this business? in a funny way, a lot of different people do well in the business but lawyers do not do so badly and engineers to not do you know why? all of those groups have a real respect for facts as opposed to sentiment and impression. lawyers are trained with facts, engineers for sure live with facts, and accountants. that cannot be all you are but that is not a bad place to start. as opposed to nerves and advice and short-termism. >> we are running out of time but i did one sort of a lightning round. really quickly. the volcker rule? >> i think misplaced and well intended but out of place and potentially harmful to the

markets. >> too big to fail? >> appropriately to an extent the current obsession and something that needs to be sorted out to maintain the contractor want to have with the public. >> money market funds? >> very important source of excess liquidity for people but what does not get enough attention is very important liquidy for companies. to have all that exist on the balance sheets of banks and loan to companies would inflate the balance sheets of banks and create more credit risk than the balance sheet we are, with the day. uncomfortable with today. >> financial transaction taxes? >> screwy. liquidity is a virtue of the system and to tax liquidity in order to hamper it is going to be a cost that will be realized in a lot of facets of our society that are not

anticipated. >> a book you would recommend? >> every book i read i am in love with. what area? >> you choose. >> history. >> the book on washington. >> i just finished it. covered a million things. so here is the demigod washington. no one had more prestige in the world. the politics surrounding him were so bitter and horrible, and everyone talks about the world has changed, nobody had to deal with a 24-hour news cycle, let me tell you. this is his own delegation writing pamphlets against him. it almost gives me some faith that we can survive the bitterness of the current system, that these things are part of a cycle and the fact we

are thinking this is as worse as it can be is only a function that this is the generation we are in and everything else is focused. but that book made it vivid that we have gone through these cycles before and we have certainly gotten out of them. so i feel better about it. >> there was a point in time when washington and jefferson never spoke to each other. >> you know something? every night about 5:00 i get the incoming e-mails that contain the next day's news stories and i'm thinking, these would take two months to get printed and would go by a horseback. >> last question. we try to use this conference as a way of maintaining a culture. there are not only some senior people here but some younger ones as well, and many of us have children. you have three. >> i do.

>> at the age when most people are looking to begin their careers. >> 27, 25, 19. >> what advice would you give to young people starting out their careers, financial or otherwise? >> you can never give your own kids advice. >> that i understand. >> i have learned my lesson. >> in other kids you can try. [laughter] >> i think people -- look, i started out, i did not just go to law school but practiced law. things ended up a lot different than i thought. people should do something, not be so obsessive about where it will take you in the longer run. not only don't you know the context you will face, you do not even know yourself. so the idea of planning these things, will this be good for me in the long run, people should take advantage of the fact that

in this generation nobody is getting drafted into the army, you can have a few years of experimentation that you can be liberated from the need to make sure everything is taking you on some straight line to someplace. it does not have to be a straight line anyway. >> enjoy the ride because you never know where it might take you, even to the chairmanship of goldman sachs. >> and do not worry about knowing the contents of your business -- you have to know content but you also have to be a complete person. in your early part of your life you should focus on being a complete person. >> agreed. ladies and gentlemen, join me in thanking lloyd blankfein. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] mary jorow morning, white at the investment company institute.

8ve coverage get started at a.m. eastern on c-span 2. later in the morning, a panel discussion on the economy and fiscal policy. will hear from kent conrad and judd gregg. live on friday at 10:30 a.m. eastern also on c-span 2. an event frompan, columbia university on news coverage after mass casualty events. after that, president obama and mexican president. and defense secretary hagel talks about syria. >> ronald reagan i think massively made mistakes in defense. the defense budget is not just a waste of money in those eight years, but it is what created machineish chain -- war

and created so much anger and problems throughout the world that were totally unnecessary. -- it is face interview madeimperial power. -- it made us face imperial power. the government, the state is not the solution to every problem. the idea of entrepreneurs, the idea of technological change and the idea that people should make of a own decisions instead big nanny in washington, he stood for all those things. i agree with those things. that puts a plus in the plus column. he really needed to stand up for closing more deficits.

ronald reagan's spent of time before 1980 as the greatest of deficitonent spending there ever was. he left a legacy of massive deficit that permitted his followers -- that was a historical, you know of enormous proportions. >> more from david stockman sunday at 8 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." next, columbia university's journalism school examines media coverage after mass shootings and other traumatic events. they discussed virginia tech, columbine, and sandy hook elementary school shootings. >> we are at the last panel of the day.

where does the story go from here? we are going to sort of open the conversation to a new perspective, new directions. where does the story go from here locally? newtown, connecticut, where does the story go from here for the nation? where does the story go from here for reporters? how do we think about individuals in families and communities? where should we be looking as journalists? a wide open panel. as has already come up a few times, overlaid on sandy hook is another crisis. boston. we will talk a little bit about that. so, to introduce everyone briefly -- i will not take much time on this, maximizing time for discussion.

to my immediate right is david culllen. we have two cullens here today. he is the author of "columbine," reflecting a decade's worth of reporting into the background and aftermath of the columbine school shootings. it won more awards than i care to say. i will say that he is a fellow of whom there have been several. and beth macy from the roanoke times, i first met deb in the aftermath of the virginia tech shootings, which she covered for that paper.

she will bring some thoughts on what the long-term trajectory looks like from that. she is the family beat reporter at "the roanoke times." she also now is working on a book that when it comes out you will all have to buy. candace king, next to her. she is the chief operating officer of cure violence, a public health initiative in chicago that supports city-wide violence prevention. if you saw the film "the interrupters," you saw the fruits of their labor on the streets of chicago, to reduce the incidence of gun violence and all the public health catastrophes that follow from

that. next to her, my new haven neighbor, dr. stephen marins. adult psychoanalyst who is the professor of psychology -- psychiatry at the child professor -- child study at yale. he is the founder of the child development community policing program. which i first became aware of when it was the child witnessed the violence project. right? no? ah. >> that is all right. >> founder of the child development community policing program, a collaboration between law enforcement professionals and mental health community helping children exposed to violence and trauma.

next to steven is the other cullen, kevin cullen, columnist for "the boston globe." he has been a reporter there since 1985 on pretty much every be that you can imagine. foreign correspondent, legal correspondent. he is really here for a couple of reasons. the proximate reason obviously is the events in boston in the last few days. in a sense it grieves us full circle. but we have spent a lot of time talking about another series of traumatic events. he covered northern ireland and has a particular sense of how tragedy can play out over the long run. finally, last by no means least,

bringing the story home in a sense, jaclyn r. smith, managing editor of the news -- "news times of danbury." she is the reporter of "register," "record journal," assistant and managing editor -- she also has a big pile of awards and has taught at the university of harper in southern connecticut state. and, actually, jaclyn, i am going to begin with you. this is your story, your local story in your paper from the first moments the words came out, making strategic choices about where to go from here. what you have been asking every day since december 14. where do you see this story going in newtown and for your reporters? >> thanks for giving me a

chance. remember this morning with the tenet was talking about the need for police to corral journalists. that is not our role. that is not how we do our job. i want to remind everyone that when you report that way we are in a situation where we wait every 90 minutes to get a feed from police. we will not get all the truth of that way, we will just get the official statements. someone would go to the press conference, but i would direct them not to just wait for that information. you have to get out there and talk to people and piece together the story. sure, and initially there were many items that were not correct, but i wanted to remind journalists here that you keep pursuing it anyway. even the police for giving details. we saw that when affidavits'

came out two weeks ago. in the long run things that did not make a big difference, but as you report and as the story develops and you move along, you get closer and closer to the truth. the truth is always elusive and when you ask -- where are we going -- you keep reporting the story on any level. it comes down to two people with an unthinkable tragedy and we have to help community do that as well. not just on surface level store is with all the thousands of dollars, teddy bears, but how does the community redefine itself? we hear people in newtown saying that they do not want to be known as the sandy hook tragedy people. so, the role of the paper is to

help, to keep informing, pushing, prodding. the investigative arm of the story as well as the human part. the investigative part of the story as well as a human part of the story. >> as you look at your calendar for the next six months or one year, what are you looking at as a kind of the major markers? where should we be paying attention when things like this come up? >> in june we expect that the investigative report will be coming out. investigators have said that they think it will be june. getting back to the journals that adam lancet kept, there were seven of them. kept, there were seven of them.

that would be one of the first things. there are always anniversary stories, but we do not really like that as a whole. >> let me turn to you. beth, the major responsibility for being the local voice, talk a little bit about where you saw the story going for the paper, for the staff as reporters. >> we felt that this was literally in our backyard. probably better than what you all experienced, as i understand it was really just two rose. -- two roads. the families were all over virginia and elsewhere. there were lots of locales to go to.

the experience seemed eerily similar. believe it or not i have never had to call a grieving family on the phone. people do not believe that. but i never had to. they have just released the names. i actually thought that if i quit, i will not have to do that. [laughter] i said to my friend, who has done a lot of these kinds of things, i took him into the corner and said -- john, what do i do? call them up, see if they are -- tell them you are sorry and see if they want to talk. at that point everyone was calling.

the families i got the most attached to were the is -- was this family in this community that we talked to in this very rural small town, the community after the press came in, they found tracy lane's house and were part in front of it like train cars. that community just embraced her and told the forced to go away. -- told the reporters to go away. i found out later that one of the men in our church went over and said to a "tribune" reporter, "i know you think you are from a tough town, but if you go up to her you will find out what a tough town is like." oprah was calling her. that is how was. the bad thing about being in one place for a long time, you cannot go out in your pajamas in the morning, but when something like this happens, you know somebody who knows somebody. that is what we did.

we triangulated. i had a friend who knew a principle and it turned out the family did not want to talk. he had been the valedictorian, lettered in four sports, the light of the town. he had just gotten a full scholarship for graduate school and testified that in his shirt -- church that sunday the day before. i got the story that i could get along the way. three weeks later i wrote a story about the engineering department and how they were trying to do final grades when eight of the professors had been killed. eight professors and graduate students and numerous of the students and how were they going to do the grades and by then they were willing to talk to me.

so i tried to go to every level to get them to talk when they were ready and not to hound them when they said not to how one that them. -- not to hound them. people will not remember, she said, if we got the facts first, they will remember how we treated them. that was really a remarkable statement at the time. it meant a lot. she brought massage therapists in. maybe one week later. we were encouraged to talk to counselors, which i think some people did. i was talking to a friend of

mine last night who was covering this all with me and he has now covered sandy hook, super storms sandy, he gets in very deep with his subjects. one of the things that he tells people when he tries to get them to be interviewed in the aftermath is that when they seek not the best case stories happening, like sticking a microphone into a family that does not want to talk, then they do not want to talk to anyone. he said to them that he is not the media enemy, i am a person. that seemed very direct. i guess that my advice going forward is to get the story that you can -- i also wanted to talk a bit about self care, which came up a bit in the last session.

