tv Charlie Rose PBS October 13, 2011 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
>> charlie: welcome to our program. tonight we take a look at the occupy wall street mement with jared bernstein with the center on budget and policy priorities. marshall ganz at the kennedy school at harvard, paul krugman colu else for the "nework times" and william buster one o protesters of the movement. >> what the protesters are doing. they've changed the conversaons already and they changed it to we're actually talking about the right things. where we are as a nation, we had a monstrous failure of the existing system followed by a motrous injustice. we had an enormous financial industry that ran wild, crippled the economy which remains crippled to this day, was bailed out and the players who bear some responsibility face virtually no consequences. more important, they did very little reforms. >> charlie: then we look at
accusations of a plot pie certain iranian officials to kill a saudi arabiaian ambassador in washington using terrorists from mexico. we talked with f.b.i. official john miller and author roya hakakian. >> there were the rivalries between iran and saudi arabia have only become more and more pronounced since the arab spring and since the growing of the tensions between iran and saudi arabia. >> charlie: we colude this evening with a conversation about chinese aunt pureship wang boming president of the stock exchange and executive council and the two partners. >> we solve our problems with the history of china and
converse form relations from -- electricity and car. now the two countries work together in a way to get the maximum geration of products to solve the problem we are facing. i think we have this opportunity and also obligation. >> charlie: wall street protests, accusations against iranian officials and chinese entrepreneurship when we continue.
>> every story needs a hero we can all root for, who beats the odds and comes out on top. that this isn't just a hollywood story line,t's happening every day all across america. every time a storefront opens or the mnight oil is burned or when someone chases a dream, not just a dollar, they are small business owners. so if you want to root fo a real hero, support small business, shop small. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.
charlie: taupe -- tonight we begin at the growing occupy wall street movement. itegan in september with a group of activists in lower manhattan. it's spread to major u.s. cities including washington d.c., los angeles and chicago. shear speaking out against what they see as corrupt greed and the growing economy. >> it's about the profits of the government and we understand that nothing really can be changed on an individual policy basis until we figure structured is addressed. it's the money in politics and the way that elections are conducted favor so greatly a ti percent of the country that when we talk about the 99% that's not rlly a metapr, that's aiteral 99% of t country. and ihink what we imagine here is a way whereolitics could be completely reinvented and actually address the things that people want in a wayhat the current system doesn't. >> charlie: there remains questions about the leadership, goals and sustainability of the
movement but the protests had become part of the national conversation, they have gained momentum and atension. joining me from wash jared bernstein on budget and economy priorities and marshal ganz of th kennedy school of harvard and william buster one of the spokes persons of the occupy wall street movement and paul krugman of the "new york times." give me a sense of what has grown and what's happening in the immediate few days ahead and what you hope to happen. >> well, you know, as most people know this started a few week ago with just 16 people. and i think what we've seen in the last few weeks has been a remarkable out pouring of support. people in the public are getting the message of what we're about slowly but surely. and this week i think we're sort of a it took the protest in the 60 sometimes years to get the kind of recognition we have
now. i feel we're accelerating the same process of recognition dismissal, judgment and then acceptance of our group socially both by the media and politicians. we've beenhe number one item on the news talk shows this sunday morning. i myself went to the amman poor and it was phenomenal to see that in three weeks to engage in a national discussion about what's wrong and starting the dialogue. we've been very successful with that. and i think reaching out to, reaching out to the mia right now is our focus to let them know we do stand for something. it was kind of impossible to start from small and then put a big global message out to media that represented everybody without the critical mass that we have now. and what i'd like to do as part of occupy wall street is to start presenting that we do have a clear message. i think a lot of the american public recognizes what it is. the media doesn't. we're asking for sound bytes for
one sentence. >> charlie: this is not a soundyte. tell me what the message is. >> sure, sure. i love this show and its respectful discourse. occupy wall street is pictured as anti-business. we're not anti-business, antianks, anti-government, we're not anti-anything, we're anti-corruption. we're anti-systemic corruption. the business ig thing we feel is that until the political and economic systems are reformed and laws are put in place to make sure that there's transparency and accountability, until this system is fixed, it's almost like the election process is merely switching names, switching the players on the field as opposed to switching the eld. the feel is the problem and it' not something that can be solved in the democratic process just by voting. and what we're, we're igniting
