parmy name is charles ferguson. i am currently the district two representative on the citizens' advisory group for advice in the planning department on housing. our position is that we support the use of the building. our problem is with the size and bulk. we believe it is your job to balance the societal interests in the building of this size against the interests of the surrounding neighborhood in preserving its character and environment. i have lived there a long time. it is truly an historical area. each one of us learned with balancing means an average of food -- in our childhood on a se esaw. it is creating equilibrium between two opposing forces. it means on either side, there is the least amount of harm done while the greatest possible amount of good is done on the other side. this is not an easy job. i realize that. it takes time and effort. you cannot just pick one value or side and favor that one. it does not produce any balance. supervisor farrell has spent a lot of time with us individually and as group

>> rose: and mies, charl ferguson, in fact, "inside job" endorses it. this is what bill moyers says "even before "reckless endanger." gretchen morgenson was more port of the decade. now she shows how american taxpayers were suckered by the shenanigan greed, back scratching and guile of financial and political elites who swarm like vultures around fannie mae picking it clean of oversight and accountability while its executives gourd themselvess on the spil spoils. a lon sentence there but very nice. >> rose: >> charlie of course there have been so many books written about it but four years after the crisis erupted in 2007 we don't know the half ofit so what this book is trying to do is first of all to assign some countabili. many of e books that we've read up until now have been sort of these ideas about this being a an actof god. well, this was an act o man or men or men and women. this was not somethinghat just happened. so identifying the cast of characters, identifying people who will have sort of slipped from the scene without really having been as

now, the underbelly of the argument that charles ferguson made were the consultants getting big sums of money. i don't want to challenge a motive now whether that's right or wrong, but the conclusion you reach is we have to rethink how and what we teach is certainly correct. i don't say that to denigrate the education here or up the river a little bit, but i think we have to challenge what we were teaching, the whole issue with financial engineering, a product of a lot of smart people believing in the premise that, you know, the more credit defoment swaps there were, the less risk there was in the economy, clearly, it didn't work out so well. we have to rethink basic things. >> now that the markets are completely global and banks are global, is it enough to legislate and regulate domestically? >> well, if it's not enough, but it's also -- the fact of globalized markets is not an excuse not to do it. we still have sufficient market share and enough capital coming out of the united states. there's very few players who would say we will not participate in the american markets because th