that's both here, zambia, everywhere. and what that does is it really sort of puts a disadvantage the developing economies which haven't had a chance to actually develop their industry. so they can't compete. and essentially what you see as i talk about the book in a place like zambia, southern africa country, you see there are 80% of the population now, 12 million people i think you make less than $1 a day. this is because there are things like their textile industry has been overwhelmed, inundated by foreign made goods, mostly from the united states. and western europe. you know, this sort of blood from imports flowing into the country. a lot of things like even secondhand clothes. things that we donate to goodwill or salvation army are then packaged and sent over there, sold for pennies per pound. but it kills their domestic manufacturing. the second thing and this is really sort of technical but it's very important. in fact, i would say maybe it's as important as anything. this is monetary policy. what we have seen al

you here in zambia or mozambique would add kind of socialistic economies but also in argentina where it was more based it was what they call import substitution so basically everything that the country needed, they may. and so these kinds of economies generated, that kept out foreign goods so there wasn't that much on the shelf, wasn't that much choice but everyone was working, producing these goods. so there's a trade off there that i was trying to get you, and how that relates to the second quote about -- what was the second quote? >> you don't want to much -- >> right. is chile's economy after 1990 had one real guiding principle in mind, productivity. every dollar you spend, every -- the entire economy was geared towards producing something. you know, as spending money on investing money in productive workers. production, it sounds sort of unsexy in 2009. you know, it's not speculation. it's not gambling on your housing price is going to double over five years. every day making something, you know, making something that requires skills, skilled labor and selling it. so this is the

numerous african countries, the fruit fly in canada, improving cancer diagnosis, niger, mali, and zambia, and the central american republic. these are the kinds of programs they are involved. once in a while there may be a project such as in iran or syria that may provide a small amount of useful experience in general nuclear science and radiology. but the most important part is to the extent that some of these programs are about enhancing safety. the u.s. is totally free on the board to vote against those projects at the board of governors and does so. the u.s. already denies extra budgetary funding for technical cooperation projects for state sponsors of terrorism. which the countries, the yeal mentioned, are -- the gentlelady mentioned, are, however the propossed amendment mandates the withholding not of the voluntary contributions, not of the extra budgetary support, but of the u.s. regular dues to the iaea. so what does it do? it hampers the agency's primary function which is the inspecting and safeguarding of nuclear material in foreign countries. this is cutting off your nose to s