of change in this country. indeed, the census was set up by our founding fathers to deal with they divided the state's at that point in time according to the methodology. the average size of the district in 1789 was 39,000 people. that is what the average size was. by 1790, was started expanding and adding more states. 1800 went to 34,000 again. then, we ended up adding states. by the civil war time, we still see that conglomeration in the

higher number of districts in the upper northeast and upper midwest. that was the pattern that we were seeing in this country. have filled in more of this out, and we were up at 193,000 per district. we were up at that point in time of 391,000, 391 representatives in congress at the turn of the century. in 1910, we expanded again to 435, and that is where we stayed. after 1910, they capped the

people in each district. 1920, there was no reapportionment because congress suddenly saw that for the first time the urban areas of this country had more people in the census and the rural area of this country. at that point the rural representatives were in control, so they just did not do reapportionment in 1920. 1930, we ended up getting back in track, but we kept things at 435. that came into being in 1910 with that cap of 435. in 1930. 1940, 301,000. then in 1950, and actually in 1959, we added alaska and and to 437. but we were up to 344,000 people.

you notice how now the states are starting -- the growth in the states are starting to move south and to the west. this is a pattern that we have now been seeing on an ongoing basis as it results -- as it relates to reapportionment and redistricting. so by 1970 we were up at 469,000 members, persons in a sea. 1980, notice how california is at 45 congressional seats, had grown dramatically in each decade. 1990, up to 52. in 2000, they went to 53. we were up in 2000 up to 646,000 persons in a district. so what we were seeing in this country really since world war ii is the movement of population from upper midwest and from the industrial belt of this country to the south and to the west. california in -- california ii.

country was taking place becauseindeed, when you look at how things were looking for 2010, we're seeing a continuation of that. indeed, by the time we came up with final numbers from the census, it was indeed that movement. but the movement was governed because under the reapportionment formula, you have a set number of seats. so the key was, where was seat number 435, and who was getting seat number 436 if we added it? some numbers were very close. there are other factors that

affect reapportionment. military overseas are now added in to the population numbers by the department of defense. we were now involved in two wars this time, unlike last decade when we were not. that had an ongoing impact. indeed, from the military standpoint, that added almost two minutes thousand people. there is no adjustment to census -- that added almost 200,000 people. there is no adjustment to census. the court -- for redistricting purposes, that is an open question. for reapportionment, it is not. part of what is governed is how

well did they take the census. here we have county by countyit is a mail-in, they'll-backed

slugging to be involved in the process, -- loving to be they participate in the census, people were staying in place. in the past 40 years since world election. and if i were to update this with the 2009 study they just came out with, it is now down atthat will have an ongoing impactdates to keep in mind -- we have released the final numbers ofthis is numbers that will be used by the states and by thethese numbers have bought or the population, voting age population, and they have it -- these numbers have majority

population, voting age population, and a lot of the the district over the next two years. file that is coming out booking a prisoner population. will have an impact on the redistricting side this time. we will see in late spring a new tabulation coming from the census bureau on citizenship. you will be hearing this more and more. immigration policy in this citizenship and whether or not citizen voting age population is the key to be using on

redistricting. there are about three circuits court's process in this country that have said in fact it is citizenship voting age and needs to be used for drawing districts. to be seen. but we will get that data in late spring. and then, from basically the summer of 2011 through the summer of 2012, you will have the actual line-drawing process state of virginia have to do it it early because they have state they have to do it it in

time candidates file for office. indeed, if you move district boundaries around and you move a member or somebody else out of indeed, in chicago, in 2000, there was a discussion on whether or not an up-and-coming state senator should be put into a congressional district or taken out of the congressional district. he was moved out of the congressional district. his name was barack obama. so everybody is impacted by redistricting on that side. indeed, if you take a look at the overall impact of november's election, it is rather dramatic in terms of whose hand is now on the mouse as it relates to redistricting. republicans will be drawing in republican controlled state's 210 congressional districts. while democrats only will be drawing 104 congressional districts in states that they control. remaining split states have 121 congressional districts. again, you see the tilting more

towards the republican side this time around, that has not been there before. indeed, as you get into the redistricting process -- and hopefully you get to an end of the redistricting process and we find that the remainder is of what happens in redistricting. we also find people like myself that get more gray hair because of redistricting on that side. so that is the reapportionment process. as it relates to that. i also brought along, since we had a little bit of time -- we do have time, right? i brought along another presentation that we do. we do election administration, and dealing with election administrators around the country as it relates to

conducting elections. there is some interesting information i thought would be valuable to present to you, information that would be useful. there are some things that are important when you are dealing with how elections are conducted. indeed, one of the key factors that comes into play is that diversity is the underpinning of elections. elections are not uniform in this country. indeed, we have 50 states. each state has its own set of election laws. those election laws are different in each state. so instead of having a nationwide process by which we run elections, it is not.

it is governed by the 50 states in each of their state election laws. but we have the process of conducting the election taking place at the county-by-county level. it is the implementation of those laws that may differ down at the county level. indeed, that was part of what we were finding in florida in 2000 in the bush vs. gore controversy and how the elections are managed by each county. indeed, that makes a difference in how they are being implemented. so when we are dealing with elections, you have to be dealing with counties, not 50 states, but 3000 counties in this country. but it is not as simple as that because in new england, there are 1600 jurisdictions, townships, and cities. they are the ones that conduct the election. it is not county clerks in new england, but town clerks and city clerks. so if it is another 1600 that

have to deal with that. but then there is also three other states -- michigan, wisconsin, and minnesota -- where they also conduct elections at the township-by- town chip level. so when you're dealing and you add those and, -- and you add those in, there are another 5000 jurisdictions in this country that conduct elections. so when you get all of it together, you have 10,000 entities in this nation that are the ones that conduct the election. i venture to say, they do it differently in just about every little one. so the key is to understand that if you are looking at elections and understanding how elections and the elections process ultimately decides who represents us, indeed. the other thing you have to take into account is that size is something important to

remember. so let me ask you a question. what is the mean size of jurisdictions in the nation in terms of the number of registered voters? anybody venture to guess? anybody? fallout a number. -- call out a number. >> 600,000. >> 600,000 in an average jurisdiction? no, way too high. >> 300,000. >> know. right getting in the direction. >> 15,000. >> well, actually, 1492. christopher columbus' year,

right? that is the average number of voters registered in those numbers of jurisdictions. elections are run in small areas. that is one of the keys here. it is done at the very local level. there is over 1/3 of the nation's counties that have less than 10,000 registered voters and then. over 1/3. half of the nation's counties have less than 16,000 registered voters. half of the country. there is only 343 jurisdictions that have more than 100,000 registered voters. a very small number. a large number of people but a small number of jurisdictions. there is only 14 and have more than 1 million registered voters. so you see this great dichotomy. the smallest jurisdiction in

this country is texas, and loving, texas. the largest is los angeles. 3.9 million registered voters. kind of a big difference, isn't it? a lot of big difference. it would take 930 of the smallest counties in this country to equal los angeles. 930 counties. that is an awful lot for just one jurisdiction. what is interesting, in looking at the election administration, is looking at the difference in terms of the number of jurisdictions and the size, the number of registered voters. if you look at it from a schematic, you see the difference was less than 1000 persons in a jurisdiction, there is almost 5000 jurisdictions in the country, with less than 1000. but it all on it -- but it only amounts to 8/10 of a percent of the nation paused registered voters.