i think it was helpful that each of the families, they had to deal with the media coming in, but because we had assigned families it helped a lot that you only had to deal with one person from our news organization. that seemed to help. i think some folks from your paper called and just give us some advice looking ahead. we got support, care packages from people who have been to oklahoma city. people called in to say -- this is what you should do, this is what you should not do. but in terms of self care, my friend at cnn, as he drove back to newtown he arrived at 2:00 a.m. and he had a story to file the next day for clock. he said he had not slept in three days and he said that he got a ticket for the train to

washington, d.c., so that he could work on his story with his favorite person, his sister. he had to be somewhere with someone who understood him and where he was safe. i thought that that was rated vice. -- great advice. if i could talk to reporters covering this and looking forward, i would say take care of yourself and take care of each other. find the editor that will take your 11:00 a.m. e-mail and respond to you by 11:30. find the people who have done this kind of work before and really reach out to them. >> what kinds of stories, when you got past breaking news and wound up closer to six months, anniversaries, what kinds of stories resonated? what kinds of choices did the paper make? >> well, we had different teams. mike was covering mental health.

someone in richmond was covering what was going on there. it was fairly well-organized. a story that i did six months later, i did a profile for the poet who became the spokesperson for the university. she did that great "we are virginia tech," which was such a great healing moment. she was not willing to talk at the time, but six months later she said everything, including the controversial part of her story. that she had been the one that wanted him kicked out of her classroom because the other students were really uncomfortable with what he was writing. going back later, maybe someone does not want to talk to you in the first four, five months, but maybe in six months she will recount to you what it is like when she is this radical poet.

the administration was nervous that she would be speaking and sitting next to president bush. she said she kept saying to herself -- do not poke the president. [laughter] those of the kinds of things that people do not feel free to share with you, but people change their minds. go back later and see with respect. >> we can go back to that subject as well. steven, you have been looking at years now at families and communities in the aftermath of violence. you were supportive behind-the- scenes in newtown as well. where do you think journalists what are the stories that will be important to be told in this next phase?

i have a feeling about what has been missed and got wrong, but more importantly what's on the agenda? >> well, the perspective that i guess that i bring is working directly with families and communities, not just new town directly, but new haven and other locations or around the country post-9/11. our team has been involved with lots of awful events. i was thinking, when i first went to new town on friday evening that i was having a bit of deja vu because it reminded me of jonesboro in the early 1990's, with the multiple satellites. as i have been listening i have

been thinking about what it is that is so particular. why are we even having this meeting? there are obvious reasons that are enormously informative. one way thinking out -- one way to think about next steps going forward is why this is such a special topic for all of us. not just as journalists, but as human beings. not to overuse the word trauma, but we use it as an anchor point. we define that from a clinical point of view. as a traumatic event that is highly anticipated, overwhelming, and leaves a sense of danger and out of control. so much so that the event and the experience changes the way we think. it is one of the reasons why

there are so many normal symptoms that follow. if we use that as an anchor, maybe we can think about the ways as a country, when we are hit by something that is so unanticipated, so uncontrollable, so unavoidable, and it leaves us feeling so terrified and helpless, why it is we have such a difficult time and how our response is a reflection of what we share. it seems to me that the challenge is something of a tension on two levels. one, knowledge is a tool for mastering. but what happens when we do not have knowledge or information because it is not available? it came up in the earlier panel, when we were talking about red flags. by the way, it is not just of

the questions from the media, it is the answers that professionals give when they do not have data and are willing to give diagnosis, which i actually find enormously dangerous. why are people doing that? if we have an answer, we can undo the very nature of our helplessness and the very terror of being so out of control. but does it help us? i would suggest that the answer is no. it allows us to sidestep or try to sidestep what we are all dealing with, because we are human beings before. -- human beings. if there is the awfulness of helplessness. i do think the media plays an enormously important role and will continue to. we do not talk.

we have a policy at yale. we do not talk to journalists about the specific work that we do in the community that we are operating, the same way that i would never talk to a journalist who did not know what a journalist was. anticipating, taking care of themselves and how they support each other -- how does the community come together? this has been such an important role for all that the media has played. i think there is tension in that there is something of a live wire effect. we are drawn, we are compelled to search for answers that help us to feel better.

they aim to keep us grounded in ways that cannot be achieved. for those people are glued to their televisions for days after a frigid day after day, we tell them to turn off the television. the stimulation is not filling the mastery function, it routes the circuitry in the brain that keeps us feeling agitated, vulnerable, and isolated. on one level there is a challenge about what it is we're looking for a while wanting to provide as much information as possible. but here is the other tension. what about the community itself? what about the needs of the broader community? the country? and what is the impact of those needs being filled on the community that is the most direct victim? i am not just talking about the

family is that lost loved ones, but the families of children who witnessed the carnage. what is the impact, if we know for example that two of the most powerful predictors for recovery are identification, social support, and a return to normal routines. that the absence of those will actually increase the level of symptomatology and predict the failure of recovery. how is that squared with the media presence that was in newtown or anywhere else for a length of time? and the level of destruction that occurred? i am suggesting that this poses a problem. to your wonderful vignette about the assignment to interview grieving families, is the

easiest when we see reporters sticking cameras into people's faces, but that is a tougher one and i was delighted to hear your solution. because being able to talk about what you knew about this extraordinary young man allowed you to sleep at night. the idea is -- why at that moment do we need to ask a grieving family to come and have their feelings? i do not think we need to be critical of ourselves. there are good reasons why we would want to know and why these events stir up some much. -- so much. these are the events that there but by the grace of god go me. -- go be. lastly, the problem, the reason i raise the question earlier, would it not be a silver lining for potential growth curve of

what could come out of a tragedy like this is if we really, really pay attention to the country? as journalists from all walks of life, individuals affected by violence in this country every single day, even if they do not look like us, live in the neighborhoods that we want to live in, talk, walk, etc., these are the real opportunities and also the opportunities to know logger just be helpless, but to turn our attention to solutions. as jim is pointing out, the majority of the types of violence that affect the greatest number of people everyday. >> we may circle back and press you for specifics on imagining what stories like that might

look like. what is a good bridge to you? does violence believe in intervention? what have you been thinking? not only about the new town story, but the narrative momentum and individual journalists looking to seize on this moment and help to tell some stories that need to be told. what are they? >> actually, we do not work in the environment that has been discussed today. i have been sitting here thinking that we are a bit of a fish out of water. but we were in as neighborhoods that were impacted every day. we had more than 500 killings last year in chicago.

if a killing involved a child, it was big news. when we got into big numbers, we became big news, but i cannot tell you how many times someone is shot or killed and there is no news. we look at violence as a learned behavior, something reinforced by fear expectations and not kept in check within the community where it is occurring. take a public health approach to it. try to identify, intervene with them, change the way they think, the way they behave. we want to change those norms and expectations in the community that make it ok for those things to happen. it is a bit different, but i

think we have had enough of these incidents. start looking, maybe there are some things where we can look for common elements as well where we can anticipate, intervene, where we could stop these things from happening. chicago, philadelphia, baltimore, new orleans, where we are active, we know that there are things that we can do, work with the people associated with the problem. if you saw "the interrupters," which is available online, these are people for credible, right at the center of the storm, folks who no one else can reach. and then we apply conflict mediation. intensive training. accountability in place with data collection.

we have been fortunate to have had multiple evaluations in new york, chicago, baltimore, showing that we have added value to the work of law enforcement is doing. it should be held accountable for their behavior. when i look at the press and think -- what can the media do to help with programs like ours? tell our story. let people know there is another way to look at this issue. we are not the only ones using this approach. this is across the country now. los angeles, a lot of cities have embraced it. really very progressive police chiefs have really endorsed this approach as well. and i would say that you talk about going back and correcting? is interesting, i am sitting in a roomful of responsible

journalists and we have been impacted by what i would consider to be responsible responsible journalists. they put out the first facts, they do not do fact checking, when you're telling the story of a program like ours it is important to get right. if you do not get it right, take responsibility. >> talk about how embracing a public health understanding of gun violence has helped to shape the work that you do? what does that mean? it is easy to throw them around, but what does it mean? >> we look at this as an epidemic, violence. something that behaves like an epidemic. it clusters. if you look at all of our data hot spots, clusters, just like

epidemic's it spreads. it starts and becomes infectious. it is obvious and not something that i touch, violence becomes violent. but it is picked up. if this is the way the people behave in your neighborhood, if this is what you see, if you have been the victim in your neighborhood -- talk about trauma, it is not just the people we work with, it is our workers as well. talk about care. everyone has to be very vigilant to make sure there is a system of care. i hate to say it, but only recently have we been paying attention to our workers. it is the history that bring them to the job. it spreads, it can be contained in the same way.

this is why we talk a lot interrupting transmission, learning different ways of responding. most of the violence that we see the leads to shootings and killings in chicago, it is not about gangs, necessarily. it is about tour in paul's contrld and -- control and decision making. a lack of opportunities, the brain not have been fully developed. fight or flight, all of these things. all of this stuff comes into play. we look at someone who thinks they are tough, they are not so tough and we need to help them. help them figure out other ways of coping.

