tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. tonight, a conversation with writer and novelist nomi prins tome, "all the presidents' bankers," talking about more power than presidents by controlling so much capital. then, we will turn to noah wyle with his series "falling skies" produced by steven spielberg returning for a fourth season. that and more, coming up.

the far-reaching influence of big money and how a handful of power players regardless of their party affiliation is the subject of a hasbook by nomi prins who written for mother jones, the nation, and more, also a former director with golden that. her new text is called "all the presidents' bankers: the hidden alliances that drive american power."

, welcome back. >> thank you so much for having me. tavis: when i picked this thing off of my desk the day it arrived, and i saw this title, "all the presidents' bankers: the hidden alliances that drive american power," i thought, i am ad you did this, but it is not hidden. it are many who believe america was a corporation before it was a country. that is a whole other conversation, but what is new about this big money? >> well, what is new is how this relationship actually works over history, because what i did to create that relief that book is that traveled to all of the presidential archives and look at who were the individuals, which families, which bloodlines, which protége -mentorship relationships were involved, from teddy roosevelt back at the turn of the 20th century through president obama

today, but particularly the lines of connections that extended for decades. it was not just like money and politics today with lobbyists. it was families with decades and decades of running banks in and out of washington, and presidents not being told what to do but actively collaborating, and that is the difference. it was not a push. it was a collaboration from the beginning, and this is how it worked. tavis: how has this changed, worsened, deepened, you tell me, over the years? what towards the middle of the century, there was this alliance that stemmed also from trying to help america. for example, in the 1930's, when we had what was called the glass-steagall act, president fdr was credited with having been a very populist president and doing it for the people, but really at the time, he had a banker friend who was running chase, which is today part of jpmorgan chase, and he worked behind the scenes in washington not to make this act weaker a to

actually restrain the banks more, and this is fascinating history when i am looking through the documents, and they called on him to make sure that the senators in congress made a stronger constraint on the banking system so that they would be more confidence in the system so that america could coinue to be stabilized, and that is different today, because today, for example, the head of that legacy bank, jamie diamond, he would not be caught dead trying to constrain his own organization, whether or not he is friends with obama. tavis: he does not have to, summersthanks to larry and others, glass-steagall went by the roadside. was the ceo of merrill lynch which is now today part of bank of america. he said in order for america to be competitive, our banks need to be free. ceo ofrubin, the former

goldman sachs and the former treasury secretary under clinton, they said the same words, but under clinton, the act was repealed, and it is very much today where we are because of the lack of constraint on the banking system but as well as the alliances that bankers together thought would be ok, and that, native during the clinton administration. it was ok to have less restraint and more risk coming from these very concentrated, powerful institutions. what do you make of the fact that these alliances have remained in place regardless of the party affiliation of those in the oval office? >> money does not care about party, and relationships do not care either. fdr was a democrat, and his was a republican. over these particular hundreds or so years, i examine the relationship with the democrats and republicans, but it was pretty much 50/50. it was all about this alignment

of a philosophy, and almost a club mentality that goes back over centuries that says this is what we need to do. for america to be a superpower, we need to have unconstrained financial institutions, and bankers feel in order for them to expand american interests abroad, they also need to have less constraints, and bankers and presidents are on the same page. at is where we are at today, but it is more dangerous today. there used to be accountability. when banks went off the rail, they were shut down. and the jewels left their positions of power at the helm of these institutions, and new individuals came into restrain them. we do not have that today. system and a sided political system that subsidizes it. tavis: the other thing that makes it, to my mind come more dangerous, and you get into this in the text, but what makes it more dangerous at this moment, you referenced earlier that these bankers back in the day would collaborate with the white

house. they would collaborate with the president, not writing legislation. it is not like that anymore. the lobbyists that these bankers pay actually write the legislation that the senators and others end up advancing as, you know, a bill, or as a law on the hill, so how much more dangerous has this relationship are nothen, again, they just collaborating. they are writing legislation. >> not only that, there is no accountability. even back in the time of lbj, he said, you want to expand, you want my government to act you, you have to back society. there is a give and take. we do not have that anymore. you have a lawyers and lobbyists that do not care. there are a lot of them, and their continued to be a lot of them. tavis: they are makingoney. >> they are making money. and here is what we need to do. you need to step on board, and i will do something for you, but you have to step on board.

on overhey are sitting $1 trillion of money that they won't reinvest back into the country. you know this stuff better than i do. but that is not quid pro quo relationship. >> no, and the federal reserve is a part of that. the fed is sitting on $4.2 trillion of bad that. giving nothing back, sitting on this money, so it is a crisis of leadership really all of the way in the white house and certainly in the banking system because they are not being asked to do anything, and they are certainly not offering. it is dangerous because not only is the cash not going back in the economy, not only can smaller businesses and their refinancing done at appropriate levels, but these institutions are continuing to expand in the global with the money they could be using to help build america, with infrastructure here. these recent supreme court decisions, a couple of

