tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN October 30, 2011 10:00am-11:00am EDT
our web site, cnn.com/sotu. up next for viewers in the united states, "fareed zakaria gps." this is "gps," the "global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we've got a great show for you today. first up, do we finally have some good news about the economy? to talk about the united states and europe, harvard's neil ferguson and columbia's jeffrey sachs will be my guests. then, most incumbents these days are being voted out of office, but we find a world leader who was just re-elected by a landslide. how, why? we'll explain. next up, libya after gadhafi. i'll talk to bernard-henri levy, the fills on forresponsible for getting france and perhaps the
world to intervene there. he's just back from tripoli. then as another baseball season comes to a close in america, we sit down with michael lewis, the author of "moneyball," to talk about baseball and its lessons for business and life. first, here's my take. regular "gps" watchers will know that i was in tehran last week to interview president mahmoud ahmadinejad. you can go to our web site and watch excerpts of the interview. being in iran made me think it our policy toward that country which strikes me as being stuck in a time warp. you will remember that early in the 2008 presidential campaign, barack obama signaleded that he was going to have a different foreign policy than george bush, less black and white. and he chose as his example, iran. he argued that simply pressuring the country was not a policy, and obama offered to talk to iran's leaders to try to establish a dialogue and reduce tensions. well, two years into his
presidency, obama's iran policy looks a lot like george w. bush's. pressure, pressure, and more pressure. now the punitive tactics have paid off in some measure. iran faces economic problems. but they are also having a perverse impact on the country as i witnessed last week. the sanctions are stifling growth, though not as much as you might imagine. the basic effect is to weaken civil society and strengthen the iranian state. the opposite of what we should be trying to do. by some estimates, iran's revolutionary guard, the hardline element of the armed forces supported by the supreme leader, now controls 40% of the economy. is that the goal of our policy? in fact, what is the goal of our policy? is it to overthrow the iranian regime? is it to make it bleed until it gives up its nuclear program altogether? a wholesale revolution continues to strike me as a distant prospect. the regime still has domestic
support. it uses a mix of religious authority, patronage, and force quite effectively. and we keep forgetting that even if the regime changed the nuclear energy program, which is popular as an expression of iranian nationalism and power will continue, even the leaders of the green movement strongly support that program. obama should return to his original approach and test the iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement. engaging with iran, putting its nuclear program under supervision of some kind, and finding areas of common interest as exist in afghanistan would all be important goals. it might not work. the iranian regime is divided and often paralyzed itself, but it's worth trying. strategic engagement in w an adversary can go hand in hand with a policy that encourages change in the country. that's how washington dealt with the soviet union and china in the 1970s and '80s.
iran is a country of 80 million people, educated, dynamic. it sits astride a crucial part of the world. it cannot be sanctioned and pressed down for decades and decades. it is the last great civilization to sit outside the global order. we need a strategy that combines pressure with some path to bring iran in from the cold. let's get started. a deal to save the euro, 2.5% growth in the u.s., business spending up more than 16% here. is this all good news? what does it mean? that's what i hope to get to the bottom of with my two guests. niall ferguson is a professor at harvard university and business school. author of "civilization." jeffrey sachs is the director of the earth institute at columbia university. jeff has a new book, too, "the
price of civilization." both of them have "civilization" in the topic so we are going to have a very civilized conversation. niall, does this -- explain what this deal in europe means and does it save the euro? >> well, the deal in europe is in fact more vague than it's precise, and i think there's a great deal of what used to be known as wishful nonthinking going on here because the devil really lies in the detail. and any deal that leaves greece with a public debt to gross domestic product ratio of 120% and requires the recapitalization of who knows how many banks doesn't by any means solve europe's problems. i think we're going through what we call a relief rally, and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see it displaced by an anxiety sell-off within a matter of days. >> would you agree with that? >> i think the euro is going to survive. and i think they took steps forward, and i don't think they're going to let the euro fall down. so the divisions between
