historian joyce appleby. and then remarks by david cameron and nick clegg. after that, a news conference with secretary of state hillary clinton and british foreign minister william hague. >> this week, and our guest is historian joyce appleby, author of new book "the relentless revolution." >> joyce appleby, why did you call the book on the history of capitalism?" >> that is what the history of capitalism has been, one revolution in workplaces, areas of profit, productive centers -- one revolution after another.

one economist said it well, capitalism is about creative disruption we get all the new technology but sometimes we get to the messy part. every invention that succeeds white south its predecessor, and this may change where people work and what skills they have to have. it never stops. as we know, having lived for 2008 and 2009, we now realize that this was not out of nowhere but that is what it seemed like that is a part of it that is a revolution going from boom time to burst bubble. >> the fine capitalism. >> a system in which private individuals take initiative with their own capital usually to

enhance production or produce something that they can sell in the market for profit. i give that definition and it seems so ordinary and yet every element in that definition was an affront to the established customs and traditions of this society in which capitalistic traditions began. >> give us an example. what was an affront. >> in a society of scarcity, which all traditional ones were, you did not hear about individual initiative. you stated your place and did what you were told because there were so close to the edge in their capacity to produce food. that individual initiative was very dangerous. and then the idea of a traditional economy in which they did not produce things,

produced on land that was on by lords and work by tenants and some private farmers, but the government controlled it. they have lost about stalling, and when the crop was then, you could not hold off the market. you cannot sell it to brewers if the government said that they needed it for food. you had to take it to the market on a certain day and sell it. that was a lot of control. now you have private capital going were the owner wants it to go. those are very disruptive things. enhance production is another way. you do not enhance production without assaulting all production and ways of working. >> go back to the very beginning. can you put a date on when it

started? >> no, i cannot. i started in england and i do not think that capitalism was inevitable. i think it was a convergence of trends and developments in some fortuitous events. in the 17th century, the core of capitalism was discovering and developing new machines on the basis of a new science that greatly accelerated the amount that could be produced by any worker. this is what we think of as galileo and others, they discovered that atmosphere had wait to -- weight, and that there was a vacuum, that natural laws were uniform, and these ideas or monday intellectual

elite but they happened in an open society. this advanced right into the work -- the workshop. how many people through the ages must've seen boiling water pushed up the top? and yet it took all of the century's for what? for the theory that explains it, for the mechanics who had the ingenuity and desire -- it was a propitious linking of technology will advances with economic opportunity and a supportive social environment. england had solved the problem of food shortages. it did not involve capital but it made it profitable. >> you are thrown a bone to the dutch.

dole spoke, definitely. dutch were great innovators. the dutch were very serious traders, that is what they did well. they could take storehouses of everything like timber and grain, and made themselves the great carriers of the world. they are innovative with banking and finance. they charged interest rates of 2%-12 -- 2%-4% when everyone else was charging 12%. the dutch had a problem. they had to import for three months of the year. i think that crimped their

imagination. i don't think they could see the possibilities of the system that they had started. they were well enough developed in agriculture that they did not have to worry after they went through the century of improvement. the dutch were fat and happy so they were not pushing to change what they did well. what was remarkable about england is that once they started, they never stopped. the captain innovating, renewed development, applied at different productive places. everything from drilling mine shafts to reinforcement. >> let's review your background. when we talk about this on this program 10 years ago for one of your book for you pointed out that you were born in omaha,

nebraska. you've lived in kansas city. and then in dallas. what were you doing there? >> bhatt father worked for united states gypsum. >> you ended up in california and went to stanford. where did you get your master's degree? >> the university of california- santa fe. i was living there with my husband and i was very lucky because they initiated a master's program. otherwise i was not able to get it. i got that from a graduate school. and it was within 10 miles of my house. i had three children. fortunately it extended the graduate education.

he learns and remembers. it's fantastic what he knows. it was just wonderful. he lives near me and it is wonderful to talk to him about this. he never lost that. he would go one that amplifies subject. he was the one that told me he was -- to alert the founder of nbc. you went to the university san diego. >> ipod there for 14 years and then i went to ucla. >> are you still teaching? >> note. >> when did you start this book and had to go about researching it? >> i started this -- it took me two years silicas i started it four years ago this summer.

