will discuss jobs and the economy. and later, the citizens against government waste' tom schatz is our guest. tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. in a few moments, the look at the future of financial

institutions from theçó recent world economic forum. in a little more than one hour, a brief look at the career of the late representative charlie wilson, the subject of the film "charlie wilson's war," who died today. and later, from virginia beach, va., american culture. çó>> his film "hillary, the mov ie,." on "q&a," david bossie. >> and now, panelists, including british conservative party leader david cameron. this is about one hour 15 minutes.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning. welcome to this panel on government assistance and where we go from here. i see people are coming in. the time is short. let us begin. i think the theme of this panel is a reflection of the extraordinary period we have been true and are involved in in which government has intervened in the private sector and intervened in the economy and in extraordinary ways. government has put massive amounts of capital into the private sector. it has established ownership

stakes in many companies. it has been involved in intervention in a variety of ways. that are really a break in a long term trend. we had a long-term trend toward left government direct involvement in the economy. that trend has been broken. often with discomfort on the part of governments that felt they were required or compelled to take this action. the question we face today as the economic crisis is not over but it is abating, and there is a return to more normal say, whatever that means, the question is where do we go from here? what assistance should government be providing going forward? should we go back to the previous model? this being a temporary introduction or break in the model or is there some new role

of government assistance that we in order to discuss this question, we have a distinguished panel, and you all would know who most of them are, but, very briefly, we have the deputy chairman of the planning commission of india, the world managing director of mckinsey and company, the general secretary of the trade union advisory committee, a trade union leader, a distinguished trade union leader, david cameron, the leader of the conservative party in the u.k., the chairman and ceo of a bank in russia and a distinguished banker,ñr the ceo of standard chartered bank, and last but certainly not least, and jean- claude trichet, the president of the european central bank.

in attacking this topic with such a large and distinguished panel, we have divided the topic into really three broad areas, and we would propose to proceed through those three areasñi as follows. first, the focus will be on the financial sector. that is the area where perhaps the most common assistance and intervention has taken place. what next? what should the government's role in the financial sector? should the government involvement be wound down? in what way? how? where do we go from here? second, the corporate sector. government has ownership stakes in many companies and what is the path forward? how should we rethink or restructure those stakes? finally, the issue of economic

and job growth. we're in a relatively fragile recovery. growth is perceived to be slow in many parts of the world. we have lost millions of jobs around the world. what should government be doing to assist in jump starting economic growth and job creation going forward. let's start with the financial sector and let's start with mr. kosten. -- kistin ostin. where do we go from here? >> i think the crisis showed unprecedented involvement of the government in the financial sector and the level of preparation between the financial banking committee and the government. president reagan said that the most terrible work in english is from the government and i am here to help. -- terrible phrase in english is

i am from the government and i am here to help. most of the governments made a brave step. they spent a huge amount of taxpayer money to support the financial sector. and again, i would like to underline that there was a very high level of cooperation between the financial sector and governments. unfortunately, in my opinion, the spirit of cooperation was lost over the last few months, probably, and we definitely see a growing concern among the banking community that the government is not quite correctly understanding the financial sector. they're not correctly addressing this issue and they are probably, there is extremely harsh criticism on bankers, their activity, their position. though generally, banking community understands the necessity of changing the system, changing the regulatory

rules, not necessarily by more regulations, but rather better regulations, and more probably efforts to have the regulations on an international level to control the activity of global, international institutions. i think if we take russia for example, the associations are a bit different because we still enjoy a very good understanding between the government and the financial sector of what steps should be taken in order to reach economic growth. there is public opinion is quite reasonably good to russian bankers. what is going to happen now after the government has spent a lot of money and sometimes even when they're directly involved

in financial institutions that the american government would buy direct stakes in leading american banks? in the midterm, the role of the government and financial sector, the direct involvement will be diminishing. i do not think there is a strategy in the united states or europe or in russia that the government should keep the controlling or even the big stakes in leading financial institutions. in america, the banks are trying to return whatever money they have got from the government. if the market permits. i am sure that the british parent sooner or later will think how to privatize whatever assets the acquired during the crisis. in russia that is the same. there is no political or strategic decision that the government should necessarily keep the higher stake or higher role in the russian banking sector. where the government would concentrate its effort is having a bigger say in controlling and

monitoring the financial institutions and sector. before the crisis there was a trend that the largest bank was claiming the self-regulatory system was the best and the large institutions can supervise themselves. that the regulations can be organized on a different basis. i think that is the end of this trend. we're coming back to a stricter control of the government and the creation of some kind of international bodies or international efforts to have the global regulation of the financial sector. >> peter sands? >> the relationship between banks and governments and by extension, society has changed irreversibly. none of us should be kidding itself it will go back to the way it was before the crisis. which is not necessarily the way it is now but it is going to be different from what it was before the crisis. there is a set of issues which is around extricating or

exiting the emergency measures put in place in the crisis. i want to focus on the broader issue of the relationship of banks to government and society. that includes banks that took no help whatsoever. i think that is fundamentally change. there were two aspects. one is a regulatory relationship. the relationship with the central banks, a supervisory relationship. we're in the process of working out how to craft a new relationship. the discussions are not necessarily easy. some of them are tangible. there is an acceptance and a common language and understanding between banks and bankers, when a better

regulation and we need to put the crisis and we need to address the too big to fail problem. there is a sense of understanding. there is a constructive dialogue. dialogue. i ca that week craft a better relationship there. the more challenging strand is on the political side. it is a much more challenging to see how we get to a better place. banks have not held themselves at all. we have managed to be town deafen shooting ourselves in the foot. in sensitive. you can think of lots of metaphors. some politicians have not been helpful. sort of broad scale demonization of an industry that is actually is vital to the resumption of

economic growth is not necessarily terribly helpful in working out how to construct a better relationship. in short, what i think is, on the technical regulatory side there are many tough debates to be had, many tough decisions, but i can see it happening. on the exit from the emergency measures, again some difficult issues, but i can see it being manageable. the primary challenge for bankers and politicians is to address that broader relationship issue which comes down to values, comes down to the whole fundamental social purpose of banks, and that, i think, we have not done well. absolutely the banks have not played their part properly and that is the one we need to grapple with. if i could add one other complication, the trouble is we cannot just kraft individual solutions for individual countries. the solutions we work in terms of crafting this relationship

have to work at the level of an individual country and the international level. like it or not, we have a globalized world and a globalized financial system. >> mr. trichet, you are a central banker. what is your perspective? >> i would echo what has just been said. on the amplitude of the public involvement in the recent period, it is currently, i have to say, underestimated in my opinion that we were very close to a depression, a full-fledged depression, had not, as you just said, dear friend, the central banks on the one hand and then governments on the other hand stepped in to avoid what would have been a catastrophic development. the central bank did things on both sides of the channel, on both sides of the atlantic, everywhere in the world that were unthinkable before this crisis erupted.