northern europe and southern europe are real and serious. and i think they could be doing better than dancing at the edge which is where they've been operating for more than two years. but they made progress this time around, and there still, in fact, are a lot of details to be worked out in this agreement. i do think that it shows that each time when push comes to shove, they do step forward, and they do get their act together to preserve the common currency. >> so you see a relief rally. you think that there is still the possibility that a bank one day calls up and says, we're -- you know, we're going under, what's the scenario in which things just spiral downward? >> the two things that haven't been solved here. one is that there are really a large number of banks in europe that are teetering on the brink of insolvency. and if you mark their balance sheets to market, particularly the sovereign debt holdings, they'd all go under. we don't know the size of the
problem because we've been given so many different answers and not to mention fake stress tests. the second problem is if this is a problem to be resolved at a national level, there are state that don't have the fiscal room to maneuver to bail out their own banks. that may include france, it certainly includes spain, portugal, and italy. so the problem hasn't really been solved. and what i fear is that they're going to limp along in just this way with piecemeal solutions, not quite enough, never quite making it to a federal state. and the result will be practically zero growth. i mean, the nightmare scenario is that europe's turning into a version of japan here, weighed down by public debt, with zombie banks and practically no growth. and then the problem becomes political backlash. many populist movements are gaining strength from this in some unlikely countries. from finland to the netherlands, places you don't really associate with radical politics. and if anything is going to cause europe to begin to disintegrate not only economically but politically, it will be populism. >> do you think that when you look at europe's growth issues,
that this problem, the fundamental problem niall was talking about, that you have germany but northern europe in general pretty competitive, and southern europe not, is -- does that have to ultimately be resolved in order for this to work? or can the northern europeans kind of bail out, you know, the southern europeans? i mean, northern italy has been bailing out southern italy for 100 years. >> i think the real point is that every part of the high income world is in trouble right now. so there's something more systemic going on than what's going on within the euro zone. you have the united states which fit the same description that niall just gave. you have japan which is the example that he gave. you have ireland, you have the u.k. it doesn't really matter whether you're in the euro zone or outside of the euro zone. we're seeing the weight of globalization and how it is reacted to by different countries as really the
underpinning of what's happening right now in my opinion. now there are a few countries that are doing quite well. there are big winners. and then there are large parts of society or large regions that aren't winning that can't face the competition from abroad very effectively. and that's a more general phenomenon. >> all right. we are going to talk about one country in the developed world and that is the united states when we come right back. seems to me actually rather reckless, and having watched what you said at occupy wall street, i have to say i thought you overstepped the mark and ceased to be an academic and became a demagogue at that point. >> whoa.
i heard they found energy here. it's good. we need the jobs. [customer:] we need to protect the environment. [worker:] we could do both. is that possible? [announcer:] at conocophillips, we're helping power america's economy with cleaner, affordable natural gas. more jobs. less emissions. a good answer for everyone. well, if it's cleaner and affordable. as long as we keep these safe. there you go. thanks.
i tell you what i can spend. i do my best to make it work. i'm back on the road safely. and i saved you money on brakes. that's personal pricing. we are back to talk about america, the decline or rise of civilization with niahl ferguson and jeff sachs. jeff, you were at occupy wall street. you've in a sense lent it support. why do you do that? what do you think is going on there? >> i think they have a basically correct message that when they say "we are the 99%," they're
reflecting the fact that the top 1% not only ran away with the prize economically in the last 30 years, but also took the power, manipulated it, twisted it, broke the law. brought the world economy to its knees actually, and it's time to correct things. and i think that that's what occupy wall street is really about. the fact that every marquee firm on wall street broke the law in a major way, it's paying a series of fines. some people are going to jail. people are disgusted about this. >> but isn't what has caused the 1% or 5% of the top to do well, these very broad forces of technology, the information revolution which have empowered global knowledge workers which have empowered capital rather than labor? so if it's all these much bigger structural forces, is it going to be remedied by some kind of political solution like a buffett tax? >> i don't think it is all that. i think that markets caused a
widening of inequalities in just about every high-income country. but some governments did something constructive about it, where starting in 1981 the u.s. government amplified this in quite reckless ways. when ronald reagan came to office, rather than saying we have globalization, we have competition, we now have to do something about our skills, our technology and so forth, he said that government is not the solution to our problems. government is the problem. it was a fateful call. and this is the path that we've been on for 30 years of dismantling that part of our social institution which -- institutions which could actually help with job training, help with education, help with science and technology in a more effective way. but more than that, wall street didn't just gain from globalization, it has been completely reckless. they gamed the system, they packed toxic assets, they sold them to unwitting investors. they let the hedge funds bet