as a group if you participate in a democracy you have an obligation under the constitution to defend it. our constitutional rights are being infringed on so that's why people are rise is up. >> charlie: marshall, you know something about organizing. the president called you to his team in 2008. where do you think this can go and how do you define the message you hear? >> well, i think it remainso seen where we take it. it includes myself in the weed just as a lot of others who may not be on wall street but for whom this has, it has made a critical voice be heard that has been silent. i thi you know, it takes both ger and hope to spark mobilization, organization efforts. i ink what happened here, we sort of had, i don't know, i may
be odd that we've not had enough partisanship. we've had one party that's been very effectively arguing its point and then the other party has been not them. and we need two sides to be heard in a democratic system and debate, and i think that's what happened here. i think tha e second side, the other hand that's needed to produce the clapping is being heard from. and i think it's great. but it's an opening, and the question is where it's taken from here. >> charlie: let's speculate on that. >> well, i gues i'll say this. that civil disobedience has a long and honorable history in our country in terms of confronting people with the necessity to act on injustices. the mmunity organizer once said that organizers need to be well integrated skitsoids
because you have polarize to settle anything. there's a process here of useful polarization that i think is really helpful. where does it go from here? how does it take focus on the economic instition responsible for this mess. how does it take focus on the political leadership responsible for this mess. there's aot of different directions that it could be taken in and can be taken in, and so like i say i think what it's done is i think create a moment that could be turned into a movement but that's going to depend on the organization to do it. >> charlie: let's come back to this point. you have wrien about this at least two columns i've seen. go ahead. >> what the protests are doing is they've changed the conversation already and they've changed it o to we're actually talking about the right things. i mean the story of where we are now as a nation is we had a monstrous failure of the
existing system followed by a monstrous injustice. we had an enormous financial industry that ran wild, crippled the economy which remains crippled to this day, was bailed out and the players who bear some responsibility face virtually no consequences and more important, very little reform. some from the obama administrati's side but not as much as we'd like and the other party's busy trying to tear it down. somehow the conversation we've been having about all these issues is basically not about these issues. we spent almost two years now with the parties arguing whose got the more convincing fiscal austery andwho can do most to remove restrictions on business. big dference between the parties. don't ever claim it's equivalent but the democrats have to a large extent followed the republicans f into this -- >> charlie: across the spectrum. >> that's right. and so all of a sudde we'r are now talk big hey, you know, what about wall street, what about these people who made such a mess. how are we going to make sure
that the general public shares in whatever economic gains we have that we have rules in effect that prevent the kind of catastrophe that overtook our economy in 2008. that in itself, even if it ends right there. that's a huge success. but i think that the explosion of this movement really suggests that there are an awful lot of people who are just waiting for somebody to say it. and here we are. this is a wonderful thing. >>'ve been waiting. >> charlie: marshall, i'll get to you jared, meaning what. everybody in of a certain mind set about what had happened in this country for a number of years since the economic collapse both in politics and in other arenas, we're waiting for somebody to plant the flag and say let'sarch? >> yes. i mean you know tahrir square happened in egypt after ben
alley left tunisia. what these folks have reminded us is politics and paulity see is about people fundamentally and they're confrontinghe country with that reality. that's something you have to respond to. the students who have the sit-ins in north carolina and greensboro starteda key element, challenged the whole couny by sing you can talk about systematic racial discrimination and inconstitutional segregation but it's about people fundamentally and when people are ready to put their bodies on the line to confront the rest of us with that reality, then things begin to happen. and i think that's the step they've taken and i think we should be grateful for it. >> charlie: jared, you're nodding your head. >> very much so. everything i'm hearing is very resonant. as you know, i've been writing about these issues for decades. and when i wrote about occupy wall street the other day, i think i ended with a question
that i hear from the rest of the group, which is instead of head scratcher saying whato they mean whaare they for what are they against, what's their awe jebreal de. if it's a head scratcher here, it's what took so long. i've been struck by the extent of economic inequity, if you look at say theconcentration of national income among the top 1%, it was about0% back in the late0's, it wa 23.5%t was the highest ever since 1928 and that didn't end so well. it's come down a little bit in the great recession but still you're looking at of course levels of concentration. and again i and my colleagues where i used to work, the economic policy institute i've been writing about this for decades. and then i went into the administration and worked for the vice president and the president's economic team and we were confronted with all of the problems that poll was
articulating a minute ago. and i think that much of what we did was helpful in terms of getting the economy out of a horrible kind of backwards reversal of really heading off a cliff to where we are now. but clearly i think this is one of the messages of the movement, we need to go much much further and i agree with bill. we're on a playing field that's really not accommodating the magnitude of the changes that we need. i think it was marshall who said there's two parties one is them and the other is not them. in a way it's almost worse. in a way it's almost worse. one is them and the other is a little bit less them. one is saying let's cut the heck out of spending and let's kind of you know take a whack at the social insurance and the other is saying oh, no, no, let's cut less and take less of a whack. i think the how wall street is
