Transformative events in modern history. Oona hathaway, professor of International Law and counselor to dean at law school and professional and area studies at the mcmilan center. In 201415 she served as special counsel to the general counsel at the u. S. Department of defense when she was awarded the office of the secretary of defense award for excellence. Professor hathaway received cum laud and served as law clerk for sandra oh oh oconnor, more than 25 law review articles, scott shapiro, professor of law and professor of philosophy at Yale Law School. He joined the law school in 2008, hes the officer of legality published in 2011, philosophy of law. Ba and ph. D degrees in philosophy from Colombia University and jd from Yale Law School where he was Senior Editor of the yale law journal. After the discussion, there will be a q a, if youre going participate, wait for someone after you raise your hand to come to you with microphone. Its my pleasure to introduce professors Oona Hathaway and scott shapiro. [applause] your biois more impressive than me. Welcome. The book, internationalists, its about the origins of the modernworld order, about the people who helped to build it and why despite its imperfections, its crucial that it be defended now more than ever. The general argument of our book is that the origins of the modernworld order can be traced to specific date, august 27th, 1928 when the great powers of the world assembled in paris to outlaw war. Treaty on that day has either been forgotten or treated as a laughing stock and i have to say that when oona and i taught International Law together at yale, we in fact, treated it that way. It just seemed absurd that you could end war by signing a peace of paper. But as we engaged in Different Research on history of economic sanctions, we came across something that we really didnt expect that far from being ridiculous outlawing war turned out to be transformative. It was a hinge in history whereby law and war ended and another one begun. Before 1928 world was legitimate. It was the way in which states righted wrongs that they had suffered. In fact, and this was astonishing to us, before 1928 war was legal but economic sanctions were illegal. After 1928, war became illegitimate, indeed, criminal and economic sanctions became legal and is now the routine way in which International Law is enforced the world over. Now, we described this shift in the International System in the book narratively through a cast of characters that we saul the internationalists who played a crucial role in how lawing war. A lot of these people we had never heard of and we were really taken by their imagination, their vision, their brilliance, their determination and, in fact, their canniness get them to the right people and get them into action. We came across another group which we call the interventionists who fought who held the moral and legal status of war. And one of the most interesting things for us in researching the book is it overturned virtually everything we had thought we knew about International Law so one of the things that youre taught is that the father of International Law was a great man, was the prince of peace when, in fact, he was irritating corporate lawyer who fought long and hard to enrich his company the dutch family and his family. The International System before 1928 in which war was legal and part two, we called the transformation in which the internationalists are successful in outlawing war but chaos, struggle to figure out how to rebuild a new world order around the illegality of war and finally, the new world order where we describe how the world in which we live is a world in which the internationalists built and why their success has made our world more peaceful and more prosperous. One of the reasons that i think that outlawing war is ridiculous is that we dont appreciate the crucial role that war used to play before 1928. Today we think of war as the breakdown of the system, but before 1928 war was the system, war was the Legal Mechanism by which victims sought recompence, but any type of legal violation none payment of debts, property damage, enforcement of inheritance claims, shorting out of succession disputes, all these wrongs that states claimed, they could pursue forcefully using violence, killing people, seizing land in order to right those wrongs. As mentioned in the world order, states have the right of war but also rights that went with it, crucially they had the right of conquest. If states had claimed to be wronged, they had the right if their demands were ignored to use force, invade territory and seize that land as their own, which of course, makes sense from the perspective of the world order, the point of war was to compensate for wrongs committed to them so right of conquest only gave them the right which would enable them to be made whole. Many people dont realize that in 1846 the United States went to war with mexico in order to pay an order to collect unpaid debts, mexico owed the United States american citizens about 6 million, the United States took about 20 years to try to collect it and finally in 1846, invaded and seized california and most of south western United States in compensation. States not only had the right to rage war but to threaten to wage war. So when japan in the 19th