>> you reported on columbine as a breaking story. you have been watching this carry out for the last couple of months. what have you been thinking? you have watched the events from the last few months, what is your mind? >> one, because i like to always start with an argument, i do not understand -- steve? i do not understand the idea that it does not help to understand why. do you just mean the victims' it does not help? to answer the question why? >> i was trying to, number one, and the fact is i think it resaw -- we saw this recently in newtown. as was pointed out earlier, the

search was for a diagnosis and it was actually quite destructive to those people who had children with gaspers. -- with aspergers. but i think that we continue to seek a diagnostic reason, you know? a clear set reason with motivation in part. i am not saying we should not be intrigued. it is unusual. mass murder is unusual. it grabs the attention and we want to understand. what i am suggesting is that there is a difference between trying to understand and the driving to understand as though it would fulfil our wish to predict. that is the distinction i was trying to make. >> from the earlier panel, of

the enough i get this mostly from psychiatrists and psychologists with a push back of not wanting to diagnose, or of trying to -- well, to label with these people. label them whenever they might be. psychopaths? one of the nbc news analysts is always railing against that. but it is useful. i think we have to be careful to slap a diagnosis on, especially if we get it wrong, that is idiotic. but if we say the person is depressed and that is why he did it, that is what a good answer, but that is usually a part of the answer. it usually plays a big factor. the two people i followed, one of them was deeply suicidally depressive.

but foley played a role, into the narrative that he was a psychopath, diabolical, ready to do this horrible thing. i think that the susceptibility, dependability, the mindset of the person, to understand how we could have done at, i do not think that a person can understand what he did without understanding his mental state. i think that to understand these en masse, that is the only way to go about it.

talking to hostage negotiators and psychologists, most of the mass shooter's tend to be deeply depressed. suicidally depressed. when people ask me the big lesson of columbine, i feel that the big unlearned lesson is we have not addressed depression. we should be treating depression because it is a horrible thing. but there is a huge motivation and public drive after these events. -- we can channel maps into that into something useful that happens to be relevant, great. >> the last part is a spurious correlation. >> all i was suggesting is that it is intriguing. i think wanting to know details about something that is so horrific is part of a live wire

phenomenon. i do not have a problem with that. i am cautious and i wish more of my colleagues were more cautious. but i also think you said two separate things. we have a problem in this country because we do not designate the level of resources across multiple areas of difficulties that are well identified, not identified and ignored, or identified and ignored, there are lots of problems ensue. the problem that i have, and many of my colleagues have problems with the idea with suggesting that the dynamic that you were just subscribing to is the motivation, the idea that we should be afraid of this dynamic is going to lead to the next columbine.

that is the concern i was trying to raise. >> another piece of this, we are now kind of i and phase 2, after the story is broken, before someone has written the 10-year book. there is still a lot of we do not know. as you look back on the press coverage, are you not concerned about the coverage about the trenchcoat mafia, how much was wrong, the first few months of coverage -- what kinds of lessons do you think that there are that can be useful reapplied either to sandy hook or boston? to make a narrative that journalists are constructing right now more productive to serve society and news consumers and their need to understand, move forward in a useful way?

what do you think the journalistic lessons are? >> the simplest lesson is simple, avoid jumping to conclusions. we know that we will always get a lot of it wrong. that is all is going to happen. maybe those details, as they happen, we figure it out and then figure out something was wrong. that was the staying power of the conclusion. how many people think here that it was widely reported that 25 people had been killed at columbine? who thinks that? ok, there were 15 killed. one day after columbine everyone in the country thought it was 25 because every newspaper read it -- ran with that headline.

that did not have staying power. how many people here -- we have an educated audience, it might be different, but how many people think that it was largely about guns, loners, outcasts in the trenchcoat mafia who went on a spree to revenge jocks? how many believe that? ok, you read the book. when i do this at high schools, 90% of the hands went up. most of the people still think that is true. that is the staying power. narratives and explanations have staying power. once you figure out -- i get what is going on here -- you remember that forever. 9/11 happened because of osama bin laden. oklahoma city happened because of timothy mcveigh. those kinds of things stay in our minds. fact details?

the fact that the name was mistaken on the first day, that was horrible for that kid, a problem that really screwed up his life. in terms of long-term impact, no one is going to miss remember it. of course try to get every fact right, but there is much less lasting danger than the fact that when you connect them and draw conclusions between the reasons too soon. there is just one thing to keep an open mind about. you're talking about when we get the journal out, is there an estimate of when they will release those? >> they say the report will be released in june, they say. >> those take a long time. i do not remember. did we ever get everything? we got it the next day. >> it was not all released. >> we had a report from the

governor's commission. >> with columbine it took more than seven years. it was a court battle all the way to the supreme court seven plus years later. it could be a long way. i do not think that this point happen here, but we were shocked. even i was shocked years later. the profile about being depressed with these different things? i got my hands on this and got a couple of pages. these are full page parts like this. i could not believe my eyes. nothing really prepared me for understanding how much love as well as anger was in the boy's heart until i saw pages and

pages of this with i love you on there. i did not get him. i know i will not ever fully get him, but i do not think that i ever got him completely until i saw this seven years out. you have got to really be open. at some point we may hear more from their parents and they will understand and have to rewrite chapters of my book. but it is never a complete story. >> kevin? >> we are coming full circle, at the beginning of the day, before you got here, we had some reporters reflecting on the first phase of coverage, when new town was really fresh. for you and your neighbors in your city, the wounds are still super fresh and the information is still coming out, get journalists have covered the long trajectory of suffering as

well as breaking news. you have been listening here as you talk about some of the issues coming out, talking about your column for tomorrow, what has happened over the last few days -- where do you see journalism, boston folks in their efforts now, what do you think about yourself and where this story needs to go for you? >> i mean i have spent the last week or so kind of focusing on the victims and first responders. i think that first responders are victims. particularly some of the younger reporters were very upset in my newsroom. god, i am as old as dirt.

[laughter] i was in northern ireland when 28 people, two on born twins, were killed by a firebomb from the ira. i found these two women, they actually walked arm in arm down the street and were killed in the blast and i knew one of the commanders of the time and he told me that their bodies were fused together. first time i ever cried on the job. i remember the day after, i went down to give blood and had to wait for five hours, there were so many people. but then i covered london -- i was in london within like eight hours of the bombing. i have lived in london for four years and felt it was one of my homes and cared about it deeply.

that was hard and all of that. this was completely different. the difference for me, professionally, was that i knew someone in the first responders. they were not just my sources, they were my friends. the first night after, what do you call that? it went from a perfect -- it was -- nice out, the red sox for won with a walk off, the race was going on, everyone walked down and they said the only thing missing was the little [indiscernible] a perfect day. by the way, you look like [indiscernible] did anyone ever tell you that? [laughter] in an instant it was gone. after i filed my column i saw the film and i recognized some

of the firefighters. i saw shaun o'brien diving over the barriers to get to people. the firefighters who run always go down there after marathons. so outside on the sidewalk is my buddy, joe. i said joe, jesus, did you finish? -- they stoppedy? us half a mile away. he was naming people. when sean went the first person he got to was little martin. he is looking at him, but not as a firefighter.

we wanted to get sean out. anythingt want to do that night. the next night, it is funny, because i was in the media -- msnbc is here, cnn is here -- there are all these people coming in and out, and i think it might've been christian iing -- kris jansing -- said, i've got to go. i went to the firehouse. on the way, i called eddie 17, also alatter union guy -- eddie brings me in. , butid, we will do this

they do not want their names in the paper. i'm a that is not a big deal. he said, you're going to know them. you're going to know all of them. i did. one firefighter who i never met before -- it was really different. i was going around. had been in guys three combat tours in iraq and afghanistan, on the job six years, a tough guy, and he was staring off into space. knew he had been treated for ptsd when he came back from his last two or -- i said, do you think you needed again? he said, probably. sean was still in a tough place.

everybody on engine seven had a connection to that family. the driver said his daughter babysat martin. the lieutenant, his kid goes to school with henry, the nine- year-old, the older boy who was not hurt. eddie kelly who brought me up to the station, his daughter is in the same irish step dance class as jamie, the daughter who lost her leg. who picked her up, knowing that her brother is dead, knowing her mother has a head injury, and he picked her up knowing she did not have or like. you cannot make this up. it indicated that boston is a small big city where everybody -- two days later, i'm walking down newbury street, and i see a from -- all the women

four, they were all up the finish line -- if you look at the video, you see they all ran to the crowd. they went right to the victims. i saw this young kid in her 20s, and her older brother still plays hockey with us -- i saw her and i went across the street to her and i said, i know what you did, i'm so proud of you. she broke down. i broke down. i was a mess. i did not put that in the paper. that is the difference in this. london was my home, but it is not like boston. i'm not the only one that is struggling with this. you try to do your job. you really are reliving everything -- i was with the first responders -- saturday night, i hung out with all the cops. three of them who were there, one of them, he took the kid right out of the boat. brendan, you should see how big

brendan was saying, it is going to be ok. , he did not the bar even have a drink. he just sat there. emt, him speak to a young a kid in emergency medical services. brendan was talking to him. the kid was really having trouble. i talked to eddie. i said, is that it ok? he's probably just upset about the jumper. we had a jumper today. while they are trying to get the guy, the same people who responded, there was a guy threatening to jump from the turnpike, and they saved his life, and all the cameras recorded it because they are waiting for the bomber. it never would have seen the

light of day. that is what happens when you go to our rooms. you get stories. >> the answer would be to keep this as a community, a community tragedy, a community event and a community tragedy. >> i think it is important for the community to know these stories of incredible selflessness and also to know what these people were going through on a personal level. they were not just doing their job. the other thing i find remarkable is they did not give their neighbors special treatment. they responded to strangers the same way as they responded to their neighbors. i thought the town was focused, and i have said this in media appearances.

they are going to prosecute. people do not care about that. we have to heal our wounded and take care of its first responders. everybody else will take care of that. they just saw charge. i am not even thinking about him, to be honest. >> let's go to questions like where stories like this go from here? anyone? online? >> just a quick question. i think this panel is extraordinary. there are so many different events you are all connected to.

do you see one clear, common thread in the way these stories have been told and have become our history? one clear thread in the way they are told now? >> i would say it is goodness. the forces of good and decency do embarrass the people who do the original atrocities. whoever inflicts trauma at the > moment has incredible power, whether it is appointed done and where the clowns to put those bombs on foils and street. then they look so pathetic when you see the forces who respond so selflessly.

jackie was talking about virginia tech and london. it repeats itself, because you are amazed at what ordinary people do in extraordinary circumstances, so i talked with the very young, 23-year-old kid. her act of defiance was to move back into her apartment near the bombing site. a small gesture, but that is what she could do. she said, i have already memorized the name of martin richard, lindsay, and christine campbell. this is before they caught them. they will catch these guys eventually. i will not remember their names in five years. i thought that was an extraordinary thing to say.