one of the keys is that a lot of -- of the nation's registered voters. one of the keys is that a lot of the district have a small number of voters. you can summarize it this way. 340 jurisdictions over 100,000 registered voters, but that is 60% of the nation. 60% of the nation paused registered voters are in 340 jurisdictions in this country. a big difference. that big difference is what presidential candidates looked at. indeed, if you were to look at the poster that we did two years ago in 2008, you see that difference.

indeed, when we pull that up at election night as we got the first set of data in, we were in shock. i asked my napper -- my mapper -- i have too much red on this map. obama won. but all the red. mccain carried almost 2000 counties in this country while obama only carry 875. a big, big difference. indeed, the obama campaign focused on those urban areas, on where the people were. but, indeed, that is not what you see when you look at a map necessarily. so from a data perspective as we look at things -- particularly when i am looking at it from a redistricting standpoint, i am cognizant of an ongoing stepping school when i am looking at and evaluating the

impact within a jurisdiction. we look of course at a total population. but not everybody in the total population can vote. you have to be of voting age. that cuts down the number of persons, ok? not everybody of voting age can vote because you have to be a citizen in this country to vote. that cuts down how many people are there. indeed, not everybody of citizenship can vote because you have to be registered in this country. you have to be registered in order to participate in elections, and that cuts down on an awful lot. registration is not good enough. you have to show up at the polls. that cuts down the number of people involved in the elections process. indeed, in presidential years, you vote for president, the highest office on the ballot usually, but not everybody that turns out votes for the highest office.

that cuts down the number of people participating. indeed, when you look at other statewide offices, a further decrease in number for people participating. at a congressional level, it drops dramatically. at state legislative level, it drops even more dramatically. so when you look at the pyramid in terms of how participation rates, you see how much difference there is and how far down it goes. if you study the numbers and you look at those numbers in each of those columns, you will discover that the demographics of the electorate changed at each of these. indeed, the population may say that 34% is hispanic, but because of citizenship, by the time you get down to registration and turnout and all of that, the hispanic percentage goes down to maybe in the teens because of the

dramatic shift that takes place. so when you are looking at it from a redistricting standpoint and drawing where the boundaries are, this is one of the key factors to take into account. because it changes at each level, and that is part of the data that we compile as we go about doing redistricting. it is also different, depending on what kind of voting equipment is used in each county. indeed, in 1980, i always say that i was crazy enough to try to keep track of this. we have continued to be crazy, and we have kept track of it since 1980 with every county in the country. you take a look at punch cards in red. they were used in a lot of

jurisdictions in 1980. but the most jurisdictions was, in fact, paper ballots, old traditional paper ballots. in the midwest, ok? lever machines in light blue. by 2000, when we had our famous 2000 election for president, there was a dramatic change because a lot of those particularly rural jurisdictions that have been using paper ballots 10, 20 years before, had switched to a different kind of paper called optical scan. it was a paper ballot use and read by a computer, so it made it easy for the road jurisdictions to count those ballots. but that changed -- for those

rural jurisdictions to count those ballots. but that changed dramatically. in 2000 ucd dichotomy i was talking about before -- -- into the house and you see the dichotomy i was talking about before -- in 2000 you can see the dichotomy i was talking about before. punch cards were used mainly in the suburban jurisdictions of this country. the paper ballots, 11% of the counties, but they only had 1% of the voters because it was mostly the rural areas. you see the difference that takes place. even when you study voting equipment, for example. in 1980 -- in 2000, we had the famous butterfly ballot. indeed, i was al gore's expert with this in florida. talking about the butterfly ballot.

and the problems with punch cards. so i was the one that kept you awake on that saturday morning in court cases for three hours. but when you look at different voting equipment, you see differences as it relates to votes by people. indeed, when you look at 2000 across the country, you saw a greater number of un recorded votes taking place in punch card jurisdictions. this is the table that convinced congress to change the law and enact the help of american vote back in 2002 and do away with punch cards because of the large number of unrecorded votes.

you look at it over time, and in fact unrecorded votes have always been there. in presidential elections, we see about 1.5% to 2%. in non-presidential elections, it is 3.5% or 4% that do not vote for higher office. so you see the steppingstone we saw before. it has come down by 2008. it went down dramatically, partly because of kava. it seems to indicate it is going to back up again. we will see what happens on that side. but there has been change in voting equipment across the country since 2000. from 2000 to 2002, upwards of 11% of the county's changed what kind of voting equipment. we came into being in 2002, so from 2002 to 2004, more jurisdictions ended up changing. another 9% of the counties in this country changed voting equipment between those two

years. finally, between 2004 and 2006, we saw it much more dramatic changes people finally got the money that congress promised and they made changes to their voting equipment. so overall, dramatic changes across the country. that impact data that we have, it is packed all of the elections that we have. that impacts data that we have come it impacts all of the elections that we have. we end up trying to keep track of it. by 2008, we see that most of the country was going optical scan. indeed, if you look at the percent of counties, the optical scan in green just grew

dramatically. in the last 25 years since we have been collecting vat. indeed, lever machines have gone down and paper ballots have gone down. when you look at the percent of registered voters, again looking at that dichotomy, you see optical has gone up, but in deed, the electronic systems hit a peak in 2006 and have gone down since then. as more concerned on electronic equipment put into place. so those are the different things that we study that we have fun looking at and trying to figure out. but all that is going to impact what we are going to see over the next two years, be it voted equipment, being size of jurisdictions, as well as be it

the voting patterns. that governs what ultimately takes place in the next two years on redistricting. that is why i have gray hair. because of all of that. so i am happy to take questions. >> if you would like to ask a question, please line up at the microphone >> please go to the microphone. >> sorry about that. >> feel free to line up at the microphone. >> i have a question. while the 2010 census results helped to predict the -- will be 2010 census results help to predict the 2012 presidential election? >> the electoral college changes.

it shifts with the changing reapportionment. it shifts about seven or eight elect our college -- electoral college votes. obama would have received a less -- six less electoral votes. it would not have caused him to lose, clearly, but it would have caused it to be closer. if you were to run the 2000 election, bush carried that on the electoral college side. he would gain more votes with the new reapportionment process. but imagine that if in florida we had found 537 more votes for gore and gore had been elected. then, under this new reapportionment, it would have changed that outcome. yes?

