bob gates' new book or excerpts of it, forcing the white house today to respond to the former defense secretary's highly critical portrayal of both president obama and vice president biden. the former pentagon chief peveling heavy criticism of the administration's foreign policy decisions. i'm lou dobbs. good evening, everybody. the white house on the defensive today over allegations revealed in the memoir of former defense secretary roberts gates. in his book titled "duty," gates writes on the decision to enact a troop surge in afghanistan that president obama was, quote,

skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail, end quote. gates continues writing, i never doubted obama's support for the troops, only his support for the mission. press secretary jay carney today evasive when asked why the president would send our troops into harm's way without believing in the mission. carney would not answer directly whether or not the claim was true. while seeming to hold gates himself responsible for the final decision. >> he would not make decisions about surging u.s. troops without a thorough debate of the policy objectives, and the options available to him to achieve those objectives. and a thorough debate about what the proper focus of the mission ought to be. and i think that that process produced a policy that as secretary gates and others have said and secretary gates was one

of the coauthors, if you will, of the policy that did just that. >> gates also said he witnessed a shocking conversation between then secretary of state hillary clinton and the president. . the two former senators allegedly admitted that their opposition to the iraq surge while in the senate was strictly for political reasons. a point that carney simply brushed off when he said the president was opposed to the entire war. vice president biden the target of sharp criticism in the gates book. gates wrote, biden has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades. while he accused the vice president of, quote, poisoning the well against pentagon leaders. carney rushed to biden's defense but didn't offer a single concrete example to refute the allegations.

>> i would reiterate that the president and the rest of us here simply disagree with that assessment. as a senator and vice president joe biden has been one of the leading statesman of his time. he's played a key role in every major national security and foreign policy debate and policy discussion in this administration, in this white house. >> the president inconspicuously opened up his white house lunch meeting with biden to the press. the first such time he's done o so, and asked if that was simply coincidence, carney told the white house press corps, you decide for yourselves. on capitol hill, the top democrat in the senaae, majority leader harry reid working overtime to extend long-term unemployment benefits for three months. six republicans voted with democrats yesterday to debate

the measure, but most of those republicans now say they won't vote for final passage later this week. unless lawmakers find a way to pay for it. among those republicans, senator kelly ayotte who says the extension should be paid for by not allowing illegal immigrants to defraud the federal government by claiming what's called the additional child tax credit. >> the joint tax committee has estimated we can save -- close to $20 billion over ten years by fixing this fraud in our tax code. and so in addition to fixing the military retiree issue, we can also pay for the unemployment insurance three month extension on the floor right now. >> majority leader reid, however, today slammed her proposal and a separate proposal saying we could pay for jobless benefits by delaying the obamacare individual mandate.

>> so far, all we've heard from republicans is this. take a big whack out of obamacare. or they've got another one. go after children. children with the child tax credit. >> the senate majority leader meant illegal immigrant adults who defraud the federal government fraudulently claiming those tax credits. there is still no word on how senator reid would move forward now or whether he will, in fact, allow votes on those amendments. governor chris christie has a political crisis exploding tonight in new jersey. new e-mails have emerged showing christie's staff engaged in a shocking case of petty political retribution which governor christie had denied on a number of occasions. private messages between the governor's deputyychief of staff

and two of his top transportation officials reveal they conspired to close lanes of the george washington bridge back in september. in order to create gridlock in a nearby town whose mayor didn't support christie's reelection. christie's senior staffer wrote, quote, time for some traffic problems in ft. lee. to which a transportation official responded, got it. and on the week of the lane closures, an unidentified person texted a transportation official, i feel badly about the kids. apparently a reference to school buses caught in the traffic jam. the christie official then replied, they are the children of buono voters, referencing chris christie's democratic opponent last year. speaker john boehner telling house republicans that leadership would soon release an