and the governments put on the table level of taxpayer risk which was necessary to avoid the depression, but represented on both sides of the atlantic, when all computation is made, recapitalization option, the option of our guaranteeing the loans of the banks, the impaired assets options and so forth, i arrived to 25% of the gdp on both sides of the atlantic. it is surprising that if it finally appears that it is approximately the same amount, a gigantic amount which, very fortunately of course because we are succeeding, will not be transformed in spending or losses, but gives an order of magnitude of what was necessary to avoid a collapse of the system. that being said, where do we stand now in terms of public

authority involvement? first of all, i have to say that and i echo again what has been just said. we have a global problem. we could see that a single event in the u.s. could have an immediate -- it was a question of half days, a dramatic influence of the changes of the decisionmaking process all over the world. we have to find out global solution, that is absolutely clear. we're fortunate, if i may , in i difficultyperiod, because we have -- in this difficult p eriod, because we have a consensus that the level of the world, a consensus on principles. that market economy remains the best way to produce wealth, there is a consensus on that. we have to make this system more brazilian. we have a consensus on the methodology.

we have a consensus on the enlargement of global governments to the g-20 and [unintelligible] better regulation. not necessarily much more regulation. better regulation. there is one thing that is clear. the public authority will not be forgiven if they do not care for the system to be much more resilient, much more resilient. this means we have to improve everything, in my opinion, not scapegoating every part and parcel of the system. i would echo what has been said. the scapegoating exercise is a bad exercise. when you scapegoat one part and parcel, banks or rating agencies or accounting rules or whatever, then you forget the other. if we have to improve

everything, including of course, the risk management of banks and the behavior of banks, but not exclusively banks, everything. let me only conclude on that. we're working very actively. a lot of ideas are examined. the jeep 20 -- g-20 methodology is accepted. the financial stability board does a good job. the bows a committee -- basel committee is working extremely actively at all over working groups that have but a global level with the emerging world. we have to make tail this level playing field. we have to be sure that we will find out solutions at the global level. level. of the solutions are local, and, of course, a elaborate no more, because we have and other side of the coin, which is the

macro policies within the g-20, but that is another story. >> all right, thank you. there is a danger that we will all be agreeing with each other, and that would not make for much of a debate, but i would like to strongly agree with what the jean-claude just said. it is based on the hard-headed practical self-interest, not scapegoating, and i think that is particularly important for politicians to understand i just wanted to draw what i think are two lessons, one on the point of regulation, which jean-claude was mentioning, and the other on what peter was talking about. the u.k. experience, i think, shows that it is not so much an issue of the quantity of regulation. it is equality, but as well as equality, it is also the authority of the regulator and the clarity of the regulatory structure, and that is why the

argument is that we have to change the regulatory system to change the so-called tripartite, of having three different parties in it, having more power within the central bank. we think the central bank having that is the best place to put in natural authority and discretion that you need in good regulation rather than believing that you can write a perfect set of rules. if you look at the u.k. experience, where there was such a problem with excess of leverage, i think greater centralization of the bank of england would have helped on that. issue of the relationship between politicians and banks, societies and banks, i think peter is right. it does need to change quite fundamentally because of what has happened. the where i think about it is simple. the banks now know that the taxpayers will not allow them, rightly, to go under, because the risk to the economy of a depression, rather than a recession is there. in return, the taxpayer through the government is entitled to say to the base, that means this

relationship needs to change in other ways. that is why i think the two things that president obama said, we particularly welcome. there are things at the very riskiest and, the large-scale proprietary trading that should not be backed by retail deposits. and the second thing, perhaps controversy 04 in conservative politician, is, as we look at how we create a more robust system for the future, the idea of some short of insurance levy to pay for the mistakes of the past and protect and enhance our system for the future, if that can be agreed internationally, we think that is something that is worthwhile. that is a reflection, i hope not a knee-jerk reaction, it is a reflection of the changed relationship, given all that has happened, given the relationships and how it needs to be -- work in the future. >> just a contextual point

before we leave the banking sector. it would be wrong if anyone were to underestimate what was said, how close we were to a total may -- total meltdown 18 months ago of the financial system which would have sparked a major recession. it was the government's, the court nation which put the patient on to life support when it was about to have a fatal heart attack. the patient is still on the life-support system and it would be wrong to underestimate the degree of anger which, certainly in the represent -- organizations i represent, you feel would go to meetings with groups of workers, people who have lost their jobs or homes at that situation and what went wrong. so again, unfortunately for this panel, i am agreeing with what has been said. the idea that governments can walk away spent -- having spent

trillions and say, get on with it as it was, is just unthinkable. the accountability, how the system works in the future and to ensure that that does not happen again and we have a financial system which returns to the job of supporting the real economy and not the real economy, just supporting a speculative bubble seems to be unthinkable that governments and public policy could move away from that responsibility. >> what are the key elements of that responsibility? >> one message i hear in the discussions and we watch very closely the discussions in the financial stability board. my message would be is open up that process. people say these are the people who brought you the crisis. jean-claude may have helped solve the crisis but it has been seen as being bankers and financiers to worst possible in the first place or designing the same system which is supposed to prevent a future crisis. you have to have a sig holder approach of engaging the interested parties about where

they balances between regulation is and the balance between liberalization is. where the balance between ownership is, brick of the banking sector as well into feasible units and be on that you have to have a structure which is credible also to the public and not to the financial sector. now, there are different ways you do that in different countries and i certainly believe you need to coordinate that to avoid regulatory arbitrage internationally, but i think that has to be some of the agenda rolling out in the future on the financial sector. >> i am not a banker but i am coming at it from the government sort of perspective. in one respect we have been fortunate in india because the direct government assistance to bail out banks was not an issue. banks were very conservatively run and were completely stable. we do not have the problem of how we handled the special assistance that has been given. the larger issue of what is happening to the regulatory structure is something very