forcinus to look at those fundamental questions. >> there's something tt seems relevant here is democrats explaining the difference between them and republicans and the difference was to passion. democrats care about the differences in their policies. [laughter] >> universal health coverage is a big thing but nonetheless there's a real sense that the outrage a lot of people justify is not bag until at least now, pressed by anybody. >> charlie: no one emerged from all the ideas we've talked about to challenge the president in the upcoming election. >> it's very hard. the institutional realities and obama is a good guy and his heart's in the right place and everybody doesn'want to destroy so there are all kinds of reasons why that's not going to happen. it might happen but wha y really need is for these concerns which are a lot of people's minds actually make it
into the conversations start advocating by people, it's going to be democrats but it's actually reflecting the progressive concerns about inequality and injustice. >> it's really odd the way things have unfolded because i mean looking at it historically, eisenhower legitimized it in the deal and -- when he followed reagan with thehole idea of government and markets and individualism that was sort of fundamental to that shift in world view. i'm responding to the comment about there's them and then a little less than like. there arehing markets do well and there are a whole lot of things that they do not do well. and we see to be stuck in is mode where we've got to, if there's a problem, privatize it, turn it over to non-profits, turn it over to for profits. instead of investing how to make government work for us to do
those things, the preamble of the constitution lays out very clearly for most of the general welfare, provide for the common defense. these are common efforts that we need public institutions to pursue. and we've been evicerating our public institutions for is last 30 years. so the chickens have come i'm to roost in so man different ways. this can move us into a real debate what kindf institutions we need to take our country forward. >> fearful where we're headed. mayor bloomberg has articulated a fear of riots like what we saw in london and certainly this grp is probably the most peaceful docile people i've ever met in my life. and they're extremely informed and articulated. and the point is well made. this is a human movement. it's about human needs. the universality of that is perfectly denstrated by the people in our movement. we have democrats, republicans. have socialists, we have
people who are ery single age, every occupation, all together, we communite well, we listen to each other. we respect each other as individuals. there's no judgment, only acceptance. and the perfect metaphor for what the problem is i think is what we saw wednesday night. to me this is the perfect metaphor. wall street, it's a street. it's not a sacred cow. it's paid for by the taxpayers, maintained with our money and now the taxpayers and the people in the march are blocked from going there. when we march to the gate, you see what happens. by the bad porities of governing and dealing with the problems instead of letting us on to the street or the metaphor is letting us into the legislative process or letting us have input on how economics work in this country we're pushed back at the gates and some people get beaten. because the american public are showing people that we're much smarter than we were given credit for. we don't need to be led.
people are remembering that they are also, there's leaders in a of us. and it's been the most beautiful thing to see people stand up. we're definitely not looking for an endorsement from any political party or political leader >> charlie: you had support of labor unions, some of them and other organizatns you identify with their articulated causes. >> yes. i feel like what we've missed here in the country, it's been us versus them really since i can remember since the clinton years. since it become so divisive with the monica lewinski thing -- we're not interested in that but legislation stopped. legislation is all but come to a grinding halt in washington. and you know, so therefore we don't feel like we can really expect or accept any endorsements because we can't stand by a policy that really
doesn't address fundamental. >> charlie: let me put a couple things on the tab. number one is the idea i gather from all of you and having you said on this show a number of times, is there has not been a kind of obvious alternative to the policies as you've talked about. but part of the protest and part of what you have talked about is this is a march not against the republican party but against economic loyalists in the definition of f.d.r. >> exactly. >> charlie: people have gotten rich and therefore there's an infairness. >> people have gotten rich -- >> charlie: with the help of government. >> with the help of government. wall seet happens to be a particularly clear target because if there's one thing you cannot say about wall street is the big guys did it on their own, they're john gault -- >> charlie: it's somebody -- >> and by the way, one complaint i v a small one, it's 99% makes
a good slogan but really it's the top 10thpercent should be a real target here. there's been a sharp rise with income going to the0% most of that rises to the top 10th of the percent. the point is that group actually disproportionate is the financial industry. so we really, we are in a situation where we have an economic royalty which who are the american versi of russi oligarchs. they are people who grow rich and in large part to political support. >> charlie: jared. >> charlie i think what's inresting to me, listening to the discussion bill and paul in their last comments is inking about how tsgenda oreally how is set of arguments coming from the movement maps on to a political or an economic agenda.