century refused to trade with the United States and western powers, in violation of their legal obligation to engage in global commerce, the United States sent Matthew Perry and gun boats into bay, tokyo bay and threatened to destroy the port unless the japanese signed a treaty of friendship. They did, and that treaty was legally valid and any violation of that treaty would have been a just cause for war in the old world order and because of world war order, states had the right of war, anything that states did in the battlefield that would be considered a crime, they could not be produce cuted for. So if outside of war an individual killed another, that would be murder, but if an army killed thousands, millions on the battlefield, well, that was glory. Victors pledge today prosecute for having engaged in war and netherlands which had granted the kaiser asylum refuse today hand them over in the grounds that war was legal so cannot be prosecuted for having waged world war i. Finally because war was legal, certain type of nonviolent ways of stopping wars were prohibited. Economic sanctions that is treat ing one belligerent different than another belligerent in economic matters was a violation of neutral states duty of neutrality, even if the neutral state had not fired a shot, if it a treated one belligerent differently than it treated another belligerent, that was an act of war. For this reason, Political Sciences cannot find any examples of economic sanctions for world war i and the reason is simple, because economic sanctions by neutrals against belligerents violated the right of war of a state and therefore was legally prohibited. The picture here is of a an entire world order centered on the right of war which gave states not only the right to wage war but the right to conquer other states, to engage in a form of gun boat diplomacy, immunity to prosecution for crimes committed on the battlefields and finally immunity from any type of economic sanctions. And that will all change. The book is broken into three parts so theres the first part layed out the first world order which scott layed out for you and the middle part talks about the transformation and the last part talks about the new world order, the world that the transformation gave us. Let me tell you about the transformation, the transformation really gets started right after world war i and after world war i, the world has been devastated and destruction on unprecedented scale and desperate zier to do something, anything from stopping that from happening. Many proposals that were around but in chicago there was this man sam lev initiation son who no one has ever heard of before, and he got this kind of crazy idea which was maybe the best way to end war was to outlaw war. How is he going the change anything at all . Could actually change behavior and had the thought that war is destructive, if we remove the legality of war maybe we can change something on the ground and he began working on his ideas and this is we call internationalists because like sam who is so powerful and interesting and important in this transformation, so he begins writing out his ideas and send them off to a friend of his, john, who happens to be this one of the great public intellectuals of his time, he was not thinking about this question at the time but he was willing to work with sam levinson to help him refine ideas and to get them out into the world. So sam is sending long, long letters of ideas and eventually he thinks, well, maybe john will publish it under his own name in new york public which is a relatively new magazine at the time, you know, the source of many interesting ideas, and sends and has it published, the face of outlaw removement and puts the idea out there for the first time in 1918, he then, he works together with politicians and nongovernmental organizations including womens peace groups, spent his own money, he goes all around the country, he works to send out pamphlets and working hard to get this idea and not just trying to get people out in the world to think about it but also connect the idea to politicians, to get politicians interested in the idea and intellectuals interested in the idea. He almost singlehandily gets the idea of outlaw into the public conversation and over the course of a decade and a lot of stories that we tell how we Work Together with other people and sometimes fighting some of his fellow internationalists about how exactly to do this but he works together with them and ultimately succeeds in getting this idea into law that is into this 1928 keglybriand pact and so then this is law, a signing ceremony in paris, its filmed and widely reported in the newspapers, and then they have the question now what . Right, we have outlawed war and the pact itself is very brief. It really says very little other that you cant use war to solve disputes. So then, the middle part of the book is trying to tell outlaw war, now hard has to begin. Translated that into a world and one of the first events that they are confronted with is that the japanese invade in 1931 so japan had ratified the treaty, had, in fact, been at signing ceremony which only 15 nations were invited and yet broken the commitment that it made when it invadeed. So then the nations of the world, what do we do, we signed a treaty to outlaw war