relevant to us. mr. trichet pointed out that a whole new regulatory structure is being worked out in the financial stability board. we participate in it. the expansion of what used to be the financial stability form into a financial stability board into -- which includes the g-20 countries is an important democratization of the way in which banking regulations are going to be done, so we're but dissipating in that. i think the real issue for us is going to be questions that will be raised and are raised at home. you know, in the light of the fact that the global financial system rather than the financial system in industrialized countries is now seen to have been engaged in too much of risk-taking, too much of a market knows best ideology which is changing. what does this imply from our point of view? our view is we have been fairly

conservative. we were nearly near -- nowhere near the frontiers of this kind of financial innovation, and our strategy then was that we should gradually move to what is the consensus on good financing. that is -- consensus changed in the sense that there is less of the innovative free-for-all activity. we are so far internal to the frontier that we have to keep on moving in the same direction. i think you'll get -- we have to persuade our population and public that even as the industrialized countries seem to be shrinking, we may well be expanding the scope for liberalization in the financial system and that is what we have been doing. we have been saying that, we have been introducing new instruments and giving a clear signal that financial liberalization in india is necessary. it will continue but it will be targeted to reach the end result of whatever emerges out of the fsb as a regulatory structure that makes sense.

all these issues of too big to fail, how much innovation, leverage caps, all this, well built -- get built into our own structure. we were no where near a position where we would be directly affected so we escaped from the financial system -- crisis with a system that was: did not require much government assistance, other than short- term liquidity support in the first six months. >> this is not an excuse to back off of liberalization? >> definitely not. >> in russia as well, in eastern europe and other emerging countries, is this an excuse to stop progress toward liberalization? >> not at all. i have to say that the russian financial system just like in india, probably, differs very much from the western and so if mr. sarkozy here said that the banks should give loans to the real sector rather than playing in the stock market that is

what russian banks are doing. that is when the threat for us came from. when the real economy started actually not to perform to will, then we had the problem of nonperforming loans. i would say yes, we have a little bit different situation and for us, the financial sector was maybe not as severe as we saw in the west. the will also understand that we are already part of international community and we are very much dependent on the international capital markets, international debt markets, so for us there is no way back. that is important because we're not talking a regulations now. it is important not to say, in the 1930's there were good legislation is adopted in the u.s. let's come back to that legislation and that will have another 50, 60, 80 years of comfortable life. i think we should build up a new system of this and the concern of the banking community is, if

we have too much limits on this and to much supervision, the industry will not be developing or producing enough funding for the real economy. there will be no economic growth without the proper organization of financial sector so not to overkill, that is a big concern among the banking community. >> we will make a transition soon hear -- here. >> by now, everyone in dallas has had their fill of talking about banking but i will make one closing comment. at the heart of much of the debates around the future of the banking system and the regulatory frameworks and so on, is the trade-off between how safe to what the banking system to become less of minimizing the risk of another crisis versus how efficient and effective we wanted to be in supporting the real economy, generating jobs and so on. there are many things we can do

that pursue both objectives. we all want both objectives, but there also some trade-offs between those two objectives and we need to tease those out and understand those very carefully, and that is something i isthe basel committed the -- the basel committee and the financial stability board is working on end is in engaged in -- is engaged in. societiethe stakes are very big. if we get it wrong one way, we run the risk of having another crisis. if we get a wrong the of the way, we run the risk of starting the real economy of enough credit and capital and not having a -- not having the kind of recovery, the kind of job creation that the world need so it is a high-stakes game. >> in this discussion -- this

discussion about the financial sector and regulation and banking is a mature discussion at this point. we have been talking about this for the last 12 months and for the six months. but there is the real economy. there is the corporate sector. the businesses that have to create the jobs that are going to replace the millions of jobs that were lost. there is real concern about how quickly that process restarts and how many jobs are created. there are grave concerns that job creation will be too slow and it will be years and years before we recover. you are starting to hear discussion about what government needs to do to stimulate economic growth, what government needs to create jobs. we hear all kinds of schemes floating around. in our country, the whole grain jobs movement is a very hot thing. green jobs are going to save as. there are many other discussions

around the world. government of course still have some ownership stakes that it picked up in the economy in a variety of industries for emergency reasons like in our auto industry. could you lead us into this discussion? where do we go from here? what should be the role of government going forward in trying to stimulate and enhance economic growth and improved job creation? >> a couple things i would say at the beginning is that there is no doubt that government has increased its role in the economy, particularly in industrialized economies in some countries up to 10 percentage points of gdp. in many of the emerging markets it is going the other way. you are seeing less involvement. i do not think as we have heard here that that will switch back. it is moving that way but the governments are more involved. there is a worry from the corporate sector that you can

have -- there is good government and bad government or there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol and in terms of how you move it through. the view of government picking winners or the government trying to decide where jobs should be treated and how the move, i think it's people concerned. what i call sound bite policy analysis, the pressure that governments are under to make decisions quickly in what are complicated long-term issues, i think korea's people. so you mentioned the green growth side, we'll get it on the u.s. side of things. that seems a great opportunity. when you look at potential good job creation, it is relatively small. it is less than a percent of what could be there in terms of the other picture. when you look at those jobs, many of those jobs in seller may be treated in china, not the u.s. unit to get a more granular look. look. if i look to

i think that involves both the private sector and the public sector working together to figure out what these problems are. i think we need more long-term policy work and cooperation together to move it forward. just to give you a couple of examples, again, from the emerging markets, if you look at what china did which is more of a long-term vehicle, in terms of thinking about where the economy is going, which involves private-sector people, and you realize that if you want to create jobs and a stimulation program, perhaps one of the things you have to deal with is the health-care system, which is broken. you are not going to get consumers to save less unless you have a better health-care system, so being able to parse that is quite important in coming up with those solutions. you have got a mixture of government, private-sector, academics. they are again thinking -- terms

used to work on the opportunities and issues, and i think those could be -- we could move to that type of a model, but more of a long-term prospectus, looking at the fundamentals, because of of the jobs that have been lost in the last 18 months around the world, it is in the interest of business to figure that out, but it is going to take government and business working together on those. strategic thinking is a great idea. we agree on that. perhaps we could turn to david cameron. what should government be doing to restart economic growth, to make sure those jobs come back? we need to work public private sectors together and the sectors together and the thoughtful and a trategic, take a long-term perspective but there is a lot of pressure to do something. >> the first thing is we have to make sure we learned the right blesses -- lessons.