them, two or three of them, all bets are off. you can pour as much money as you can into anybody's campaign. the rules have just been obliterated. for these bankers and others who have money, so how do we slow not even say a runaway train. something that is worse than a runaway train, because that is what this is. want to do what they do. >> it is kind of like a runaway train in the middle of a tsunami in the middle of an earthquake. yes, there is a couple of things. there is legislation, which is one aspect. we could bring back the glass-steagall act. he could at least separate our deposits, our taxpayer deposits from this so that it does not come down on us again, which we will have another crisis, and then also from the standpoint of individuals. one of the things i talk about in this book a lot are these power alliances and how individuals work together, sometimes collaboratively to do something good, and we as

individuals on the ground need to be able to collaborate more and establish our own alliances and not just say washington is not doing it, which i say a lot, but also we need to do things on the ground. we need to support community banks or regional institutions or friends and family, and we need to not do what these families, these individuals, from the morgans to the rockefellers to the kennedys to the bushes, what they did to each other, which is they mutually enforced each other's power, and we need to do that through citizenship from the ground up. i wonder what they have in doing that, in making that happen, when there are are basically now three or effort you are banking is to shins. there are three or four guys who control everything. what difference does it really make it a handful of people support a community bank? >> it is this. the big six banks today, there are variations of the big six banks in the crash and in the panic, and there was the panic

under teddy roosevelt. they are the same institutions. they have consolidated power, and they are at a very, very dangerous point of it. at is all true. the difference is that we do nothing, we are saying this is ok, and this can't continue, and it is not like any of us individually has the power, but collectively -- if students stop paying their student loans at the same weight banks stopped reinforcing these loans at the beginning of the toxic assets, the fed is paying for to take off the books of banks, if people did the same kinds of things, there would be a kind of financial revolution. the point, nomi. nobody went to jail. nobody paid a price for it. >> the settlements they paid are less than half of one percent of all of their assets. tavis: jamie diamond got a raise. >> and he is still there, and he still talks against regulation,

and it is bad for the country, and it is bad for the world, so i agree that they should be in jail, and the department of justice should do its job, and leadership should make them accountable. going back to lbj were eisenhower, not even a party thing. there are those who had the idea of accountability and made it stick with the financial institutions. in 1956, eisenhower, republican president, wanted to make sure that banks cannot continue to concentrate because they were getting too much power, even though he golfed with them. it can be done. scratched thee surface. it is a dense text, but it is a good one, and if you ever wanted to know the history about these hidden alliances that drive american power, you will want to read the latest from nomi prins. it is called "all the presidents' bankers: the hidden alliances that drive american power." >> thank you. tavis: coming up, actor noah wyle.

stay with us. for many of us, noah wyle will be, at least, in part, the doctor, a role he played over 11 seasons in the long-running series "er," where he earned five emmy's, and he is now in another series, "falling skies," about americans battling an alien invasion. it is about to start its fourth season. let's take a look at a clip from the premiere episode. >> what are you doing? >> i am trying to find genie. she is out there all alone. she wants to find me. >> listen to me. you need to calm down right now. you are not thinking straight. i need you. pretty soon, i will need you even more. don't do this. don't do this. i know what you're feeling right now. look at me. will killthis, they

you, and you will never find her. so you had a birthday recently. the years keep rolling along. >> they do, indeed. tavis: you are still a young guy, but this is pretty physical stuff you are doing. >> it is all a pathetic attempt to look for wrote to my 11-year-old son, which is getting harder and harder to do. 43. tavis: do you feel it when you are on the sets, doing all of that running and jumping? >> well, you know, because you are a workaholic also. that is my exercise. i exercise at work. that is one of the things i like best about the job, but you are tired at the end of the day, very tired at the end of the season. tavis: peaking of seasons, four then "er."is and you are one -- i do not want to say lucky. my grandmother would slap me

whenever i would say good luck. her thing was, being the spiritual person it was, it is not good luck, it is a good god. you have been fortunate. >> yes, i had a good god. tavis: do you accept that? pele in this town would die, do anything to get one series, and you have been on two successful series now. >> yes, i have been incredibly fortunate, no doubt about it, and it is ironic, because the one thing i really did not want to do with television. met my first agent, i remember, she asked me, what do you want to do, and i said theater and film, exclusively. i cannot ever imagine signing a five-year contract to anything. i need variety, so the irony that that is pretty much how i have made my bread and butter for the past 25 years is something. but it has been a great life. is thing about television

the intimacy that you have with the audience. you are in their living room. it is a very different type of fame or celebrity than movies, and as a result, you get a fan base that is incredibly loyal, so when you go onto another project, they follow you, and i have been very fortunate to have them follow me through several incarnations of myself in my career. tavis: i think one of the ways that one makes peace in doing television when not wanting to do it originally, as come you loyal fan base, an obvious from the paycheck does not hurt. you are trying to make peace with that decision, what from an artistic standpoint, how does one make peace with being relegated into a space where you are doing great work, but it is not what you had hoped or thought your career would be? >> great question. two ways. one is i have been incredibly fortunate to work with wonderful, creative pple till

now, so i have not felt like i had to make too many creative concessions. "er" was an all-star team of the best writers in television, and i remember being askedn season eight or season nine, why do you stick with the show as long as you do, and i remember thinking, if i am looking for better writing, i am not going to find it, and if i am looking for a more complex character, it is not out there, and if i want to work for better actors -- this is as good as it gets, and the other thing is television has built into it challenges that you don't find in film. film in a lot of ways is much easier because you are telling one story over a finite period of time, where you know all of the variables going into it. there is no mystery, and you can almost preplan your performance and preplan everything you want to do. television is sort of an ongoing narrative that you never really know what is coming around the corner, and you have to keep your own continuity. you have to keep it fresh for yourself.