i knew a lot about the first part. i'm a historian of early modern europe. i had to understand the economic developments as well. and then after that, when we got into the industrial revolution i simply read what scholars did. but the interesting thing was that i never thought of it as a book of scholars. i thought of it as a book for the general public. and that was so liberating. i did not think of all of those critics that would be arguing my thesis. i just thought that should rule readers wanting to learn about the history of capitalism. and it was fun to write. >> were you surprised -- you studied history all of your life, and if you did not know about something and you found

out about capitalism. >> a lot of things. i did not know much about germany in the 19th century. and yet when i saw the but the united states and germany surpassed england, i was interested in how the germans had done this. and how different the united states's economic development and political development was from germany. here were two different paths toward capitalist leadership and excellence. different strengths, different leaders, truly different results. and that made me realize that because capitalism is a cultural system it has a different face in every country. >> explain the difference. >> the germans were struggling to create a nation --

depressions were struggling and that started out with the customs service and the use the economy to create disunity which they finally achieved for bismarck, prussia's the largest of the 300 principalities and states that composed germany. and because they were built by aristocrats, let me just back up. the aristocrats were not particularly interested in industry. they were interested in german prosperity but they had contempt for the industrial magnates. they cannot count on the government to finance the banks. and so they arranged to have industrial -- investment banks, the first ones were in germany and a couple of major cities.

one industry was in the northwest and had to pull people from the poorer parts of germany as workers in the steel factories. but they began -- there began to be on rest -- and now effort and the question. there was an attack on the kaiser. but ms. mark initiated a social welfare program -- bismarck initiated the social welfare program. workers' compensation, pensions, and the like. he wanted to fend off the radicals. and because he had power, he was not stopped by the industrialist who headed the sort of thing. you look at the united states and we have a barrett -- a very poor safety net.

we had never had strong unions. and that means that our social welfare has been very hard to push on this front. that is one of the big differences. >> what other than farming started capitalism? what was the first industry? >> money. -- mining in england. they needed ponce to get rid of the water -- pumps to get rid of the water, and then steam engines to run the palmumps. is consumed enormous amounts of coal. you could not leave the coal field very far. you had to have your industry there. what james what does -- watt

does, he took an offer contraption and made it into the engine of the industrial revolution, then you could take steam engines and put them anywhere in bulk to drive the mystery in the famous porcelain factories, for instance. the first is in the late 17th century, and in the early 18th- century >> was next? >> mining, and in textile making. cotton was a lot easier to milton will -- mill than wool. and then the power loom, these

various inventions improved -- the spindles that can be run at the same time with the same engines, and greatly accelerate the output. most of england's industrial workers work in textile factories. that is one of the most poignant moments in american history and the 19th century, is that in the civil war, the english were caught off from cotton. the refuse to recognize the confederacy. the workers are all thrown off. there were no jobs. there was pressure to get the government to recognize -- from the manufacturer's to recognize the south. even though they were suffering, they did not want to help slavery.

lincoln wrote a wonderful letter to them. i'm getting off the field but there so many fascinating stories. >> i was surprised only because you do not normally say things like that -- a historian does not like this. why did you put that in -- all of a sudden you have labeled herself. >> i thought it it would be well for a person to know who was talking to them and telling them the story. as i said i wrote it for general audience. people are serious when you do with a subject like capitalism. i went on to say that i very

much wanted to write this with characters of black cats and white hats. i just wanted to give an account -- i interpret the fax all the way through to be coherent. >> historians will say that they are just a historian, not one way or the other. let me just probie will bet on left-leaning liberal and libertarian. what makes you a libertarian? >> welfare reform. you say what that has got to do with libertarian. i dislike that dependency implicit in our welfare system. and i say that as a libertarian,

i want people to be free of this dependency. they're quite a few issues in which freedom would be more important to me than social justice in some instances. social justice is very important. what was the reading about today, an issue -- this issue about the school, hastings argued before the supreme court. haitistings told the christian way that they could no longer have facilities because they excluded people whose sexual life they thought was a moral. and i was thinking that they ought to have the right to exclude. it is not a free association in it does not seem to me -- i know

of that seemed like a libertarian issue to you, but i was against the institution. left-leaning as a not -- a lot easier. i am really concerned with social justice. i think it is abominable that we do not pay a living wage. when we start paying a living wage to workers all over the world, have of our social problems would be gone. there are a lot of people who endure. it is not a lot -- it is not a small number. the living wage is different from not wanting welfare. i want people to work to be able to earn a comfortable living. and i think that if you had this unequal society as we did, that government has to put money into the public good light concerts' for kids and arts education and parks, things that they cannot

