Datasets:

nbroad

/

fix_punctuation

like 0

And I wonder, the version of the bill that we saw come out of the Senate today, or at least mentioned by Senator Christopher Dodd, who's the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, includes as part of it that the U.S. would get stakes in the companies they're helping out.

and i wonder the version of the bill that we saw come. out of the senate today or at least mentioned by senator christopher dodd who's the chairman of the senate banking committee includes as, part of it that; the u.s would get stakes in the companies they're helping

And I wonder the version of the bill that we saw come out of the Senate today or at least mentioned by Senator Christopher Dodd who's the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee includes as part of it that the U.S would get stakes in the companies they're helping

and i wonder, the version of the bill that we saw come out of the senate today, or at least mentioned by senator christopher dodd, who's the chairman of the senate banking committee, includes as part of it that the u.s. would get stakes in the companies they're helping out.

Yes. But from what I've read about that, it's a slightly confused suggestion in that the Senate seems to be proposing that on the one hand the government buys debt, so it gives the banks some money and in return it gets these bad loans. OK, so it's got the loans in exchange. And now on top of that, it wants to get some kind of equity participation, as well.

yes but from what i've read, about that it's, a slightly confused suggestion. in that the senate seems to be proposing that. on the. one hand, the government buys debt so it. gives the, banks some money and in return it gets these bad, loans ok so it's got the loans in exchange. and, now on top of that it wants to get. some kind of equity participation as.

Yes But, from what I've read about that it's. a slightly confused suggestion in that the Senate seems to be proposing that, on the one hand, the government buys debt so it gives the banks some money and in return it gets these bad loans OK so it's got the loans in exchange And now on. top, of that it wants to get, some kind, of equity participation as

yes. but from what i've read about that, it's a slightly confused suggestion in that the senate seems to be proposing that on the one hand the government buys debt, so it gives the banks some money and in return it gets these bad loans. ok, so it's got the loans in exchange. and now on top of that, it wants to get some kind of equity participation, as well.

You can do it that way but it doesn't get around the fundamental problem with any debt purchase, which is that valuing the debt is something that the private sector has being unable to do for the past 12 months, and there's no reason to suppose that the government will be smarter at valuing this very complicated mess of mortgages instruments which are in the grid(ph), they're not traded, you can't see what price they should be at. They'll be haggling over whether this should be 22 cents on the dollar or 50 cents on the dollar, what should be the discount.

you can do it that way but it doesn't get around. the fundamental problem with any debt purchase which is that valuing the debt is, something that the private sector has being unable to do for the past. 12 months and, there's no reason to suppose that the government will, be smarter at valuing this very complicated mess of mortgages instruments, which are in the grid(ph), they're not traded you can't, see what, price, they. should be at they'll be haggling over whether this should be 22 cents on the dollar or 50 cents. on the, dollar. what should be the

You can do it that way but it doesn't get around the fundamental problem with any debt purchase which is that valuing, the debt is something that the private sector has being unable to do for. the past 12 months and there's no reason to suppose that the government will. be smarter, at valuing this very complicated mess of, mortgages instruments which are in the grid(ph), they're not traded you can't see what, price, they should be, at They'll be haggling over whether this should be 22 cents on. the dollar or 50 cents on the dollar what should be the

you can do it that way but it doesn't get around the fundamental problem with any debt purchase, which is that valuing the debt is something that the private sector has being unable to do for the past 12 months, and there's no reason to suppose that the government will be smarter at valuing this very complicated mess of mortgages instruments which are in the grid(ph), they're not traded, you can't see what price they should be at. they'll be haggling over whether this should be 22 cents on the dollar or 50 cents on the dollar, what should be the discount.

I just think going down that route is way more complicated than simply looking at the stock price of a bank and saying, OK, your stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. We know what it's worth, and at that value we're going to inject several billion dollars into your balance sheet to give you more stability and more time.

i just think going down that. route is way more complicated than simply looking at the stock price of a bank and. saying ok your. stock is traded on the new york stock. exchange we know what it's worth and at that value. we're going; to inject several billion dollars into your balance sheet to give you more stability and more

I just think going down that route is way more; complicated than simply looking at. the stock price of a bank and saying OK your stock is, traded on the New York Stock Exchange We know what it's worth and at that value we're going to inject several, billion dollars, into your balance, sheet to give you more stability and more

i just think going down that route is way more complicated than simply looking at the stock price of a bank and saying, ok, your stock is traded on the new york stock exchange. we know what it's worth, and at that value we're going to inject several billion dollars into your balance sheet to give you more stability and more time.

And if you do well on the deal, we'll make some of the profits.

and if you do well on the deal we'll make some of the

And if you do well on the deal we'll make some. of the

and if you do well on the deal, we'll make some of the profits.

Right. That's right. So what Senator Dodd is doing is he's trying to get that upside for taxpayers just like my suggestion would do. But I think he is sort of tacking it onto a deal, onto a proposal from the Treasury, which begins by simply being too complicated. And I'm suggesting, you know, get out of that complication. Don't even try to buy bad loans because they're way difficult to value.

right that's right so what senator, dodd is doing is; he's trying to get that. upside for taxpayers just like my, suggestion would do but i think he is sort of tacking it onto a deal, onto a proposal from the treasury which begins by simply being too complicated and i'm, suggesting. you know get out of that complication don't even try, to buy bad loans because they're way difficult, to

Right That's right So what Senator Dodd is doing is he's trying to, get that upside for taxpayers just like. my suggestion would do But I think he is sort of tacking it onto a deal onto a proposal from. the Treasury which begins, by; simply, being too complicated. And I'm suggesting you know, get out of that complication Don't even try to buy, bad loans because they're way; difficult to

right. that's right. so what senator dodd is doing is he's trying to get that upside for taxpayers just like my suggestion would do. but i think he is sort of tacking it onto a deal, onto a proposal from the treasury, which begins by simply being too complicated. and i'm suggesting, you know, get out of that complication. don't even try to buy bad loans because they're way difficult to value.

But didn't we go through this process or something quite similar to it when the savings banks had a crisis of their own seven years ago and they set up the Resolution Trust Company? They had a bunch of bad loans and eventually disposed of them.

but, didn't we go through this process or something quite. similar to it when the; savings banks had; a. crisis of. their own seven years ago and they set up the. resolution trust company? they had. a bunch of bad loans and eventually disposed of

But didn't we go through this process or something quite similar to it when the savings banks, had a crisis of their own seven years ago and they set. up the Resolution Trust Company? They, had a bunch. of bad loans and eventually disposed of

but didn't we go through this process or something quite similar to it when the savings banks had a crisis of their own seven years ago and they set up the resolution trust company? they had a bunch of bad loans and eventually disposed of them.

Well, unfortunately, that's what a lot of people think, and that's why it's been possible politically to market this plan as something we've done before. We know how to do it, it's no longer that radical. But the truth is that what happened with the Resolution Trust Corporation set up in 1989 was fundamentally different. Back then, what you had was savings and loans, thrifts, which had already gone bankrupt. And because they were federally insured, that meant that their loans fell into the lap of the U.S. government, and the U.S. government had to figure out what to do with these loans. Now you have a situation where the treasuries...

well unfortunately that's what, a, lot of, people think and that's why it's been possible politically to market this plan as something we've done before we know, how, to do it. it's no longer that radical. but the truth; is, that what happened with, the resolution trust corporation set up, in 1989 was fundamentally different. back then what you had was savings and loans thrifts which had already gone bankrupt and because they were federally. insured that meant that their loans fell into the lap of the u.s government and the u.s government had, to figure out what to do with these loans now you have a, situation where the,

Well unfortunately, that's what a lot of people think and that's why. it's been possible politically to market this plan as, something we've done before We know how to do it, it's no, longer that radical But the truth, is that what, happened with the Resolution. Trust Corporation set up in 1989 was, fundamentally different Back then, what you had was savings and loans thrifts which had already gone bankrupt And because they were federally insured. that meant that their; loans, fell into the lap of the. U.S government and the U.S government had to figure out. what to do with these loans Now you have a situation where the

well, unfortunately, that's what a lot of people think, and that's why it's been possible politically to market this plan as something we've done before. we know how to do it, it's no longer that radical. but the truth is that what happened with the resolution trust corporation set up in 1989 was fundamentally different. back then, what you had was savings and loans, thrifts, which had already gone bankrupt. and because they were federally insured, that meant that their loans fell into the lap of the u.s. government, and the u.s. government had to figure out what to do with these loans. now you have a situation where the treasuries...

So in other words, they had no choice.

so in other words they had no

So in other words they had no

so in other words, they had no choice.

Right. You know, there was insurance already - federal insurance of these thrifts. So when the thrifts went bust, by definition the government picked up the loans and had to figure out how to sell them. Today we're talking about buying bad loans from banks which are not bust, so then you get into this difficulty of negotiating which loans you buy, what price you pay for them and so forth. That's what worries me.

right you know there was. insurance already - federal, insurance of these thrifts so when the thrifts went bust by definition the government picked up the loans and had to figure out how to sell them today we're talking about buying bad loans from banks which are not, bust so then you get into this difficulty of negotiating, which loans you. buy what price. you pay for them and so forth that's what worries

Right, You know there. was insurance already, - federal insurance, of these thrifts So; when the thrifts went bust by definition the government picked up the loans; and had to figure out how to sell them Today. we're talking about buying bad loans from banks, which are not bust so then you get into this difficulty of negotiating which loans you buy what price you pay for them and so, forth That's what worries

right. you know, there was insurance already - federal insurance of these thrifts. so when the thrifts went bust, by definition the government picked up the loans and had to figure out how to sell them. today we're talking about buying bad loans from banks which are not bust, so then you get into this difficulty of negotiating which loans you buy, what price you pay for them and so forth. that's what worries me.

