you had a great week from marc andreessen, now i have seen everything. is this sustainable? michael: the volatility? joe: the rally we have seen, the volatility. michael: this is obviously a market disconnected from fundamentals. economic data going one way, stocks the other way. i can make the argument, sure, china will keep going up long-term. i like it in a six-year framework, but a lot has to be cleaned up. nevermind the economics, i'm talking stock market as well. i'm thinking two things. one, look at correlations. you can take the returns of chinese stocks against the rest of the world. the correlation is nil. the past few days, there has been nice correlation, for a day and a half. but it's not there. is this a little tremor going to cause a bigger problem? i don't think so. i would love to tell you, this is a bad sign, run for the hills, but i'm not there. alix: one thing before i let you guys go -- sri: i need to get a word in on china. joe: i want to hear this. sri: based on recent discussions in shanghai and beijing, the government would like to see the stock mark

several others came out in defense of john paulson including marc andreessen.eeted out a few moments ago on -- where do you stand on this? i'm in the middle. it is amazing how this discussion has gotten so extreme. undoubtedly, philanthropy should meet a number of objectives including critically helping the poor and helping marginalized segments of society. i completely agree with that. that is about health, scholarship, education, etc.. universities, cambridge, a very important role in terms of research, in terms of educating people. the important thing is to get a balance. it is neither all of this or all of that, it is to get a balance. i would say the critical thing is to make sure that the philanthropy efforts are very important, very material, and they cover the range of means and not because of traders at one and/or or the other and. the point about the 1%, we had a story about warren buffett giving a pledge. more of the 1% are putting their money to good use to shrink, something you have talked about quite a bit, the inequality gap we see in the u.s. bu