one thing that's fascinating to me is the absence of that agenda. now last night, the jobs bill that the president put forth, and i think it's a very useful measure, i think it would really help to nudge the unemployment rate. that bill did not get all the democrats, the democrats in the senate to vote for it. it didn't even get a 53 democratic, and you might argue that bill is in the old playing field that's not even on this new field that bill was talking about. what needs to grow out of this movement, and i'm optimistic actually that this could happen, is a very different economic agenda. one that has add its root, i think marshall brought this up earlier the concept of market failure. what got us into this mess was this undying and deeply irrational view thatarkets e self correcting. certainly alan greenspan was a
great advocate of this. and the view that markets will correct themselves led not just regulators but the central banks and all kinds of important people to kind of kick back and watch the great recession develop, includinghe inflation of of course the massive housing bubble. ifou begin for a bind set that the opportunities of the people down there on wall street and all of the other cities are very much blocked by the notion that markets are self correcting that they don't il that the solution for everything is privatizing and mor market forces, if you start from that position you end up in a much better place when it comes to both accountability and opportunity, inequality, all the very important things that are missing from the current economy. >> charlie: do you believe that theresident has the political will to take this argument to the country. >> i believe that president obama is a lot more progressive on these matters than you would
gues from developments we've seen so far. >> charlie: why isn't he more articulate about where his in terms of his progressivism. >> well, for a couple reasons. one, it's very tough for a politician to walk in front of a parade where nobody's behind him. i think the existence of the movement and the arguments we're talking about today will help bring out that side. but i also think that the president has this belief, and it was interting to hear bill say earlier they're not anti-business, i'm not either. and i think the president has a fundamental belief that ultimately it's going to be businesses that create jobs. there needs to be a climate wherein that can happen. but i think that my experience with president obama is that much of the agenda that i was talking about before that sn't quite been articulated yet that gets ay from this notion lf correcting markets and gets into a place where market failure can really be understood is rest informant with him and consistent with -- resonant with
him and consistent with his view. >> charlie: marshall. >> we box ourselves in and expeck there to be a quick fix come out of washington to deal with this. i think what the protests have done, have called attention to the need to build a movement. building a movement doesn't happen in a day. it happens in cities and in towns and at state levels across the country. and that's the work that has to be done. the conservative movement built itself up that way starting wi struggles over school boards and state level legislation and so forth. and today, i mean how much of this struggle is at the state level. either voter suppression efforts that are being made systematically or governors like in michin, ohio and wisconsin strippg their workers. unless it's engaged in the country building from the bottom up, our president has nothing to respond to.
i mean the nature of our political system i think has not thatarely has reform been initiated from within. i mean,ur institutions were designed to make it possible to have slave and free states togeth at the same time. historically it's been the role the social movements of the left or right to mobilize the force, the political will for reform. and without that, it doesn't happen. >> charlie: pau >> and this is a great opportunity for that. >> can just say two things. i think on this show we don't want to talk about obama and his, i mean whateverthe reason. the fact of the matter is that somehow the vision thing got lost with him. >> charlie: there's an understanding of what's happened and why didn't, a little bit why it didn't happen earlier and whether everybody's sitting there waiting for it. where were the people who wanted to strike that match and have they been trying to or you wait until somebody says, nobody else is going to do it so im. >> i think too much realism can
actually be a problem. i see it myself. instead making a moral case for financial reform we start talking about the details of derivative regulation. it must be done but you lost ergy. it's got to be a better f.d.r. scholar than mine but mr. president we want these following things why aren't you doing them. and he says you have to make me do them. you need the movement behind us. it's very hard. jared's right. maybe someone, some other politician -- right. so we need this energy and i think that's a lot of what's missing for years into the obama administration. >> charlie: needed the energy. >> that's right. >> charlie: so let me just raise a couple points before i go here. number one does it share in terms with anything with the tea
party. >> there's anger coupled with fear and anger coupled with hope. i think the tea party is anger coupled th fear. fear of the economic crises. this is a movemen of fear of angle coupled with hope. and i think it makes a huge difference. and that's where thepportunity to build lies. translating that into real they at the state and local as well as the national level. >> a quick point about the tea party. one thinking the tiearty seems to be able to do is make politicians believe they can elect them or unelect them, defeat them. that's given them a lot of power whether deserved or not. obviously occupy wall street is not there but it's a b difference. >> charlie: i have to end with one question. does it need leadership as some people look at it and say. >> i would say yes and i think that being such a young movement only three weeks old as an active movement, yes. it's all coming together.