>> i would agree. i think each of the events we are talking about they do have common themes in terms of what it means to be a human being and to feel pain and loss and sadness. we were a mess, and but you know what? why wouldn't you be? one of the reason sometimes at the worst of times we are at our best is when we actually realize why we are so compelled by the more recent version is that too often when the events are tiny or personal, we do not acknowledge it to ourselves.

we did not acknowledge it to anyone else. you said you were a mess, but everyone of us in the same situation would have been just like you, and what is so extraordinary about boston and about every place we have talked about is that people came together, and they came together and were able to be human together, suffered together, and cry together, but also to pull together and find strength in each other and to move forward. >> it changes your world view. one everyone sang sweet caroline i said, there goes one of my it shticks. [laughter] >> here is something we have not mastered, where it has not just

been one awful thing but one awful thing after another. think of the wars we have pulled through together on. think about the social movements of required us to come together, but on the issue of multiple forms, whether it is unusual mass killing or the daily occurrence of street violence in our neighborhoods or domestic violence that occurs across the country every day, we have not yet been able to fully mobilize all the things we have been describing about what we share and not just to sing sweet caroline at the game but to continue and to turn a corner and to apply and a search are combined strengths, to pay attention to where we can find solutions and interventions. i think that is the correction for some of the right thing i would like to see. >> i have a question may be

related to that. this is a difficult one, because it is about a divide on this panel, which is about perpetrators, not only whether we speak their names or not, but whose story is this? if i remember rightly, at virginia tech, there was an interesting moment when the memorial of stones was created and somebody added a 33rd stone. your paper wrote about that. i guess my question for all of you is to what extent do the lives of perpetrators, and where does accountability lie -- how much does that figure in today's stories, or is there a way it does not know?

how do we do this where we focus on victims, yet how much do we talk about the perpetrators? talk about how your paper work it out over time. >> i did not personally work on these stories, of but who was this young man, and i am curious what has happened with his family. there has not been a lot of reporting on that. he went to yale. i was thinking about that as i was trying to prepare for today, and there are so many victims we do not even know their stories yet. i was wondering when are those people ever going to be ready to talk, but i know you have done a lot more reporting. >> if you work a lot with

perpetrators and victims as well. how do you understand that issue? >> we believe people can change, and they clearly should be held accountable for their behavior, but once someone has been released from the justice system, i do not think we have work with anyone who has been part of the mental health system, so we tend to deal with poor minorities, and they tend to go to the criminal justice system. we looked at them returning to the community as people who have paid their debt to society and are trying to move on. our population tends to be

between 16 and 25, people involved in the criminal justice system, people who committed acts of violence, people are actively involved in a gang associated with violence. if they are exhibiting these kinds of criteria, we will work with them and try to help them not cross the line, so we do look at it as a behavior and something that can be changed. >> i want to get a couple more questions in. >> i came to this discussion wearing two hats. one is columbia, and i have been at both sides of the table. on the anniversary of 9-11, i wrote an op-ed about how upset i was there was so little coverage

of about people healing after the event. about the coverage being good for people's healing, so what do we do when people need to heal? how do we put the lights back on when people need ongoing healing? >> you have been on columbine's for a long time. how do you think of that? >> it is hard to do because they are so dispersed. the longer it gets harder it is to know. it is easy to keep track of the families of the 13 dead because there are 13 of them. the 2000 students in the school,

i hear from students of the -- all the time. it is anecdotal reports from of people writing to me. even when i speak to the principal, and sometimes he is not so sure. they had a private ceremony for students before, and something like 500 students came, so about a quarter of the population seems to be doing surprisingly well. maybe the kids doing well showed up, but it is hard to know when you have a diverse population. if you have got thousands of people, who is going to tackle those people down. you can do anecdotal stories, but to try to do the whole

picture seems impossible. that is why people do this work. maybe it is academia. >> you sent to shine light on media attention. i think when we are less afraid of recognizing we can survive the hurt, they will be more focused on healing. i think they turn away and we do not follow up. >> let's do one more question. >> you have been talking about newspapers as a healing fabric, and i am not getting the same sense of radio or television or other types of media are is pivotal in terms of healing, and many people are talking about the end of newspaper.

what is interesting me is as a mechanism, some of the newspapers seems unique in today's panel has something that keeps people linked smf has multiple voices. it is talking within you, so i'm trying to relate this to journalism. it is not simply reporting. it is healing. it is understanding. do you have any comments on the uniqueness of newspaper versus other media? >> i think it has more function. jackie could explain it more in her town and talk about it when she was at roanoke that you are part of the community, not just coming in with people put in makeup on and attaching

microphones. you live in the community, and people treat you differently, and you treat them differently. i always say i was never more accountable as a newspaper reporter than my first job at the telegram portfolio, because if i wrote something, i remember the secretary writing down, why did you write that about me? i had to deal with her. i could not just blow out of town. i think that is the difference. you could say, what about local television and radio? i think it comes down to resources, and they do not have as many people. we have a terrific radio station in boston. i do not know how many reporters they have. i think it does come down to resources. when that bomb went off in boston i think we have 60 or 70 reporters on the street.

that is a big difference. >> i want to invite my co- conspirator emily for any closing thoughts she may have. i promised we would land the plane on time. it has been a long trip through the first response, through victim experience, through social media, and very important questions about the impact and this in-depth look at where we may be going forward. >> first, thanks to everybody who took part as a panelist. somebody said it is important to examine stories and their impact and taking a part of what we do as journalists and the impact is not something we do

automatically as a response to our work. that is something i would take away from this, to hear all sides of the story and to think about how we can make progress in terms of standards of reporting, on how journalists feel about the stories, is very important. i think we have seen the phrase several times about the next tragedy. we have seen several things about people being involved

perhaps in parts of the stories we do not always examine when we are discussing them. particularly in how we deal with issues relating to mental health. i think it is important we produce standards of journalists to pay attention to. we are first responders as well. also we have responsibilities. is it is great to have everybody here at enough distance but we can get some perspective also close enough that we can still feel why these are important to a range of people. i thought it was interesting that 90% of the people carry these first impressions, these

wrong impressions of the media gives. we are in journalism school where we want to learn how the kids tell stories, where those do not go away. there is a constant archive that is continually published. it goes around the individual involved as well. as this unfolds, for us to carry on examining and learning from it is a valuable thing to do. we have great resources for journalists to look at and to use and hopefully will provide us with more material to compile the weekend actively helped people ways -- we can actively help people with. thank you very much.

>> one more thing, where i would close this. in thinking about the events in december, in thinking about the events in boston over the last week, thinking about columbine or shootings in chicago or new haven, thinking about virginia tech, in so many of these cases there is a legal process a goes forward, and we spend a lot of our time as reporters reporting on a legal process, and that is news, but the truth is for 26 children and teachers who have been killed in an instant, or for one child or adult killed on a street or in a neighborhood, or any of these incidents, there is not really legal justice.

there is not really justice for anyone losing a child, yet as journalists, we do have the opportunity and privilege of providing a kind of narrative justice, and all the journalists who are panelists today have been talking in a profound way about using techniques of storytelling and interviews, technology itself in pursuit of a kind of narrative just as that brings accountability to perpetrators and so people understand who did what and why. that helps us understand about the lives of those who were

lost, and it looks forward to a mission to make it less likely for an event like this to happen again, even though there will always be tragedies. it makes journalism a kind of answer to violence. that is why we have been here today. journalism itself is not just a first response in rushing to the scene, but it is a non-violent answer in the face of unspeakable horror. we speak it, and we tried to tell stories. we did in newtown, and we will continue to do so going forward. kevin will continue to do so in

boston as beth and dave did in colorado and roanoke. but as the deeper issue, a push back against the horror, and i thank everyone for being a part ♪f the conversation that illumminated five but will help our colleagues do a better job and helped a conversation about this going forward and also for the communities that have been built up in response. thank you all.>> thank you to the staff and c- span and everyone at the school who helped out. wrote to's

the white house 2016 coverage begins tomorrow night at two fundraising events in south carolina. ice president joe biden speaks to the democratic party's annual dinner. that will be live at 7:30 p.m. eastern. at the same time, texas senator ted cruz will be the keynote speaker at an event dedicated to former senator jim demint. our coverage will include both speeches including your calls and tweets. -- they had had .his extraordinary role

for most of their lives, ulysses was considered an abject failure, unable to provide. in almost no time at all, suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who had saved the union on , and thenfield president of the united states. >> julia loved her time in the white house. she says in her memoirs, it was like a bright and beautiful dream. the most wonderful time of my life. i think that gives you some idea of how much she enjoyed being first lady and how she felt that her husband had finally achieved the recognition he deserved. >> be part of our conversation on julia grant with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter i've monday night on "first ladies" on c-span. also on c-span radio and at c-

span.org. traveled to obama mexico thursday and met with mexican president and rick opinion in? -- enrique pena nieto. from the national palace in mexico city, this is 50 minutes. [speaking spanish] his excellency, barack obama. you will hear from the president of the united states of mexico, enrique pena nieto. ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, everyone. first and foremost, after the bilateral meeting, i would like

to extend the warmest welcome to president barack obama, his team joining him. once again, we would like to welcome all of you with open arms. we hope you feel at home. we appreciate your will to have upon this meeting a relation built on mutual respect, collaboration for the benefit of our people. we covered the areas we share during our bilateral meeting, on behalf of the mexican people, i would like to anderate our solidarity that we are committed in your inntry for the events

boston and west, texas. unfortunately, it took the lives of american citizens. if you allow me, i would like to share with the audience and the members of the media the areas that we have addressed with president obama during the meeting that we had. first of all, we have reached an agreement that the relations between mexico and the united applauded in be the areas it covers. it should open up collider -- collaboration and opportunity bases in different arenas with a clear purpose and mind to make the north america region a more productive and competitive that will trigger the enormous potential that our people have, that our nations have. we are well aware of the fact take solace in our

bilateral relations. within the framework of the agreements made, we have reached a new level of understanding based on two new administrations that began roughly at the same time in terms of president obama and my administration. ,mong the items that we covered i can speak for how relevant trade and relevant commerce is in the mexico-u.s. relationship. we have the dimensions of all the benefits of the free trade agreements, the exports made from the u.s. to its top trade

harder's, mexico and canada, oft represents one third all products that are exported from the u.s. only the relationship with mexico is higher than the one the u.s. has with european countries like the uk, france, the netherlands altogether. to china ands sent japan together. say that the integration of our economies in the last years has grown to be relevant, and the content of exports sent have 40% of u.s. input. thatfore, i can conclude the more growth mexico shows and

the more capacity to export, the more benefit the u.s. gets. jobs are created in mexico, therefore jobs are created in the united states, and therefore one of the first agreements we have made was to create a high-level dialogue that within its framework will foster trade and commerce with united states. this means for that the first time -- this is probably unprecedented -- we will have the mexican economic cabinet with their counterparts from various government agencies from the united states, as well as high-ranking officials, and we've heard from the president that in this group, the vice

president will participate in order to set a dialogue that how theate arrangements eovernment can support all th efforts of the private sector to support greater economic integration. --in the fall of this year, during the fall of this year, is high-level group will meet for the first time, with the attendance of high-ranking workings, to start within the arena of the economy. we have also agreed to endeavor to have a safer border within the framework of the agreement made. we will have a 21st-century border.