outline of the conference's position on immigration legislation. a lot of people thought the house judiciary committee had already done that. our next guest has been one of the leaders on the way forward as a member of the judiciary committee that is headed by congressman. to bring american farmers some relief with a workable temporaryingtemporary agricultural worker program. and the stem act giving green cards to immigrants who have earned advanced degrees in the united states. joining us, a member of the house oversight committees and chair of the immigration and border security subcommittee. good to have you with us. >> thank you for having me. >> speaker boehner talking about

broad principles when your committee under the chairman has been pretty active and pretty effective in putting together what i consider to be the solution. what's going on. >> well, speaker boehner has also been very supportive of what the chairman has been doing. i read the same report, apparently announced in conference this morning. they're not going to be any different principles in 2014 than what we had in 2013. it's going to be border security, internal security and what's best for our fellow citizens. it's not going to be about winning 2014 in the fall elections or 2016. it's not going to be about a feeling to certain groups that in the past historically haven't been too fond of the republican party. we're going to do what we best -- think is best for the country. if the speaker wants to memorialize or put in writing those principles, he's welcome to do so, but the principles haven't changed. >> and what is going on? >> why isn't there a -- i would

think a public enthusiasm in the republican congress for having succeeded in actually taking the lead on resolving the issue of immigration in this country. the senate couldn't do and the house is now having succeeded at doing so. >> yeah. and even when the democrats had the house, the senate and white house in 2008, they didn't lift a finger about immigration reform. we actually had a meeting today. i met with about 20 of my colleagues that are not on judiciary, they're on different committees, and we're all very encouraged. of course, as you would expect with any big group, we don't all see every issue the same. there's still a debate within the republican conference on a path to citizenship versus legal status. there's still a debate on what the background check should look like. i would prefer, as you might imagine a tougher background check. but what happened in conversation -- this is what

else is important. six months ago, everyone in the world was telling john boehner, you have to bring the senate bill to the floor on the house, if you don't, they're going to run you out of town. now, essentially, only the "new york times" still likes the senate bill. you don't hear anybody talking about the senate bill including those who helped co-author the senate bill. >> you're right. in the house, you're, of course, exactly correct. one of the leading lobbyists and one of the highest paid and most effective is rooting around all over capitol hill trying to get amnesty done. and when he roots, he usually leaves a strong impression if not the result he's being paid to you think he won't succeed in convincing the house leadership to create amnesty and embrace in a rather underhanded and perhapp in the dark shadows of the

capital's pillars a deal that approximates the g8 proposal? >> no. there are other groups. i get hit from time to time back home, groups i respect. faith-based groups still talking about amnesty. and part of that depends on how you define amnesty. but we've got some folks from the south with really thick southern accents in congress with me. but none of them is named haley. so i don't care bay nor oehner concerned. >> that is roadway assuring, particularly coming from you. let's -- >> thank you. >> let's turn, if we may, to the president now. he's talking about extending unemployment insurance. we've got a vote in the senate.

would you be willing to extend unemployment insurance for over -- well about 1.5 million americans about to lose that insurance given the dreadful performance of this administration in creating jobs and getting this economy going again? >> i was watching today. i think my friend john thumes, it is the 13th time we've extended the temporary unemployment benefits. i identified with him last night. we were wondering at what point do you just accept and appreciate the fact that the -- treating the symptoms isn't working? you have to at some point address the underlying pathology. we passed the skills act, which is going to retrain workers. i have no interest whatsoever in punishing our fellow citizens trying to seek work. and because of this president's policies, can't find it. by the same token, even some liberal economists can see that after a while, you have to stop

it. and it's been more than a while. so we're going to need to pay for. and speaking for myself and not the conference, i'm going to need some idea that we're going to reform this and it's not going to become a fifth entitlement program because we can't afford the other four we have right now. >> yeah. the difficulty, of course, to keep the illusion within the -- your context, those economists aren't going to be running for election in november. you get the last word here. >> well, you know what, i actually, i love kelly ayotte, i like her ideas, but rob portman had a good idea, if you're getting social security disability because you can't work, you should not also be getting unemployment benefits. so how many people are? it's a staggering number, lou. so if we would just look at waste, fraud and abuse, harry reid cannot convince my fellow citizens that we can't find enough waste, fraud and abuse to actually pay for one thing we want to do in congress. i don't think he can persuade my