it was a financial bubble and balances -- imbalances that cause the problem so we must not go to a failed corporate is model of picking winners. not every country is in the same situation. when it comes to stimulating growth, the situation many countries face, the u.k. in bid to killer is that there is not government money to do this. the british government faces a 13% budget deficit. the greatest threat is not from taking on the deficit, the greatest threat is putting off the action that needs to be taken. not every country is in the same situation. that is important. the challenge for policy makers is how do we balance the economy? we have been too dependent on financial services and housing booms and government money. in the u.k. case that was 70% of

our growth. how do we will balance the economy without a failed strategy of picking winners? how do we get growth when there is not any money around, when we should be in the face of deficit reduction rather than deficit spending? one thing i think policy makers should be grabbing hold of and putting back to the top of the agenda is something that, sadly, is far too low down the agenda which is the doha trade round. if you want something that would get growth going, that would benefit developing countries and developed countries, it is there in front of us and it is a pity we can seem to get them moving. a lot of the deal is there, ready to be done. that is hugely important. dominic is right about the scale of green tech jobs. it is not an area that is about -- not about picking winners. it is about deregulation as well

as putting in place of the infrastructure. that could make a difference. the big challenges try to do this in a new wave rather than trying to return some sort of failed 1970's corporatist model. >> mr. evans? >> when message i drawn is precisely this point that employment has to come center stage. the real risk of a jobless recovery and the degree of complacency sitting in now that growth is picking up slightly that the pressure can come off, that is a key danger for tackling the job crisis over the next six months. governments have got a short- term crisis to deal with, how to try to get more employment growth out of the growth that is taking place, how to reorient some of the stimulus packages which relatively little has been spent on job creation, training, skills development, ideas that can produce a better long-term situation in that short term. i would say on the green jobs

debate, we're at the beginning. we have to tackle climate change. you have to link agendas on jobs. there is a longer-term lesson. if i could comment on one point that david cameron made, if you look at what has happened over the last 20 years on labor markets, the industrialized countries have seen this rise in inequality and the growth of poverty in some areas at the same time as a great deal of wealth at the top of scale. i do not think it will be a question of the politics of envy in the future. we have does -- to design a growth model. the challenge is in this crisis, how do we strengthen institutions which could show as in some economies, they are good at getting distribution of income warfare. there is a certain amount of evidence that a show that the fare societies tend to work better economically over the

longer term. you have to reproduce that globally and nationally and that issue of how you deal with it is crucial. the international labor organization in a tripartite way through employers, trade unions, and governments last summer and negotiated global jobs pact, which tried to get agreement on the measures which need to be taken. i take a state colder -- i would say a stakeholder approach seems to be crucial if we are getting out of this crisis and not return to the problems of the past. >> could you give us some hints? what are some of the steps that you were referring to? you did not come out -- >> there are schemes that can keep people in work. people have been able to be rescheduled and trained. the issue is how does that translate and can resources be put into job creation?

one key issue is confidence. an issue is how we have resources for that. that has to be addressed. i just came from a job panel where we put a question to the audience, if you had to choose between reducing deficits and creating jobs, what would be the choice? three-quarters said greeting jobs. i would say that is statistically relevant -- a statistically relevant of the view of davos i hope you will come paid to bond markets in the future. we have to look at new measures of taxation, a transaction taxes as well, try to pull in more resources from sectors which have to be responsible for this crisis. we have to strengthen the institutions, collective bargaining but also labor market interventions which are successful in distributing -- redistricting. that is part of the model of the

last on20 years that has gone wrong. >> i would pick up what my neighbor just said to draw the attention to the fact that, if we want to create jobs as soon as possible, we need confidence. we need confidence in the household constituency, confidence in the entrepreneur constituencies, and also in the market constituency. and to get confidence, you have to be credible in having a path permitting it to be back to normal and to a sustainable position where as regards public finance. so i would recommend -- it depends on the country to country basis -- being able to as soon as possible to demonstrate they have a credible

path towards the stable -- sustainable position is essential for confidence day and jobs today. i do not see -- in the question which was asked, i see a slight contradiction because it is a little bit more complex than that. confidence is of the essence and it is what the central banks are trying to do, to be anchor of stability and confidence. i would say that we have some of the challenges being sure that the system is more resilient. let's make the assumption that we do that. we have also science and technology which are moving at the speed which is incredible and probably for dozens and dozens of years. we have the success of india, china, the emerging world, latin america, which calls were incredible changes at the level of the planet. in the industrialized world, the problem is to be sufficiently

flexible to take advantage of those enormous successes, because we have to run a scientific success, a technological success, success in development, in what we call before the third world, which is now the emerging world and which is taking a dominant position. this of course calls for being flexible if we want to have all the benefits of this new world and the jobs that we need so i would call for structural reforms and appropriate flexibility. >> i think those are very wise words. i think a phrase like we must protect jobs, it is understandable that in a crisis that would come up and there would be a great demand for ideas, but what i fear is that the supply of bad ideas will greatly exceed the supply of good ideas, so a lot of things can be done under the guise of

protecting jobs, which will actually undermine the long term objectives that will have in mind. in india, we're keeping that very much in mind. let me comment on how we see it. our situation is a bit different. in the sense that we were happily growing at 9% for four years. in the two years that the crisis has affected us, the growth rate has gone to an average of 7%. that is a big drop but it is still a pretty good growth rate. the demand in india is, what is happening to the jobs that you promised would be created? of course, our answer is the solution lies in getting back to 9%. government policy is really focusing on how we get ourselves back to 9% growth. the challenge there is pretty obvious in the sense that we know that, in the industrialized world, there is a lot of global rebalancing of demand that has to take place. hopefully the g-20 summits will