>> hi. my name is kathleen duffy. i go to the university of san diego. i was wondering, how do you become a member on the committee that does the redistricting in each state? >> it varies in each state. if you are in california, you have a new experience going on out there. the voters in 2008 decided that instead of legislators, you would have a commission to draw the district. there is 14 members of that commission. they have now been selected on that side. but a starter bob with 60,000 people apply for those 14 positions. >> citizens?

>> straight citizens. under california law, they could not be incumbents. they could not be politically active on that side. so they put some restrictions in on that regard. but that is only in california. each state is different. there are six states that have commissions that draw congressional district. but about 14 states have commissions that cross state legislative districts. in many instances, those commissions, you have to look at who appoints the commissioners. in a lot of instances, it is the members themselves, the speaker and the main minority member. so in that instance, it's still politics having their hand on this sway in that regard.

>> thank you. >> yes? >> my name is jessica from wesley college. you said there are 10,000 jurisdictions. why do they do that if it is such a small number? why don't they just make it so there are more people, a standard number of people rather than 100 vs 3 million. >> well, that would give me more jobs to do because i would have to change that after each census. it is basically because of history. indeed, counties came into being as states were formed. you look at county boundaries and township boundaries in the upper midwest -- they were created out of a historical pattern, and they have not changed. many jurisdictions do not want then to change. you go up into new england, those town boundaries have been there since 1780, and they do not change the boundaries at all. but it would give me more work, that's for sure, as if i needed it.

>> thank you. >> other questions? >> hi. whitney from suffolk university. i was wondering if you have a particular preference on the most reliable form of voting, whether it be the letter or paper? -- the lever or paper? >> a good question. each piece of equipment is unique and has its pluses and minuses. the key is, i advise county and state governments, you have to understand what those pluses are, but more importantly what the minuses are. and be able to think whether or not you can manage those minuses. indeed, we have seen that with the electronic equipment, the concern with not having a physical ballett -- -- a physical ballett -- electronics have benefits. as this country, we are governed more by the model livable ballots, that becomes easier to do with electronic. if you have to print five different versions of that ballot, you're printing costs go up the was due. again, it is the pluses and minuses. basically, the electronics, you

are investing front end, but in the long run the feeling is that you will save money. because with optical scan, you are not investing front end, but you are continuing that high investment of printing it each election. as not everybody votes, you are throwing away an awful lot of your budget on that side. so it is really a question of how do you want to manage the process. as well as, what is your jurisdiction used to? you have to take into account what people have used before. anytime there is a change, and it has happened numerous times

this decade -- the first election gets run under a new voting equipment, and that is the best time you have a flub up. and we have had that this decade. to the key is from a management standpoint, being able to manage those kinds of things. >> thank you. >> my name is daley, and i am also from suffolk university. it seems a bit troubling that there is such diversity in the administration. given that you think certain acts are such a positive step and do you think there should be more federal oversight? >> that is a very good question.

it was surprising following the 2000 election that the degree to which people did not understand that there was that diversity. that was the one big lesson we all learned after 2000, is that it is different out there. it takes into account what is the local circumstances. by doing it down at those local levels, they can understand it is easier for the rural farmers to come into some place to vote on a paper ballot than it is -- or to send out paper ballots now, more so than it is to come into a polling place. they are out farming or whatever the case may be. so it is delocalize knowledge that comes into play. i'm one of those not so is that localized knowledge that comes into play. i'm one of those who like that localized knowledge. so still leaving some latitude

to come into play. >> i wanted to know how much of a degree as the fact that it was so much based on each state play into voter turnout, and do you think it would be better if there was uniform law for the entire country. >> i'm sorry, what? >> would it be better if there was a uniform voting law in the country to increase voter turnout? >> that is one of the debates that we have. it is a debate that we have up here in congress. what is interesting, when you go and listen to those debates and go up into the galleries, as you will have that opportunity, you will discover there are 145 experts on the elections

process. they got elected. they know how it is run. but they do not know how -- but they do not realize that their colleague sitting next to them runs in a different process. that is what was really interesting to watch as they were debating in 2001, 2002. that they suddenly started seeing that how i do it back in my jurisdiction is not how you do it in your jurisdiction. so they started struggling with that kind of progress -- process and whether or not to impose something on a uniform national level. they did to a certain degree. they did away with the punch

cards so that when by the wayside. but they left the states and the local jurisdictions with the capability of coming up with a solution of what do you play punch cards with. the other thing that they ended up doing, the more dramatic thing, is required that each state have a statewide voter registration file. because up to that point in time you had to go to every single county to find out who was registered and get a list of registered voters to do a mailing with, for example. that caused enormous cost, and so congress dictated that states create a conglomerate, statewide voter registration file and system by collecting all of those counties together in the one uniform format. it helped from a campaign state. -- if not from the campaign

standpoint, and it helped get rid of -- it helped from a campaign standpoint. they were canceling border registrations in the old jurisdiction, and that is what that helps do this time. so there are benefits on that side from doing something on a uniform basis. it varies. i think there are some things that congress could do and has done in terms of creating something that is a better usage. for example, that voter registration system. but i still think that local governments are better -- basically, better know their jurisdiction in what is going to work in their jurisdiction. >> one more question. >> my name is kim from wesley college. for the presidential elections, without census and demographics, how do you feel

that would impact the results? >> the census and the demographics? >> without knowing the constituents in the electoral college. >> yes, it will impact. we have seen already in terms of the electoral college. but what you find also is that as you draw a district and you make changes to districts, that itself is going to impact. so the important information is understanding how that change is going to take place. that is part of what you do when you do redistricting and you have the data bases that we put together, you have registration numbers, turnout numbers. you have votes cast for all these candidates. as you are doing redistricting,

you are constantly readding those votes to the new districting information so that you can see what kind of performance that district might have. it does not mean that you are going to look towards, can i create more republican seats or can i create more democratic seats. but you are able to see the impact, and that is one of the keys. >> thank you, kimball. >> thank you very much, by all means. >> before you leave, tony had a question about, although the average number of people in each congressional district is about 700,000, clearly there are districts which are smaller. can you tell us what they are and what the smallest congressional district is in terms of population? >> actually, the smallest one this time around will be in the state of rhode island. that state, the two congressional districts that they were allocated will only have about 512,000 people in them.