against them. and the sec is finally calling them to account. but the public is disgusted because after that happened, lo and behold the next thing is that they begged for bailouts, they got the bailouts. the moment they got the bailouts, they said, leave us alone, deregulate free markets. so they're completely hypocritical in this behavior. we want everything of ours until we need help, then we want your help, once we get your help, then we want everything again. and it's that kind of impunity that has brought people out around this country deeply angry. >> well, first of all, i think it's important to avoid criminalizing 1% of the population which you just did, jeff. i mean, there's no question that major financial institutions have been fined and rightly so. but to turn that into an indictment of three million people seems to me -- >> well -- >> wait a second. let me finish. seems to me actually rather reckless. having watched what you said at occupy wall street, i have to say i thought you overstepped
the mark and ceased to be an academic and became a demagogue at that point. >> whoa, niall. you're the one who said that this -- >> let me finish, jeff. hang on, hang on. >> close to rule in america -- >> i let you have your say. >> no, don't call me names like this. >> this is a demagoguic argument especially for somebody who knows that the principal driver of inequality has been globalization, not malpractice by wall street. the second part of your argument is that banks misbehaved in europe, too. those countries who did not go down the reagan route have got banks that are insolvent, banks that were guilty of incompetence and malpractice. >> yes, people are demonstrating there also. >> right. the degree of leverage -- you argued that this was something specific to the united states. and the full -- >> and the city of london led a great deal of -- >> under ronald reagan. >> of course it was. >> just a second. the banks in europe are in just as big a mess but didn't go down the reagan route. it seems it's bad history and certainly bad politics. >> let's talk what i said and what is important here. what i've said is that in a
society that is so unequal as our and where the very top has abused the system repeatedly in the banks, the ceos of this country taking home take-home pay hundreds of times their workers' pay, unlike any other part of the world, the hedge funds and the banks got unbelievable terms of the deal to get capital gains taxes, carried interest down to 15% tax rates. so outrageous compared to what the rest of america bears. >> wait a second, jeff -- >> then they repeat it. the big hedge fund -- >> you can't believe that this is the reason why the bottom part of the population is in poverty and has very limited social mobility. that's nothing to do with what happens on wall street. as you well know. the real problem that we have in this country, it seems to me, is declining social mobility, and not enough is said about that. >> i write a great deal about it. and the big difference of social mobility --
>> what is the principal of -- >> let me get to it -- the big difference of social mobility in this country is the lack of public financing for early childhood development, for daycare, for preschool, for early cognitive development, for nutrition programs, for decent schools, unlike all of the rest of the high-income world. we do not help the poor. and that's why our social mobility has come to the lowest level of any of the high-income countries. >> jeff -- >> and we are 10% or 15% point lower in government revenues to help for that. and i'm asking in the book for just a few percentage points and some decency at the top that they start paying their taxes at a decent rate so that we can actually pay for preschool and pay for childcare. and that's what's -- that's what low social smoeblt about, niall. >> but when you look at the equal of public education in this country, you can't simply attribute its low quality to a lack of funding. and i think there's a legitimate argument that the biggest obstacle to social mobility in
this country right now is not the fat cats of wall street whom i do not rush to defend, but the teachers unions, who make it almost impossible to improve public school in cities like new york where we are today. >> yes, would you comment on jeff's basic point which is, you know, yes, it's not true that the gap has -- has been produc d entirely because of government policy but that you could use government policy and resources to help in various ways. education may be one part of it, child nutrition would be one part of it. and that that becomes impossible because you're taxing at 14% and spending at 23%? >> a major problem here is that the project of transforming the united states into something more like a european country does imply significant increase in taxation as well as an expenditure. and that the two object -- there are two obstacles to this. one, it's clear that this would not be timely given the situation that the economy finds itself in. and two, most americans don't believe that that is going to deliver the kind of improvement that they would like to see in education.