bring about greater consensus on how that is to be done. even if that transition is manage very well, most people would think that the new normal for the world is not going to be like the old normal. can a country like india growing 9% if the industrialized countries at best will grow 1% less or 1.5% less than they were doing in the previous five years. we recognize that the world has changed and export growth and therefore demand from the export side will be less than it was earlier, and so the issue arises, we do not have any doubt that on the supply side we have the capacity to grow 9%. the challenges for us, where is the demand going to come from? it will not come from exports to the same extent. our internal thinking is that that demand should come from enhanced domestic investment, and that investment should be in infrastructure, because that is the biggest supply constraints

affecting india in the medium term. how do we do that? i do not think we images that -- envisaged that in -- doing it by a huge increase in public investment, i do not think the fiscal situation would stand that. the strategy is to rely on public-private partnership. use public money where private money would not come in, or rural infrastructure, all kinds of things that are important for the rural economy but to use the available public money to leverage private investment through every restructuring of projects and arrangements and we're doing that from telecom to roads and shipping, ports, airports, railway movement and so on. the strategies are different, but in each case, the effort is to put in place a framework that will bring in private money. we're doing this in a background where private investment in india has done well.

we have a stake in the global economy stabilizing as quickly as possible. one new issue that this does raise in connection with financing of such investment, is there a case for more innovative, publicly supported financing mechanisms, or believe it to the normal financing system to provide the finance system to provide the finance providing this is something that we're looking out -- looking at. there many areas where the treatment of regulatory standards managed to put financial -- push finance in a more attractive way in certain areas. in our case, the financial system is still developing. there would be more of a case for doing something. we don't have a firm conclusion on this, but this is an area we're trying to explore.

jobs are going to come when growth recovers, and we think that we can get back to 9% if we can manage these particular challenges properly. >> we've talked about confidence. we've talked about a path to a sustainable growth, rebalancing of demand and the need to establish more domestic demand in investment in the emerging markets. make perhaps new financial tools. peter, how would you? >> the point i would like to emphasize is trade and avoiding protectionism. the challenge is that for understandable reasons, discussions about job protection, dealing with unemployment, in many countries quickly translate into how can we protect jobs from the threat of either being migrated overseas or from exports from other countries. one area in which both businesses and governments are

endlessly creative is finding new ways of being protectionist, new and more obscure and less visible ways -- be it through straight sort of trade protection or between financial regulations, even environmental regulations, currency policy and so on. the general direction of the world despite some noble efforts in the other direction is to be more protectionist at the moment. i would echo david's comments about the protection of trying to progress the doha round. trade policy is one of these areas where, if you're not pushing the bicycle for, if you are now riding the bicycle forward to my your falling off, you're going backwards. the world has a lot of steak -- at stake in making sure we do not quietly and up in a more fragmented protectionist system. >> david? >> i would agree with that, as peter said. one of the successes in this

this very difficult recession is that although there has been protectionist rhetoric and there have been some protectionist moves, there has not been a wholesale -- i agree with you. you have to keep moving forward. it is one of the biggest opportunities in a world where we need to rebalance, where the countries in the west, we need to trade more and export more. we need this growth model which needs to be a model were based on saving and investment and export rather than housing and finance and government. i want to echo something jean- claude said. it is wrong to say that there is a choice for countries between an early deficit reduction and job creation. for some countries there is not a choice. if we do not get on and make early steps toward deficit reduction, we have seen in greece where this can lead and the pain it can cause. there is a great danger particularly as the crisis phase

of the difficulty passes, that whereas political leaders were saying, we must not put off what needs to be done. we must take this action. as the crisis point fades, politicians say, let's wait and see. let's put these decisions of. it is a dangerous thing to do. as many economists have been saying, the debt and deficit crisis could actually replace the leverage prices that we have seen. i was very interested in what montek was saying about private penance. we have huge experience of this in the uk. there's a danger of what should be about sharing risk between public and private sector becomes a way of government keeping its liabilities of the balance sheet. i would like to take part in department finance initiatives. i am sure there are all sorts of opportunities in this but there are risks to be aborted about

building up liabilities for future generations when there is not a transfer of risk involved. >> i am aware of the u.k. experience. we have tried to find out what is working in the u.k. and we're not. this issue of the balance of risks and the appearance of transparency is very important. in india, one man's public- private partnership can become another man's crony capitalism. we officially say that the role of the nature of public-private partnership is putting private money into public projects, not public money into private projects. the danger is there and we handle that, first of all, by a very robust competitive system. every public project, at least for the central government, is guided by a concession agreement, which is a detailed document link out all the risks. we do not bid -- negotiate this with an individual investor. we have a concession agreement and invite bids so they bid on

the basis of a revenue share which is positive, or, where the project is not going to sustain itself by earned revenues, they can ask for capital subsidy up to a certain maximum which is preannounced and whoever wants the lowest capital subsidy gets the project. the system is transparent. the concession agreement is known, the standards that are expected are laid down, and there is a lot of discussion before bids are invited so anyone has an idea how to improve that agreement can do so. the standards -- the parts are awarded on a competitive basis. i would like to say this has gone on for 10 years and you're the projects and they have worked successfully and i know some of the difficult -- the channel tunnel comes to mind. you can run into big problems but so far, we seem to be

finding the private sector responds in many areas, and it is quite encouraging but i think we need to do more. it is a work in progress and we keep consulting to find out whether we can do it better. >> from russia, i think confidence is extremely important. but whether it is enough for economic growth -- china, which shows the quickest possible growth definitely has the confidence, but spending huge amounts of public money on developing specific industries. what the treasury -- russian government is trying to do is focus not on building bridges which should be important because there are few bridges in russia but concentrating on innovative high-tech areas. recently, the nanotechnology fund was set, but to venture capital public government fund was set. we think that to provide government growth and eight -- create more jobs, definitely there should not be any growth

without new jobs -- i think we should focus on these innovative new technologies, rather than probably creating some additional demand to buy cars or keep inefficient the prices like the government was doing during the crisis to protect jobs. >> i wanted to build on the innovation point because i think while i fully agree that we do not protection is a man driving the doha round ford is critical, it is important to look at where we are going to get the growth for these jobs to occur and what is the innovation policy that we're going to have. that is another area where you can get cooperation. it is not about picking the winners in it but ensuring that the conditions are in place. you look at health care which is not a very popular were to be talking about in the u.s. but if you look at it from a growth opportunity and where technology can play a role, there is a mass of opportunity. it is an under-penetrated area