the biggest one will be the state of montana. they have over 980,000 people. so you see almost two-one change. it is rather dramatic. that is why there has been a court case that ultimately went to the supreme court two months ago to try to change and un that cap of 4500 -- that cap of seats. if you uncap that, you start bringing down the deviations between the states. >> and this is a token of our appreciation for your performance. >> thank you. >> by the way, i was reminded that this is not your maiden performance, it was 20 years ago. so welcome back after a long absence. >> thank you, thank you, by all means. [applause]

tony, as i said, there are your maps for your lunch breaks. >> we will distribute that through the small groups so you can take a look at those in your small group meeting. i did not realize rhode island had the smallest congressional district, but as a child growing up, we used to have two congressional district in montana. some of my earliest memories were in the 1980 census when we lost one of those seats, and seeing all the commotion that that caused in our state, and the commotion that has been focused on the united states census in the state of montana ever since because we have 56 counties and we are the fourth largest state in the country, and we have one representative covering all of those counties. he is a guy who sleeps in his

office, one of those congressmen who sleeps in his office on a pullout couch. he goes back to montana almost every single weekend with the goal of hitting every single county every single year. i would imagine it is a lot easier for those two representatives from rhode island to cover that state. they could probably cover every single county every month. >> there are 39 cities and townships. >> by the way, those states which only have one member of the house of representatives are designated as being members at large, and they are identified, for example, in the congressional directory in parentheses, "a-l." one student told me was really interesting -- why are all of these members in congress, some members of congress and the states, all have the same name? i said what you mean? he said they are all called al. >> thank you for coming in.

yes, yes. [applause] okay. on behalf of the washington center for internships and academic seminars, inside washington 2011 academic seminar, and you for your participation this morning and enjoy capitol hill. go ahead and head off to your small group meeting with your -- the arizona in governor plans to make kirsten of the state address where she is talking about the fatal shootings in tucson. our live coverage starts at 2

1/5-3:50 p.m. eastern. that is here on c-span. >> there is a new way to follow congress with c-span's congressional chronicle. you can find people video archive of each member. it is part of c-span's video library. is washington your way. >> thank you, very much, mr. president, mr. vice president. you have honored me and my family by giving me an opportunity to serve you and to serve our nation. >> with more than 100 entries, you can use the seats in video library to learn more about the newest additions to the obama in administration. you can watch any time on line in our c-span video library. it is washington, your way.

>> now, a look at campaign strategy and messaging with republican consulting firm president david winston. this is part of a training program from american universities campaign is to. it is an hour and 35 minutes. this is a republican research firm. david is going to talk to us about strategy, of which she is an expert. he has been a republican member of congress for a number of years. .

david is a commentator for both network and cable. cbs, among others. he wrote a book chapter for a book that i coedited and at least two of you have read. i recommend it highly to everybody else. i will turn it over to david. thank you, very much. >> when i walk through this with you, it is a strategy of campaigns. what i am hoping to accomplish is for you to understand the concept to develop strategy, understand how to develop the strategy and then how to implement the strategy in terms of management. during the course of this, we will suggest to you that strategy is what your door to do.

they did not don't -- know there were born to lose until the day of the election to a large degree, but would not a knowledge of the other side's strategy or they did not think through what they were doing. i have to buy television. i have to do direct mail. i have to get out the vote. that is without any reason as to why you're doing any of this. if you do not have a clear understanding why you are going to do something, that means you not have a good strategy. i want to loosen you up in terms of the strategic situations. i want to give you some puzzles to take a look at without

lifting york paper, connect the dots with three lines. any takers? start at the bottom -- >> start at the bottom, go to the top left-hand circle. and then you go diagonally through the middle top one and the middle what one two imaginary one on the sides and

then you go over, across the bottom and then when you get to the bottom left-hand one, the agnelli -- does that make sense? >> ok, you have part of it right. .ere's the solution here is a fundamental lesson behind this. this is thinking outside the box. what happened is that when you looked at this and i described it to you, everybody created this rule that you have these four boundaries.

i did not say that you have to stay here. ultimately, you created some rules for solving this problem that did not exist. i cannot tell you how many times i have watched a political campaign or any organization think there is a set of rules that exist and they inhibit your ability to solve the problem. let me give you a real-world example. i have the pleasure of working with bill frist who was senate majority leader but before that was involved in figuring out how to successfully do heart transplants. when people figured out to -- when you transplant the heart, the body would reject the heart. so, he was involved with a team that asked how we deal with that. they took antibodies and broke the rules.

we cannot just simply say the heart will be accepted. we are born to ratchet down the inner body effectiveness in terms of dealing with external entities long enough for it to except the heart and then rent it back up -- and then ratchet it back up. that is one example. the next one. i would like you to remove three sticks and leaves for takers? [laughter]

to remove one hand and put it back? again, you only have one action. remove three sticks and leaves for sticks -- leave four sticks. again, you're talking about separate actions. i am talking about one swoop. you are getting in the right direction. >> can you remove the top side and bottom and leave the roman numeral for? yes. that is the solution. at this as an option and -- as an object and not as a graphic.

particularly, -- changing perspective is remarkably difficult to do. you are a result of your experiences. that experience gives you a fundamental orientation. you tend to view the world that way. the hardest thing to do is to say that i need to somehow learn something new, adjust to something new, in which i can look at this in different ways. it is very hard to do. i have done this for think tank's and they struggle with it. that one is actually harder than the other one. with that, let me start off with -- what is your product?

what is going to be your product as a campaign manager? your product as a campaign manager? >> when you take a strategy for a plan and execution of that. >> you are real close. you basically got all the elements that are one word. >> the paint -- as the campaign itself? >> no, that is an entity.

>> how do you actually get there? there is another element to your decisions. you are about to be taught how to do lots of detail things. however, if your the person who is sitting down, you are not the campaign manager. you need to understand the report, but the need to understand what gets done and hopefully you'll understand it. it is your decision and you need to make sure that you are making decisions that matter and let other people make decisions that should be making them. did you find yourself doing everybody else's job, what is the point? alternately, you will become incredibly overworked. this is on two levels. you're making decisions and you

are making the right decisions. that is what corn about what is or to differentiate you. -- that is what is going to differentiate it.

.

>> it shows the lack of necessary government structure or the capture of our democratic government structures by very strong special interests. it also highlighted a deep injustice, the privatization of profit and socialization of losses and debt. ireland is a case in point. although with its own problems, it is paying for the people of ireland are paying for the toxic practices of an international financial system. this is a politically unsustainable practice in our democracies. again, one that challenges us to look at our government structures and make sure they are transparent, democratically responsible and just. so, we have had to make sacrifices in greece to deal with the symptom of debt and

deficit cutting wages in the public sector, revamping the pension system, hike being taxes, cutting spending in most areas from defense to transport, merging or privatizing public companies. this is to achieve the goal of cutting the deficit by more than 6% this year. an achievement few believed we could have accomplished. but we have done so. however, our real task, the task of my government today, is to make deeper changes, create a society of transparency and good governance rather than dispensing privileges for the few and special interests who want to maintain rights for all and create conditions for sustainable growth in a country with great potential. comparative advantages in so many areas from agriculture to tourism, clean energy, shipping

and culture. we are doing so by major rorls, tax reforms, reforms in transparency by bringing all of our funding in the public sector online. today everything is online. fighting corruption in the health sector. opening up professions. those are some of the things we have done and are continuing. a second myth is the markets will some the problems. we have to take the necessary measures as countries and we will have taken -- if we have taken them everything will be on track. well, we are on track and greece has been successful in accomplishing goals the last year. this is not my assessment, this is the commission, e.c.b. and i. i.m.s. combined assessment. yet not only greece but others in the you're rezone -- eurozone are being purchased with high terms of lending. markets are not some divine entity nor the devil.