you have to keep the character evolving and maturing in a way that may not even be reflected in the writing, so i have always felt that i have been more challenged having a career in television then i may have had elsewhere. tavis: i take that, the two and "falling skies ," what is it about those, and with the new one, pushing you for seasons -- after your seasons and beyond question mark >> this show is really an opportunity to try to challenge myself by doing the things i thought i had not done yet. i had, coming off of "er" a reputation of being sort of a, not a character actor, but a guy who pays intellectual parts very well. a guy you would go to to play a young lawyer, a young doctor,

and i was very interested to see if i could carry a machine gun and run around. tavis: macho. >> a little bit. it had a built in ease and that i was weighing a history professor who is learning how to be an action hero as i was learning how to be an action hero. i like to that challenge, and i liked also being the bighead on the poster, the lead of the ensemble, to see if i could lead, and i became a producer. i had more of a stake of ownership on what i was working on it a little bit more creative say at the table, which also felt really good. i suspect being as successful as you have been, every day you show up to work, ostensibly, you are there to give all that you have, you are not there to mail it in, but when you do, in fact, become a producer, does that impact or effect your contribution to the ?roject

it is different when you are a producer. >> it legitimizes me being a homeowner. i was always the guy 10 minutes early, prepared, looking at my watch, wondering where the hell everybody else was. as a producer, i have the right to say, hey, man. you are late. and you do not know your lines. i like that. >> and also, it flushes out your education about the business as a whole. you start to see the product as something other than just the way you fit into it, your own lens as actors. everybody has a tendency to look at their work through the lens from which they operate in the body of the work. film and television production has got so many moving parts to get,nd the older that i more interested i am in the process, and as a result, this

gives me an opportunity to have an education in preproduction and postproduction, which are usually outside the purview of an actor, and that has been really gratifying. tavis: let me put you on the spot here. >> go for it. are onend as if there or two abiding lessons that you know you are going to take away from your exposure from your friendship, your partnership, with this artistic genius of steven spielberg. how do you work with a guy like that and not learn something? what do you think your takeaway will be from this relationship? it was funny, because i was thinking about him this morning. to be perfectly candid, i was thinking about him this morning and thinking, this show may run another year or two years, and i was envisioning this letter that i would write to him thanking him for this experience and what i would say, and it was an interesting kind of gut check for myself because i found that

a lot of it was geared towards wanting some kind of approval or pat on the back from him, for a job well done, and i have always needed that. whove always needed a bath complements, and he has been a wonderful figure for me. i mean, i do not really know him. we do not have any kind of personal relationship, but he has been significant because i have such respect for him as someone to work for, because it has always kept me on my game, trying to make him happy, you know? does that answer your question? it does. >> the takeaway is how sick -- how insecure i am. tavis: i am glad you say that because all of us am a we want to be loved. we want to be appreciated. we want to be respected. we want to be confirmed, and every now and then, we want to be acknowledged. i do not care what we say, we all want to that. it is part of what we are as

humans. to be loved and respected and paid attention to. i suspect it is no different for actors. it may be more heightened for actors, because that is what it is. right where i want to go. i did not take that as an insecure thing at all. i think that actors, and i am not trying to kiss up to you, i think actors make themselves more vulnerable because you get told more -- at this point in your career, you get told yes more than know, but it is a business of rejection, so what is wrong with wanting to do a job and work for somebody who tells you you did a good job? i do not view that as insecurity. >> good. i don't know. i am just saying. >> i didn't either. there you have it. we just established that noah wyle is a good actor and is not insecure. >> i will say this about steven

spielberg. i have never worked with or for anybody who was just a masterful storyteller, where a good script he came great because he made notes on it. a good episode became a great episode because he made editorial notes. just aspect of filmmaking, when he involved himself, it gets better. he has been a wonderful teacher. tavis: are you at the point in your career where you feel confident about yourself, where you touch whenever you touch on the set, that you make the project, you make "falling skies even better? >> yes. i am there. i am there. i can definitely see that my level of contribution makes a difference, yes. tavis: that is an understatement. you are leading this project now. >> thank you. tavis: this is not like your "er " days.

>> it is a team effort though, and these things fall apart so easily, and that this is going on after your years, it is a testament to everyone involved. tavis: i agree, and he is the star, and we love noah wyle on tnt, and fors" on a while now, you are living the life of riley, not one but two series on tv, not where you wanted to be, but good to have you back. come back anytime, my friend. that is our show for tonight. as always, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a conversation about a freedom summer, those are little month that forged a new path for this country. that is next time. we will see you then.

>> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> be more. pbs.

er