and jobs could be greeted from that. to pinpoint these areas where we could help create the conditions to generate more jobs and growth and there are a number of them, health care, education, agri- food, let alone what is happening in emerging markets. >> that brings to four. i think we can lose a time like this. there is a lot of human needs in the world. huge numbers of human needs in health care and education and so many areas of life, improving conditions, housing, environmental impact. it can find a way to restore enough confidence we can start focusing on those, growth opportunities rather than thinking there is this fixed pool of demand we have to fight over who was going to get it, i think will be better off. mr. evans? >> a comment on perhaps trying to rephrase the protectionist question because the organizations i represent, we have members in exporting sectors, importing, people who

feel threatened, it does not actually help. we internalize that discussion. so far i would agree that there is not this protectionist response, which would get into really killing growth at the moment. whether that stays that way, if there is not a backlash, i think is a key issue we should all be concerned about. the solution to that depends upon our success on the job creation agenda and the confidence agenda and i would say engaging people in the discussion agenda which is crucial. there is the medium term issue which has come up in the g-20. it is how you try to remove the wider imbalances, trade and demands and the points you have made, poverty in the world and needs in the world and supply which gets away with the -- to the imbalances of unsustainable trade deficits and unsustainable surpluses on the other. that will not just be done on

trade policy. you need to embed the trade policy in other policies including import -- employment. you need to restore a balance global system. the g-20 ministers said they are going to look at different indicators on that process and the imf has been given the job. heads of government. it would be a fundamental mistake not to have employment as a key indicator with a review of the quality of employment in the process. i think that is something that could be done immediately. it can help to get a balanced view on what is happening in the world cannot go back to of you we have got to look at deficits. >> i want to open it up to their audience for questions. if you could be thinking of a short focused question for panel about these two big topics, please be thinking of those

right now and let's give mr. trichet the last word. >> i wanted to say that it is extremely important that we do not forget the other side of the coin of global governance, the mutual assessment process of the g-20, the framework for a strong system and balanced growth. it has to be run by the imf, it should go to the g-20 for appear assessment and peer pressure in order to reduce the level of imbalances are the heart of the problem that we have to cope with. we had a financial sector that was extraordinarily fragile, but we had this accumulation of imbalances and there, i have to say, it is a formidable challenge for the members of the g-20, because they have to except that their own domestic policies could be changed for

the sake of the stability and prosperity of the global economy, which is now the only permanent entity at the global level. again, it is a challenge for all the countries and certainly for the western democracies also. >> we have about 15 minutes in a recession left. . . please identify your affiliatin so we know where you're coming from. >> i am bob forbes. one thing that we've not talked about here yet is something that does stimulate jobs and economies, and that is tax reduction. does anyone on the panel want to address that? >> davide? >> i am happy to. i cannot go one another about it in the u.k. of having this huge deficit that we simply have to

deal with, not just for its own sake but for the sex of confidence and jobs in the economy. otherwise our interest rates will be going up. but we should be trying to use tax as a signal to help encourage people to get out there and create jobs and create new businesses. so for instance, saying that any business that sets up should not have to pay national insurance on the first 10 employees, something like that to try and stimulate the creation of new businesses and small businesses that will provide some of the growth and wealth, i think that as possible. in the western economies our tax systems have become phenomenally call for it -- complicated, and there is a case for your release and exemptions and disregards and all the rest of it, and flatter simpler rates of corporation tax. there is something else that we can look at as well, which is what -- while everybody knows we've got this difficult and potentially quite painful

readjustment as we try to get back to some normal budget balances, i think we should try to send a clear signal that we want our countries to be successful, entrepreneurial, enterprising places where we want companies maybe that have left and gone to relocate elsewhere to come back. i think one of the clearest signals that we can send is on long-term targets for corporate tax rates to say this is how we see the future and be in no doubt that this is one to be a very business-friendly country. as we need to be. >> dominique? >> my i ask you about new tax on the bankers? >> the government has set out a bonus tax, which they have put in for when you're only, and i think that is going to happen. we have not oppose that but i do not think it is a long-term answer to the problem.

what bomb up -- what president obama was talking about, the idea of some sort of levy that could be agreed internationally in order to ensure against future problems, i think that is more long term, more practical. we need to be hard-headed, practical acting in strong natural inches, rather than knee-jerk politics, which may make us feel good for five minutes, but it is not one to solve the problem for five years. >> in the back. please identify yourself. >> i am deadbeat sarah -- davide serra. >> i see a problem with the u.s. printing money through the treasury, the japanese are doing the same. europe is the only country right now that has not had a treasury

and it is hard to compensate the global imbalances through currencies. president sarkozy so that this is going to be a key item on the agenda when france takes over the presidency next year 40-20. alances created by today's currencies that do not trade in the same way? the central bank, they do not have the same freedom at a time when jobs or it risk in the various areas, and this has an impact, both on the g-20 emerging, and most of portly japan, euro area, and the dollar area. thank you. >> you are the central banker. >> i want to be sure i heard that the central bank had not the same freedom. did you say that? [inaudible] it seems to me that the federal

reserve is independent, and i do not doubt that for one second. on the currencies, i would only say that, as you know, ben bernanke and tim geithner are saying a strong dollar is in the interests of the united states, in relation to the other major floating currencies. i say myself, on my part, i fully agree. a strong dollar is in the interests of the united states. i would also say that it corresponds to the overall superiority interest of the global economy as a whole, and certainly of the interest of europe. i echo what they say. i would also say that, as major floating currencies, we have the sentiment that a number of other currencies that are not floating could themselves have a progressive and orderly and

timely appreciation. that is the way i see the running of the present situation. in the very long run, we could imagine other solutions, but at the present moment we are running a set of free floating major currencies, and there you have the terms of reference that we agree upon. >> another question? yes, sir. in the front row. >> while every country has its own problems and is thinking of its own solution, how do you see the doha round will succeed? if it would not, what would be the challenges? the key. -- thank you. >> peter, you brought it up. >> i think it is a good point. i wish i was more confident that