fellow citizens that's where we are fiscally. >> good to have you with us. >> yes, sir, thank you. iraqi forces fight to take back the city of fallujah from al qaeda. national security experts ralph peters and andrew mccarthy on the resurgence of terrorists and obama's move to closer ties with iran next. mine was earned orbiti the moon in 1971. afghastanin 2009. on the u.s.s. saratoga in 1982. [ male announcer ] once it's ened, usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection. and because usaa's comtment to serve current and former miliry members and their families is without equal. begin your legacy.

get an au insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. there's nothing like being your own boss! and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. realy makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order. good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.

[ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. i've got a job to do today. i've got a job to do today. have a good first day at wk, mom! your donations to goodwill fund job-training programs right in your communy. feels good to start fresh, right? sure does. narrator: and like that, you're a job creator.

former defense secretary robert gates has created explosive headlines today. portions of his revealing new book have been released. gates in that book questions president obama's leadership. the book's title is "duty: memoirs of a secretary at war."

and in one passage, his commitment to afghanistan in which he recounts a meeting with the president in march of 2011. and he writes, quote, as i sat there, i thought the president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy, and doesn't consider the war to be his. for him, it's all about getting out. joining us tonight, lieutenant colonel ralph peters, former federal prosecutor and author andrew mccarthy. he led the successful terrorism prosecution of the 1993 world trade center bombings. gentlemen, thanks for being here. let me begin with you. your reaction to the gates recollection and writing? >> there's only one surprise in that book as far as i'm concerned. and that's somebody in washington actually wrote an honest memoir. are we surprised that obama

despises and distrusts the military? were we surprised by the admission that he and hillary both oppose the iraq surge on purely political grounds? are we surprised that obama didn't believe in his campaign promise to fix afghanistan? and i guess there's one more surprise. that this president can cold-bloodedly let americans die and be maimed in afghanistan for a policy he's not believed in for five years. >> now, gates says, andy, later in the book, he says that he believes that the president somewhat contradictory to say the least actually did the right thing, made the right decisions. i can't square that up at all, can you? >> well, it wouldn't be impossible to make the right decision for the wrong reason. but i don't see how this could possibly be the right decision. i think similar to what ralph said. what we have here is a memoir

that makes the obvious explicit. we have people who are politically opposed to not only american projection of power, but also have an aversion to the military who basically has -- as soon as it was politically possible, try to disentangle themselves from these overseas conflicts. and it's much more about their political prospects than it is national security. >> we're going to go obviously much deeper into the gates book and his sense of the history of his time as secretary of defense. but it is -- it is already an explosive charge against the president. and secretary of state clinton to suggest they were operating out of a political motivation rather thannone in the national interest. but let's turn, gentlemen, to iraq. al qaeda taking over taking over

ramadi, fallujah. i can remember vividly, as i'm sure you both can, the troops we lost in taking those cities and holding those cities. ralph, i mean, it just doesn't make any sense that we have even as we are leaving iraq not left a force strong enough, a government strong enough, military strong enough to hold on to the iraq that we left al malaki. >> obama declared he knew nothing about strategy or foreign policy in the military. but because iraq was bush's war, obama declared that the bad war. even though iraq has strategic importance. by default, afghanistan becomes his good war, which he doesn't believe in either, but he pursues for political reasons. well, yes, when his precipitous flight from iraq spat on the graves of soldiers and marines who died and that were maimed in

fighting for fallujah in two battles. and, you know, imagine how different the entire middle east might be today. there'll be no super highway for terrorism, iraq, the relations with iran would be different. syria would be different, we'd be respected. he threw it all away. >> and as you look, you've written extensively on this contest between the radical islamist and radical civilization. how does this resolve itself now? he's committed the united states to withdrawal. we've seen the overrunning of iraq by al qaeda, there will be a further conflict between sunni and shiite, we understand that. and now as we leave, one almost could say abandons afghanistan itself, what is the result of it all? >> the result is that we leave