through this agenda we will have safer borders that will enable and expedite the transfer of people and goods that everyday cross our borders. we have also agreed to create a binational group to define joint action and joint mechanisms to support entrepreneurs in both countries, and by this, we will boost our economies and our countries. we believe this mechanism as an enabler and we will see this in developments for small and medium-sized companies, and we hope that all the action in the very near future will make large

enterprises. and this action will specifically favor young entrepreneurs. thirdly, we have agreed to boost our economy and our potential to have a bilateral innovation and research team. government agencies will work together, and presidents from mexico university will be part of this group. more changes will happen between mexico and the u.s. we have agreed that higher education is a platform to boost the economic potential that we

have in our nation in order to compete with the world, specifically the heavily developed countries where science and technology have been the target of efforts and investments. it is fundamental that we have well-prepared youngsters with the skills necessary to give our economic development a greater strength and a greater capacity. in a different arena, we have addressed security. we have both recognized the level of cooperation that the u.s. has shown towards the mexican government's and the strategy in the area of security and our country has a very clear

purpose, and that is to fight organized crime in all of its forms. be it drugs dealing, extortion, or any crime perpetrated. my government and my administration are going to face crime and all of its forms. we have emphasized the fact that we will reduce violence. unfortunately, these -- these are not objectives that contradict each other. these are two goals that work within the framework of one strategy, and president obama's has expressed his will that we know to cooperate on the basis

of mutual respect to be more efficient and our security strategy, that we are implementing in mexico. i have shared with president obama as well what mexico has done during the previous months of our administration. i have shared with president obama that mexico has reached maturity in terms of its democracy. also, the country has reached political maturity. it has managed to show respect to each other and the cohort of the government of mexico. together we have managed to put together a working agenda that will band together reforms that

will transform the structure of mexico's needs to boost its development. i have shared with president obama the fact that we recognize all political forces in mexico, finally. i would like to share with all of you that we fully agree that our nation, our people must move to another community. we are all part of the trade integration process. we have reached high levels of development. still, there is potential to make other nations of collaboration and integration of north america. we can make a more competitive region. i would like to conclude by

quoting the words of former president kennedy. they were shared during his visit 61 years ago. i have shared this with president obama, but i would like to share it with all of you. president kennedy said to president lopez mateos -- geography has made us neighbors. tradition has made us friends. let us not allow a gap where nature has denied it. and so, we have this understanding, this dialogue, this climate we have set up. we hope it will give us more growth, more development, or opportunity for our people once

again. i would like to welcome president obama and his delegation. i hope that your stay in mexico is very for all and you enjoy your stay as well. thank you. >> [speaking spanish] thank you for your extraordinary hospitality. you were the first leader i welcome to the white house. i am thankful for the extraordinarily close relationship between our two countries. during his visit, he's its time as a student in one of our most beautiful states, the state of

maine. maine is very cold, so when i come here on a beautiful spring day, i understand what you came back home. [laughter] i want to thank you for your hospitality and i look forward to joining you and your lady this evening and i want to thank all of the people of mexico for such a warm welcome. it is always a pleasure to visit. president pena nieto and i discussed between our two countries are some 30, 40 million people, tens of millions of mexican americans that enrich our national life in the united states. well over one million americans live here in mexico. every year, millions of tourists, many from the united states, visit this beautiful country. many workers in our countries are in a living thanks to the jobs made possible by our trade.

students, researchers, collaborating in every sphere of human endeavor. mexico and the united states have one of the largest, most dynamic relationships of any two countries on earth. and yet we do not always here about all aspects of this, because too often other issues get attached. security or immigration. obviously these are serious challenges, and president pena nieto and i discussed them in depth today. i agree that we need cooperation on security, even as the nature of that cooperation will change. the main point i made to the president is that we support the mexican government's focus on reducing violence and we look

forward to continuing our good cooperation in any way the mexican government deems appropriate. i also reaffirm the determination of the united states to meet our responsibilities to reduce the demand for illegal drugs and to combat the flow of illegal guns and cash that helped to fuel violence. again, i want to pay tribute to the people of mexico who made extraordinary sacrifices for their security and displayed great courage and resolve every day. even as we continue to deal with uncertain challenges, we cannot lose sight of the larger relationship between our peoples, including the promise of mexico's economical progress. i believe we have an historic

opportunity to foster more jobs, more trade on both sides of the border and that is the focus of my visit. the united states and mexico has one of the largest economic relationships in the world. our trade has passed $5 billion, more than $1 billion every day. we are the largest customer, buying the largest number of mexico imports. every day our workers are building projects together. this is the strong foundation we can build on. i want to amend president pena nieto for the ambitious reforms you have embarked upon, to make your economy more effective, and i know it has been hard, but it is also necessary. let me repeat what i told the president. as mexico works to become more competitive, you have a strong partner in the united states. because our success is shared. when one of us prospers, both of us prosper.

that is the context of our discussion today. president pena nieto is creating a dialogue to broaden and deepen our economic relationship. there will be members of my cabinet. vice president biden will participate as well. we will focus on the connection between business and workers, making our economies even more competitive. to that end, we reaffirmed our goal of concluding negotiations on the transfer of the partnership this year. this will be another major step in integrating our two economies and positioning us to compete in the fastest-growing markets in the world, those in the asia- pacific region. we want to sell more goods from mexico and the united states. if we partnered together, we can do even better. we want to continue to make our shared border even more

efficient with new technologies so it is even faster and cheaper to trade and do business together. we need new energy relationships to combat climate change. i am pleased that we have agreed to extend collaborations and exchanges between our students and schools and universities. just as enrique studied in our country, we want more students studying here. and finally, i updated the president on the path to common sense immigration reform that lives up to our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, including generations of mexican americans.

as we do, i think it is important for everyone to remember that our shared border is more secure than it has been in years. illegal immigration is near the lowest level in decades and legal emigration continues to make both of our country stronger, more prosperous, and more competitive. this partly is reflected by the economic opportunities and progress here in mexico. i think that should inform the debate in the united states. i am optimistic that we will get immigration reform passed. i will have much more to say about this and other issues in my speech tomorrow. for now, i want to express my gratitude to the president for his hospitality and also for your leadership. given the prospect of staying here in mexico, i see so many opportunities to to deepen our extraordinary friendship and common bond we share between our two great nations and our two

great peoples. thank you. >>[speaking spanish] [applause] >> we will have a round of questions. radio formula. >> to the president of mexico, we welcome gladly the agenda with the priority conflicts to be included in your agenda. this high level group, as you have pointed out -- it seems to be that trade is now about security. and for president obama, given your expertise, what is your take on president enrique pena

nieto's administration? is the u.s. government seeing this as a promise or a pact? thank you. >> thank you very much. we have relaunched our relationship. we have to find our priorities. we do not want to make this relationship targeted on one single thing. we want our relations to include different areas and we especially want to base our relationship on the trade relationship between mexico and the u.s. we want to cover other areas.

we have shared our view on that topic to work towards reducing violence by combating organized crime. we have reviewed a long list of potential opportunities we have identified in the economic relation between mexico and the u.s. in the area of commerce. president obama has already put it for the u.s. there exports were the second destination, and our case, the united states ranks first. we need to identify the areas where we can supplement each other's production of goods and exporting goods from mexico to the world, because this has high content on u.s. imports. as i have stated, they see that the

u.s. will benefit and vice versa. we can't perceive the participation of officials that are part of my cap net -- cabinet. the u.s. has a long tradition of having cabinets like we have, but president obama has decided high ranking officials from different government agencies will participate including the u.s. vice president. they will be part of this high- ranking group that will define the specific actions we have had so far in the private sector. we have seen a good float

between trade and between our countries. there is no doubt that we can push it further. we can extend its capabilities for both of our governments, identify the right mechanisms, the right formula to boost economic integration, and that is precisely the agreement we have reached today. >> on the security issue, i think it is natural that a new administration here in mexico is looking carefully at how it is going to approach what has obviously been a serious problem. we are very much looking forward to cooperating in any ways that we can to battle organized crime, as president pena nieto stated. we anticipate there will be strong cooperation, that on our

side of the border there is continued work to reduce demand and stem the flow of guns and cash from north to south. this is a partnership that will continue. i think that president pena nieto and his team are organizing a vision about how they can effectively address these issues and we will interact with them in ways that are appropriate, respecting that ultimately mexico has to deal with its problems internally and we have to deal with ours as well. but respect to the president's agenda, we had a wonderful relationship with president calderon and the previous administration. the bonds between our two countries go beyond party. if a republican president replaces me, there will still be

great bonds between mexico and the united states because it is not just geography, but friendship and our interactions. what i have been impressed with is the president's boldness and his reform agenda. he is tackling big issues. that is what the times demand. we live in a world that is changing rapidly. in both the united states and in mexico, we can't be caught flat- footed as the world advances. we have to make sure that our young people are the best educated in the world, and that means some of the old ways of educating our kids may not work. we have to make sure we are staying at the forefront of science and technology and are investing in those areas appropriately. we have to make certain that our

economies are competitive around the world. and that when it comes to energy we are addressing issues like climate change, but also making sure it is done in a way that creates jobs and businesses on both sides of the border. what i very much appreciate is the president's willingness to take on a hard issues, because sometimes i think there is a temptation to just stay elected as opposed to trying to -- you know, we use our time as well as we can to bring about the changes to move our country forward.