it would succeed than i am confident in my knowledge that it is important that it succeeds. i think it is very important that we continue to make progress on trade, but i am not expecting that doha is suddenly going to become easy. but i think even the process of trying to make it happen is helpful, because you tend to get small victories on the way and you also stop sliding backwards. but i think the realities of the positions of the different governments, the political pressures they are rendered, means that we're not going to see an early and quick resolution to doha. just building on the earlier question and the role of currency, i do think there is an interplay between the trade and protectionism issues and the currency issue. ultimately over time what we have seen is a shift in economic power and wealth from the west, broadly speaking, to the east -- asia, middle east and so on --

and that is a good thing. it is a good thing because it is a reflection of the fact that asia has got wealthier. i think there will ultimately translate through to currency movement. asian currencies will ultimately become more valuable be estop western currencies. it will not be an immediate neat, smooth, unidirectional path, but actually the less movement we have a map, the more issue -- the more pressure we are going to have on the protectionist issues and the more difficult it will be to resolve things like doha. >> mr. shay? -- mr. trichet? >> to say that the future is not written, it depends on us that doha would be in a successor not and that we can achieve what we want. we all agree, and i would say not only on my own behalf but on behalf of all central banks, that we have an immense stake in the success of the doha round --

immense not only for the global prosperity, but also for maintaining appropriate price stability because protectionism would be the worst enemy in this respect. it depends on us, and we have to all work to convince our own people, it seems to me, and what you said was very right, it had -- to have the most lucid possible public opinion to understand that there is a superior interest in solving the problem. >> is very hard to keep forcing yourself at this moment to think that there is a positive solution here. this is a moment where it is very easy to start to think about how i can avoid losing, and that is a very dangerous approach indeed. another question? over here. >> david mullins, i think regulatory failure was absolutely at the center of the problems that we have had, and i would like your assessment of the realistic prospects for

improvement in regulatory structure and practice. and to put it in perspective, i would like to remind everyone that we in the u.s. have six separate federal regulatory agencies. i will not name them all here, and i am not including the smaller ones that regulate -- >> and you were part of it, david. >> yes, i am part of it, thanks. and more than that, the administration looked at the regulatory problem and last year came up with their solution, which was to propose a new regulatory agency in the u.s. to regulate consumer financial products. now it is true they did propose merging of t.s. into occ to keep the total number at half a dozen for regulatory agencies. i would just mention further that there are strong provisions in the congress currently to strip the federal reserve of

regulatory authority. so given thatçó outlook, what is your view realistically of the potential for progress here, given the sort of critical role that i think regulatory failure played in this crisis? thank you. >> anybody want to take that? mr. evans? >> i think the regulators are all a bit timid on responding. >> not this one, good. >> there is an awful lot of blame to go around on this crisis, so i don't think anybody should be modest about sec -- accepting blame, but some of the criticism of regulators sounds a bit like you have a massive fire, the fire brigade comes in and then you blame them for flooding your house. we're so close down to meltdown, regulatory failure was a part of that -- it is in the cultural context where three years ago public bodies, opinion makers,

many, and i would exclude mature trees a -- mr. dshtrichet from this, were saying kenji a look, we have entered a new world. we can all make 30% rates of return against 5% average world growth, because we are so intelligent. we are such good investors. light regulation is the solution." that culture brought us to the edge of the abyss. i think you certainly need some regulatory changes, some structural changes, you need to deal with the problem. >> what should the role of government be. could each panelist give one sentence of your answer to that question?

>> learn the lessons of regulatory failure in finance and i think they are being learned, and recognize that particularly in the west, we need a new economic model based on saving, investment, a broader economy and export, rather than just housing, finance and government. >> he did it in one sentence. excellent. dominic? >> i would say focus on the long-term health metrics, which are things like tax, less regulation, education, and how the infrastructure works. >> peter? >> i think we all need little humility. we all, businesses and governments, got a lot wrong and as we work out what to do in the future, we should condition our recommendations knowing that we do not know all the answers. >> i would say the main lesson is to recognize that, whatever the rules were when you started

, if something goes badly wrong, the government will be blamed. so you better be watchful about the economy. keep your eye on the longer-term growth prospects which depend on individual countries, and certainly as far as the financial sector is concerned, its health is very important and you need to look at what is a global consensus what -- of what constitutes a good financial sector, and keep moving toward it. >> i think the goal -- the role of the government will be increasing in particular areas of regulatory work and others. i would underline that whatever decisions are undertaken, the efficient model will be when they are based on the agreed principle with the business with conventional community. otherwise, we might engage in the game when one side is setting the rules, the other side is trying to find loopholes, which normally the private business is quite successful in this. >> in the short term, it would be to give the same financial --

political attention which governments gave a year ago to resolving the banking crisis to the employment crisis. in the more medium term, it is opening out decision making and accountability and a much broader stakeholder model. >> not being complacent in any respect, which means that we need to work tirelessly for having a system which will be at the global level much more resilient, be sure that we are really having a governance as has been decided at the global level to run the global economy, which is now the pertinent entity. and be sure that the information, the quality of information of our own people, the lucidity of public opinion enlightened by this quality of the affirmation, is such that governments can really play the game of global governance. >> thanks to our panel for a very thoughtful and rational discussion. i only hope what really happens is so rational. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> former texas congressman charlie wilson died today at the age of 76. he was the subject of the movie "charlie wilson's war." in 2008, his son and a former israeli diplomat discussed his political career.

-- his friend and former diplomat discussed his career. >> i want to assure you it would have been a lot of fun it charlie was here speaking to me and telling you about how he became so fond and friendly with israel and how he supported israel throughout his 20 years in the house of the representatives. but as you have heard, he fell ill and he is unable. so he asked me to try -- and how can i try to fill in his shoes? no one can fit in issues. let me tell you a little bit about him which is easy to do. as a matter of fact, last wednesday here at the hotel, charlie and his wife and my wife and myself, we had dinner together. he was in a great mood in great spirits, and we had an exchange