the messages are coalescing. what we need to do is become clearer. and in time i would expect more continuation of e positive unification of people as we're all affectedy the same forces in this country and if we don't work together what in the world can you ssibly expect to change. >> charlie: paul krugman thank you, bill buster, gerald bernstein, marshall ganz, thank you very much. >> charlie: we turn now to iran. this headline u.s. accuses iran in plots. united states has accused iranian officials of plotting to saudi arabia ambassador to the united states. officials say iranian agents tried to recruit a member of a mexican drug cartel to kill the saudi envoy in wash. eric holder said -- forces were vod in the pt u.s. officials would be held accountable. joining me now from washington dmpleghts c. former f.b.i. official john miller and authors of the awe sass instance of the
turquoise pallet. someone said it was too unlikely. >> the whole idea of the iranian intelligence services are going to approach fairly undisciplined drug crew rking for the cartels to do an assassination of the saudi ambassador to the united states and other casualties, it just screams unlikely. which if you actuallunderstand the very odd way that the iranian intelligence services and military services worked, starts to make almost perfect sense. >> charlie: and so therefore you believe the story and eric holder certainly does and certainly the administration
does and certainly the secretary of state does. that this is directly linked to the iranian government. john? >> yes. but i think you need to qualify that by saying the iranian governme isn't a government ke any other. if you take a look at the u.s. government, if the president wants to kill osama bin laden he gives an order to the c.i.a. that's correct and the secretary of defense and that goes through the channels of government. the iranian government is split between the government that's in a secular form which is the president and the prime minister and their legislature but the really governments the -- this is launcd by the irish government -- iranian got without a lot -- >> charlie: you were telling
me about the iranian killed at a berlin restaurant in 1992. you have contacts, extensive contacts. >> based on what i know from the pattern of iran's behavior since 1980, none of this is unusual and there is great precedence for everything that we find in this story. first of all this is not the first time iran has had, has tried to conduct an operation here in washington d.c. in 1980 iran conducted the operation against a former deputy of the shah in the suburbs of maryland. and there's also precedence for iran wishing to assassinate a former saudi ambassador. in fact, in 1990, there was an assassation attempt by a man
named abdul -- in sweden. the swedish authorities detained him, then deported him to iran, only for him to return to europe about two years later and show up at the restaurant at the assassination i've written abot in 1992. all the pieces fit together with the 32 pattern of iran behavior internationally and the way the regime has dealt with its perceived enemies. >> iran is under tremendous pressure and they're looking at two kinds of pressure. one major piece of that is a time bomb. they control the bomb par of it in that they're developing allegedly a nuclear weapon. israel probably controlls the time part of it, israel will strike its nuclear facility there. that's one level of tsion. put tha aside, there's a whole other level of tension with the arab spring.
so you've got this largely sunni awakening in baja rain, in egypt d other countries that is spreading and iran which is a shi'a controlled country. and don't forget the things going on right now in syria which is a majorit sunni population, who were the enablers and supporters behind the scenes of all that. sometimes not behind the sceenlz and that's the saudis. those pressures in the forefront of the policy making in iran but so their intellince and military services, feeling that pressure and figuring out how to strike out. this would send two messages. one to saudi arabia as a dire warning and two because of the location washington d.c., one to the united states. and i think it would have been a bold move on their part but they've done that before within the el cobar bombings in saudi arabia behind the marine
barracks in lebanon. as our author inted out this is not unknown territory for them. >> charlie: what would they expect the reaction from the united states. roya you're saying there might no be a reaction if this attack had been successful. >> i think that's the curve ball charlie because the first queson inot -- the first question is why would they use a mexican drug cartel. that's the thing that would give the fit clues as to the source of the attack giving it some modicum of cover and confusion. i don't think that would have lasted two long not withhe f.b.i. and the c.i.a. >> charlie: what was it that led them to uncover this john, you know the f.b.i. and the intelligence. you were the assistant director earlier. >> it actually came in not the way we would have intended to uncover it which is thrgh counter intelligence measures against iran.