. .

not only give it to a new focus,

[captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] it is not part of the intel community. but we live off the great work that they do and it is bsolutely amazing. i didn't realize that this was

the anniversary of the raid, but now that she has raised that point, i have said it before, but it is always worth repeating, when you look at the magnificent work that the c.i.a. did and others to find bin laden, it will go down as one of the great operations in the history of intelligence organizations and rightfully so. the work that these agents do every day for the good of our country and for the good of other countries is just incredible. so my hat's off to them. getting back to your question. it is a great relationship and i expect it will continue to strengthen that relationship as we go forward. >> yes, my name is angela dicky. i'm a foreign service officer and a state department fellow at the u.s. institute of peace now. sir, i'm very glad to hear of

your great respect for the country team principle and working with our ambassadors. we have been talking about ra light footprint prfment you have more people in your command and state operators than we have foreign service operators. to me, the military presumes that we have enough civilians to oversee the military. that is just a comment i would like to make. the other point that was made earlier was that we -- civilians into iraq and afghanistan. in doing so, we beggared our other indices where we had a 10% staff deficit during those surges and this raised very serious problems for me personally as a foreign service officer. i would just like to make that comment and see if you have any reaction. the comment is a good one. i do have tremendous respect for

the foreign sfers and the folks that are deployed. in terms of civilian oversight, one ambassador and team have provide oversight for a small platoon of seals. when i talk about the fact that we're in 78 countries arnold the world, in some places -- around the world, in some cases it is 1,000. they are not all -- they are mostly in afghanistan. but when you look at them where they are across other countries, they are in very small numbers. i don't think we have ever had a problem with at least from my experience, of civilian oversight of the force that is in a country. but i'm all about growing the foreign service. i'll put that plug in as well. i'm all about more money for the state department for all the

reasons tom raised. this is an incredible enabler for the country. any time we can have those diplomatic relationships at the lower soren service level up to the ambassadors that is money in the bank as well. >> a shout out to two extraordinary ambassadors. anne is now in egypt having served before that in pakistan. having served before that in a couple of latin countries and she is in harm's way and just a little plug for small women adding great value. >> small, tough women. >> right here, sir. you have been patient. >> thank you very much for an interesting panel. i'm with human rilings first. -- rights first. i want to asking about the relationship between a broader terrorism strategy. i know you raised that earlier in the conversation and in particular, you know, on the day of the second anniversary in

which osama bin laden was killed, i think we are a different environment. i think everyone agrees about that. what i have seen is strategicically on the verge of strategic defeat. not capable of a catastrophic attack like noip. -- 9/11. people are starting to ask questions about what a next phase of counterterrorism strategy looks like. >> there was an interesting set of comments. jay johnson described that we are approaching a tipping point in which we must be able to say that we're no longer in an armed conflict with al qaeda and that our military assets must be reserved as a last resort and i'm paraphrasing here and that our law enforcement assets must be front and center along with our partner and nations in combating terrorism.

i guess i want to ask you whether you agree with those remarks provided by the former general council jay johnson and how we can make sure our direct action activities, our operational activities don't become a substitute for a broader, strategic approach for dealing with terrorism. >> i absolutely agree with jay johnson. i think he did a great job in framing the way ahead for us. that is the pointer of my narrative. it is combating terrorism. that means how do we partner. how do we build this partner capacity. how do we help countries help themselves so that frankly we can buy down the extremism. those countries can deal with terrorism in their countries so it doesn't become regional and global. it is about getting ahead of the threat so that i don't have to use direct action. at the end of the day direct action ought to be the very last

resort. and and that's where we ought to be proceeding in terms of the future of special operations and terrorism. >> i just would add, tom, i know time is running out here. that it is time in my view to review the -- which has been the underpinning for most of the action that pote presidents bush and obama have taken across the world in response to post 9/11 threats. i was there. i voted for the act to respond to those who attacked us based in afghanistan. and no one thought that this would be the underpinning statute 12 years later. there is a number of members of congress who want to review this. one of them is bob corker, a republican ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee. i think it is time to start a public conversation.

aybe we'll do it here. whether it needs to be repealed, replaced whatever to, frame a new narrative going forward. >> in response to that and also the previous questions as well. i hope everyone recognizes the rigor and robustness of this process and how the white house runs that and the types of deliberations that go into that. it obviously all comes down to the balancing that you would expect of what our interests are in that engagement. and on something like afghanistan, it is obviously the clearest case in terms of trying to dismantle and degrade al qaeda. in pakistan, where i'm also involved, effort is very much in our national interest for engagement. when we're able to put our relationship on firming ground and restart some of these

groups, the very first one that we had was on law enforcement and counterterrorism. to talk about specific counterproposals. legislation and operationalizeation at some of these things. in terms of the capacity piece, again, as we have our drawdown in afghanistan, we obviously have to be moving from the stabilization efforts that we had a few days ago to what is more sustainable over time. that is incumbent on what the capacity is that we are able to develop better. >> i probably have time for one more here. sir? >> on capitol hill, there is a very robust debate going on about the small footprint. there are risks. obviously benghazi. we saw what happened there, a terrible loss of life. i want do get a sense from you, if we were not in this fiscal situation, would small footprint be a debate now? would it eeb be done? i want to know if -- even be

done. if you could address that now. we hear this on the hill quite a bit. >> it is absolutely not driven by economics, at least not in my case. a small footprint, where it is appropriate to have a small footprint. as linta said, special operations forces are not a panacea for everything. i would contend as we move forward, the time for a small footprint is a better strategic choice are probably growing. it is not a function of economics. the cost of applying a small footprint forward is pretty small. in my budget within the department of defense is pretty small and even if we take some cuts, which i expect will happen, i think we'll still be able to provide this capability to the secretary and to the president. >> ok. we're out of time. thanks. terrific questionses. thank the panel. [applause]

>> admiral, don't be a stranger. >> c-span's road to the white house 2016 coverage begins front two fundraising events in south carolina. joe biden speaks to the democratic party's annual dinner. at the same time, texas senator ted cruz will be the keynote speaker at a republican party tribute to former senator jim

emint. >> grant was interesting. they had this extraordinary role. -- was of their lives, a failure. unable to provide for his own family. then in almost no time at all, suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who had saved the union on the battlefield and then president of the united states. >> julia loved her time in the white house. she said in her memoirs that it was like a bright and beautiful dream. quite the most wonderful time of my life. so i think that gives you some idea of how much she enjoyed being first lady and how she felt that her husband had

finally achieved the recognition he deserved. >> be part of our conversation on julia grant with your questions and comments by phone, facebook and 2013 live monday night on "first ladies" at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3 and c-span radio and c-span.org. from goldman ks sachs c.e.o., lloyd blankfein. it is hosted by the investment company institute. [applause]

>> i would like to recognize all members of the g.m.m. planning committee. they did a fabulous job in helping put this conference together. i would also like them to stand and i also want the staff who does a wonderful job putting this conference together to stand as well. with we join in ruped of applause? -- round of applause? [applause] outstanding work. thank you all very much. before i bring paul out to engage in a very wide-ranging discussion about the financial markets and all things associated and the continued theme of our conference with our keynote speaker, lloyd blankfein, i would like to spend a minute recognizing paul stevens. his tireless leadership, his inspiring leadership, quite

frankly and all the things that he has done to represent our industry and help us further our duty to shareholders is nothing short of breathtaking. nobody writes a better letter. quite frankly, nobody gives a better interview. we're all going to be funding paul's new newscast program in the future and we will be taking orders later. but i just wanted to have you guys give an especially warm welcome to paul stevens and thank him along with me for all the great things he has done for our industry. paul, come on out. [applause] >> we have to get a chairman for this meeting that stays on script. [laughter] thank you very much, ted. and thanks to one and all. i guess i'm going to have to keep doing these interviews until i get them right.

we were really delighted when lloyd blankfein accepted our invitation to participate in this year's membership meeting. he has held the top job at goldman's since 2006. he has led a stoird financial firm through perhaps the most difficult period in its long history. goldman's global presence gives lloyd a unique window into markets and economies all around the world and lloyd looks out at that view through the prism of his own remarkable career. he hails from brooklyn. he won a scholarship to harvard at the earned the age of 16. he continued his studies in cambridge at harvard law school followed by a stint practicing law in new york city. in 198 1, he applied for a position at goldman sachs and like so many other extraordinaryly able and talented people before him, he

was turned down. [laughter] but luck was on his side. he took a job at a trading firm named j. eran which almost immediately was acquired by goldman sachs. at lumple, he said summing it all you have, as far as goldman is concerned, i'm an acquired taste. [laughter] he obviously rose through the ranks at his new employer. in 2004, he was named president and c.o.o. and then chairman and c.e.o. when his predsess of hank paulson was named secretary of the treasury. there are no doubt many, many factors in lloyd's great success, but his experience on the trading desk and ability to manage risk must be prominent among them. one of his colleagues said he is a risk taker, but a very disciplined one.

ladies and gentlemen, please join me a particularly warm welcome for lloyd blankfein. [applause] >> well, thank you for that. >> you know, it was reflecting the e luncheon today and marking of ted's expression of our gratitude to jpmorgan for sponsoring the lunch. it reflects a kinder, gentler wall street, doesn't it? that they would sponsor lunch for the head of goldman sachs? [laughter] >> i know it is a big group, but no one tell jamie that i'm eating his lunch. it gets him very upset. [applause] >> we'll rely on the honor

system. so let's talk about the u.s. economy, lloyd. that's a good place to start. because with so much else, the picture is pretty mixed. you know, on the one hand, we have seen some improvements. that has got to be admitted. certainly that is reflected in the equity market's recent performance the market is at a four-year low. the housing market showing signs of recovery. durable good ordered are increasing. there are negative sign taos. recent job growth has weakened. lots of people have stopped looking for jobs, we know, and consumer confidence numbers have been shaky. what is your sense of the numbers today and what is your sense of expectations for tomorrow? >> i don't think i'm going to break new ground here. i think -- i think most people think that the recovery is established.

again, not without risk. if you ask me about federal reserve policy, i think they are doing sensible things to take a little risk off the table or try to. but i think we're going in the right direction. there is a lot of great factors. i can't really -- i can explain anything that has already happened but if you gave me the set of circumstances that the u.s. is living with now, for example, house having bottomed and going up and being a tail wind instead of a headwind. the energy position and what that does for manufacturing. the deleveraging that took place. the amount of cash on the sidelines, i would say this is a terrific environment. foggy what it is -- knowing what it is, i can look back and say admissions you get from hindsight, there is trauma, lots of uncertainty and regulation. it is hard to explain. if you laid out these circumstances to me, i would say

that the trajectory of growth would be a a lot higher. people are nervous about taking risk. nobody agrees on the price of anything. we have a situation where debt is very cheap and yet nobody is borrowing to invest in their own businesses. given what you can borrow debt, does that mean people think they can't get a return out of their own businesses? it seems unlikely, but that is where we are today. these things are sentiment driven. economics. forget about economics. markets are not science. they are social science and there is a lot of sentiment and emotion and this could change and expect it to change. there are a lot of problems that are doggings but i think the world muddles through and the u.s. does better than muddle through. >> i don't know if you saw the piece that bill mcnabb had in the "wall street journal."