get from a middle-class parent, the government's should be enriching the child. >> were you come down on capitalism, for or against? >> i am for capitalism. it is a great wealth generating capacity. we have to learn the delicate balancing act of making it regulated where it needs to be but not killing the incentives. we didn't do such a bad job after the depression. all of that deregulation was a mistake. i think we can get our financial house back in order. i think that there will always be panics or bubbles burst. the reason why is that capitalism is a system in which no one is in charge. many people have lots more power than others but no one is in charge. it can be like running off a clinton and not knowing.

clif -- running off ai cliff and not knowing. >> going back to contemporary capitalism and its critics, talk about greed. go back to that whole area that you're talking about. >> i made little list and that comes in part from people who

were fighting against capitalism, who are critics against capitalism. all of those are charges that are made against capitalism, anti-globalization people. i thought it was important to get all those out there because i think there are problems with capitalism. we could address every one of those, maybe not the rewarding aggressiveness. aggressiveness is important to capitalism. but what we lack is the political will is to make these changes. we've been sold a bill of goods that the economy is an independent system. it is self correcting, works on its own, it is like the weather, do not interfere.

but it is a cultural system. there is much that we can do to shake it. and this is what i would like to say. >> is greeted good or bad? and what role does a play in capitalism? >> 40% of graduates going in to finance -- is wanting a very high salary greedy? no, i do not think that greed is particularly good. i think that moderation, the golden rule is the desire to live comfortably, to work to achieve that, but i think where we see greed is where other human values are out of bounds, because the greed is so dominant.

you're not thinking about the time that we had to enjoy our family. that is what politicians always say, but people do want to enjoy their families. so i think greed is in excess, yes. >> talk about germany, great britain, the dutch -- who else in the world has been great capitalist? >> some very unusual countries. india and china. they are coming along and the other is japan come much earlier. japan is a small island, not that populated, and they were the no. 2 economy for a while. and the tamil tigers of singapore, korea, taiwan, they have modernized even faster than

japan. and they all did with highly directed elite. one of the things that all those countries did, too, is that they had agricultural form. bake at the land at the hands of passive land owners, put it in the hands of farmers, poured that money into education, and bought off in the critics, because the farmers were doing for a while. and then those leaders knew what they had to do to connect with in this case the emerging roles of consumer electronics and information technology. >> you describe for reprinted works in year or three the wealth of nations, common sense, and the declaration of independence. tell us about adam smith and the

wealth of nations. >> it is the central analysis and synthesis of capitalism in 1776, he was a scotsman and there was a lot going on in scotland at the time. he had the capacity on mass separate facts and bring them into an organized story of a free economy. he did not call capitalism. he explained how capitalism emerged with a long accumulation of capital, and in the division of labor, and hence production, and it made the back -- it laid the basis for economics from other people, but it also laid the basis of the self correcting economy.

adam smith had the idea of the invisible hand. it is from the self interest to compete to produce a better product at a lower price, and that is how we benefit. that is been the central tenet of capitalism ever since. there is an invisible hand that makes competition work force. adam smith had wonderful anecdotes. manufacturers need to set the price of wages workers were conspiring to set the price of wages and were sent to jail. adam smith knew exactly what was going on. the subject of adam smith is wonderful. >> when did you read the book

first? >> i guess the early and graduate school. i read extracts in college so i could take some economic courses. i must've been in my early 30's. >> did you have to read it again for this book? >> note, because this is not about economics. it is about the development itself, the actual transmission -- not transitioned but the actual conflicts the monopolies, innovations, struggles that gave shape to capitalism that we have today. >> back in 1776, what impact did adam smith's book have and has a grown in importance? the worst very little impact on the united states. alexander hamilton said that the ideas that markets can run themselves as one of those paradoxical notions that has grown in strength during the

revolution. that had nothing to do with it. but it was important in england and became the basis of economic thought. and then economic changes in the 19th century and you no longer have a labor theory of value. value comes from demand. eddy rae, adam smith has not been important in modern economic theory except as a godfather as a totem, as a symbol. i am sure is taught in most economic classes. >> the second is thomas paine's common sense. another bread. >> another american immigrant,