they are made up of human beings of hedge funds, corporate, and consumers and we must understand there are different interests at play. our governance challenge here is whether we organize the interests in a way we regulate so markets work for the common good or they become increasingly a tool for the cons traegs of power and -- concentration of power and privilege of the few. i say this because today we are faced with a huge concentration of physician power. for example, according to a recent article in the "new york times" only a handful of nine anonymous people more or less control various derivative markets. more and more analysts are saying the core problem of the recent recession as with the great depression is inequality. a number of economists have pointed out huge inequalities in societies and between countries

are the underlying cause for much suffering, crime, corruption, even the undermining of the democratic institutions as this concentrates power in the hands of a few. on the other hand, equality, the societies that are more equality, are healthier, more robust and cohesive, more competitive, more happy. so, in our new globalized world we must drive to regulate and harness the power of markets to bring justice and equality to our societies. this ties with the third myth, that member states in the european union can with the appropriate austerity measures and reforms accomplish the mission alone. if each country is fiscally responsible the problem with vanish. no need for stronger governance structures in the european union or solidarity.

but this myth avoids three basic problems. first, the recent global crisis revealed some of the missing bricks in the architecture of the common currency. without at the same time having a common treasury. an attempt to replace the latter with coordinated fiscal and structural policies which haven't worked as efficiently as we would have liked. at the same time fiscal expansion was used to combat the weak demand that accompanied the financial crisis. secondly, the problems are much wider, much more diverse than simply fiscal consolidation at the national level. let me mention a few. high anxiety. insecurity in the markets. insecurity in our populations. prophecy of doom. market worries of future debt. growth potential of the economies, credit rating agencies that are accountable to

no one yet they are behind closed doors and their actions can profoundly affect economies. we see that today. tax evasion and particularly tax havens. we the governments are in need to collect revenue and we do so. yet big interests can escape through tax havens which are helped by the financial system. this is both untenable and unjust to the societies when we are trying to put our house in order. it is robbery of the growth potential and our potential to invest in the welfare of our citizens. we can only solve these problems by close cooperation, stronger regulation and economic governance. not by going alone but through greater european integration. finally, we know europe is challenged today by a waning competitiveness and competitively slow growth.

we face an historical shift in the world toward asia and other emerging economies. this is a fact. an irreversible fact. we are challenged by a competitiveness not always based on quality but often on inequality. committee labor, lack of collective bargaining, lack of democratic or social rights, ease of denigrating the environment. these may in the short run give a competitive advantage to some countries, yet this is not the model we can or should emulate. our response must be one of quality of products, massive investment in the new protect of -- prospect of green and clean, investment in education, innovation and communication and transportation to energy, investment in social welfare of our citizens. i say this to highlight the fact

that, yes, we were in need of solidarity, we in greece and ireland recently, to deal with the hostile markets that gave us no time to make the necessary changes. this is why we in the european union set up the esfs financial mechanism for countries in need to give them time to make the necessary reforms. the european union with whatever difficulties and delays did step up to the challenge and i believe that this will has been complemented in recent decisions when we say we will do everything necessary to achieve stability in the european union and eurozone. let me take the opportunity to extend my thanks to the support the french government has demonstrated and the warm solidarity we have received from the french people. this is highly appreciated in greece and by the greek people. my point is a broader one. we must not misinterpret this as

some form of charity not only because we will be paying back in full and that despite all the doom sayers but because the challenge is a wider one. it is a european one, a three-fold challenge. one of tablization in a -- stab stabilization in a world of up certainty. these are not just solidarity but steublization. and then regulation of the financial system making it more transparent and fair and again investing in the real economy. third, a growth scenario for jobs, competitiveness and green development. so i will conclude with more concrete proposals. the eurozone response has been three-fold. embarking on figure rust fiscal consolidation, improving surveillance through the framework for economic governance, creating a financial

stabilization mechanism. the results are still not the desired ones as the markets seem to have doubts about our resolution to deal with the crisis. this is in contrast to our real intentions. in order to produce a more credible strategy we can deal with three further issues that have a direct impact on debt, sustainability, of countries in tunnel and reverse the stags -- situation leading to exit from the crisis. first we have to break the influence of the credit rating agencies for countries in trouble. especially those benefiting from the european crisis support mechanism as their economist are scrutinized and the reports could be used in cases of collateral assessment. more general the regulatory framework of the agencies has to improve. second, the characteristics, scope and lending terms of the european stabilization

mechanisms have to improve and be more perfect in dealing with debt sustainability and market imperfections. we have to think about the seniority or not of the european stability loans. the loans should fit better to the characteristics of advanced countries which experience growth rates similar to those of emergi emerging economies. i fully realize in no case we should allow for moral hazard problems. i'm sure we can find other solutions to the problem while at the same time raising a wall to face market aggression and give a helping hand to economies in trouble. third, we have to think more about growth. both at the member state level and e.u. level. this way we will endeavor to improve the prosperity of our citizens and finds resources to reduce debt faster. while restoring budgetary discipline is imperative, without a reasonably dynamic

economy this growth cannot be achieved let alone the goals of high employment and social peace. there is no room to provide economic stimulus at the level of national policies as we have seen but one does exist however at the level of the european union. the european union has great responsibilities if we compare it to the united states which has a huge federal debt. we have a strong visible initiative. we have to take a strong visible initiative to open the growth chapter of the european union anticrisis policies. without such a chapter the reform of governance will be incomplete and the stability part is doomed to fail. markets will only calm down it they are convinced the union is capable to return to a path both of stability and of growth. only by combining stability and growth, political and social stability can be secured.

finally, we will have -- we should use all the possible tools in a tool box to make our efforts successful. here there is an open discussion on a number of tools and i would like to to mention them. the financial transaction tax that would give resources to the european union very important. tax on co-2 or green house gases tax. another resource which would help us move toward green development but also create resources for the european union. thirdly, the euro bonds. there is growing support for the issuance of them as an effective financial instrument that can help europe achieve major policy objectives. they will facilitate the financing of infrastructure projects and other investments that can enhance growth and particularly green growth. euro bonds will help reduce growing tensions in the sovereign bond markets and

persistent stresss in banking systems and facilitate the adjustment of countries. this way euro bonds will contribute to the financial stability and economic prosperity of the euro area as a whole. all euro areas will be better off economically and financially if we succeed to resolve it crisis, safeguard financial stability in the euro area and support the common currency. countries with fiscal problems and structural weaknesses will have to continue to do their homework to restore found -- sound public finances. but euro bonds are not a substitute for this adjustment we are making in each country and in greece. but it can serve as an effective complementary means to help resolve the euro area debt crisis and foster a tool for economic and green growth.