behind a situation which replicates the late 1990s where al qaeda is able to establish safe havens from which they can protect the west. the big problem with iraq was it was incumbent not only on the current administration but the last administration to hammer home to the american people the real reason we needed to be there, which had nothing to do with building iraqi democracy. it had to do with preventing al qaeda from projecting force. without having made that political case, i think we sort of laid the ground work for what we have now, which is a mess, and not one that's going to be resolved any time soon. >> and to be clear, and i'd like you both to answer quickly because we're so far over on time, and ralph, if i may start with you. our special operation forces, our troops are going to be in afghanistan to protect u.s. interests as they are perceived

by our civilian leadership and this president. it doesn't really matter whether or not the president of afghanistan says there will be a bilateral security agreement or not, does it? >> well, it does matter because we have the pretense of legality. but if i can respond to the question you ask andrew, as well. when we leave afghanistan as well having left to rock, a bloody mess, multilayer civil wars, it's shiite against sunni, tribe against tribe, moderates against al qaeda. we are going to see a blood bath in the middle east in the coming years that will dwarf what we've already seen in syria. >> we are seeing it. but if we're going to have our people there, we ought to give them rules of engagement that allow them to fight and defend themselves. >> yes. >> i think that thought is a consensus. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> ralph peters, thank you. up next, we'll go to the

chalk board to reveal some of the most important themes in my brand new book "upheaval." solutions that work. let's try that. the chalk talk is next. stay with us. dentures are very different to real teeth. they're about 10 times softer and may have surface pores where bacteria can multiply. polident kills 99.99% of odor causing bcteria and helps dissolve stains. that's why i recommend polident. [ male announcer ] cleaner, fresher, brighter every day.

well, you may have heard us speak some about my new book. well, it's arrived. it's been published today, it's entitled "upheaval" and deals with many of the issues and forces threatening in my judgment our way of life in this country. i wrote the book because i wanted to author in the gentlest terms the party leaders, a few ideas, gentle ideas, some solutions that actually might be helpful in doing something critically important in this very special year, that is winning the dogone 2014 midterms and taking back the senate. i make the case for republicans to avoid wedge issues. this is going to be a little controversial. i've got friends who think that the republican party should be devoted to stopping abortion.

i've got friends who that the republican party should be devoted to stopping gay marriage. but those issues, those wedge issues have absolutely devastated much of the republican party in more than one election. let's go to abortion. i'll tell you myself. i am pro life. but i also truly believe the decision belongs to women who have the right to control their own bodies. that it's a matter of personal conscience and religious belief. and as for gay marriage, the argument that heterosexual marriages are somehow threatened by gay marriage is to me patently beyond the absurd. that's just for me. but i recognize how you may feel that it's a matter of your individual belief, your faith, your religion, and, again, your personal conscience and choice. for me, the matter is settled by the constitution. not everyone feels that way, but

i truly believe that the constitution is about equality in all respects and all regard. but why divide the republican party in any way by insisting on these wedge issues that being at the forefront of the republican agenda? if the politics of division is practiced by the left and this president go on, democrats will ultimately destroy their own electoral prospects. but in the short-term, republicans will continue to lose unless republicans learn that they must enlarge their tent to include everyone who embraces this. responsible, responsible and limited government. support for the family, real support and commitment, empowerment for individual citizens. not just entitlements. and a strong, vigorous economy that creates prosperity and job opportunities for all americans. again, my book is entitled

"upheaval," you can get it at all bookstores today and online, as well. up next, global warming activists contradicted by an early winter deep freeze. a bunch of global warmists sitting down in antarctica cooling themselves off a bii. we'll tell you what happened down there. leading climate change scientist joins us to talk about it all. we're not going to talk just politics, we're going to talk science next. [ laughter smoke? nah, i'm good. [ male announcer ] celebrate every win with nicoderm cq, the unique patch with time release smtcontrol technogy that helps prevent therge to smoke all day long. help prevent your cravings with nicoderm cq.