So that since the private market - since the - not the private market - since the markets can't figure out how much these loans are worth, and as you say, they've been - these bad mortgages have been bundled into very complicated instruments of varying types that I'm told I sure don't understand and I'm told very few people do, that in fact the government's not going to be any better at figuring out how much to pay for these and is likely then to get paid too much.

so that since the private market - since, the - not the, private; market - since the. markets. can't figure out how much these loans are worth and as, you say they've been - these bad mortgages have been bundled into very complicated, instruments of varying types that i'm told i sure don't understand and i'm told very few people do that in fact the government's not going to. be any better at figuring out. how much. to pay for. these and is likely, then to get paid too

So that since the private market - since the. - not the private market - since the markets can't figure out how much these loans are worth. and as you say they've, been - these bad mortgages have been bundled into very complicated instruments of varying types that I'm told I sure don't. understand and I'm told very few people, do that in fact the government's not going to be any better, at figuring out how much to pay, for these and, is likely then to get paid. too

so that since the private market - since the - not the private market - since the markets can't figure out how much these loans are worth, and as you say, they've been - these bad mortgages have been bundled into very complicated instruments of varying types that i'm told i sure don't understand and i'm told very few people do, that in fact the government's not going to be any better at figuring out how much to pay for these and is likely then to get paid too much.

I mean - exactly. And just to give you a sense of the complication, I mean, since my column appeared yesterday in The Washington Post, I've been inundated with emails from a lot of very thoughtful and smart people on Wall Street saying, you know, here's how the Paulson plan could work. And one of them emails me and says, you know, the thing is that if the government came in and offered a low price for bad debts, let's say 40 percent of what their face value is worth, then it would make a market. You know, people would know that they could offload these debts of 40 cents on the dollar, and so people would be willing to bid 45 or 50 because they knew that if it went wrong for them they could turn around and sell it to the government. So then you'd get liquidity in these debt markets.

i mean - exactly and just to give, you a sense of. the, complication i mean. since my column appeared yesterday in the washington post i've been inundated with emails from a lot, of very thoughtful and smart people; on wall street saying you know here's how the paulson plan could work; and one of, them emails me and, says you know the thing is that if the government came in and offered a low price for bad debts. let's say 40 percent of, what their face value is worth then, it would; make a market you know people would know that they, could offload these. debts of 40 cents on, the dollar and so people would be willing to. bid 45 or 50 because they knew that if it went wrong for them they could turn around and sell it to the government so then you'd get liquidity, in these debt

I mean - exactly And just to give you, a sense of the complication. I mean since my column appeared yesterday in The Washington Post I've been inundated with emails from a, lot, of very thoughtful and smart people on Wall Street saying you know here's how the Paulson plan could. work And one of them emails me and says, you know the thing, is that if the government came in and offered a low price. for. bad debts let's say 40 percent of what, their face value is; worth then it would make, a market You know. people would know that they could offload these debts of 40 cents on the dollar and, so people would be willing to bid 45 or 50 because they knew that, if it went wrong for them they could turn around; and sell it to the government So then you'd get liquidity in these debt

i mean - exactly. and just to give you a sense of the complication, i mean, since my column appeared yesterday in the washington post, i've been inundated with emails from a lot of very thoughtful and smart people on wall street saying, you know, here's how the paulson plan could work. and one of them emails me and says, you know, the thing is that if the government came in and offered a low price for bad debts, let's say 40 percent of what their face value is worth, then it would make a market. you know, people would know that they could offload these debts of 40 cents on the dollar, and so people would be willing to bid 45 or 50 because they knew that if it went wrong for them they could turn around and sell it to the government. so then you'd get liquidity in these debt markets.

But then I get another email from somebody making exactly the same argument but saying that government should come in and buy not at 40 cents on the dollar but at 20 cents on the dollar. So in other words, no one can agree what the price is, and that's going to be the beginning of a huge fight if this plan gets enacted. A huge fight about how you value this debt, what price you put on it, and there's no one, good, simple answer because the truth is that some debt is probably worth 40 cents, other is worth 20 cents, other is worth 30 and 50 and so on. And so there's no one price that the government can come in on and say, right, we will buy all bad debts at the following price because bad debts are very, very varied, so there's no way of structuring this in a simple fashion.

but. then i get another email from somebody making exactly the same argument but saying that government should come in and buy not at 40 cents, on the, dollar but at 20 cents, on the, dollar. so in other words no one can agree what the price is and. that's going to, be the beginning of, a; huge fight. if this plan gets enacted a huge fight about how you value this debt what price you put on it and there's no one good simple answer because the truth. is that some debt is probably worth 40 cents other is worth 20 cents other, is worth 30 and 50 and so on and. so there's no one price. that the government can come in on and say right we will buy all bad debts at the; following price, because bad debts are very. very varied. so there's no way of structuring this in a simple

But then I get another email from somebody making exactly the same argument but saying that government should come in and buy not at 40 cents on the dollar but at 20 cents on the dollar So in other words no one can agree what the price; is and. that's going to be the beginning of, a huge fight if this plan. gets enacted A huge fight about. how you value this debt what price you put on it and there's no one good simple answer because the truth. is that some debt is probably worth 40 cents other is worth 20 cents other is worth 30 and, 50 and so on And so there's no one price that the government can come, in on and say right we will buy all bad, debts at the following. price because bad debts are very very varied; so there's no way of structuring this in a simple

but then i get another email from somebody making exactly the same argument but saying that government should come in and buy not at 40 cents on the dollar but at 20 cents on the dollar. so in other words, no one can agree what the price is, and that's going to be the beginning of a huge fight if this plan gets enacted. a huge fight about how you value this debt, what price you put on it, and there's no one, good, simple answer because the truth is that some debt is probably worth 40 cents, other is worth 20 cents, other is worth 30 and 50 and so on. and so there's no one price that the government can come in on and say, right, we will buy all bad debts at the following price because bad debts are very, very varied, so there's no way of structuring this in a simple fashion.

We're talking with Sebastian Mallaby of the Council on Foreign Relations about what do the taxpayers ought to get for their $700 billion, which is what Congress is talking about spending this week at the urging of the White House and the Secretary of the Treasury. Let's get some callers in on the conversation. 800-989-8255. Email us, [email protected]. We'll begin with Mark and Mark's calling us from Chicopee in Massachusetts.

we're talking with sebastian mallaby of the council on foreign relations about what do the, taxpayers ought to get for. their $700 billion, which is what congress is talking about spending this week at the urging of. the white house and the secretary of the treasury let's get some callers in on the conversation 800-989-8255. email. us [email protected] we'll begin, with mark and mark's. calling. us from chicopee in

We're talking with Sebastian Mallaby of the Council on, Foreign Relations about. what do the taxpayers ought to get for their $700 billion, which is what, Congress is talking about spending this week at the urging. of the White House and the Secretary of the Treasury Let's get some callers; in on the conversation 800-989-8255. Email us [email protected]. We'll begin with Mark and Mark's calling us from Chicopee in

we're talking with sebastian mallaby of the council on foreign relations about what do the taxpayers ought to get for their $700 billion, which is what congress is talking about spending this week at the urging of the white house and the secretary of the treasury. let's get some callers in on the conversation. 800-989-8255. email us, [email protected]. we'll begin with mark and mark's calling us from chicopee in massachusetts.

Hi.

hi.

Hi, Mark.

hi

Hi

hi, mark.

One of the things that we should get, I think, is some legislation that these mortgage entities can't make political contributions because the people, like in this case, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, we were looking at them at least to give warnings that something like this would happen. And I don't think I can have any trust right now in these government officials that they've really been looking out for us, been looking and doing good oversight if they in fact have been receiving. And in the case of Chris Dodd, even receiving favorable mortgages from Countrywide.

one of the things, that, we should get i think is some legislation that these mortgage entities can't make political contributions because the. people like in this case chris dodd and barney frank we were looking at them at, least; to give warnings that something like this would happen and i don't; think i can have any trust right now in these government officials that they've really been looking out for us been; looking and, doing good oversight if they. in fact have been receiving and in the case of chris dodd even receiving favorable mortgages from

One of the things that we should get I think, is. some, legislation. that these mortgage. entities can't make political, contributions because the people, like. in this case. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank we were looking at them at least to give, warnings that something like, this would happen And I don't think I can have any trust right now, in these government officials that, they've really been looking out for us been looking and doing good oversight if they in fact have been receiving And in the case of Chris. Dodd even receiving favorable mortgages from

one of the things that we should get, i think, is some legislation that these mortgage entities can't make political contributions because the people, like in this case, chris dodd and barney frank, we were looking at them at least to give warnings that something like this would happen. and i don't think i can have any trust right now in these government officials that they've really been looking out for us, been looking and doing good oversight if they in fact have been receiving. and in the case of chris dodd, even receiving favorable mortgages from countrywide.