look how the federal government fares and the programs that it does spend a lot of money on. health care, social security. i mean, it's already insolvent with its provision through medicare. this is one of the hugest unfunded liabilities in the world. and the answer that jeff has to the u.s. problem is let's create an even bigger federal spending program on public education. i mean, it's just not critical, jeff. >> you're confusing so many issues. my point is that if we are going to be decent and competitive, we have to invest in it. that's paying the price of civilization. that costs money. the fact that the united states collects in total revenues at all levels of government right now about 27% of national income compared with 35% and above in other country is the gap of decency right now where -- >> it's also the gap you're saying of competitiveness. the path to competitiveness for you -- >> absolutely -- >> is a larger government that spends more, correct? >> if it invests properly, of
course. and on -- >> you can understand why people might be -- >> i'm talking about investment in education. i'm talking about investment in job skills. i'm talking about investment in science and technology. talking about investment in 21st century infrastructure. and we've been for 30 years demonizing government. we've been demonizing taxation. we have neglected to understand that a proper economy runs on two pillars, a market and government. and until we come back to that basic level of understanding that we need a mixed economy, not just a market economy, we'll continue to fail. >> final thought on -- >> i'm sure the chinese are listening to this debate with glee thinking, well, there are still academics in the west who think that the route to salvation is to expound the role of the state because that's certainly not what is happening in china. it is not what is happening in india. it is not what is happening in brazil. the most dynamic economies in the world are the ones which are
promoting market reforms and reining in the rule of the state which in those areas grew hypothrophically. >> thank you for the lesson. but the problem is that the united states and other high income societies face right now, and for us -- >> the falling behind phenomenon. >> for us to have high prosperity at the living standards we want, we need training, we need education. we need infrastructure, we need governments that can pay for that. and if you want to -- >> and we need higher progressive taxation on the private sector. that's the most important part -- >> we need the rich to pay their way, absolutely. they've run away with the prize. and they've run away -- >> there's a simplification. >> unfortunately -- >> part of the solution, stop calling it just one thing, niall. >> all right. >> i think this is one of the rare cases where i was superfluous as a moderator. jeff sachs, niall ferguson, thank you very much. we'll be right back.
country these days, chances are you have a historically low approval rating. it's true of obama, sarkozy, merkel, also true of the prime ministers of japan and india, the leaders of the arab world. we're living in an age of global dissatisfaction. it has been a year of protests from the arab spring to the occupy wall street movement in new york. [ chanting ] >> to similar ones in london. to madrid. so i found it surprising that one nation just re-elected its president by a whopping margin. the incumbent won 22 of 23 provinces and beat out the nearest contender by 37% points. no, this is not a russian election. it's actually the leader of a pretty vibrant democracy. argentina's christina fernandez de kirchen. argentinians are happy and prosperous. they've had strong growth leading to a strong gdp this
year. annual salary increases are approaching 30%. imagine if your boss put 30% more in your paycheck next year. you'd be happy, too. people are partying, nightclubs and restaurants are packed, and rock stars from all over the world are adding buenos aires to their list of must-tour cities. argentina's biggest export, soybeans, keep hitting record high prices on the market, and the nation's main trading partners, brazil and china, both of which have had a surge in domestic consumption, are creating a ready market for manufactured goods. argentina's economic rise reads like a dramatic turnaround. in december of 2001, recall, it declared the largest debt default in history. sparking a period of all-out chaos. there were five presidents in just two weeks. and it was disastrous for the argentine people, many in the middle class had their entire savings wiped out leading to deadly riots and widespread
poverty. they have done well to emerge from all this. helped especially by the devaluation of their currency. if only greece and italy had their own currencies and had that option, there probably would be no euro crisis right now. and mrs. kirchner is right to avoid massive austerity problems at a time when what is needed is growth. the success of argentina's comeback may also be blinding the country to a build-up of problems. loose money, large subsidies, and a cheap currency are leading to inflation. while kirchner's administration puts the figure around 9%, the number is widely regarded to be false and doctored. reliable private estimates put inflation at closer to 25%. kirchner's populist campaign has promi promised fish for all, even tvs for all. further subsidies on energy, transport, and water are said to cost up to 5% of gdp.