the new report that the federal government spent nearly $7.5 billion to help other nations deal with climate change. that report covering the period 2010 through 2012 was submitted to the united nations on a subject that secretary of state john kerry has described as a, quote, truly life and death challenge. but evidence is, however, lacking. in fact, tornado activity last

year hit a 60-year low, even though climate alarmists insist global warming will increase tornadoes. and the united states last year broke more record cold temperatures than record hot temperatures. that's the first time that's happened in two decades. here now to give us an assessment of what is actually happening with climate change is one of this country's leading climate scientists. a climate scientist with the carnegie institute for science, and ken, it's great to have you with us. >> great to be here. >> i think you probably find it as tedious as i do, maybe more so all the nonsense associated with climate change public discussion, public policy. but what are we faced with right now as we begin 2014? we have got record low incidents of tornadoes, we had no major atlantic hurricanes whatsoever last year.

what is happening here? globally 15 years, we've had global warming in advance. >> yes. global warming has plateaued for the last 15 years. but as you pointed out, 19 out of the last 20 years we've had more record high temperatures in the united states than record lows. and so there's a lot of natural variability. we all know that weather changes from day-to-day from week to week, the earth is only heated about one degree fahrenheit over the last century. and with this cold spell we're seeing, temperatures that are 30 degrees below normal. and so maybe it might have been 31 degrees below normal if it weren't for global warming. but at any one place still today, the natural weather is more powerful than global warming. >> you associated yourself with a letter in which you call on leaders to embrace nuclear power because you're concerned, obviously, about global warming. now, i will tell you to be

upfront with you, i'm one of those who is very concerned about nuclear power because i don't think we have answers about what to do with the byproduct of fission. your thinking, your thoughts on nuclear power and why you think that's so critical given the direction of our climate. >> we can all differ about values and what we think is important, but i think we should try to agree on facts. and i think the science of climate change, the basic science is fairly well established. and if we look at nuclear power, the facts about the objective risks are also fairly well established in that nuclear power seems far less risky than coal. and yes, there are risks, we've seen fukushima and we know there's waste disposal issues, but there's nothing fundamental that says it can't be substantially safer than what we're currently doing. >> i don't want to get into the issue of nuclear power itself

other than to say fukushima as you put it aside here. we don't even know the true extent of that disaster and its impact. you would agree with that, right? >> i would agree with that. i mean, i think fukushima shows us that the current generation and current way of operating nuclear power plants is dangerous. but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water just because something is error prone today doesn't mean we can't make it better. >> all right. to that end, error prone, the science that has made judgments over the course of the past three decades about whether this planet is cooling, or whether it is warming. we have seen 40 years, we've seen both extremes, if you will, about concerns about climate change itself. what is your best scientific judgment as to what we can expect? we know we have a solar minimum that is extending.

we watch our star, its polarity reversed. we have not begun to see the traditional effects of that 22-year cycle. will that solar minimum if it remains a minimum contribute to cooling? or will it have any effect on our climate? >> we know that venus is hot because it's got an atmosphere full of carbon dioxide. and we know that mars is cold because it doesn't have much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. so we know that more carbon dioxide heats up the planet. we also know that the natural climate system is very variable and goes through all kinds of cycles. layered on top of the cycles is going to be a long-term warming trend. and you can see the smart money already taking advantage of this and looking into mining opportunities in the arctic where it was ice covered. i think we need to understand that the science is basically

right and decide what to do. >> all right. this cycle of science, can we leave it at that? >> no -- >> i'm sorry, we have to leave it -- >> no, the last 30 years. >> but if we go back to 1970, the fear then was, of course, global cooling. >> among a few people. >> i'm sorry? among who? >> the vast consensus is there's been global warming, basic science and well understood since the 1960s. >> absolutely, and we'll have to leave it to another day as to why "time" magazine led with its cover on, of course, global cooling. ken, good to have you with us. thanks so much. a lawless state, california admits an illegal immigrant attorney to the state bar. how does that square up? two of our favorite attorneys explain california and the law to us.

overmany discounts to thine customers! [old english accent] safe driver, multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank yo he took my shield, my dy. these are troubling times in the kingdom. more discounts than knoweth what to do with. now that's progressive.