Yeah. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, respectively the chairman of the Senate and House Banking Committees. What do you think, Sebastian Mallaby, is that - have they been derelict in their oversight and should mortgage companies be barred from political lobbying or contributions?

yeah chris. dodd and barney frank respectively the chairman of the senate and house banking committees what do you think sebastian mallaby is that - have they been derelict in their oversight and should mortgage companies be barred from. political lobbying or

Yeah Chris, Dodd and Barney Frank respectively the chairman of the Senate and House. Banking Committees What do you think Sebastian Mallaby, is that - have they been derelict in their oversight and should mortgage companies be barred from. political. lobbying or

yeah. chris dodd and barney frank, respectively the chairman of the senate and house banking committees. what do you think, sebastian mallaby, is that - have they been derelict in their oversight and should mortgage companies be barred from political lobbying or contributions?

You know, it's very tough to single out one industry like mortgage companies for this kind of thing when it happens in just about every industry. You could make a similar point about the regulation of any industry you like. Of course, the people who are regulated are giving big amounts of money to people in Congress all the time. So it gets to, I think, a bigger question about the way the political system works, about campaign contributions and so on.

you know it's very tough to, single out one, industry like mortgage companies for this kind of thing when it happens in just about every industry you could make. a similar point about the regulation of any industry; you like of course the people who are, regulated, are giving big amounts of money, to people in congress all the time so it gets to i, think a bigger question about the way the political system works about campaign contributions and so

You know it's very tough to single out one industry like mortgage companies for this kind of thing when it happens in. just about; every industry You could make a similar point about the regulation of, any industry; you like Of course the people who are. regulated are giving big amounts of. money to people in, Congress all the time So it gets to I think a bigger question. about the way the political system works about campaign contributions and so

you know, it's very tough to single out one industry like mortgage companies for this kind of thing when it happens in just about every industry. you could make a similar point about the regulation of any industry you like. of course, the people who are regulated are giving big amounts of money to people in congress all the time. so it gets to, i think, a bigger question about the way the political system works, about campaign contributions and so on.

I would say, though, that I think the clearest example of political connections sort of messing up what should have been better regulation are the two monster government-affiliated mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which went - were taken into government receivership just a few weeks ago. That really was a case where the lobbying power of those two companies, I think, prevented decent regulation and clear rules being set up. And I fear that, you know, the danger is going to be down the line. We haven't seen the last of this. Further lobbying on behalf of those two entities could cause them to be resurrected in a way that makes us live through this experience all over again.

i would say though that i, think the clearest example of political connections sort of messing up. what should have been better regulation are the two monster government-affiliated mortgage lenders fannie mae and freddie mac which went - were taken, into government receivership just a few weeks ago that really was. a case, where the lobbying power. of those two companies i, think prevented decent regulation and clear rules being set up and i fear that you know the danger is going to. be down the line we haven't seen the last of this further lobbying on behalf of those two entities could cause them to be resurrected in a way that makes us live through this experience all over

I would say though that I think the clearest example of political connections sort of messing up what should have been better regulation are the. two monster government-affiliated, mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which went - were taken into government receivership just a few, weeks ago That really was a case where the lobbying power of those, two companies I think prevented decent regulation and clear rules being. set up And I fear that you, know the danger is going to, be down the line We haven't seen the last of this Further lobbying on behalf of, those two entities could cause them to be resurrected. in, a way that makes, us live through this experience all over

i would say, though, that i think the clearest example of political connections sort of messing up what should have been better regulation are the two monster government-affiliated mortgage lenders, fannie mae and freddie mac, which went - were taken into government receivership just a few weeks ago. that really was a case where the lobbying power of those two companies, i think, prevented decent regulation and clear rules being set up. and i fear that, you know, the danger is going to be down the line. we haven't seen the last of this. further lobbying on behalf of those two entities could cause them to be resurrected in a way that makes us live through this experience all over again.

Do you believe that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should resign?

do you believe that barney frank and chris dodd should

Do you believe that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, should

do you believe that barney frank and chris dodd should resign?

No, I don't. I don't think they had the primary responsibility for sort of the detailed regulation of these financial institutions that...

no i don't i don't think they had the primary responsibility for sort of the detailed; regulation of these financial institutions,

No I don't I don't think they had the primary responsibility for sort of, the detailed. regulation of these financial institutions

no, i don't. i don't think they had the primary responsibility for sort of the detailed regulation of these financial institutions that...

But at least for the oversight, shouldn't they have been aware what was going on?

but at least for. the oversight shouldn't they have been aware what was going

But at least for. the oversight. shouldn't. they have been aware what was going

but at least for the oversight, shouldn't they have been aware what was going on?

Look, you can point the finger in a hundred different directions but the people who are closer to the specifics of what was going on in financial companies, whether they were mortgage companies, banks on Wall Street, investment banks, whatever, you know, the - I don't think it's the people who chair committees in Congress who have, in a way, the primary responsibility for that. I wouldn't - no. I don't go that far. Others may differ, it's an opinion call but I would not go that far.

look, you can point the finger in a hundred different directions but the people who are closer to the specifics of. what was going on. in, financial companies whether they were mortgage companies banks on wall street investment banks whatever you know the - i don't think it's the people. who chair committees in, congress who, have in a way, the primary responsibility for that i wouldn't - no i don't go that far others; may differ it's an opinion call but i would not go that

Look you can point the, finger in, a hundred different directions but the people who are, closer to the. specifics. of what. was going on in financial companies. whether, they were mortgage companies banks on. Wall Street investment banks whatever you know the - I don't, think it's the people who, chair committees in Congress who have in, a way the. primary responsibility for that I wouldn't - no. I don't go that far, Others may differ it's an. opinion. call but I would not go that

look, you can point the finger in a hundred different directions but the people who are closer to the specifics of what was going on in financial companies, whether they were mortgage companies, banks on wall street, investment banks, whatever, you know, the - i don't think it's the people who chair committees in congress who have, in a way, the primary responsibility for that. i wouldn't - no. i don't go that far. others may differ, it's an opinion call but i would not go that far.

And voters, at least with Barney Frank, get the opportunity to do that this November but not like to happen in Massachusetts. Mark, thanks very much for the call.

and voters at least with; barney frank get the opportunity to do that this november but not like to happen in massachusetts mark thanks very much for the

And. voters at least with Barney Frank, get the opportunity to do that this November but not like, to. happen in. Massachusetts. Mark thanks very much for the

and voters, at least with barney frank, get the opportunity to do that this november but not like to happen in massachusetts. mark, thanks very much for the call.

Yep.

yep.

We're - it's interesting, the Secretary of the Treasury, the bill that he wants Congress to pass would have - give him very sweeping powers to take action, presumably to make it fast and efficient and give him the authority to do things without asking too much. The bill that Senator Dodd is talking about would actually install an oversight board, which would include the chairman of the Fed, people like that. Do you think that's a wise idea?

we're - it's interesting the secretary of the treasury the bill that he wants congress to pass would have - give him very sweeping powers, to take action presumably to make. it fast and. efficient and give. him the authority to do things without asking. too much the bill that senator dodd is talking about, would actually install an oversight board which would include the chairman of the fed people like. that do you think that's a wise

We're - it's interesting. the Secretary of the; Treasury the bill that he wants Congress to pass would, have - give him very sweeping. powers to take action presumably to make it fast and efficient and give him the, authority to do things without asking too much The bill that Senator Dodd is talking about would actually install an oversight board which would include the chairman of the Fed people, like that Do. you, think that's a wise

we're - it's interesting, the secretary of the treasury, the bill that he wants congress to pass would have - give him very sweeping powers to take action, presumably to make it fast and efficient and give him the authority to do things without asking too much. the bill that senator dodd is talking about would actually install an oversight board, which would include the chairman of the fed, people like that. do you think that's a wise idea?

You know, I think - I mean, I have some sympathy with Secretary Paulson's desire for a very strip-down legislation that gives him a lot of authority. I just think he is asking for authority to do slightly the wrong thing. I do think that speed is of the essence, that complicating the plan is in general not a good idea. It was the same thing, by the way, in 1989 when President Bush Senior announced a bill to create the Resolution Trust Corporation to work out the savings and loans mess.

you know i think - i mean i have some sympathy with secretary paulson's desire for a very strip-down legislation that gives him a lot of, authority i just think he is asking, for authority to do slightly the wrong thing i do think that speed is of, the essence that complicating the plan is in general not a good idea it was the same thing by the way in 1989 when president; bush senior announced, a bill to create the resolution trust corporation, to work out the savings and loans

You know I think - I mean I have some sympathy. with Secretary Paulson's desire for a very strip-down legislation that gives him a lot, of authority I just. think he is asking for authority to do slightly the, wrong thing I do think that speed is of the essence that complicating the, plan is in general not a good idea It was the same thing. by the way in 1989 when President Bush Senior announced a, bill to create the Resolution Trust Corporation to work. out the savings and loans

you know, i think - i mean, i have some sympathy with secretary paulson's desire for a very strip-down legislation that gives him a lot of authority. i just think he is asking for authority to do slightly the wrong thing. i do think that speed is of the essence, that complicating the plan is in general not a good idea. it was the same thing, by the way, in 1989 when president bush senior announced a bill to create the resolution trust corporation to work out the savings and loans mess.