meanwhile, the surpluses that led to argentina's decade of fiscal stability are now dwindling at the rate of $2 billion per month. while the remedy to all of this is structural reform to spur growth, kirchner has instead resorted to a series of protectionist measures. external headwinds are on the way. a global slowdown will mean lower incomes from agriculture, reduced demand from china, from brazil. simply giving people subsidies won't work in the long term. sooner or later, the money will run out. and so will mrs. kirchner's popularity. there was a lovely moment for her election night celebration last week. as the people roared out victorious, the president began dancing. ♪ >> the crowd soaked it in, it was a moment to remember. but it's also an analogy for the argentine economy. partying hard is great fun, but it is often followed by a
each day was fueled by thorough preparation for events to come. well somewhere along the way, emily went right on living. but you see, with the help of her raymond james financial advisor, she had planned for every eventuality. which meant she continued to have the means to live on... even at the ripe old age of 187. life well planned. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you. ♪ [ multiple snds ng melodic tune ]
stories. nato officials confirm a suicide bomber killed at least 17 people in afghanistan's capital of kabul. five nato troops and eight civilian workers were among those killed in the attack on a military convoy saturday. it was the deadliest attack since 31 americans were shot down in their helicopter this summer. the trial of former egyptian president hosni mubarak has been put off for two months. cnn has been told that supporters of the uprising have objected to the judge presiding over the case. palestinian groups in gaza have agreed to re-establish a cease-fire after recent violence left nine palestinians and one israeli dead. tens of thousands of air travelers around the world are stranded as qantas airlines is grounded for a second day. the cancelations affected more than 600 flights and 70,000 passengers. a labor dispute led the australian airline to cancel all flights. the grounding will continue at least until noon monday. a freak snowstorm barrelled
up the east coast overnight cutting off power to more than two million households and causing at least three death. the unseasonably early snow caused heavy damage to trees and power lines. four states declared weather emergencies and major delays were reported at a number of northeast airports. those are your top stories. now back to "fareed zakaria gps." moammar gadhafi's body was buried this week in libya, but that doesn't mean his 42-year reign won't haunt the nation for many years to come. so what does the immediate future hold for libya? will it devolve further into tribal warfare? bernard henri-levy, philosopher and early leader of the rebels, has been back and forth over the last weeks and joins me now from paris. welcome, bernard. >> hello, how are you? >> bennard, one of the things
people are trying to understand is what is the significance of gadhafi's death. is it just symbolic, or does it mark something important where the old regime has finally been laid to rest? >> first of all, it is a mistake. it is the first mistake which the libyan rebels committed. gadhafi should have been delivered, sent to the international penal court or to a libyan court, but it was for sure a mistake to kill him and to kill him in these conditions. now what does it mean? the end of the old regime. maybe also it means the last black pearl which has been given by the gadhafi oyster, you know. it is the last step, the venom, the poison of the gadhafi zone
was, if i dare say, rage against himself in these acts of savagery and cruelty of which we are witnesses. it was the end, for sure, not the best end, but it is the end of the old times in libya. >> what about islam, bernard? one of the senior members of the new libyan order said that libya will be under sharia law. as you know, this can mean many, many different things. i want to get your sense. you know all the characters on the ground. you have a sense of their appeal. what is the likelihood that we will see a very strong component of political islam in libya's futur future? >> i don't -- i don't think so. i don't think so. i can tell you that there is a lot of people in libya and in
the ruling circles of libya who disagree with that. who are not ready to accept to go from gadhafi to an islamist rule in a real strict way. sharia as you know, may mean a lot of things. the fact that libya will be, that the laws of the future libya will be under the cover of the general moral rules of koran, this, of course, there is no doubt on that libya is an old muslim country. and this will be the atmosphere of the future of libya. but a strict koranic state, sort of new iran or you don't know what, this is impossible. >> let me ask you a final question, bernard. you were at that extraordinary public meeting with president
sarkozy, prime minister cameron, the transitional committee, and also in front of tens of thousands of libyan people. is it your sense that there is genuinely in libya a broad sense of being thankful to the west or grateful to the west for having intervened? because so much of the arab world, the underlying condition is still one of deep hostility to the west and to nato and to america. and i'm wondering, you were there, what was your sense? >> i was there. my sense was, my feeling was the feeling of regret and enthusiasm of the crowd, both in benghazi and tripoli. but beyond that, i saw a lot of these guys. even in the extremist groups. i had the chance to have a long talk, a night talk with the
military chief of the city of derna, which is considered as the fatherland in libya. i had a face-to-face confrontation with him on everything. on religion, on politics, on human topics and so on. and what i was struck by is the following thing -- his logic, his way of seeing the world was completely disoriented, was completely discarded by what happened in libya. this idea of president sarkozy, president obama, prime minister cameron, this idea of civil persons in territories like me giving hand without conditions that an arab country, an arab people, fighting for their liberation, destroyed completely the idea that this man, even him, had in mind of a clash of
civilization, inevitable and as capable between the west and the rest. so the west, so even single jewish french intellectual giving the hand, helping, being with them on the front lines, and certainly all those blah, blah, blah about the crusader and the jews being against islam as such really was ruined. really was meaningless. and i saw that in the speech, in the -- in the face and maybe in the brain of this guy who was an honest guy, with good faith, and who sincerely told me that something happened which changed his way of seeing the world. the clash of civilization may be
begun to withdraw, begun to be meaningless for the first time in this war led by france, america, and england, in libya with these libyan people. >> an optimistic view of libya. bernard henri-leveye, thank you as always. we hope to see you in person the next time are you in the united states. and we will be back. the scouts were misled because they were one relying on just their eyes. and their eyes told them that a player who was good looking was better than he actually was.