it came in through a drug enforcement administration confidential source working with the drug ggs in mexico as his target. and as this iranian individual approached him he didn't believe it was connected to the iranian government or the dea handlers or later the f.b.i. as they pealed back the layers of the communication pieces and who was connected to whom increasingly looked like everybody beyond this guy who was talking to t drug informa had iranian government connections. it's an odd path for a case like this. >> charlie: a news conference in washington said it was direct and approved by elements of the iranian government and specifically senior members of the coup force. who are they? >> it's elite group within the revolutionary guard corps inside iran that i think actually today the most powerful faction holding power in iran beyond even the supreme leader,
beyond the current sitting lame do -- duck of irannd so forth. even tugh this plot wouldn't fly in hollywood, it is over and over the kind of thing iraq has done. for instance 10, 15 years ago en iran satellite brdcast from los angeles started to beam inside iran, in used cubans to intercept those broadcasts that used to really upset the regime when they aired and as they were becoming more and more popular. in europe, whenever they needed henchmen to go after various irann targets, they used
algerian and would employ them in this front binesses and then later on send them on her projects sneesm what do -- >> charlie: what do you think the saudis might do now that they know this is in aion. >> i think they mht be surprised by this but i don't think the saudis are surprised by this one bit. there has been precedence to all of this and the rivalries between iran and sdi arabi have only become more and more pronounced since the arab spring
and since the growing of the tensions between iran and saudi arabia. >> crlie: john, what might the united states do? >> well, i think the united states is looking at those other two things, which is the effect of the arab spring but also the iran nuclear problem, and understanding those pressures. so i don't think you'll see a direct response to this other than a diplomatic response, perhaps. i think that the united states is looking at iran as a much larger problem but you have to say for th u.s. government this is a bit of a wake up call as to what they are willing to do. it would even surprise people who spend all their time subscribing to the worst possibilities. >> charlie: thank you very much. charlie: we continue our series of conversations about china with boming wang d edward tian. wang is president of the stock exchange and editor-inhief of caijing magazine to chinese
publications. they have broadband capital partners. i am pleased to have him join us here. to take a look at entrepreneurship in china and chnology in chinaand in a sense how china looks at the sort of cutting edge of technology as part of the engine for the future. tell me, how is china today in terms of its development of technology edge. >> i think we have -- technology innovation in last 20-30 years. china now is internet user and largest mobile country and last month the mobile china user reached close to one billion. and this is just you think about the result of mobile and internet how do w conduct business, we have to use
telegram, letter. no, everything change. messaging is also night work. all form of communication is helping china tremendously. >> charlie: will that help china develop the interior of china. >> technology is very much a tool for everybody. actually i spend five years in -- province you go there everyone now has mobile phone. every peasant have mobile phone. now it's bigger. one hundred million or something. and the peasants using mobile phone and signing up and i think next week with a go to mobile phone to e commerce. so i think technology fundamentally -- over the years.