He first said, we want to get this passed in 45 days, and the first thing the Congress said, the Congressional leaders at the time, was yes, we're going to do it very, very quickly. In the end it took six months to pass that bill, precisely because of the kind of back and forth that you're starting to see now between Senator Dodd and the administration.

he first said we want to get this passed. in 45 days and the first thing the congress said the congressional leaders at the time was yes we're going to do it very very quickly in the end it took six months to pass that. bill precisely because of the kind of, back and forth that, you're starting to see now between senator; dodd and the

He first said we want to get this passed in 45 days and the first, thing the. Congress said the Congressional leaders at the time was yes we're going to do it very very quickly In the end it took. six months to pass that bill precisely because of the kind of back and forth that you're starting to see now between Senator Dodd and, the

he first said, we want to get this passed in 45 days, and the first thing the congress said, the congressional leaders at the time, was yes, we're going to do it very, very quickly. in the end it took six months to pass that bill, precisely because of the kind of back and forth that you're starting to see now between senator dodd and the administration.

And they do have an election coming up so that may focus their minds, too. We're talking with Sebastian Mallaby of the Council on Foreign Relations. He's the head of the Center for Geo-Economic Studies there. You're listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR News. And by the way, you can find a link to Sebastian Mallaby's op-ed piece, "A Bad Bank Rescue," which ran in yesterday's Washington Post, at npr.org/blogofthenation.

and they do have an election coming up so that, may focus their minds too we're talking with, sebastian mallaby of the council on foreign relations he's the head, of the center for geo-economic studies; there you're listening to talk of the nation from npr news and by the way you; can find a link to, sebastian mallaby's. op-ed, piece "a bad bank. rescue" which ran in yesterday's washington. post at,

And they do have an election coming up so that may focus their minds too We're. talking with Sebastian Mallaby of the Council on Foreign Relations He's the head of the Center for, Geo-Economic Studies there You're listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR News And, by. the. way you can find a link to Sebastian Mallaby's op-ed piece "A Bad, Bank Rescue" which ran in yesterday's Washington Post at

and they do have an election coming up so that may focus their minds, too. we're talking with sebastian mallaby of the council on foreign relations. he's the head of the center for geo-economic studies there. you're listening to talk of the nation from npr news. and by the way, you can find a link to sebastian mallaby's op-ed piece, "a bad bank rescue," which ran in yesterday's washington post, at npr.org/blogofthenation.

Let's get another caller on the line. And we'll go to Linda, Linda with us from Elkhart, Indiana.

let's get. another caller on the. line and we'll go to linda linda with us from. elkhart

Let's get another caller on the; line And we'll go to Linda. Linda with us. from Elkhart;

let's get another caller on the line. and we'll go to linda, linda with us from elkhart, indiana.

Yeah, that's right.

yeah that's

Yeah that's;

yeah, that's right.

Go ahead, please.

go, ahead

Go. ahead

go ahead, please.

I'd like to know that my billions of dollars is not going to bail out another country or foreign countries that...

i'd like to know that my billions of dollars, is not going to bail out another country or foreign. countries

I'd like. to know that my billions of dollars is not going to bail out. another country; or foreign countries;

i'd like to know that my billions of dollars is not going to bail out another country or foreign countries that...

That is - some foreign countries and companies say, hey, listen, we made these investments, too. Shouldn't we be bailed out? Sebastian Mallaby, is that going to be possible, to divorce one from the other?

that. is - some foreign countries, and companies say hey listen we made these investments too shouldn't we be bailed out? sebastian mallaby is that going to be possible to divorce one from, the

That is - some foreign countries and companies say hey listen we made these. investments too Shouldn't we be, bailed out? Sebastian Mallaby is that going to be possible to divorce one from the,

that is - some foreign countries and companies say, hey, listen, we made these investments, too. shouldn't we be bailed out? sebastian mallaby, is that going to be possible, to divorce one from the other?

It's a very, very good question. I've wondered about that myself. On the one hand, I don't see any argument for you using U.S. taxpayer money to bail out foreign banks at all. On the other hand, you know, you've got international banks that have subsidiaries in the U.S. which - the subsidiaries are U.S. companies. So trying to draw national lines on companies that themselves are not national, they're multinational, is in practice very, very difficult. It's a classic example of how we have national government that, you know, globalized finance and that globalized economy. So I think the caller is expressing a very understandable concern which I actually share, but I just think it's difficult in practice to make that clear distinction.

it's a very very good question i've wondered about that myself. on, the one hand, i don't see any. argument for you using u.s taxpayer money, to bail out foreign banks at, all on the other hand you know you've got international banks. that have subsidiaries in, the u.s which - the subsidiaries are u.s; companies so trying to draw national lines on companies that themselves are not national they're multinational. is. in practice very very difficult it's a classic example of how we have national government that you know globalized finance and that globalized economy so i think the caller is expressing. a very understandable concern which. i actually share but i just think it's difficult in; practice to make, that clear

It's a very very good question I've wondered about that myself On the one hand I don't see any argument for you using U.S taxpayer money. to. bail out foreign banks at all On the other hand you know you've got international banks that. have subsidiaries in the, U.S which - the subsidiaries are U.S companies So trying to draw national lines on companies that themselves are not national they're multinational; is in practice very very difficult It's a classic example of how we have national government that you, know globalized finance and that globalized economy So I think the caller is expressing a very understandable concern which I actually share but I just think it's difficult in practice to make that clear

it's a very, very good question. i've wondered about that myself. on the one hand, i don't see any argument for you using u.s. taxpayer money to bail out foreign banks at all. on the other hand, you know, you've got international banks that have subsidiaries in the u.s. which - the subsidiaries are u.s. companies. so trying to draw national lines on companies that themselves are not national, they're multinational, is in practice very, very difficult. it's a classic example of how we have national government that, you know, globalized finance and that globalized economy. so i think the caller is expressing a very understandable concern which i actually share, but i just think it's difficult in practice to make that clear distinction.

Linda, thank you.

linda. thank

Linda thank

linda, thank you.

Oh, thank you.

oh thank

Oh thank

oh, thank you.

Bye-bye. Let's talk with Stan, Stan with us from Lexington in Massachusetts.

bye-bye let's talk with. stan stan with us from lexington. in

Bye-bye Let's talk with Stan Stan with us from Lexington in

bye-bye. let's talk with stan, stan with us from lexington in massachusetts.

Yes, sir. Thanks for taking my call. I agree a hundred percent with your guest that we should be buying equity and not debt for the reason stated. And the things I'd want for my money would be something we asked for in 1992 when mortgage (unintelligible) securities were deregulated. They needed mandatory primary and secondary market disclosure systems so that the securities can be purchased and valued properly.

yes sir thanks for taking my call i agree a hundred percent with your guest that we should be buying equity and not debt for the reason stated and the things i'd want for my money would be something we asked for in 1992 when mortgage. (unintelligible) securities were deregulated they needed mandatory primary and secondary market disclosure systems so that the securities can be purchased, and valued

Yes sir Thanks for taking my call I agree a hundred percent with your guest that we should be buying equity and not debt for the reason stated And the things, I'd want for my money would be; something we asked for in 1992 when mortgage (unintelligible) securities were deregulated They, needed mandatory primary and secondary market disclosure systems so that the securities can be purchased and valued

yes, sir. thanks for taking my call. i agree a hundred percent with your guest that we should be buying equity and not debt for the reason stated. and the things i'd want for my money would be something we asked for in 1992 when mortgage (unintelligible) securities were deregulated. they needed mandatory primary and secondary market disclosure systems so that the securities can be purchased and valued properly.

Is this a call for greater transparency so we can see what's going on?

is this a call for greater transparency so we can see what's going

Is this a call for greater transparency so we can see what's going

is this a call for greater transparency so we can see what's going on?

Sure.

sure.

Say it again?

say it

Say it

say it again?

Well, transparency as to these - these securities cannot operate without an exemption from something called the Investment Company Act of 1940. And there was an exemptive rule rammed through the SCC. If it's trail end of Bush One(ph), that permits them to operate without a primary or a secondary market disclosure system. And all the controls of self-dealing, all of the other things that the '40 Act protects against, were wiped out by something called Rule 387 on the theory that the rating agencies would police the marketplace, and that was ludicrous. It put the rating agencies in a totally untenable position.

well transparency as to these - these securities cannot. operate without an exemption from something called the investment company act of 1940. and there was an exemptive rule rammed through the scc if it's trail end of bush one(ph), that permits them to operate without a primary or a secondary. market disclosure system and all the controls of, self-dealing all of the other things that the '40 act protects against were wiped, out by, something called rule 387 on the theory that, the rating agencies would police the marketplace and. that was ludicrous it put the rating agencies in a totally untenable,

Well transparency. as, to these - these securities cannot operate without an exemption from something called the Investment Company Act of 1940. And there was an exemptive rule rammed through the, SCC If it's; trail end of Bush One(ph), that. permits them to operate without a primary, or a secondary market disclosure system And all the controls of self-dealing all of the, other things that. the '40 Act protects against were wiped out by, something called Rule 387 on the theory that the. rating agencies would police the marketplace and that was ludicrous It put the, rating agencies in a totally untenable

well, transparency as to these - these securities cannot operate without an exemption from something called the investment company act of 1940. and there was an exemptive rule rammed through the scc. if it's trail end of bush one(ph), that permits them to operate without a primary or a secondary market disclosure system. and all the controls of self-dealing, all of the other things that the '40 act protects against, were wiped out by something called rule 387 on the theory that the rating agencies would police the marketplace, and that was ludicrous. it put the rating agencies in a totally untenable position.