♪ ♪ ♪ when your chain of supply ♪ goes from here to shanghai, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ chips from here, boards from there ♪ ♪ track it all through the air, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ clearing customs like that ♪ hurry up no time flat that's logistics. ♪ ♪ all new technology ups brings to me, ♪ ♪ that's logistics. ♪
selling book and movie in "moneyball." many think it's about baseball, and it is, of course, but it's about market inefficiency wrapped in baseball with human drama mixed in. what can we learn from the deeper part of the book? joining me, michael lewis. the reason i look at the deeper part of the book is because i grew up playing cricket. so i really don't know enough about baseball. but explain, if you will, what is the central premise of "moneyball"? >> when i did the book in 2002, i was struck by how a poor baseball team, a team that had
much less money to spend on players than its rivals did, the oakland as, were able to win lots and lots of games, more than its rivals, with this lower budget. in an efficient market, when baseball players were properly valued, you would think that the rich teams would just buy all the best baseball players and win all the games. and the question i had was, why isn't that happening. and the answer, which is unspooled in the book, is the market doesn't value baseball players properly or strategies for that matter. and that it -- the market was operating with bad data, the wrong data, relying too heavily on human judgment, unaided by statistics. to make sometimes very bad decisions about who was a valuable baseball player and who wasn't. and all the -- all sort of the biases that people have when they're relying on their judgment as opposed to facts
were -- were on view in the market for baseball players. >> and this -- this is in some ways a -- a central mythology about baseball or any sport, there's an enormous amount that's intangible, that's it judgment. in the movie, there's a scene which is trait out of the book of all these scouts who spend all their time trying to figure out who good players are. >> right. >> and billy bean says, this is all nonsense. if you look at the numbers, everything you're doing is worthless. >> right. well, the scouts were being misled because they were, one, relying on just their eyes. and their eyes told them that, you know, a player who was good-looking was better than he actually was. that they were -- there were weird biases like that. and they were also relying on bad stats. they were using the wrong stats to value the players. and what happened in oakland was that because they were poor and they needed to find a better way to do what they were doing, they
found better -- better data to analyze the baseball players. and it does, to me what was so something about the story -- it actually wasn't a baseball story in my mind. this was really a story about the way markets generally misvalue human beings. >> do you think there's a corollary in business? i mean, you know the world of -- particularly finance very well. there's so much of what you can do to manipulate company data and make something look sexy, make earning pop for a particular quarter. do you think that there are, you know, there are sort of strong, silent types in the world of business that get overlooked in the same way? >> so when i went into the oakland as' fronts office, they had become so enured to the idea that markets screwed up, they assumed markets screwed up because they were in the middle of this market that screwed up. they weren't rich people. they weren't being paid a lot to do their job. they've subsequently become rich people. but they had small stock market
portfolios. and when they invested in companies, they had learned that the people who -- that something like 60% of the ceos of fortune 500 company are white men who are six feet or taller. and they said to themselves, this is the equivalent of the good-looking baseball player. that we're going to invest only in companies that have ceos who are not -- were not white men, who are six feet or taller. those people have to know what they're doing because they don't look right. the ones who don't look right and -- we trust them more than the ones who do look right. like maybe you don't want to vote for the guy who looks like he should be president. maybe the only reason he's gotten as far as he's got send because he looks like he should be president. there's that analogy. >> how did the portfolios do? >> well. very well. they ended up being very buffett-like, their portfolios. they overlapped a lot in the spirit with which they invested with warren buffett. >> i have to ask about the