hraeurpbls, for the -- ladies and gentlemen, for the past three years the global economy has been in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions have lost jobs and wealth has been destroyed and economic growth has ground to a halt. while our citizens have been burdened with massive new public debt and watched the democratic sovereignty being put at risk. here today we are meeting to take the next steps to bring forth a new world. unlike meetings we have attended in the past year, here today, instead of squabbling over who pays for what, who bails out home we must set out the design to provide the comprehensive action needed to restore the proper balance between markets and governance and we owe this to our citizens. that is the least we can do. we also know that our political voice in europe, whether it is

in our own region, or a wider region such as the mediterranean, phaoefpls, black sea, caucuses or africa will be affected by these decisions. and here france and greece have been working together on regional issues such as in the mediterranean. here instead of a top-down approach based unilateral aid the european union is building a more equal partnership with neighbors in the mediterranean. we have also taken initiatives with greece, turkey and other countries and france is involved in dealing with the mediterranean climate change issue and seeing this as a positive force for cooperation dealing with conflicts such as the one in the middle east and we want to see a peaceful settlement as soon as possible there but also seeing our green development as an opportunity for jobs and growth in the mediterranean and europe while

dealing with the environmental problem. and of course jeffrey saks has been very helpful working on this issue. i'm very confident working together we can also become a catalyst not only for conflict resolution but for a stronger voice for democracy, human raoeuight rights, prosperity around our world. before i chose i would like to -- before i close i would like to thank france not only for organizing this event but again for the solidarity you have shown, and i wish you well in your role at the head of the g-20. you have a great challenge and global democratic governance will be on our agenda for years to to come. this is a challenge for the world and we support french efforts to reform the global monetary system, to control the fluctuation of prices for essential commodities and staple foods and help regulate the world economy.

europe can and must play its part. i too often believe we do not understand or realize the real potential europe has in this word. if we work together, if we believe in europe, we can help make this world a better, more just, more democratic, more green place for our citizens around the globe. greece is going through a difficult crisis, but be sure, we are making this crisis an opportunity for change and for prosperity for our people, for a very different greece, one we are proud of. my hope is that the greek crisis will become an opportunity for europe and the world. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the french conference wraps up with ministers from the u.k., france and italy. they talk about their efforts to rebuild the european economy, decrease debt and restore trust in the markets. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to come to this very impressive conference for the first time. i wasn't the finance minister a year ago so it is my first opportunity to come and my second visit to paris as the chancellor of the exchecquer. the dialogue between the british and french governments grows and strengthens and we welcomed your president to london recently and your prime minister will be in london next week. i think the fact that we are having this discussion, the fact that we are having the conference and some of my colleagues are here, so many

distinguished academics are here shows that france, right from the beginning of this important presidency of the g-20 and g-8 is taking the time and trouble to address the serious questions and challenges that lie ahead. there is an english expression about football which is that football is a game of two halves. the world economy is a, at the moment, a game of two halves. i was recently in china and hong kong and south korea, and one couldn't but be impressed by the energy, excitement, the dynamism of the asian economies and the impressive growth that you see in the big emerging economies of the world. and they are profoundly optimistic about the future, these countries. you can feel the on --

optimism. then i traveled to the united states, travel around europe, come to the united kingdom, and there is not that same optimism. there is a lack of self-confidence. there are questions being asked about our economic futures in the advanced developed economies. and there is soul searching and i think we are right to challenge that and confront that and ask how we can change that. i would suggest in opening up this session that there are three challenges. a challenge for the international institutions, a challenge for the european union, and a challenge for our own domestic governments. the first is the challenge for the international institutions. i think that the challenge is this. can these institutions be as relevant in the economic

recovery as they were in the recession? it is not so straightforward. not all countries need to do the same thing at the moment. that is a challenge for coordination. there is a second challenge we are familiar with, which is these institutions created after the second world war in a world dominated by western victor of the war don't necessarily reflect the world as it is today. steps are being taken to change that. but i welcome the fact that france is directly addressing these questions at the beginning of its presidency of the g-20. we should not forget quite substantial progress has been made. two years ago if one said will it be possible for the world to agree that new banking regulations and the basel accord in 24 months people would have

doubted that. of course the challenge now is to get the countries to implement it. if you had said 18 months ago that we were going to be able to reform the i.m.f. that europe was going to voluntarily give up seats on the governing board of the i.m.f., that we were going to increase the representation of china and india and brazil, people would have said you would never be able to get agreement to that in such a short, comparatively short period of time. but we have done this. if you had said that the g-20 would be able to start address being the incredible my politically difficult economic challenging issue of global economic imbalances where there are strong international interests involved you, too, would have said that that was extremely difficult. but at the seoul g-20 meeting it was starting to be addressed. so there is progress but i think there is much more that needs to

happen. i would say that to my french colleagues you have an enormous responsibility the next year to prove the g-20 is relevant as an important international institution going forward. because if the french can't make a success of the g-20, then i don't see who can. and all the signs are good, all the signs are pointing in the right direction. i think that the agenda that you have set out looking at the international monetary system, looking at global institutions, ensuring that things that have already been agreed to in south korea and london and pittsburgh are implemented, all the signs are good. but if you don't mind me saying so the responsibilities are also great and i think your president will live up to that responsibility and deliver a great presidency of the g-20. i also think, by the way since i won't go through the

international institutions we need to address but i will just mention these two. i think that the financial stability board has a great and important role to play in the future and should be strengthened. i also think that sitting before us as countries as we look at what we can do to stimulate global prosperity is a free trade round which we know is difficult and we know this are political obstacles to. but it sits this and i think 2011 is a window of opportunity to deal with that. so, that is the challenge for the international institutions, to prove they are as relevant in recovery as they were in recession. the challenge to europe, let me be candid and i include the united kingdom, is to prove to the world that we can put our own house in order. of course, the united kingdom is not a member of the eurozone although i'm the first british chancellor of the exchecquer to attend a euro group meeting which tells you is something

must have gone wrong last year. but the point i would make is this. i think in the next few months -- and i mean the next few months -- the eurozone needs to demonstrate -- and we are here as the united kingdom to assist -- demonstrate that the countries of the euro stand behind their currency and there is good progress being made with the decision to create the european stability mechanic nfl. we -- mechanism. we now need to see that and convince the world that the countries of the euro stand behind the euro, which i believe they do and i think in a way events of the last year have demonstrated. but we can't afford another year of periodic crises and dedisablize i dedisablizing instability. i believe another big challenge is to reare store confidence --

restore confidence in the european banking system. this is a major challenge but a lack of global confidence is a major drag on the recovery across europe. the stress tests that we all signed up to, the finance ministers in the room, last year, were, frankly, not good enough. they identified at the end of the process 3.5 billion euro capital shortfall. they said if you look at all the banks of europe there was a 3.5 billion capital shortfall and steps were taken to address that. a few months later, in ireland, we discovered we needed 35 billion euros for the irish banks. so, that is why the european finance ministers have agreed that there should be another round of stress tests at the beginning of this year. i think we need to get the stress tests right, they need to be critical.