Sebastian Mallaby, can you help us out here and explain what exactly it is that Stan's proposing, and would it help or not?

sebastian mallaby can you help us out here and explain what exactly it is that stan's proposing and would it help or

Sebastian Mallaby can you help us out here and explain what exactly it. is, that Stan's proposing and would it help; or

sebastian mallaby, can you help us out here and explain what exactly it is that stan's proposing, and would it help or not?

You know, I think he's proposing a variation on a very good idea, which applies more broadly to the financial mess that we're in, namely that there's a lot of trading that goes on in instruments that are not on any kind of exchange like a stock exchange or even a futures exchange. They are just contracts between private banks and hedge funds and so forth, which trade their stuff, as it's called, over the counter, without any guarantee that, you know, next week there'll be anybody around to carry on trading them. There's nobody who's, you know, committed themselves, and this is where I think the caller is going to. If nobody has committed themselves...

you. know. i think he's proposing a variation on a very good idea which applies more broadly to the financial. mess that we're; in. namely that there's a lot of trading that goes on in instruments that are not on any kind of exchange like a stock exchange. or even a futures exchange they are just; contracts. between private banks and hedge, funds and so forth. which trade their stuff as it's, called over the counter without, any guarantee that you know next week, there'll be anybody around to carry on trading them there's nobody. who's you know committed themselves and this is where i think the caller is going to if nobody has committed

You know I, think he's proposing a variation on a. very good idea which applies more; broadly to the, financial mess that, we're in namely that there's a lot of trading. that, goes on in instruments that are not on any kind of exchange like a stock. exchange or even a futures exchange They are just contracts between private banks and hedge funds and so forth which trade their, stuff as it's. called over the counter, without any guarantee that you know next week there'll. be anybody around to carry on trading them There's nobody who's you know committed themselves and this, is where; I think the caller is going to If nobody has committed

you know, i think he's proposing a variation on a very good idea, which applies more broadly to the financial mess that we're in, namely that there's a lot of trading that goes on in instruments that are not on any kind of exchange like a stock exchange or even a futures exchange. they are just contracts between private banks and hedge funds and so forth, which trade their stuff, as it's called, over the counter, without any guarantee that, you know, next week there'll be anybody around to carry on trading them. there's nobody who's, you know, committed themselves, and this is where i think the caller is going to. if nobody has committed themselves...

Actually, I'm really talking about the cash market security itself. It has no disclosure regime associated with it. As a result, you can't get information about what's in the pool. There should be - this happened in the government's securities markets about 15 years ago when the government agencies started providing secondary market information. It liquefied the market. Right now it's illegal to go to be assured and get information about the pool because of a regulation the agency put through called Reg SD(ph), and it means that you can't get information directly.

actually i'm really talking, about the cash market. security itself it has no disclosure regime associated with, it; as a result you can't get information about what's in; the pool there should be - this happened in the government's securities markets about 15 years ago when the government, agencies started providing secondary market information it liquefied, the market right now it's illegal to go to be assured and get information about the pool because of a regulation the agency put through called reg sd(ph), and it means that you can't get. information

Actually I'm really talking about the cash market security itself It has no disclosure regime associated with it As a, result you. can't get information about what's in the pool There should be - this happened in the government's securities markets about. 15 years ago when the government agencies started providing secondary market information It. liquefied the. market Right now it's, illegal to go to, be assured and. get information, about the pool because of a regulation the agency put through called Reg SD(ph), and it means that you can't get information

actually, i'm really talking about the cash market security itself. it has no disclosure regime associated with it. as a result, you can't get information about what's in the pool. there should be - this happened in the government's securities markets about 15 years ago when the government agencies started providing secondary market information. it liquefied the market. right now it's illegal to go to be assured and get information about the pool because of a regulation the agency put through called reg sd(ph), and it means that you can't get information directly.

So you think there should be more information, in other words, about mortgage-backed securities, traders, after they...

so you think there should be. more information in other words about mortgage-backed securities traders after

So, you think there should be more information. in other words about mortgage-backed securities traders after,

so you think there should be more information, in other words, about mortgage-backed securities, traders, after they...

Yeah.

yeah.

After they've been issued. But I think - I mean, I do think - I mean, my train of thought earlier does apply to what you're talking about. In other words, we need more transparency...

after they've been issued but i think - i, mean i do think - i mean my train of thought earlier does apply to what you're talking about in other words we need more

After they've been issued But I think - I, mean I do think - I. mean. my train of thought earlier does apply to what you're talking about In other words we need more,

after they've been issued. but i think - i mean, i do think - i mean, my train of thought earlier does apply to what you're talking about. in other words, we need more transparency...

Go ahead.

go

Go.

go ahead.

And we - sorry, I thought we were cut off there.

and we - sorry i thought we were cut off

And we - sorry I thought. we were cut off

and we - sorry, i thought we were cut off there.

We will be shortly.

we will be

We will be

we will be shortly.

We need more transparency, more information, and the government has a legitimate role in persuading market participants to provide that information and catalyzing it.

we need more transparency more information and the government has, a legitimate role in persuading, market participants to provide. that information and catalyzing

We need more transparency more information and the government has a legitimate role in persuading market participants to provide that information and. catalyzing

we need more transparency, more information, and the government has a legitimate role in persuading market participants to provide that information and catalyzing it.

Stan, thanks very much for the call. And Sebastian Mallaby, thank you so much for your time today.

stan, thanks very much for the call and sebastian mallaby thank you so much for your time

Stan, thanks very much for the call And Sebastian Mallaby thank you so much for your time

stan, thanks very much for the call. and sebastian mallaby, thank you so much for your time today.

Great to be with you, Neal.

great to be with you

Great to be, with you

great to be with you, neal.

Sebastian Mallaby, "A Bad Bank Rescue." His piece ran in yesterday's Washington Post and he joined us from a studio at the Council on Foreign Relations. This is Talk of the Nation from NPR News. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

sebastian mallaby "a. bad bank rescue" his, piece ran in yesterday's washington post and. he joined us from a, studio at the council on foreign relations this is talk. of the, nation from, npr news i'm neal conan. in

Sebastian Mallaby "A Bad Bank. Rescue" His piece ran in yesterday's Washington Post and he joined us from a studio at the Council on Foreign Relations This is Talk of the Nation from, NPR News I'm Neal Conan in

sebastian mallaby, "a bad bank rescue." his piece ran in yesterday's washington post and he joined us from a studio at the council on foreign relations. this is talk of the nation from npr news. i'm neal conan in washington.

President Trump is taking his America First message to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week. It's an awkward juxtaposition - a president wary of trade deals there to convince world leaders and global business execs to invest in the United States. The president speaks on Friday. Top officials in his administration have already addressed the forum.

president trump is taking his america first message; to the world economic forum; in davos, switzerland this week it's an awkward juxtaposition - a. president wary of trade deals there, to convince world leaders and global, business execs to invest in, the. united states the president speaks on friday top officials, in his administration have already addressed the,

President Trump is taking, his America First message to the World. Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland this week It's an awkward. juxtaposition - a president wary of trade deals. there to convince world leaders and, global, business execs, to invest in the United States The president speaks on Friday Top, officials in his administration have already addressed the

president trump is taking his america first message to the world economic forum in davos, switzerland, this week. it's an awkward juxtaposition - a president wary of trade deals there to convince world leaders and global business execs to invest in the united states. the president speaks on friday. top officials in his administration have already addressed the forum.

To hear how their message is playing with the international elite in Davos, we have called Nariman Behravesh. He's chief economist at IHS Markit, and he is there in Davos. Hi there.

to, hear how their message is playing with the international. elite in davos we have called nariman behravesh, he's chief economist at ihs markit and he is there in davos hi

To hear how their message. is playing with the international elite in Davos we have called Nariman Behravesh He's, chief economist at IHS, Markit and he is there in Davos Hi

to hear how their message is playing with the international elite in davos, we have called nariman behravesh. he's chief economist at ihs markit, and he is there in davos. hi there.

Hi there.

hi

Hi

hi there.

Hi. I'll start with today's news, which is that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who is also in Davos, said there today - and I'll quote - "a weak dollar is good for America." Well, ask, and you shall receive. The dollar immediately hit a three-year low. How's that playing in Davos?

hi i'll start with today's news which is that, u.s treasury. secretary steve mnuchin who is. also in davos said there today - and i'll quote - "a weak dollar is good for america" well ask and you shall receive the dollar immediately hit a three-year low how's that playing in

Hi I'll start with today's, news which is that U.S Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin who is also in Davos. said there today - and I'll quote - "a weak dollar is good, for America" Well ask and you, shall receive The dollar immediately, hit a three-year low How's that playing in

hi. i'll start with today's news, which is that u.s. treasury secretary steve mnuchin, who is also in davos, said there today - and i'll quote - "a weak dollar is good for america." well, ask, and you shall receive. the dollar immediately hit a three-year low. how's that playing in davos?