inevitable critiques of the book. lots of people say the oakland as had a couple of good years, and after that it didn't work so well. maybe the theory isn't so good. >> let me say two things to that. one was, it wasn't a couple of good years. when i rolled in, the management had been in place for five or sick year. and they were paying so much less for a win than any other team in baseball. they looked like they were in a different industry. if it were normal business, they would have acquired all the other teams and put them out of business. two, even though they haven't actually got to the playoffs much in the last few years, i've been sent analysis of their performance since the book, since the book came out that shows they're still the most efficient with their money over the last eight years of any team in baseball. this surprises even mere because when the book came out, the market adjusted. the infirsies they were exploiting went away quickly. >> to teams like the red sox started doing the same thing -- >> everybody started to do what they're doing. they don't actually have an advantage anymore. they have no intellectual
advantage. they shouldn't be doing pert with their money. something else is going on there. >> you are writing the screenplay now to "liar's poker. "who is going to play you? >> my 12-year-old wants zack efron. after seeing "moneyball," i want jonah hill. i don't care how much he peas. the interesting thing -- what i want in the actor, it's all about being ingenious in how you react. he is a genius at reacting. you give him something and you go -- yeah. no. and it's this wonderful -- he has this wonderful -- you watch it in "moneyball," it's unbelievable what he does to the movie just in his reactions. i want someone who's going to be reacting to the culture so he'd be perfect. we'll see. i won't have any say in it. so we're just -- this is fun. it won't be my choice. >> michael lewis, pleasure as always. >> thank you. we'll be back. [ courier ] the amazing story of whether bovine heart tissue
can make it from australia to a u.s. lab to a patient in time for surgery may seem like a trumped-up hollywood premise. ♪ but if you take away the dramatic score... take away the dizzying 360-degree camera move... [ tires screech ] ...and take away the over-the-top stunt, you're still left with a pretty remarkable tale. but, okay, maybe keep the indulgent supermodel cameo... thank you. [ male announcer ] innovative medical solutions. fedex. solutions that matter.
an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual insurance, if your car's totaled, we give you the money to buy a car that's one model-year newer... with 15,000 fewer miles on it. there's no other auto insurance product like it. better car replacement, available only from liberty mutual. it's a better policy that gets you a better car. call... or visit one of our local offices today, and we'll provide the coverage you need at the right price. liberty mutual auto insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?
[♪...] >> announcer: now get a $250 airfare credit, plus save up to 65%. call 1-800-sandals. certain restrictions apply. our question from the "gps challenge," is which euro zone be some projected to have the highest growth rate in 2011? is it, a, germany, b, poland, c, astonia, or d, france? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. make sure you go to cnn.com/gps
for ten more questions. while you're there, check out our web site. the global public square, you'll find interviews, takes by fascinating people. and don't forget, you can follow us on twitter and facebook. this week's book is called "civilization: the west and the rest," by one of today's guests, niall ferguson. it is a big book. attempts to answer the big question -- how did a handful of western countries come to dominate the world, and is that domination now coming to an end? niall thinks it is partly because the means that created civilizations come to power are better understood. there has been a defusion of knowledge. it's sweeping, fun, relevant, readable, controversial, you'll love it. now for the last look. you can never get tired of the adventures of had-man vladimir putin. one day he's shooting wales with a crossbow. the next days he a judo expert. you've seen him shirtless and
flexing his muscles. you've seen him diving into the sea to discover treasure. what about president medvedev? the other half of the van ruling duo? don't worry, the kremlin isn't ignoring him. they've just released this video on the president's web site. medvedev is playing the macho sport of -- um -- badminton. ♪ >> the message is clear -- putin gets to brandish cross bows, medvedev gets to hit a birdie or shuttlecock. very macho, indeed. the cruel comparisons don't end there. we found this picture at a doll exhibition in mosquito. yep, a -- in moscow. yep, a decidedly nerdy medvedev, tourist camera and all, beside a warrior-like vladimir putin. we get it, we know who's really the boss. the correct interior z to our challenge question