he talked about many of the uncertainties on government policy being a huge drag on the economy. do you subscribe to that point of view? >> yes, but i don't remember a time when i couldn't have said that in a lot of ways. there is always something on there. in other words, i would say we came through a very trauma period. but a lot of that trauma has receded. if you set the circumstance to me, i would say this looks a lot like other times when things were stronger. now other times didn't have the istory and therefore not the retice ens of sliding back or the fear of anxiety which is ore consequential now. maybe unforgiving is a better word. so i think there is much more reticence. look at the private equity

market, for example. you have companies that have equity -- funding markets that have been -- a rising equity market and not a lot of stuff is getting done. the buyers and the sellers are not -- if you're optimistic, you think the price should be higher and you want to be paid for the risk of taking that position and the other person doesn't want to pay you that risk. the recent history is what is getting everybody nervous. >> and there are a lot of aftershocks, i suppose. >> we are in an -- i think that is the way of looking at it. >> let's talk a little bit about monetary policy. we have entered an unprecedented chapterer in the federal reserve's interventions, supplying the market with an unprecedented am of liquidity through monetary policy. as you well know, not only short-term rates hovering just

above zero and have been for sometime, the fed is in its third or fourth, depending how you count it program of quantitative easing. how effective do you think the fed's policy has been and are there other alternatives now that we ought to be looking at? >> well, sure. look, the fed had a mandate. you raise your hand and bredge that you're going to accomplish -- pledge that you're going to accomplish both of those mandates. >> it is kind of a zen exercise. >> it is not zen. you go in and you look at it and you say what is the -- what are you most afraid of? in other words, if i were in charge of the economy, what would i be most afraid of? the economy sliding back into a deflationary period. look, in some ways, psychologically we are in a bit

of a deflationary mind-set. i just talked about the lack of activity not withstanding. low interest rates and everything. deflationary period means that you get up every day and have something you might want to do but you say i'll wait for tomorrow because it might get cheaper. next day you wake up and say i'll wait for tomorrow and you string 20 years the worth of tomorrows together like japan. inflation is insidious. if you wake up and say i had better get that done before its gets more expensive. at the end of the day, i think there is a risk of inflation. there is a risk of deflation and i would say maybe the balance is shifting. the consequences of deflation are so much more severe and there is a play book for inflation. if i were in charge of the tools

that the fed is in charge of, i would be doing it too. i would also be saying when are the other guys going to kick in? whatever you think about q.e. and the tool handed to me once interest rates go to zero, the return of those policies are ghirk. what is the value at this point of taking it down flee day sis points? -- basis points? what you need is fiscal policy to kick in and the chance of getting that kind of consensus to legislate are slight. >> i know you're a student of history. what period in the experience of the united states do you look to as comparable that presented or actually involved that kind of deflation which you think is an appropriate fear today? >> well, thinking about it, we're looking for inflation

everywhere, you and i, because we group in an inflationary time. >> in our lifetimes, we never saw a true deflation. >> haunted by it. started working in the 1970's. unnation by the way with big unemployment. -- inflation with big unemployment. the lesson that was passed on from my parents, who grew up in the depression, would not spend a dime ever. they were not haunted like we are that everything you do is going to inflate the currency forever an ever. theirs was the opposite. we come from a thing where you can't contemplate that it is anything other than the fed's job to shield us from the inevitable inflation that will rull from our self-indull jept

policies. my paraphernalia's grew up in the deflationary environment. they were not going out and buying asset items whenever they could. they were holding on to their money in savings accounts. sentment changes. sometimes it -- remember what you used to think. >> history teaches it only took -- it took world war ii to get us out of that cycle. >> it took a big spend which was helped by the -- it wasn't just a policy. you didn't have to argue. paralleld of the other . the late 1970's were a parallel. i look out of the corner of my eye to the 1994 period when you got used to long interest rates for a long time and then a shocking and large over a short period of time hike in interest rates.

that even though you think in hindsight should have been expected, was stunning and had a major affect on people's portfolios at that time. you want to think about what to worry about as if we don't have enough to worry about. >> a large part of this meeting has been focusing on international issues. i know you and your firm follow developments closely. i want to turn attention outside of the united states, starting first with europe. i gather you have just returned from a trip to germany and the united kingdom and you had the opportunity to meet with policymakers in both countries. with that trip in mind, what is your sense of developments in europe? have they decisively turned the corner in the eurozone crisis or are we in yet another lull before yet another storm? >> the situation will be problematic for a long time because you are trying to

accomplish something very radical in a very difficult government modeled to say the least. that may be the biggest problem, the ability to adapt to hange. the big problem in europe is growth. how do you achieve a growth rate? by having in interest-rate policy appropriate to germany and spain? who would have thought in prior generations that spain and germany would have the same exchange rate for 15 years? but they do. it is a difficult situation, but i think that one thing i would impart, it is confusing for americans and less so for europeans. the willingness of europeans, including germans who have to pay a lot of the bills, to actually continue to pay those bills to support the european experiment, which again is

politically motivated even though it bears on the economy and economic functionality but it is really politically driven, the political will to do that, i believe, is absolute. we sit here a lot of times and say the germans will never go along with this, will not pay for that. they will not pay so much to support the greeks. but other than the fact that we try to keep the hazard out of it and going to the brink, i am convinced the support for making europe work, the alternative of which -- i think it is very strong. when people talk to you, people can be cynical about a lot of things but they talk in terms of nobody wants to repeat the 20th century in europe. it is a real political requirement. people should suspend their

faculty about whether they will keep going along with the sacrifices necessary. the question you have to go in, at what point regardless of their willingness to do it today lose the capacity? in other words, at what point do you get to wear it even if they are willing to they cannot, or even if they can the world can tolerate a situation where unemployment in spain is so high, that there is social unrest, which is a fear down the road. not remote from people's thought process. if you want to make the economies converge and balance budgets, how much tax can you put on the last percentage of people working in spain? you put people out of work and get less revenue. revenue destructive, not creative. i would say that the focus on capacity issues and not the

willingness. they had the capacity for a long time and are focused on it at the subset is governance. the point where you need unanimous agreement for certain things, from belgium, the federalist system there is very awkward and hard to get results. you can get a situation where you might have -- think about the fed, what they were doing during the financial crisis. everyone went to be said for a long weekend. coming up with a whole set of proposals, buying assets, that did not work, a couple weeks later, tarp two, capital injection, can that system be nimble enough to move for a moving market and expectations and fears? right now it feels relatively safe because of the work that was done by mario draghi and the central bank.

but to take that off the table. but it is not resolved. you have to have growth and have to have a growth model that works in the periphery and within germany. >> it seems to me that the united states has a great deal at stake in seeing the most extraordinary political experiment, which is the european union, succeed. does our government do enough to support the europeans in coping with what you called the eurozone situation? i used the term crisis. >> i stopped after the third year of the mortgage crisis, i stop calling it a crisis and started calling at life. [laughter] i think they will be living through this for a long time. not one critical moment, but a series of decisions. > are we doing enough?

>> i think the politics of it and the sociology of it is we want them to succeed, we have a lot of suggestions, they have their context, we have our context, and we compete in a lot of ways and have different views of how regulation should be done the power of the central government or the parliamentary systems. we have a divided government. we have a recent history of the europeans having the belief that their problems, ground zero for their problems were the united states. >> there is that narrative. >> certainly a catalyst, but i think the leveraging of their system and the fact that the revenues and costs of their social system diverged and the lines never crossed again is a function of european policy, not united states policy. but there were certain

catalysts. very complicated. a lot of it is european, but back-and-forth, i do not know how receptive the europeans would be to take instruction well there -- while they are working out their system. our folks -- in real concrete ways, when they need dollars, do not forget that most trade in the world is financed through dollars. europe can only print euros. they can't print dollars. when they were going through their problems are government was taking a lot of credit risk by swapping and giving them dollars in return for euros so their banks could function and the banking system could function. we are doing a lot but everybody thinks, everybody is generous with his own advice. >> i have noticed that. >> and feels how lucky the other person is to get it.

the recipient is not always feel so lucky. >> we used to say that free advice is worth every penny you pay for it. let's move to china and developments in asia. another very important topic for this conference. we heard early this morning from the eurasia group founder on the subject. in a session that i think everyone here greatly enjoyed. we could probably devote an entire conference to the subject given the complexities and significance for the future. on the one hand, it is -- the economic outlook and growth continue to amaze. i have seen some of your research publications projecting 20 years hence, and it is extraordinary. >> pretty impressive. >> very impressive indeed. on the other hand, i think the challenges facing the country are striking as well.

demographic pressures, including a population that is aging relatively quickly. the political and economic divide between the urban and the rural communities in china remains an issue. infrastructure of the market system out there. and ultimately the potential in a large population for social unrest among a citizenry legitimately earning for -- yearning for financial opportunity and political accountability and the like. you have traveled to china, have done so recently. you must be a class of -- close observer of the evolution of the nation and its economy. what is your outlook? >> the 20th century was america's century, and that does not mean we owned every year of it. there were a few bad years in he 20th entry.

1907 was a bad year. if you shut down than you would have missed the last 93 years. i cannot tell you if this is a chinese year or not. but i really believe this could be their century. by the way, i feel positive about the u.s. they are the two places i feel best about, for different reasons. but i would rather be a long-term investor for china than a short term. i would rather predict five years and 10 years. i would rather be investing for my kids than investing for short-term for myself. i think every problem you mentioned is also an opportunity. population means they will have to go out and create social services which means they will have to create pools of capital. they will have to have something to buy, so companies that go to the outside world and issue equity on the hong kong market, have to build up equity markets, bigger equity markets inside china to create security for

pools of capital. the pools of capital in turn will fund chinese growth. a remarkable situation now, the savingscould put none a bank bank at no interest. a lot of the problems you mentioned are the flip side of opportunity. the problems -- they are problems if they do not go well, but as they did work through they will be big opportunities. the urbanizeation, if it doesn't go well, you can see a conflict and dissatisfaction, but look how many people are coming in, all consumers, a fabulous labor force. i think there will be problems, and it is hard to know. we find out about our problems because the market helps tell us. as part of their stimulus program they build something like 80 airports right away. if you build 80 airports at once

maybe 40 of them will be in the wrong way, -- place, maybe 50 of them. if that happens here nobody goes to them and supports them and you write them off and fire a million people. and you kill the people who made the decision and move on. there you do not really know. why do i have such a good view how that process works? i knew every part of it except the moving on part. in china you do not have the mechanism of writing off mistakes. so i think when they have mistakes they will be bigger than they otherwise would be if you were facing them all along. but if you ask me, i would bet along with china that it works out. new government, this government had a couple years to think about what they want to do.