Well, I think it's got a lot of people here a little nervous because the dollar, as you say, has been already weakening. It's been weakening really over the past year. And what the treasury secretary did was kind of pushed it down further. And I think people are a little worried that it might sort of end up destabilizing exchange markets, so that's a bit of a concern on top of, you know, all the other concerns about, what does America First really mean in the end? But the concern here is a destabilized foreign exchange market.

well i; think it's got a lot of people here a little nervous because, the dollar as; you say, has been already weakening it's been weakening. really over the past year and what the treasury secretary did was kind of pushed it down further and i think people are a little worried that it might sort, of end up destabilizing exchange markets so that's a bit of, a concern on top of you know all the other concerns about what does. america first really mean in the end? but the concern here is a destabilized foreign exchange

Well I think it's got a lot of people here a little nervous because; the dollar, as you say. has. been already weakening It's been; weakening really over, the past year And what the treasury secretary did was; kind of pushed it down further And I think people are a little worried. that it might sort, of end up destabilizing exchange. markets so that's a bit; of, a concern on top of, you know all the. other concerns about what does America First really, mean in the end? But; the concern here. is a. destabilized foreign exchange;

well, i think it's got a lot of people here a little nervous because the dollar, as you say, has been already weakening. it's been weakening really over the past year. and what the treasury secretary did was kind of pushed it down further. and i think people are a little worried that it might sort of end up destabilizing exchange markets, so that's a bit of a concern on top of, you know, all the other concerns about, what does america first really mean in the end? but the concern here is a destabilized foreign exchange market.

You said people in Davos and people all over are trying to figure out exactly what an America First economic policy means. What - how do you understand it?

you said people in davos and people all over are trying to; figure out exactly what an america first economic policy means, what - how do you understand.

You said people in Davos and people, all over are trying to figure out exactly what an America, First economic policy means, What - how do you understand

you said people in davos and people all over are trying to figure out exactly what an america first economic policy means. what - how do you understand it?

Well - and here's where the problem is. We're getting very mixed signals from American officials. As you know, the U.S. recently raised tariffs on washing machines and solar panels. And Mr. Trump said this is not a trade war. But then his commerce secretary, Mr. Ross, here today essentially said, we are already in a trade war. So there you've got a contradiction.

well - and here's where the problem is we're getting very, mixed signals from american officials as you know the u.s recently raised, tariffs on washing machines and solar panels and mr trump. said this is not; a trade war but then his. commerce secretary mr ross here today. essentially said we are already in a trade war so there you've got a

Well, - and here's where the problem is We're getting very mixed signals from American officials As you know, the U.S recently raised tariffs on washing machines and solar panels. And Mr Trump. said. this is not a trade war But then his commerce secretary Mr Ross here today essentially said, we. are already in a trade war So there you've got, a

well - and here's where the problem is. we're getting very mixed signals from american officials. as you know, the u.s. recently raised tariffs on washing machines and solar panels. and mr. trump said this is not a trade war. but then his commerce secretary, mr. ross, here today essentially said, we are already in a trade war. so there you've got a contradiction.

And then Mr. Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, said, oh, no, no, you know, America First does not mean we're going to be trying to hurt other economies. We just want to do well for our own people. So a lot of very mixed messages, and I think people are confused here.

and then mr mnuchin the treasury secretary said oh no no you know america first does not mean we're going to be trying to hurt other economies we just want to do well for our, own people so a. lot. of very mixed messages and i. think people are confused.

And then, Mr Mnuchin the; treasury secretary said, oh, no no, you know America First does not mean we're; going to be trying, to hurt other economies We just want to do well for our own people So a lot of very mixed messages and I think. people are confused

and then mr. mnuchin, the treasury secretary, said, oh, no, no, you know, america first does not mean we're going to be trying to hurt other economies. we just want to do well for our own people. so a lot of very mixed messages, and i think people are confused here.

You know, it's interesting because this is one of the largest delegations the U.S. has sent to Davos. On the other hand, the U.S. is pulling back from the world stage in ways economic and otherwise. Is the U.S. as much in the spotlight as it has been in years past at this forum?

you know it's interesting, because this is one, of the largest delegations the u.s has sent to davos on. the other hand the u.s is pulling back from. the world stage in ways. economic and otherwise is the u.s as. much in the spotlight as it has been in years past at this,

You know it's interesting because this. is one of the largest delegations, the U.S has sent to Davos On the, other hand the U.S is pulling back from the world stage, in ways economic and otherwise Is the, U.S as much in. the spotlight, as it has been in years past at this

you know, it's interesting because this is one of the largest delegations the u.s. has sent to davos. on the other hand, the u.s. is pulling back from the world stage in ways economic and otherwise. is the u.s. as much in the spotlight as it has been in years past at this forum?

It's very clear that Mr. Trump's coming to Davos has stolen pretty much everybody else's thunder. Everybody's talking about him. What is he going to say? I mean, that's the question I and others get asked, you know, that are from the U.S. all the time in the last few days. So in that sense, he clearly is dominating. There's no question about it.

it's very clear that mr trump's coming to davos has. stolen pretty much everybody else's thunder everybody's talking about him what is he going to, say? i mean that's the question i and others get asked you know that are from the u.s all the time in the last few days so in that sense he clearly is dominating there's no question about

It's very clear that Mr Trump's coming to Davos has stolen pretty much everybody else's thunder Everybody's talking about, him What, is he going to say? I mean that's the question, I and, others get asked you know that are, from the U.S all the time in the, last few days So in that sense he clearly; is dominating There's. no question about

it's very clear that mr. trump's coming to davos has stolen pretty much everybody else's thunder. everybody's talking about him. what is he going to say? i mean, that's the question i and others get asked, you know, that are from the u.s. all the time in the last few days. so in that sense, he clearly is dominating. there's no question about it.

Nariman Behravesh, thanks so much for taking the time.

nariman behravesh thanks, so much for taking the

Nariman Behravesh thanks so, much for taking the

nariman behravesh, thanks so much for taking the time.

My pleasure.

my

My

my pleasure.

Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Markit - he joined us from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

nariman behravesh chief economist at ihs markit - he joined us from the world economic forum in davos

Nariman Behravesh chief economist at IHS Markit - he joined us from the World Economic Forum in, Davos

nariman behravesh, chief economist at ihs markit - he joined us from the world economic forum in davos, switzerland.

And what Morrison did is that she made it very, very real. She also made it accessible. So Morrison could make these spaces that would seem sort of looming and heavy and grim very, very, very, very, very viable. I thought this morning of something Chekhov says. Chekhov writes about Masha in "The Seagull" of that I'm in mourning for my life. And I think - when I think about the loss of Toni Morrison, I feel like I'm in mourning for my life because she gave me the world. She gave me the universe. And I think she did that for a lot of us.

and what morrison did is that she made it very very real she also made it accessible. so morrison could make these spaces that. would, seem sort, of looming and heavy and grim very very very very very viable i thought this morning of, something. chekhov says chekhov. writes about masha in "the seagull" of that i'm in mourning for my life and i think - when i think about the loss of toni morrison i feel like i'm in mourning for my life because she gave me the world she gave me the universe and i think she did that for a lot. of

And what Morrison did is that she made it very very real She also made it accessible. So Morrison could make these. spaces that. would seem sort, of looming and. heavy and, grim very very very very very viable I thought this morning of something Chekhov says Chekhov writes. about Masha in "The, Seagull" of that I'm in mourning for my life And I think - when I think, about the loss of Toni Morrison I feel like I'm in mourning for my life because. she gave me the world She gave me the universe And I think, she did that for a lot. of.

and what morrison did is that she made it very, very real. she also made it accessible. so morrison could make these spaces that would seem sort of looming and heavy and grim very, very, very, very, very viable. i thought this morning of something chekhov says. chekhov writes about masha in "the seagull" of that i'm in mourning for my life. and i think - when i think about the loss of toni morrison, i feel like i'm in mourning for my life because she gave me the world. she gave me the universe. and i think she did that for a lot of us.

What do you remember most about the time you got to spend with her for the profile?

what do you remember most about the, time you got to spend with her for the

What do you remember most about the. time you got to spend with her for the,

what do you remember most about the time you got to spend with her for the profile?