too. we did not know that we were going to have all these wonderful revolutions that would send them back to europe. paine make such a powerful attack on privilege and political conservatives and traditions. he was such a nemesis that he really did open people's eyes to the incongruity of being ruled by idealists that or a hundred years or political arrangements. and he had an impact on the american revolution because he came here and the first thing he did was write an attack against slavery. and then he produced of a good common sense." i want to make the point that this 18th century, the century of increasing technological virtuosity, was also accompanied

by a new concept of human nature, human possibilities, and the proper ordering of government so that everyone would flourish. that you have an paine and the declaration of independence, drawn on that. >> in 2000, during adviser on thomas -- you were an advisor or tomhomaspaine.com. >> they are still active and they are working on a television series. but they are still active. they write letters to the editor. >> we did a feature on thomas paine and one shrine to him up in new york, not so much

criticism of them and that he does like a lot of support. you've been active in history for years and one of the few in the organization of american historians and the american historical organization. give us your view of history right now in this country and where people -- what is the american people view of history and how has it changed? >> you probably know more about than that i do. i think that history, judging from the books that sell, i just came from the l.a. festival books, hundred thousand people there or more listening to people talk about their books. i think there's a lot interest in history.

i worry about higher education in america. i think we have achieved an absolutely first-class university educational system, taking public and private together, but we're resting on our laurels. the same universities are losing more and more students. they're more like private institutions three california it used to have a good free education and it is pretty expensive now. the way to affect history is that there is underfunding of scholarship. it is very hard to promote an intangible like an understanding and appreciation of history or of art or literature. it is fundamental to people's grasp of the world they live in,

putting their world into the stream of time. in that sense i am worried about history. $1 person just won a pulitzer recently and she's talking about history and historical. she says that america is -- in 2006, the intercollegiate studies institute -- >> they have been doing these things for a long time. what you think that they would do it -- it is a tribute to history that they did, but where would the school be if you tested their knowledge of biology or history? that does not bother me so much. something that bothers me is the stuff going on in texas, and that is not university but high

schools and elementary schools, where they are writing the text books along a particular ideological line. that is troubling. it shows you how important history is that people would take the time to try and put in their ideas of what the revolutionary period was like, what they think. >> they think that history is telling the story and correctly. how do you get around that? >> it is a problem because everyone thinks they know history. but no one can say, look, mr. kim as, you don't have the slightest idea of the elemental table. the me show you what -- let me show you what goes in there. and it is the accessibility of history that makes people a "expert." you can confront people that talk about the writing of the

constitution, people do know the documents. but what you're trying to do is persuade a third person -- you will not persuade the historians that they are wrong and these people that they are wrong but it is the spectator that needs to be convinced, and they can only be convinced by doing this. >> sheet said another survey -- it is that same thing. are they relevant? do they matter? >> when it comes to history, yes. i think it would be nice if students -- let me give you an

example. when i talk ordovician courses, i would give them a separate constitution to get them to read the constitution. it was purely democratic, only one legislature, and i would tell them to read both constitutions and be prepared to defend which one you wanted. i had that big people to take the constitution. and they came up with all the answers that were made in the federalist papers. they knew of bicameral legislation was better and why you had had an independent judiciary. that told me something more than these polls, that there is a general understanding of our institution, but that is not something that you can spit out when someone asked you a

question. >> i said that you are on these two historical institutions. what is the difference? you're chairman or president of one. >> i was president and 1988-89. that was an organization for all scholars whose field is american history. there people in germany and japan that study american history. the second is an organization for all historians and america. >> or you president of that? >> yes, trying to think of that. i think it was 1997. >> and what did these organizations to for history? >> a lot of good things for history. i have an annual meeting where there's all kind of panel

discussions on the letter scholarship. and it put out terrific journals of history scholarship. one is american history and the other. the american historical association in particular does a tremendous job of defending history in america, whether it might be a historian going to be fired because of some provocative study or access to the archive -- there's been lots of legal issues in which they have become a party to a case, opening up the archives to the public or in the library of congress, and so they maintain their office here and they are always on alert to what it is that scholarship needs and they do a tremendous job. >> on your book and capitalism, how many countries in the world are not capitalistic?