♪ california has a well-deserved reputation for sometimes being at the leading edge of the absurd. the california supreme court deciding to grant a law license to a man living in the country illegaaly for two decades certainly doesn't diminish their reputation. joining us now, former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney doug burns criminal defense attorney, thank you both for being here. janna -- >> yeah. >> help me out here, how does an illegal immigrant end up working in the state bar of california? >> i would love to help you out, lou, but i'm at a loss as to why a state judge in california would say that if you're otherwise qualified, i don't know what that means, but you're living here illegally for 20 years, you can go ahead and take other people's lives and their money and have it in your hand. when i became a lawyer, you don't just pass the bar and hang

a shingle, you have to go to this intensive interview process to show you are a good, moral turpitude. how can you be of good moral turpitude when you're living here unlawfully for 20 years? let's open it up to bank robbers and baby killers. everybody can be a lawyer now. >> is it a reflection of what the courts think of our beloved profession? no, but you know what, joking aside, federal law should preempt state law. >> doesn't it? >> it does. it's called preemption 101 seminar, and the point is that he's in the country illegally. admittedly, by the way, there's mitigation, he was brought here very young. his petition to get status got backed up, his father was here legally and so on, so forth. but the point is, one of the core tenants of being a lawyer is not only impropriety but appearance of impropriety. how can you argue this doesn't appear to be improper. someone being sworn in as an

attorney being here illegally. >> and we should point out that the obama justice department argued against this man being given an opportunity to practice law in the state of california. and they said to heck with it. there's a 1996 federal law barring people point-blank. people in the united states illegally can't receive professional licenses from government agencies or with the use of public money. >> let me just explain one thing. there's an exception in there that says if the relevant state -- and i know this might draw ire, passes a law that contravenes that and provides someone can get a license, then it's okay. >> look. attorneys have in some respects well-deserved reputations. >> thank you. or not thank you. i don't know what -- >> i'm going to leave it there. >> leave it there. >> but the idea that the federal government would pass a law -- >> no, it's crazy. >> that then permits the state to actually take precedence over

federal law. >> crazy. >> is mindless and absurd. >> then you could open all of california up to take in illegal immigrants legally. >> doesn't make any sense. >> if the state says it's okay, it's fine. >> here's what i'm thinking. we're going back to what the courts may think of your beloved profession. >> exactly. >> there may be more truth to that. >> i may have been right. >> i want to turn to gun control, if we may. the administration has pivoted, folks, once again to gun cont l control, two executive actions dealing with mental health, which, by the way, i think is desperately needed change in the law and regulations so long as it is done with, you know, the folks that make the law, that is the congress. what are your thoughts about this president again trying to run this government by fiat?

>> that's just it. when a law gets in the obama administration's way, the law becomes pesky and they just ignore it. what these two changes are proposing, basically, saying, look, we have these hippa laws which are supposed to protect people from having disclosure over their medical conditions, we're going to ignorehos n bausewe ned tknowif u'r mtal inoug to no own hanun. andhatmently illough >> l meo t eointbout your pfessn. phyin th worsn't e aba or tttoreylawrs, i derand u'rell hold to isdmintraton a th mocric pty. > riht. >> b stilo say to is esid th jud an reprentatives of the bar -- >> no question. >> we're not going to tolerate this kind of conduct and condemn it. >> some liberal law professors and the word liberal's important, have condemned all of the executive action usage and said by separation of powers. and your point is the key one.