The thing I remember most and the thing I would like to mention is that I'm thinking of her granddaughters. I'm thinking of her sons. I'm thinking of her as a real woman, not just this author. I'm thinking of all the people who loved her, her editor, Erroll McDonald. I'm thinking of them because Morrison was so incredibly generous, and she was never not telling stories. And I imagine that that absence is going to weigh on them very heavily as time passes. And I think all of us will think that we've lost someone that she's no longer with us. But I think what Morrison did is that she left us these words, and these words will stay with us forever. And thank God for that.

the thing. i remember. most and. the thing i would like to mention. is that i'm thinking of her granddaughters, i'm thinking of her sons i'm thinking of her as a, real woman not just this author i'm thinking, of all the people who loved. her her editor erroll mcdonald i'm thinking of them because morrison was; so incredibly generous and she was, never; not. telling stories and i imagine that that absence is going to weigh on them very heavily as. time passes and i think all of us will think that we've lost someone that she's no longer with; us but i think what. morrison did is that she. left us these words and these words will stay with us forever and thank god for

The thing, I remember most and the, thing. I would like to mention is, that I'm, thinking of, her granddaughters I'm thinking. of her sons I'm thinking of her as a real woman not just this author, I'm thinking. of all the people who loved, her her editor Erroll McDonald I'm thinking of them, because Morrison was so incredibly generous and she was never not telling. stories And I imagine that that absence is going to. weigh on them very heavily as time passes. And I think all of us will think that we've lost someone that she's no longer with us But I think what Morrison did is. that she left us these words. and these words will stay with us forever And thank God for.

the thing i remember most and the thing i would like to mention is that i'm thinking of her granddaughters. i'm thinking of her sons. i'm thinking of her as a real woman, not just this author. i'm thinking of all the people who loved her, her editor, erroll mcdonald. i'm thinking of them because morrison was so incredibly generous, and she was never not telling stories. and i imagine that that absence is going to weigh on them very heavily as time passes. and i think all of us will think that we've lost someone that she's no longer with us. but i think what morrison did is that she left us these words, and these words will stay with us forever. and thank god for that.

Losing her is a profound thing and would be at any time. And it feels - the wound feels deeper right now because of where America is at and because of the truth that she was able to illuminate about racism in this country. What do you want people to glean from her work in this moment? Why do you think that losing her now is such a wound?

losing. her is a profound. thing, and would be at any time and it feels - the wound feels deeper right now because of where america, is at and because of. the truth that she was able to illuminate about racism in this country what do you want people to glean. from her work in this; moment? why do you, think, that losing her now is such a

Losing her. is a profound thing and would be at any time And it feels - the wound, feels deeper right now because of where America is at and because of the truth that she. was able to illuminate about racism in this country What do you want, people to glean from her work in this moment? Why do you think that losing her now, is such a

losing her is a profound thing and would be at any time. and it feels - the wound feels deeper right now because of where america is at and because of the truth that she was able to illuminate about racism in this country. what do you want people to glean from her work in this moment? why do you think that losing her now is such a wound?

One of my favorite things that Morrison said is that we don't need any more writers as solitary heroes. We need a heroic writers movement - assertive, militant and pugnacious. And I think losing Morrison now, we lose a sort of role model for being bold, for being dynamic and for knowing that the language can be political, that the language is necessary and that the language is freedom. And I think that as we go forward as writers and thinkers and intellectual, the thing that we have to do is to speak with clarity and not let anyone sanitize our voices and our thoughts but also to have the freedom to say this space right here is mine. And this writing is where I'm free, and no one can tell me what to be.

one of my favorite things that morrison said, is that we don't. need any more writers as solitary heroes we need, a heroic writers movement - assertive militant and pugnacious and; i think losing morrison now we lose a sort. of, role model for being, bold for being dynamic and for knowing that the language can be political that the language is necessary and. that the language is freedom and i think that as we go forward as writers and, thinkers and intellectual the thing that we have. to do, is to speak with. clarity and not let anyone sanitize our voices and our thoughts but also to have the freedom to say this space right here is mine and this writing is where i'm free and. no one, can tell me what to

One of my favorite, things that Morrison said is that we don't; need. any more writers as solitary heroes We need a heroic writers movement - assertive militant and pugnacious And I think losing Morrison now we, lose a sort of role, model for being bold for being dynamic and. for knowing, that the language, can be political that the language is necessary and that the language is freedom And I think that as we go forward as writers and thinkers and intellectual the. thing that we have to do is to speak with clarity and not let anyone sanitize our voices and our thoughts but also to have the freedom to, say this space right here is mine And this writing is where I'm. free and no one can tell me what to

one of my favorite things that morrison said is that we don't need any more writers as solitary heroes. we need a heroic writers movement - assertive, militant and pugnacious. and i think losing morrison now, we lose a sort of role model for being bold, for being dynamic and for knowing that the language can be political, that the language is necessary and that the language is freedom. and i think that as we go forward as writers and thinkers and intellectual, the thing that we have to do is to speak with clarity and not let anyone sanitize our voices and our thoughts but also to have the freedom to say this space right here is mine. and this writing is where i'm free, and no one can tell me what to be.

And I think when I think about how to be like Morrison or how to honor her, I think the thing I want to do most is to continue to write unassimilated black literature that lifts up the love for the people, the love for the culture, the love for the resistance that we embody in this country as a historical project.

and i think. when i think about how to be like morrison or how to. honor her i think the thing i want. to do most is to continue to write unassimilated black literature that lifts up. the love for the people the, love for the culture the love. for the resistance that we embody. in this country as a historical

And I think when I think about, how to, be like Morrison or how to honor her I think the thing I. want to do. most is to continue to. write unassimilated black literature that lifts up the love for the people the love for. the culture the love, for the resistance that we embody in this. country as a historical,

and i think when i think about how to be like morrison or how to honor her, i think the thing i want to do most is to continue to write unassimilated black literature that lifts up the love for the people, the love for the culture, the love for the resistance that we embody in this country as a historical project.

Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah remembering the life of Toni Morrison. Thank you so much.

rachel kaadzi ghansah remembering the life of toni morrison thank you so

Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah remembering the life of Toni. Morrison. Thank you so

rachel kaadzi ghansah remembering the life of toni morrison. thank you so much.

Thank you.

thank

Thank

thank you.

Now we remember the man who made us love a Wookiee. Actor Peter Mayhew played the Star Wars character Chewbacca. He died this week at his home in North Texas - 74 years old. NPR's Mandalit del Barco remembers the actor who embodied Chewie.

now we remember the man who made us love a wookiee actor. peter mayhew played, the star wars character chewbacca he died this week, at his home in north. texas - 74 years old npr's mandalit del barco remembers, the, actor who embodied

Now we remember the man who made us love, a Wookiee Actor Peter, Mayhew played the Star Wars character Chewbacca He died this week at his. home, in North Texas - 74 years old NPR's. Mandalit del Barco remembers the actor who embodied

now we remember the man who made us love a wookiee. actor peter mayhew played the star wars character chewbacca. he died this week at his home in north texas - 74 years old. npr's mandalit del barco remembers the actor who embodied chewie.

At more than 7 feet tall, Peter Mayhew donned a furry costume to play Chewbacca - a towering, hirsute, knock-kneed Wookiee.

at more than 7 feet, tall peter mayhew donned a furry costume to play chewbacca - a towering hirsute knock-kneed

At more than 7 feet tall Peter Mayhew donned a furry costume to play Chewbacca. - a towering hirsute knock-kneed

at more than 7 feet tall, peter mayhew donned a furry costume to play chewbacca - a towering, hirsute, knock-kneed wookiee.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

(soundbite of archived

(SOUNDBITE OF, ARCHIVED

(soundbite of archived recording)

(As Chewbacca, roaring).

(as chewbacca

(As Chewbacca

(as chewbacca, roaring).

Chewie was Han Solo's co-pilot, soaring through space on the Millennium Falcon and defending the Rebel Alliance. Mayhew played the character in the original Star Wars trilogy. He traveled the world, greeting fans. On Dallas TV station KTXD, he talked about why Chewbacca was so beloved.

chewie was, han solo's co-pilot soaring through space on the millennium falcon and defending the rebel alliance mayhew played the character in the original star wars trilogy he traveled. the world greeting fans on dallas tv station ktxd he; talked about, why chewbacca was so.

Chewie was Han Solo's co-pilot soaring through space on the Millennium Falcon and defending the Rebel Alliance Mayhew played the character in. the original Star Wars trilogy He. traveled the world greeting fans On, Dallas TV. station KTXD he talked about why Chewbacca was so

chewie was han solo's co-pilot, soaring through space on the millennium falcon and defending the rebel alliance. mayhew played the character in the original star wars trilogy. he traveled the world, greeting fans. on dallas tv station ktxd, he talked about why chewbacca was so beloved.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

(soundbite of archived

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED

(soundbite of archived recording)

The character itself is basically a teddy bear, security. This character represents the guy next door - the person that looked after you.

the character itself is basically a teddy bear security this, character represents the guy next door - the person that looked after

The character itself is basically, a, teddy bear security This character represents the guy next door - the person that looked; after

the character itself is basically a teddy bear, security. this character represents the guy next door - the person that looked after you.

In 1997, MTV gave Chewbacca a lifetime achievement award. The late Carrie Fisher, who played Star Wars' Princess Leia, introduced the character.

in 1997, mtv gave chewbacca a lifetime achievement, award the late carrie fisher who played star wars' princess leia introduced the

In 1997, MTV gave Chewbacca a lifetime achievement award The late Carrie Fisher who played Star. Wars' Princess Leia introduced; the

in 1997, mtv gave chewbacca a lifetime achievement award. the late carrie fisher, who played star wars' princess leia, introduced the character.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

(soundbite of archived

(SOUNDBITE, OF ARCHIVED

(soundbite of archived recording)

He's one of the kindest, gentlest creatures I've ever worked with. I only wish we had love scenes.

he's one of the kindest gentlest creatures i've ever worked with i only wish we had. love.