they cover a three-year period and need to hook at liquidity and capital and we need to have the right plans in place to ensure where there is need for capital, that capital can be provided. longer term, in order to protect taxpayers, in order to ensure countries like the united kingdom and france can continue to be the home of large international banks, we need to also ensure that taxpayers are not the people who have to pay for the mistakes of those banks. we have to create a system where banks are not too big to fail, to use the jar gone. and -- jargon. and an important step is to implement the basel agreement. that basel agreement needs to be implemented not just in europe but implemented in the united states and implemented elsewhere in the world. but there is a responsibility as we finance ministers look to

turn the basel agreement into european law that we do not water it down but we live up to the commitments that we have entered into. and we remember that actually three extremely distinguished european central bankers were absolutely at the heart of drafting the basel agreement. so this is a european shaped agreement and we need to implement it. and i would suggest that this should be the priority of the ecosin, a priority of the european commission and we should not get into the unnecessary distractions of other regulations that, i think, are beside the point. and frankly, in paris we need to move on from a rather sterile debate which is the competition between london and paris and frankfurt for financial services business and realize that the

real challenge for europe is to remain a competitive place to do business versus the united states and asia. that is the issue that we should have at the front of our minds, properly regulated financial services -- and we are changing the system of regulation in the u.k. -- proper international rules that are implemented by those who sign up to them. we have those rules on the table in basel. then competitive financial services that can help fund a recovery and growing world. indeed, that leads me to the broader question that europe needs to address in challenge including the united kingdom of how we remain a competitive place to do business first off. and i think there is a role in the european union in leading europe in a direction where it directly addresses some of the challenges this continent has, some structural problems in the economy, some of the barriers to competitiveness. because we realize, surely,

after the last two years, the world doesn't "europe a living. europe has to make its case as the best and most dynamic place to do business in the world. that brings me to my third and final point. in the end, there is a huge responsibility of course of national governments to get things right. we have to put our own houses in order. i speak of the finance minister representing the country with the largest budget deficit in the g-20, and until ireland overtook us the last 12 months the largest budget deficit in the e.u. fp i would argue that the steps that a new british government has taken in the last seven months proves that in the end national governments are capable of earn being market -- earning market credibility and demonstrating to the world they can put their house in order in a public finance sense. we have seen in the last few months our credit rating

affirmed at a time when almost every other credit rating change has been in a negative direction around europe. we have even our market interest rates and spreads fall as many other european countries with smaller budget deficits have seen theirs rise. i think it demonstrates that, in other words, countries can put forward credible deficit reduction plans. this week we took an extremely difficult decision but a necessary one to increase our value-added tax, sales tax and that took effect at the beginning of this week. so, countries and political systems can take the steps that are necessary. we are also taking difficult steps reform our welfare system and to reduce areas of government spending. i would say in the process we are also trying to concentrate spending on where we think it is most productive. we see a positive role for government spending and i would mention three things.

>> could i mention we're slightly over time? >> i really only have one page to go. >> i know. you are three minutes over time. >> i would just point out that we are taking steps to increase the investment in education, build new transport links, and i would say this to other countries represented here, hit our .7% of international target by 2015, one of the first countries to do that. let me ends by saying this, in the end these are great challenges that we all face, but i am an on miss and i -- optimist and i'm an optimist for this reason. every month around the world millions of people are coming out of grinding poverty that their families have been in thousands of years and becoming connected to the world economy and they are doing it in china, india and vietnam and indonesia and brazil.

those people are becoming nations of manufacturers. they have already become nations of manufacturers. the big challenge it western economies they are becoming nations of consumers and they are going to start to want good modern medicine and french and british pharmaceuticals can provide them. they will want pensions, insurance, access to banking services and french and british banks can provide those services. they are going to want more energy. french and british oil companies and energy companies can provide that. they are going to want to buy luxury goods here in paris you have some of the greatest luxury goods companies in the world. they are going to want to fly on airplanes for the first time in their listens and they hope they fly on airbus airplanes and they are going to want to come on holiday for the first time abroad and i hope they come to paris and london on vacations.

these are reasons to be optimistic. millions of people more prosperous and connected to the world want being the things that french, british, italian, polish countries and others are good at providing. that is the reason to end on an optimistic note. >> this morning's session is on which economic policies for the world to come. quoting a famous phrase, a vast program.

let phame start with a short history. if i look back to two years ago at the beginning of the crisis, i remember my initial position was quite radical. to nationalize banks. this was the position. at the opposite, my impression was to take part to some meetings of private banks trying to hair philosophy and language and characteristics of the private sector. the banking sector.

lo losing the merits that should be distinctive. long-term action, power. at the opposite, sometimes my impression is fear, submission, pa passi passivity. for some it was difficult to understand the difference between the cycle and the crisis. crisis is not about bad weather conditions. it is a radical change of social, moral, legal, political power. these crises provide a dramatic change in the velocity of the world with. the impact on europe of the

discovery of america was dramatic. but two centuries long. the economic discovery of asia, the engine of globalization is equally dramatic on europe but is only two decades olds. governments that are not prepared areville of globalizati globalization. finding this ridiculous from a political point of view. that is an example. first step, the position of government was some regulation on the financial world should be required. second step, this kind of regulation must be provided by the bank.

preparing their own regulation. third step, banks are important to the government for their own law. another similar and example in the case of public sector. first, public debt was the medicine of second step, today public debt is the disease. why only today public debt is the disease? working for possible next step of the crisis, which is the medicine because of the end of the old world medicine, i'm a

member of g-7 and i'm young enou enough. g-7 was a political organization controlling 80% of the g.d.p. controlled by the linguistic cord, english, political cord dollar and democracy. g-20 is quite diverse. represents 80% of the world g.d.p. but not unified by the three old cords. not by the language, not by the currency and not by the political motive. this is the reason why the kind of approach to world changing more politics and, if possible,

more legal morality. and this is the reason why three years ago my proposal was drafting and approving the declaration on general rights. this leads us to four lessons. first, in europe we are maintaining political borders while we have removed economic borders. but risk is borderless. it is not possible for some countries to say, like on the titanic i'm a first class passenger. it is not possible because of the counterpart with directing

your banks and it is not possible to say when business is ok, ok, i receive dividends, in the other case to say limit the responsibility. risk is borderless. i'm not speaking only of contagion but counterparts related to basics. also related to banks of countries. second, the border between public and private budgets did vanish. for many years we were taught to believe the real risk for europe would come from public budgets and it was an important position. but the origin of this crisis was the responsibilities in our

economic surveillance. just to be clear, inflation obviously is important to control the market of goods, but it is important also to control the financial area and on this area was not marginal. third lesson, crisis is not over and is quite like living inside a video game. something appears, you click it and you are relaxing and then more power than the first one. and which and where is the tphebnext monster? everything is going well, but

are you sure ? you have to be careful. the fourth lesson, we cannot continue to act case by case with a tactic of that. let me pay a tribute to france. the king asked for more money from the finance minister. and the minister came back a few days after and said i have an idea. a new tax. a tax on intelligence. nobody should admit to be stupid. everybody should pay because of his intelligence. the king said, minister, you are

exce excepted. sometimes we discuss the new transaction on financial sector have a good idea, but we understand we have some problems and and -- some negative kla collateral effects. but meanwhile we are trying to tax the financial world we are paying to the financial world a very stupid tax. a tax we pay in terms of additional marginal interest which is insidious. and this is the result. introduction of common bonds is sharing sort of, it is not only a technical issue.