somebody's got to step up and put a stop to it. >> you have one client at a time, i suppose. >> well, it's a profession that needs to be worthy of the term. and i know that in your instances, you provide >> thanke it. great to see you. up next, the author of the brand new book, everything i ever needed to know about economics i learned from online dating. really? it's author and economist -- he learned everything? man, that's a tough place that virtual world. we're coming right back. [ me announcer ] this is the story of the dusty basement at 06 35th street

the old dining table at 25th and hoffman. ...and the little room above the strimall f roble avenue. ♪ this magic momt it is the story of where every great idea begins. and of those o believed they had the power to do more. dell is honored to be part of some of the world'great stories. that began much the same w ours did. in a little dorm room -- 2713. ♪ this magic moment ♪ [ chicken caws ] [ male announcer ] when your favorite food starts a fight, fight back fast with tums. eartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum tums!

this is a title you don't

see every day, but you should, it's a fun idea. the book is "everything i ever needed to know about economics i learned from online dating." we couldn't resist that idea. the author chronicles his experience on online dating and incorporates economics. joining us now is stanford business school economics professor paul oyer, the author of this book, "everything i ever needed to know about online dating" great to have you with us. appreciate it. what a brilliant idea. and you're serious about it. you went into online dating on your own. tell us about it very quickly about the result. was it successful? do you recommend online dating? let's start with those two. >> well, i do, it worked for me. i was very successful. >> yeah. >> and the reason it worked from an economic perspective, looking for a mate is like many other

markets. and that's where the parallel comes with online dating. so it was a big market. >> you professors can't help yourselves. you have to turn everything into a product or service, oh, my gosh. >> well, there's a lot of parallels between the online dating market and especially the job market. but as i draw out in the book, the way people search for goods in the -- the way people search for goods in other online markets or the way they go through web pages or other things, those have a lot of parallels to the online dating market. and i like using it as an example because it's a place where no money is changing hand. a lot of people get caught up in the idea that economics is all about money. and i like to make the point that you can see a lot of economic principles without making money. >> the price theory starts to apply later, is that right? >> yeah. there's really not that much in the way of prices in the book. a lot of the ideas spill over into other things, i talk about people searching for goods. and when you get outside of the

online dating side, prices begin to come into that much more. so, you know, i talk about the difference between searching for a partner and searching for pharmaceuticals, that's one example that i get into. and the pharmaceutical side, the price side comes up much more obviously. >> you know, i'm sitting here thinking, my god, we're going to see online dating exchanges mandated by the government. but you're happy. it worked for you, it works, i know, for lots and lots of people. i've heard a number of stories as we've discussed in your book here. is this the future? efficient, cost-effective dating and finding mates, partners, husbands, wives? >> well, probably not for everybody. and we needed to get past the point where the market became liquid for lack of a better word. so when the market started, there was a lot of stigma attached, an idea we economists

like to refer to as adverse selection. and i get into the parallels of the health reform debate you were just mentioning and other cases of adverse selection having to do with airfares and things like that. we're past that now. we're past the stigma. >> we've got lots of people doing it, that's liquidity that you're referring to. >> that's right. that's right. and now it's different -- yeah, go ahead. >> we're getting very close on time. i just want to commend you for an intelligent and humorous and insightful look at something i think that most of us find surprising and fun. which we don't often get to do a lot of when it comes to economics. and we thank you, paul. i would like you to come back and we'll talk some more about this. paul oyer at the stanford business school. the book is "everything i needed to know about economics i learned from online dating." paul, thank you again. terrific. >> thank you. >> that's it for us.

we thank you for being with us. don't forget to pick up a copy of my new book upheaval. i keep holding these other books up. what's going on? and, again, upheaval, pick it up at the bookstore or online. we'll see you tomorrow. good night from new york. reet. return on investment isn't the only retun i'm lookinfoard to. and my parachute definitely isn't golden. [ male announcer ] for some, every dollar is earned with eat, sacrifice, courage, which is why usaa is honored to help our members with everything from invting for retirement to saving for college. our commitment to current and former military members and their families is without equal. start investing with as little as $50. there's nothing like being your own boss! and my customers are reaeally liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order.

good news. i got a new title. and a rais management couldn't make that ppen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.

[ dynamic music plays ]