i expect they have reforms on the mind. capital markets reform should be early in the agenda so you can achieve those things by having capital markets that will allow people to finance and fund things. i would be positive but as a risk manager the next year kind of confuses me. i do not know. not a lot of visibility. the market does not tell you like it does here. so we stay invested but we watch how much we have in. what we do not want to do is have so much in that we have a problem and have to pull out. and once you are out or start to get out it is hard to get that reputation back. so we are being very careful about how much we have in. we are constantly financing, constantly investing, but when we invest we sell other things and try to keep a level of risk in that country we think we can support.

under even dire circumstances. >> interesting. so let's come back closer to ome again. you know, this is not news to you or anyone here but in recent years we have seen to have hit several high watermarks in terms of the public antipathy toward the financial services sector. >> that is hate, right? [laughter] >> it's like situation -- that's among policy makers and this is important to note on both the right and the left. there was a 2010 dow jones described u.s. "the focus of anger about wall street's skyhigh bonus culture" and reported that you were grilled, actually that was a good experience having testified

soigts myself. grilled by a senate subcommittee looking into goldman and the financial crisis. i do not want to dwell on the past, but where do you see the temperature levels now in terms of our industry, what the rapport we have with policymakers is, is the grill still hot? >> somebody once said how much better does it feel to be boiled in 450 degree oil rather than 600 degree oil. [laughter] so the temperature could be down and still might not feel that much better. things have moved. you cannot ignore the legacy. in the present we are carrying a legacy and working through these issues, and that is a source of resentment and distrust we have to grapple with in the present. it was a very big trauma. the narrative that got written will be expanding over time to include regrettable behavior, a lot of people, including things

we regret financing in hindsight. it was a bubble that captured everybody, and there were no brilliant actors when everybody got caught up in the same credit bubble. but we have to work through it. it should not be a shock that the trauma will have repercussions for a long time and we will live with the legacy ssues for a while. no surprise there. i think we are on the front foot going forward. people are more interested in how we get this economy going than they are with again rehashing. you are not abandoning the legacy management, there is no abandonment, but in terms of share people want better growth and want a better life and they want firms like ourselves and yourself to accomplish the urpose we are here for, to

ultimately finance risk-taking and growth in the system. you accumulate capital, you make decisions, you yea this investment and nay that investment and allocate capital. we make decisions among who are the best sources of the need for capital. that is something we have to do in earnest. other things we have to do with a nod to the legacy issues, i have a lot of regret for not having that dialogue with the public. we have to do a better job explaining what it means to be able to have and what a blessing it is for the united states to have good big pools of capital with professional management and long track records and a disciplined financial system that is regulated very well.

what does that mean to the real person? how am i better off because we ave great capital markets? look at the growth in the united states. look at the innovation, entrepreneurs. everybody wants to come here and make their fortune here because we have the infrastructure for that. and we have to do a better job of explaining our role in that and what a boon to society that is. cynics will roll their eyes, but it is a boon to our society. >> i grant you, from the point of view of the rank-and-file american it is a very abstract concept. a lot of complexity to it. i think it is even more complicated by the fact that financial services industry is different. i think of goldman as being in many different spaces. as you know, the investment company institute occupies one, he registered investment company, mutual fund space.

how do you accommodate within your firm businesses as diverse as you have? for example, the asset management business on the one hand, investment banking, what are the challenges involved there and how do you manage it? >> let me say we are not that diverse. for a big financial institution we are relatively focused. in other words, we among all others that were dedicated investment banks, we did not merge with big commercial banks or form financial supermarkets. we do not have a retail business like one of our nearest competitors, morgan stanley. we stayed in a wholesale institutional businesses -- advice, market making, financing, and asset management. we are engaged with the same kind of people and infrastructure and intellectual capital. echnology.

we find, by the way, the same culture throughout the firm. all those people who tend to fund those kinds of businesses tend to be similar kinds of people with similar skill sets. so i think it was very important to us to maintain that culture and to recruit at the kinds of schools we recruit at, to stay in those relatively narrow -- we think all those activities give us a frankly tremendous advantage in terms of investments we make in our technology and the culture of risk management, the way we can attract people, even if people do not intend for 30 years they o not mind getting trained for three years at goldman. some stay for three and stay 30 just the same way that people come for 30 and stay for three. we have great recruiters as a result of that synergy. i think those businesses fit together very well.

within our own organization asset management has the advantage of being a business where we can still grow without just crossing our fingers and hoping the market itself gets bigger. we tried to grow our market share in investment banking, but how much will we grow our market share when we are the number one player? but in asset management, there is an asset manager that is four times our size. the things i told you about the pool of capital and wealth creation, i think it is the market that will grow and a big opportunity for us and one that gets a very high percentage of mine and our boards share in terms of growing the business and making sure we do it in a sensible way and are careful about risks and returns. >> you talked about trying to explain to people that are the benefits of great capital

markets that we have. benefits in their own personal lives and those of their family. the recent experience reinforces the old expression that confidence is a plan for slow rowth. what is goldman doing, thinking about the industry at large, to increase public confidence and customer and client confidence in the firm and the business that it is engaged in? >> the first thing that we obviously focused on and the industry has to focus on is it is a good thing when you are trying to repair a relationship not to do anything that inflames the relationship. it would be a very good thing for the industry to stop having roblems. then, obviously the market had a big trauma and the social system in the country had a big problem -- trauma.

goldman sachs obviously had a big trauma in this. we are determined to use that, we talked about that before in our partnership culture that forces us to be very introspective and dig deep and figure out what we were doing and what we could do better and spend a lot of time on this. we published a lot about changes we have made. again, be very public. i think people are living their lives and worrying about their performance, not obsessed with what we are doing. but it is there for people to see. we are going out and doing the best we can in demonstrating through the things we do for a living how important that s. in the past couple days, $17 billion of debt for apple, we helped jcpenney, who needed obviously an infusion of capital. when i think of the ipo's and the things we do, what i would ike to be able to do is tell

people, and i will get to this for a second, apart from the special programs and philanthropy we do as a firm, i would like people to understand that the things that we do in the course of our business activity is supportive of the country, the economic system, and growth, job creation. that is a big enough gap right there. beyond it we are also trying to do things that operate on a human scale. the disadvantage to us being a wholesale institutional business is a little bit, who are these he ball? -- people? we do not have a dialogue -- who are these people? we do not have a dialogue the way consumer firms did. that would hurt us a lot because we did not participate in the narrative about our self. so i think we are doing some programs, small business programs, taking the themes and work we do and providing advice and education and financing and support in the small business context.

we put a lot of money and energy and infrastructure around that program, operating in several cities. if any of you have crossed it you know it very well. that has been a great program. to do what we do on a level that is more comprehensible to people. we recognize the need to do that. to bridge that. >> you started out your career as a lawyer, then became a trader. as head of the firm most of your focus is on clients. when you became head of the firm there were a couple of really good years, perhaps looking back you would mistrust some of that because it was in the midst of the bubble. then some tough ones. maybe we are coming out of that now. it has no doubt tested you as a leader personally. what lessons in leadership has lloyd blankfein learned since

becoming chairman of goldman sachs? >> i will tell you, in those good years we were having i did not necessarily feel good. i was looking around every corner nervous as can be. so wind -- so only in hindsight do i see how easy it was. the tough years i did not exercise a lot of critical faculty about how tough things were. every day you came in and tried to sort things out and the next day you sort things out and one day you go out and there is nothing left to sort through and that is how you know it is over. but there's always stuff. i think when things are going well you love the hell out of it and when things are difficult you have a sense of duty that really takes over. in terms of leadership i think, and this is a virtue but also a vice, have a thick skin. if it is too thick and you are

oblivious to what is going on that is a bad thing, but it has to be thick enough not to take all the well intended device that would have you bend to every breeze. i remember in november 2008 when we had our research conference, september 2008 we had the crisis, november 2000 eight i am getting -- 2008, i'm getting questioned on whether there will be any investment banking. i said our strategy is to be a financier and market maker and asset manager and co-investor. they said, don't you know? new normal. you'll never eat lumple in this town again. -- lunch in this town again. you cannot do it. november, our year started december 1 in those days. the next year was the all-time record year for goldman sachs and our businesses because of the needs of market making. we were able to accommodate other people's business. that's the reason for that.

so you cannot, as a leader you have to listen and you cannot cross the line into stubborn but you had better stay a little bit thick-skinned and a little bit focused on facts and information. they say, how can a lawyer be in this business? in a funny way, a lot of different people do well in the business but lawyers do not do so badly and engineers to not do accountants don't do so badly. you know why? all of those groups have a real respect for facts as opposed to sentiment and impression. lawyers are trained with facts, engineers for sure live with facts, and accountants. that cannot be all you are but that is not a bad place to start. as opposed to nerves and advice and short-termism. >> we are running out of time but i did one sort of a lightning round. really quickly.

the volcker rule? >> i think misplaced and, well intended but out of place and potentially harmful to the markets. >> too big to fail? >> appropriately to an extent the current obsession and something that needs to be sorted out to maintain the contractor want to have with the public. >> money market funds? >> very important source of xcess liquidity for people but what doesn't get enough attention is very important liquidy for companies. to have all that exist on the balance sheets of banks and loan the companies would inflate the balance sheets of banks and create more credit risk than the

balance sheet side and the credit risk that we are comfortable with today. >> financial transaction taxes? >> screwy. [laughter] liquidity is a virtue of the system and to tax liquidity in order to hamper it is going to be a cost that will be realized in a lot of facets of our society that are not anticipated. >> a book you would recommend? >> every book i read i am in love with. what area? >> you choose. >> history. the book on washington. >> i just finished it. >> it covered a million things. so here is the demigod washington. no one had more prestige in the world. the politics surrounding him were so bitter and horrible, and everyone talks about the world has changed, nobody had to deal

with a 24-hour news cycle, let me tell you. this is his own delegation writing pamphlets against him. it almost gives me some faith that we can survive the bitterness of the current system, that these things are part of a cycle and the fact we it almost gives me some faith that we can survive the bitterness of the current system, that these things are part of a cycle and the fact we are thinking this is as worse as it can be is only a function that this is the generation we are in and everything else is focused. but that book made it vivid that we have gone through these cycles before and we have certainly gotten out of them. so i feel better about it. >> there was a point in time when washington and jefferson never spoke to each other. >> you know something? every night about 5:00 i get the incoming e-mails that contain the next day's news stories and i'm thinking, these would take two months to get printed and would go by a horseback.