the lawyer as well 57 failed states. whether they are not capitalist, i do not know but they are not probably doing it very well if they are failed states. how would it be those 57. >> would you call it china a capitalist country? >> yes, in 1978 it started a liberalization program. but when you have that allowing peasants to sell their land and farm individually, which happened there -- in the last 12 years, they said that they could only do it for 30 years but no one thinks there will ever resentment, that is a major change. it involves the most people and the most traditional elements of

the society. they have expanded their free trading zone. china gets an enormous amount of private money from chinese all over the world, and so they have this as a source of investment. they have money clubs and start- ups. they still run the big industries but even the big industries are now being run on a profit basis. and they are pouring their profits back into the pension funds which they do not have. in the last 10 or 12 years. >> can they continue to be a communist country for very long? >> i think it is going to be hard. part of their communism -- there authoritarianism is controlling information. information is absolutely critical that capital

development. this is a fast-moving technological world and you need have access to it. you don't know where the innovation is going to come from. your people may have access to these things. i would say that for the foreseeable future, the next quarter century, we're going to see more and more of an easing up. whether they have a by party system, i do not know, but they will end up -- ease up on the control of individual lives as they are already. >> go back your own interest about eradicating poverty and a more equal society. is there a country in the world that is more equal than this one? >> yes, i think that sweden and finland, i think these countries have a tremendously strong social net. i was looking at the economist last night on the plane and it is very low.

and china and india are worse than the united states in the spread of wealth. but a part of that is the function of the fact that there's so much wealth at the top. it is not that the poor have gotten for but there are many more well-off people. yes, i would say the scandinavian countries, probably the netherlands, they do a much better job, much stronger support of labor, labor per talk -- participating on corporate boards, and they are economically strong and getting stronger. >> they are more only genius in this country by a long shot. >> yes, that is true. they have some pocket of guest workers that are staying put for it -- put. but that is an important

practice. i don't think it is economical. toward japan is the same thing. >> there really are xenophobic. they're very uncomfortable around strangers. but we are heterogeneous but we're used to that. you go on the ucla campus and i can see every skin color in the world. it is not threatening. that over time -- over time -- we're still having some difficulty with religions and concern about them in some parts of the country. >> you mentioned adam smith and we went to thomas paine and we talked a little bit about the declaration of independence. i want to go back to that time. what role did capitalism play in the creation of this country? >> this country was tied to the

absolute front runner, great britain, so they had been economically active and innovative from the very beginning in massachusetts and virginia. va unfortunately had the slave system but massachusetts is much more plucky all entrepreneurs. this fostered the individualism, individual initiative and responsibility those are the moral bedrocks of capitalism. you have act for yourself and you have act on your own. you have a lot to do with causing their revolution. when the british tried to change the rules, they are not at all happy about it and they are not afraid to oppose it. so i would say that economic initiative -- widespread economic initiative was crucial to the revolution and to the

founding of this country. >> what about slavery? you mentioned that in your book. not just in this country but around the world. >> slavery is terrible. their profits to be made in the tropics by growing sugar. imagine a world without sugar and all the sudden they can get sugar. and then you get this vicious exploitation of labor. it weighed on the conscience of these european countries. what did they do? they blamed this on the slaves. it is their fault and they were meant to be slaves. this is left of better -- a bitter legacy of prejudice. it was put in there to salve the conscience of the slave owners. >> and tobacco? tobacco played what role in

capitalism in this country? >> tobacco was the underpinning of the southern trade of economy, it was then replaced by cotton which was even more valuable as an export, more demand for it. he gave slavery all lease on life, it was going strong until 1860. but by this time the conscience of the world and the north was absolutely insistent that it not be spread. that is what the civil war was not -- was about -- not about slavery where it was but slavery spreading. they could not accept that. long term, it had a very malignant impact. in the short term, it was very important to northern prosperity because it

concentrated their land and their labor on cotton. they bought everything else from the north. cheap clothes, cheap shoes, the works. >> unions -- when did the first part in this country and you mentioned this earlier, it is not a very unionize country overall. >> the second half of the 19th century, you have a labor, some in 1886, and then you have the while police wobblies, i think there are lots of reasons why it did not succeed in this country. one of them is that this individual initiative that i am talking about, that is hard wired in the american psyche, a dislike of collective action. it seems an american. the other thing is that america