He's one of the kindest gentlest creatures I've ever worked with I only, wish we had love

he's one of the kindest, gentlest creatures i've ever worked with. i only wish we had love scenes.

(As Chewbacca, roaring).

(as chewbacca

(As Chewbacca

(as chewbacca, roaring).

Mayhew's family noted that he fought his way back from being wheelchair-bound in 2015 to play Chewbacca for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," paired up again with Harrison Ford's Han Solo.

mayhew's family noted that he fought his way back from; being, wheelchair-bound in 2015 to, play chewbacca for "star wars: the force awakens" paired, up again with harrison ford's han.

Mayhew's family noted that. he fought his way back from being wheelchair-bound in 2015 to play Chewbacca for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" paired. up again with Harrison Ford's Han

mayhew's family noted that he fought his way back from being wheelchair-bound in 2015 to play chewbacca for "star wars: the force awakens," paired up again with harrison ford's han solo.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS")

(soundbite of film "star wars: episode vii - the force

(SOUNDBITE, OF FILM "STAR, WARS: EPISODE VII, - THE FORCE,

(soundbite of film, "star wars: episode vii - the force awakens")

(As Han Solo) Chewie, we're home.

(as han solo) chewie we're

(As Han Solo) Chewie we're

(as han solo) chewie, we're home.

(As Chewbacca, roaring).

(as chewbacca

(As Chewbacca

(as chewbacca, roaring).

Peter Mayhew was born in England and got his first acting job playing the minotaur in the movie "Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger." With his wife, Angie, Mayhew wrote an anti-bullying book for children called "My Favorite Giant" and a memoir, "Growing Up Giant." Mandalit del Barco, NPR News.

peter mayhew, was born in england and got his first, acting job playing the minotaur in the movie "sinbad and the eye of the tiger" with his wife angie mayhew wrote an anti-bullying book for children called "my favorite giant" and a memoir "growing up giant" mandalit. del barco npr

Peter Mayhew was born in England and got his first acting job playing the minotaur in the movie "Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger" With his, wife Angie Mayhew wrote an anti-bullying book for children called "My Favorite Giant" and a memoir "Growing Up Giant" Mandalit del Barco, NPR

peter mayhew was born in england and got his first acting job playing the minotaur in the movie "sinbad and the eye of the tiger." with his wife, angie, mayhew wrote an anti-bullying book for children called "my favorite giant" and a memoir, "growing up giant." mandalit del barco, npr news.

No one in a family has an illness alone, especially mental illness. Adam Haslett's long-awaited second novel is told through the five voices of a family in which the father, John, has a mental illness, a sort of hibernation he calls it, that he winds up sharing with his oldest son Michael. Each gets certain chapters to tell, as does Margaret, John's wife, and Celia and Alec, their youngest children. You begin to understand how each person shares some of the sting of that illness but also sometimes some of the wisdom experience can bring.

no one in a family has an illness alone especially mental illness adam haslett's long-awaited second novel, is told through the five voices of a family in which the. father john has a mental illness a sort of hibernation, he calls it, that he winds up sharing with his oldest son michael each gets certain chapters to tell as does margaret john's wife and celia and, alec their youngest children you begin to understand how each person shares some of the sting of that illness but also sometimes some of the wisdom experience can

No one in a family has an illness alone especially mental illness Adam Haslett's long-awaited second novel is told through the five, voices of a family in which the father John has a mental illness a sort of hibernation he calls it that he winds up sharing with his oldest son Michael Each gets certain chapters to tell as does Margaret John's wife and Celia and Alec their youngest children You begin to understand how each person shares some; of the. sting of that illness but also sometimes. some of the wisdom experience can

no one in a family has an illness alone, especially mental illness. adam haslett's long-awaited second novel is told through the five voices of a family in which the father, john, has a mental illness, a sort of hibernation he calls it, that he winds up sharing with his oldest son michael. each gets certain chapters to tell, as does margaret, john's wife, and celia and alec, their youngest children. you begin to understand how each person shares some of the sting of that illness but also sometimes some of the wisdom experience can bring.

Adam Haslett's new book is "Imagine Me Gone." And Adam Haslett, a finalist for the 2002 National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize, joins us from New York. Thanks so much for being with us.

adam haslett's new book is "imagine me gone" and adam haslett a finalist for the 2002 national book award and the pulitzer prize joins us from new york thanks so much for being with

Adam Haslett's new, book is "Imagine Me Gone" And; Adam Haslett a finalist for the 2002 National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize joins us from New York Thanks so much for being with

adam haslett's new book is "imagine me gone." and adam haslett, a finalist for the 2002 national book award and the pulitzer prize, joins us from new york. thanks so much for being with us.

Thanks, Scott. Thanks for having me.

thanks scott thanks; for having

Thanks Scott Thanks for having

thanks, scott. thanks for having me.

Tell us about Michael, who's at the center of the narrative of these five voices.

tell us about michael who's at the center. of the narrative of these five

Tell us about Michael who's at the center of the narrative of these five

tell us about michael, who's at the center of the narrative of these five voices.

Well, he's a music fanatic. He is a boy and then a man who has a very sharp sense of humor and a kind of fanatical desire to convert those around him to the music that he loves. And he also suffers from really severe anxiety. And so my challenge in trying to get him as a character on the page was to try to find the right rhythm or music to the prose that I was portraying him with that would bring that across. And that's when I came across this - or, you know, found in my writing this parody of forms. And so there's a psych intake form and there's a family therapy session narrated as though it were an after-action report from the military. So those are the sections that actually have the most - for me, there was levity and humor, which is - was just necessary for me to write this material.

well he's a music, fanatic he is. a boy and then a, man who has a. very sharp sense of, humor and a kind of fanatical desire to convert those around, him to the music that he loves and he also suffers from really severe anxiety and so my challenge in, trying to get him as a character, on. the page was to try to find the right rhythm or music to the, prose that, i was portraying him with that would bring that across and that's when i came across, this - or you know found in my; writing this parody. of forms and so there's a psych intake form and there's a. family therapy session narrated as though. it, were an after-action report from the military so those are the sections that actually have the most - for me there was levity and humor which, is; - was just necessary for me to write this

Well he's a music fanatic He is a boy and then a man who has a very sharp sense of humor and a kind of fanatical desire to convert those around him to the music that he loves And he. also suffers from really severe anxiety And so my challenge in trying to get him as a character on the page was to try to, find the right rhythm or music to the prose that I was portraying him with that would bring that, across And that's when. I came across this - or you know found in my writing this parody of forms And so there's, a psych intake form and there's a, family therapy session narrated as though it were an, after-action report from the military So those are the sections that actually have the most - for me there was levity and humor which is - was just necessary. for me to write this

well, he's a music fanatic. he is a boy and then a man who has a very sharp sense of humor and a kind of fanatical desire to convert those around him to the music that he loves. and he also suffers from really severe anxiety. and so my challenge in trying to get him as a character on the page was to try to find the right rhythm or music to the prose that i was portraying him with that would bring that across. and that's when i came across this - or, you know, found in my writing this parody of forms. and so there's a psych intake form and there's a family therapy session narrated as though it were an after-action report from the military. so those are the sections that actually have the most - for me, there was levity and humor, which is - was just necessary for me to write this material.

Well, I think it's - I really do think he's been a pretty disastrous secretary of state - not because he's a bad human being - far from it. But he's been unable to lead the State Department. And, of course, he's got to work for Donald Trump. I think if it's true that Mike Pompeo is going to be replacing him, he will be more effective simply, I think, because he will be better at running a big federal bureaucracy. Rex Tillerson came from a very, very narrow background, tried to run the State Department with really a tiny handful of aides, never connected with the State Department press. I mean, there's just one thing after another. And Pompeo won't make those mistakes.

well i think it's - i really do think he's been a pretty disastrous secretary of state - not because he's a bad human being - far from it, but he's been unable, to lead the state department and of course he's got to work for donald trump. i think if it's true that mike pompeo is going to be replacing him he will be more effective simply i think because he will be. better at running a big federal bureaucracy rex tillerson came from a very very narrow background tried to. run the state department, with really a tiny handful of aides never connected with the; state department press, i, mean there's just one thing after another and pompeo won't make those,

Well I think it's, - I really. do think he's been a pretty disastrous secretary of state - not because, he's a bad, human being - far from it But he's been unable to, lead the. State Department And of course he's got to work for Donald Trump I think if it's true that, Mike Pompeo is going to be replacing him he will be more effective simply I think because. he will be better at running a big federal bureaucracy Rex Tillerson came from a very very narrow background tried to run the State Department with really a tiny handful of aides, never connected with. the State Department press I mean there's just one thing after. another And Pompeo won't make those.

well, i think it's - i really do think he's been a pretty disastrous secretary of state - not because he's a bad human being - far from it. but he's been unable to lead the state department. and, of course, he's got to work for donald trump. i think if it's true that mike pompeo is going to be replacing him, he will be more effective simply, i think, because he will be better at running a big federal bureaucracy. rex tillerson came from a very, very narrow background, tried to run the state department with really a tiny handful of aides, never connected with the state department press. i mean, there's just one thing after another. and pompeo won't make those mistakes.