-- how should i say, a joke, and business information, what are we going to do and mentioned? there was a hold the amount of information that he wanted to share with you. the relationship with charlie and israel started right at the young couple war in 1973. -- gone to forward -- yarmulkes for yo-- yom kippur or 1973. he had joined the house of representatives and then the war came, and i was in washington. i was the congressional aide with the embassy. i've got a telephone from the defense attache who tells me, i've got a congress from from

texas who wants a briefing on the war, on the second day of the war. and you should know that members of congress don't go to embassies. embassies go to members of congress. and here was a member of congress who did not wait for someone to come to the of office and brief him. so the defense attache has made to join the meeting. we were there, this tall congressman -- as you can see, i am not very tall -- with half and texas boots, and i said and suggested, mr. congressman, when you and i have to talk, we have to be seated. [laughter] so he was right there a real gentleman, and he said, all right. and from then on, for over 35

years, charlie and i were talking while seated. [laughter] then he got a brief from the defense attache, and all the sudden, the general and myself, we were impressed by the knowledge, how bursting was with the movements of the army's and the suez canal, so we found out that he was a graduate of the naval academy in annapolis, and he served along the suez canal and the indiana notion -- indian ocean. so we were impressed with his military acumen. at the time, the briefing was not very good, but at least to get the briefing. and he went back to his office. and then when the first cease-

fire was announced, i call as the congressional liaison, saying, this is charlie wilson on the line. i'm going to the war zone. shells of been exploding. no, i am going there. when charlie goes, he goes. so you alert your people in israel and tell them that the congressman is coming and you'd better treat him nicely. first as a congress man, and then a member of the navy. he spent some time and came back and declare to us that he is from now on a friend of israel. a friend of israel, why? no jews in israel. -- no jews in his district.

now we have one, his wife, barbara. but then, no jews. you are strong and will and we will make you strong in action. i said, great. i want you to be my for success in washington. [laughter] charlie has been one of the greatest friends we have had on capitol hill. this will not diminish the support or friendship or any other members of congress, but charlie has been an outstanding congressman in his support for israel, which was unlimited on every move that israel was involved and. charlie was at the forefront. he was not a congressman #350

that joined the initiative. he was among the first 20 or 30 to join or initiate or sign up on congressional moves. now he was a member of two subcommittees, very important for israel. these are subcommittees of the appropriations. i'm sure you know the most important committee is appropriations, because they signed the checks that everyone uses. he was a member of the subcommittee on foreign aid -- assistance to israel, which she -- which we have been getting every sense, billions of dollars. he was always a great supporter and we could always rely on him. and then he was a member of the subcommittee on defense appropriations. at the time, we were not getting

any support from the defense department in terms of money. but charlie was supporting, promoting defense ties between israel and the united states, and the israeli company share technology with american companies, providing assistance that would be helpful to the u.s., and he was very great at that. i should mention that the projects, he single-handedly did and later on with the support of the administration, the la vie project. he convince members of congress to support israel and provide within the foreign assistance

act the money for la vie until the government of israel decided to cancel the program. and the rest is history. at some point friendly -- charlie became very friendly with egypt. and many became friends with -- friendly with pakistan. i assume all of you have seen the movie, and you know its relationship with pakistan. but i should emphasize to you that at no time when he cherished his relationship with egypt and pakistan did it come at the expense of his relationship with israel. not only was he discounting, on the contrary, he would of told you more in detail if charlie were here, but charlie tried to put israel and pakistan together. he tried to establish contacts between israel and pakistan.

and some context for made. he said that there should be no reason that these two countries could not work with each other. the same with egypt, although we have formal relations with egypt, he tried to pretend trott -- some projects together that unfortunately did not materialize. it only shows you how wide the horizon was for charlie in which he could see israel playing a role in the middle east. i would say also that as far as the palestinians are concerned, he would push for it, it was not at the forefront, but he wished one day that there would be peace between israel and the palestinians and the concelebrate the good faith of israel and the future of israel.

he visited israel numerous times. every year, three or four times, he would come to check on what it happened, czech and meet with members of congress, and my wife and i would always entertained him, because everybody like charlie. he was a very likable person. i wish he was hearing you can get your own impression of him. when charlie did his thing with the mujahedin, helping the collapse of the evil empire, he was telling me that that if the russians are defeated, it will be good for israel because they will let the millions of that use go out of the soviet union. and lo and behold, it happened. we're all devoted to charlie in some way. -- were all beholden to charlie in some way.

i wish i could skip lunch and tell you more about charlie, but the gentleman are waiting. let me conclude by saying -- let us wilson -- where's charlie wilson a speedy recovery, and applaud his support and friendship of israel. >> in a few moments, -- university hosted a discussion on the future of american culture. in a little more than two hours, maryland's governor stated the state address, followed by the state of the state speech by the governor of rhode island. after that, at the latest developments on the airline passenger screening. on tomorrow morning's

"washington journal," we are joined by representative dan ma ffei and air sch -- aaron schock. "washington journal" begins every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c- span. >> his film "hillary -- the movie" was the focus of a recent supreme court decision on campaign finance. documentary producer and head of citzens united david bossie sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> tune into c-span2's booktv for a three-day president's day weekend beginning saturday. authors include former treasury secretary henry paulson talking with warren buffett on the 2008 economic collapse. on "afterwords", historian and pulitzer prize winner garry wills on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of the u.s. in the world. "afterwords" reairs sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. and all day monday, books on american presidents.

h.w. brands on f.d.r., jabari asim on president obama and our culture, and craig shirley on ronald reagan. for the complete schedule, go to booktv.org. >> it is the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist. "american presidents -- life portraits" by renowned painter and sculptor chas fagen now on display at purdue university in west lafayette, indiana, through february 21. the exhibit looks at the lives of the 43 men who have held the office through paintings, photographs, prints, and audio recordings -- sponsored by c- span and the white house historical association. and if you cannot get to west layfayette, see the entire collection online at c-span's website, americanpresidents.org. >> now will form on the future of american culture, hosted by regent university in virginia beach, virginia. this is a little more than two hours.

[no audio] >> good morning. we can do better than that. good morning. >> good morning! >> welcome to reach and universities symposium in honor for nations' 40th president, ronald wilson reagan. our first symposium in 2006, the future of conservatism, now published in the book, received a supper was to review in the " new york times." our second symposium in 2007, the future of religion in american politics, came out as a university press carried out

third symposium in 2008, the legacy of ronald reagan, came out as a book entitled "the enduring reagan," which was called hands down best compilation on ronald reagan, nothing matching its inside and credibility. our fourth symposium in 2009, the future of the american presidency, will, as a university press book later this year. so it is that we have said and done here reaches an audience around the world but not just in books. each year c-span televises our reagan symposium nation wise and this year is no exception. let's welcome c-span and the c- span television group with a hearty round of applause.