had this incredible flood of immigrants starting in the 1880's. they came and took the jobs in the factors and pushed out people born in america into white-collar jobs. to organize basic labor, you had to organize people who are trying to assimilate in this country, learn the language. it was extremely hard. one person was successful because he specialized in skilled labor and they discriminated against blacks, looked upon women is nothing but strikebreakers, so unions were looking out for themselves. he was a master psychologist and he understood capitalism. what he wanted was more, and when we get more, we're going to

work more. he shrewdly saw that the workers were the best customers for american industries. if you pay them well, if you have a great amount of consumers. people did not recognize that. there was this sense that if you are always driving down wages, you are destroying the market. yonkers seized on that and that is why he succeed. later we had john lewis and the cio, more unskilled labor. eventually labor unions did well but not until the 1930's. >> if you think about the teachers union and the state workers and all, you have very few. >> 7.5. >> why the things that happen? >> competitiveness.

the major employers -- wal-mart, they have made a success with a lot of people in their factory and use of technology but also keeping wages low. it is very different from when wages were highly. america was protected. was not the same competition and the slow capital around the world. i wish wal-mart would change its ways and pay more. if they should recognize that it was a different economic environment. >> has there ever been a country in the world that succeeded without capitalism? >> from an economic point you? i do not think so. other countries have succeeded

like new guinea, and tribes in the amazon faces, there are groups that feed themselves and have enough to live the life that they want, and those are economies, but in terms of prospering, getting more goods and enjoying a higher standard of living, no. >> i know you did a segment on wal-mart. had you explain wal-mart and the capitalist system. >> they are brilliant strategist. sam walton was a master of introducing inefficiency. he was like henry ford, a brilliant organizer. they see the possibilities and there's a lot of squeezing over prices and wages but there is also the use of technology, never sending out trucks that do not come back full. the use information technology and constantly telling their trucks were ago.

they discovered that one system of inventory is not affected as the other. and wal-mart keeps every employee on a tight technological age. every sale goes through the accounts office, the planning, and there's no slippage. >> we're going to get more will more or less in the future? >> i think will get more. it's very interesting that home depot and target and one or two others are in the top 50 fortune 500 clubs. wal-mart has had successful imitators. >> word you put the stock market and that capitalism

system? >> when they want to raise money, you get an enormous -- it gives off an enormous number of people the chance to participate in the profits of companies. i don't know how you could -- i suppose there is another way to do it but i don't know more efficient way to share the ownership and to cut access to the capital. >> in studying the history of capitalism, where does the recent 2008-2009 financial problems we have had a ball into history? >> i think it is another one of those hands, bowls burst, as a result of the fact that no one is in charge and you have a strong incentive that were pulling people into riskier and riskier investments. you had a government complicit in de regularizing the banks.

when you get into these loans with no income and no assets, they have thrown all caution to the wind. this is a convergence. capitalism does not correct itself. it needs regulation. and that is its great failure. as someone pointed out, we had controlled most of the recession until 2008 and we had done it because our federal reserve system and other regulations we have in place. that was not there this time around. the oilers who is the most successful capitalist in history? it would you put on top? >> navy decided -- josiah

whately. he took a lacy organized set of pottery workers, he brought them together, he made this lovely china -- the queen of russia wanted 1000 plates different scenes from greek mythology on them. he was desperate because he did not have the artist to do this. he finally produced the order. he said that i need to have a school and get these teenagers to begin to design and pain. -- paint. he could see the industry whole, from the beginning of making the product to marketing it. ford is another. at only could he see the possibility of a cheap car but

the possibility of selling his own cars. he set up 7000 dealerships by 1910. i think those are some of the impressive capitalist. you have the innovation of the whole system in one person. tom watson is another. >> there's more that you can read about in the book, "the relentless revolution -- a history of capitalism." we are out of time and i thank you very much. >> i enjoyed talking to you. >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q-and- a.org. "q&a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> of nets, remarks by new british prime minister david cameron and deputy prime minister nick clegg. after that, a news conference with secretary of state hillary clinton and british foreign secretary william hague. and then another chance to see joyce appleby. tomorrow on "washington journal," law yun discusses a recent report that shows the decline in foreclosures for the first time in five years. they've heard --cavid chavern talks about strengthening small business. and george wilson looks at defense spending and one program that may be cut. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. dollar supreme court nominee elena kagan is meeting with