so that's thing chinese people have is modern information technology. mobile phone, internet, personal computer, memory. >> charlie: what's happening there within the securities and institutional marks. >> you know china as a result of the economic reform program that started backn 1979, i was working wh the new york -- >> charlie: i know. >> okay. so i went back together with the guy, mr. golf, set up this -- afr the 8 0's, we set up in shanghai. so now i mean we have over 100
miion equity investors. have market this year overtake japan. now certainly the largest equity rket in the world after e ited states. so that actually changed a lot of the ways people do business. >> charlie: what's your ambition? >> well, at the time when i went back to china, went to the new york stock exchange, set up this capital market owe huge. >> charlie: did you go back to china as a committed capitalist. >> we are poor. we are not capitalists. actually to design, we're not capitamarket investors. we just set up design throughout the market. so we're creating a lot of
millionaires, more than ever you can imagine. >> charlie: more people have enred the middle class than any other time in the history of civilization in china. >> quite a bit of that number came from the equity market. they make a fortune from the stock maet. >> 100 million. >> charlie: do you worry that it could become overheated? do you worry about a bubble? >> periodically for the past 20 years, there were times bubbles, i mean there were times the market were so low that well they send out the pension fund to pump up the market. they do editorials on the media, the market is very wealthy. there were times but i think
there is short time will pass. i mean the market will corct itself where there's a bubble then you to see some black fridays. then it gets down to the level again. >> charlie: well the government be able to make sure that thepollution issue. >> i think one price china development paid in the 30 years is environmental. >> charlie: it is. it is always a product of growth. >> that's right. >> charlie: history's our guide but also it's the future can be differt, we have to deal with the proem of h do you have a safe environment in an economy that's grown. >> technology. china cnot develop
foundational model. we he to use new technology in every area. we have to change this model by consumption of information. you think about one point dealing with people it becomes jungle rich country club. if we u a foundation model, impact on the environment consumptio of energy is unimaginable. the only way we can achie our goals using different mobile, using new technology. electronic car, e-commerce in the fute. we view it much better supply and demand relationship to understand the people's behavior. so i think the key from my
liefs, china s to have knowledge and understand -- >> charlie: that's the problem for the united states toby the way. >> that's the opportunity. >> charlie: could move from a manufacturing model to what's called a knowledge industry. >> we canolve the problem we are facing. i think the big, most successful thing is mobile use solve the problem. the fundamental china business problem is we come out of consumption and so much energy. we come using translesional mobile. >> charlie is chinese industry primarily going to be serving chinese consumers? the demand there is going to be so huge. >> in technology i will say
china and the u.s. perfect mobile working together. look at the action become the largest company. the manufacturer -- >> charlie: apple has become the largest company. >> that's ght. in china, most innovations -- and now the iphone has become the largest electronic in the in the p.c. product. no one reaches our growing company. i think next 30 years two countries work together to innovate new technology, to solve our problem. lookat the history of china. the may and the chemicals forming relations -- from that date, electricity, car and the internet. now two countries need to work together for the next generation products to solve the problem we
are facing. i think we have the opportunity and also obligation. >> charlie: what's happening to the culture as it goes through this transformation. >> i think our lives have been condensed in last 50 years. people go through like -- lots of years, condensing down t 40 or 50 years. if we try that i think our generation has been changed a few times. when we were young, we were part to be the soldier and revolutionary. when you open up you want to be of course educated and becomea scientist, right. then you want to -- >> charlie: entrepreneurs. >>t's a very big issue. i don't think we have an answer for that yet but i think this is something we need to i think
about a lot. and how can they contribute paying back to society. what's the new value system we need to develop and educate the young. >> charlie: should we assume based on your experience that china as we referred to in this series of conversation, china would be a freer place in ter of the relationship between people and the state. freer place in terms of transparency. a freer place in terms of respect for individuals? [laughter] >> china's 30 years, i mean economic reform. has created a lot of wealth and brought about a market oriented
economy. and so then people ask the question, what holds for the future. >> charlie: exactly. >> what's there. what's there to do tt. so next 30 years, i don't think that the form has to be carried out in the economic. the market is there, there are a lot of improvements that have to be done, but it's a very critical job down to carry it out is to do the social transformation. by social transformation, i mean you know, three things. number one, the garment and like what you said, society, the government is just too big, so powerful that you do see a lot
of corruptions. with the power you have corruption. so the government, they have to sort of minimize their role in society. that's number one. secondly we have one party system. then you have to, you need some proper level, what i call check a bance. doesn't have to be american ways of politics but you need newspaper, you need media to do that check for you. you need to tune up the tone of the people's congress to make it real. i mean rather than rubber stamp. >> charlie: kind of like you're saying more decratic. >> yes. i mean more people participation
in this political process. but i believe personally, gradually you have to go about it step by step. i mean we don't really want to do it over night. like the soviet union. after all, china is such a big country, 1.3 billion people. so we don't really want to do the disruptions, i mean, of the process. you don't want revolution, you don't want the chaos. so that process has to be gradual. the third point is the rule of law. really now the country iseing governed by the government, the policies and all that. we need to really insert a lot of laws in through the society so government could somewhat --
>> charlie: withdraw. >> withdraw from the market. it's wrong with the government's behavior. but the principal of the law is how to providehe protection for the weak people and how to constrain the power of the government. so that's the principle of the rule of law transformation. >> charlie: with that hope and that look into the future, thank you very much for coming. >> okay. >> charlie: pleasure to have you here. >> thank you charlie. >> charlie: good to see you again. >> good to see you too. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org