rememb remember, the nation building. a lot of things and the architecture must be more complex and we are working. if you look at the political map in europe, nobody, no country in europe is working and doing deficit spending. it is the opposite. one country is stronger than another country because of the new political philosophy. if you look at the geopolitical map of the world, it is easy to see that the interaction and competition is between continents, between continents and blocs. the situation for europe is that

era of nation states. this is the reason why i conclude quoting the famous statement on european union addressed by winston churchill september of 1946. let europe arise. thank you. >> thank you very much. now i would like our next speaker to give us his views. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> not be able to listen to the interesting thing but my colleague will say right after me. now i will speak in french. this is the third time that i

have had the pleasure of taking the floor for this important event. thank you for allowing me to continue my learning process. when i did the floor the first time i talked about the incompetence and ethical issues of markets. and i was focusing on the short term. the second time around i spoke about reactivity, having the capacity to react. the reactivity also of democr y democracy, without which capitalism is a mere fiction. after the reactions of the governments of the crisis we have to turn to the future and we have to look at the world after the crisis, not the one that is trying to get all the traces of the crisis to disappear as if it does not exist but the world that will take stock and draw lessons. in the world we are in today, however, things are not reassuring. governments, as i said last

year, have not been able to or known how to have tax on institutional reforms introduced to their growth plans which would have allowed them to take control of the markets again. therefore, the result of this is quite clear for us. you can see what is happening in the united states and in europe. in europe, the social costs are being reduced so that the credit rating agencies are satisfied. there is a short-term view and all of this is going to be made worse. between the different schools of thought i think that the different issues are not analyzed in the same way. we are coming out of the system despite the financial system, not because of the financial

system. therefore, it is a great problem to me how governments are continuing to turn to financial markets and depend on them for the next step. that is what is happening. i think that this, therefore, will necessarily make social and labor issues more and more relevant. how can we avoid a political crisis in the near future? and how can we find policies that correspond to the expectations of our citizens and populations? therefore, i think what we have to do is combine four distinct issues. the first principle is a principle of reality. yesterd yesterday, not too long ago, we said we had managed to goat out of the protectionist attitudes of the 1930's. then there was a currency war. then there were strategies that

were exporter biased which obviously would stifle domestic growth. nations tend to forget that their economies are int interdependent. countries have been through crisis together seem to forget that this is an international crisis and they define their policies without looking at the externalities that are going to be affected and have an effect on other countries, then they are amazed we there is a boomerang effect. how can one resist? people say there are new, there is a new regime of hope and in that we can see that growth rate is structurally lower and the unemployment rate is either balanced or higher and therefore

expectations of citizens will necessarily be reduced. we can see in more technical terms we can say that the crisis has maybe sorted certain issues but we will have mass unemployment for the first time since the 1930's. it has settled as on both sides of the atlantic. this is something which is new and which is fundamental. unemployment is the greatest imbalance for a democracy in pea peacetime so i think we have to look at things up front. we cannot accept it. this is why the second principle is so important, and that is a principle of hope. within tends to forget that for the rich countries what is particularly important is social protection and global competitiveness that is generated from that. if we have weaker hope, if it is

concentrated by an inward looki looking, it doesn't generate growth. citizens wish to get more there environment, from public goods, more education, more health, more decent jobs, more economic security, more political participation and social capital. that is what they want. those are the elements of well-being. therefore, it is in this way that the developed world can actually find itself and identify itself. therefore we have to find a new policy mix, not merely mixing monetary and fiscal policies. a real policy mix which is a combination of policies of business activities and well-being. we cannot concentrate merely on eliminating the effects of the crisis because these effects

indicate to us clearly how difficult our struggle was to avoid the long-lasting pitfalls of the crisis. this brings me to the third principle, transcend dancy of the -- transcendent seu of the future. that is one of the commandments we must never forget. how account unemployment, those whose jobs are on the line, how can they have that sort of hope for the future or memory of the future? this obviously also has to be based on our metrics, on our measurements. this is the report that was drafted and was presented to the president of the french republic. the well-being of individuals depends on their capacity to choose the sort of life that they wish to have, their future. this is why unemployment effects

are much greater than mere loss of income. because it prevents people from choosing their futures. this is why economic security is indispensable to being. also, measuring sustainability is extremely important so we can better understand the future. and it does not limit it as many would like us to believe to measuring public debt and technically gross public debt. we have to take all the different capital goods that we convey to future generations into consideration. this, therefore, should also be one of the principles that france should uphold during the g-20 so there can be new indicators for social and economic progress, for policies to achieve these growth objectives it has to be based on

the knowledge of what actually tkerls progress -- determines progress. it is in that way it would be much easier to be able to invest in those factors because the value of those investments would be recognized globally. therefore, we need to have different indicators and we have to have a global public debate on these indicators. it is extremely important to fight against macroeconomic instability. what sort of policy can we have in this area? joseph stiglitz and myself have presented mother paper in another forum. we have talked in symmetry. the principle of symmetry means that the world avoids uniform adaptation when there are

diverse circumstances. it is not mere adaptation that would be a downward approach. it is not only countries that have problems that should adapt. each country has to contribute. those may have a huge surplus in their current country should also adapt in a certain way. those that have huge difficulties should also adapt. this is also the case for all economic policies introduced. each contributes gradually and i think we would contribute jointly to a positive sum and growth rate would benefit. but we also have to have symmetry in world governance. i think the g-20 that is representing 80% of the world population is only representing

10% of the countries of the world. we should keep that in perspective and symmetry should perhaps apply it other aspects as well to be the world monetary system and balance and equitable share. but i don't want to overrun so thank you for listening to me. >> thank you. . [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> this week, on "q&a," our guest is martha raddatz, cbs correspondent for abc news. >> martha raddatz, looking ahead at 2011 in the national security and foreign affairs area, what do you see? >> it is always for god so hard to predict. afghanistan, we have to keep an eye on them in july 2011 when the administration is talking about withdrawing troops in af