and someone has gone to war, how do we enforce it against this state. We have outlawed war, surely we cant use war to enforce prohibition of war, ultimately they help solve solution and turns out that secretary of state at the time had been classmates to levinson and had been corresponding and levinson sanctions of peace. You are not going to use war sanctions but you can refuse to recognize the seizure of territory by a state thats acting illegally. This is a revolutionary idea at the time. Up until then, when steves conquered territory for illegitimate reasons once they had control that it was theirs, if you look at maps of europe, 1600s up to 1928, lines are shifting constantly. If you look at map of 1600 and 1650, everyone looks quite different because wars are shifting and changing borders left and right. And he says that we are but the idea here is the way we are going to prevent states from engaging in war is we are not going to recognize the things that they take any longer. And thinks this is a brilliant, brilliant because we dont have to go to war and we are in the mist of economic recession leading into depression and last thing we want to do is send troops across the world and this seems like an easy solution, so he issues these notes to japan and china saying we are not going to recognize the seizure, the simpson doctrine and thats just one instance of the working out of these ideas, so that is a way that first step is the first step to unraveling conquest and so as scott said, war was legal and because war was legal conquest was legal. You could go to war to right wrong you could take territory as compensation. Now in the new world where war is no longer illegal they have to unravel conquest, the way to unravel conquest, we are not going to recognize the seizure that you have taken and eventually it will have to be reversed. In fact, after world war ii all the seizures are reversed. That was the first time that it ever happened and allies who won the war with a few narrow exceptions didnt take additional territory after the war. So that process from 1928 to 45 is working out of these ideas, consequences of decisions to outlaw war and the story we try to tell is the people who are struggling with these ideas. This is not just an abstract kind of theoretical process happening behind closed doors, this is kind of in the trenches, people who are in the midst of trying to figure out how to solve problems working together, trying to figure out how the world should be organized, now that we have changed the basic, the basic rules of the system such as the way in which we used to run the system, that is war is in a way in which we resolve disputes and anything that you take is yours and all the things that we used to solve with war we now have to find other ways to solve and thats complicated and its difficult and its messy and takes some time to work out so the story that we tell in the book and im happy to walkthrough each of these, rather than work in each of the themes, the main point that i want to get across the process of unraveling and we constructing a new system takes time and takes people committed to ideals and people who are willing to try and find solutions to really difficult problems and in the end what they come up with is a system for reversing each one of those rules. So conquest needs to be perfectly legal its no longer used to be legal. When a territory takes territory through aggressive war, we will not recognize. Diplomacy used to be fine, now boat diplomacy is illegal. You threaten to go to war to get an agreement, that agreement is no longer legally enforceable where as it used to be legal and enforceable. Where they used to be no crime or aggression, theres nothing illegal about war, now all of a sudden war can be criminally prosecuted as we see, the allies do prosecute the nazis for raising a war of aggression and that is because and they specifically identify the pact of paris as the legal reason that they could in fact, prosecute but not seize because war was illegal and germany had ratified the treaty. Last, neutrality, nobody requires you to be perfectly neutral. You can put in sanctions in this new world because war is now illegal and so states were acting and penalized through economic sanctions. After world war ii, the rules all get reaffirmed and solidify in the un charter and, in fact, one of the internationalists whose story we tell in the book, james, a rival ally, friend of levinson, he is a key figure in the creation of the kelloggbriand pact. He also, we have discovered, goes through the first draft of un charter and we found the first draft in the Roosevelt Library and the paper under secretary of state whose story is equally fascinating and we tell in the book and in this early draft of the un charter which is as far as we know no one has ever seen before, he literally cut and paste the pact in the beginning of the un charter. Literally the exact words are put in the beginning of un charter for this committee thats working on whats the peace going to look like after the war. He gets convinced to rewrite it a bit and becomes article 24 of the un charter which prohibits uses of force from one state to another and then the un charter builds up, institutional structure to try to make the promise of the pact a reality. So now we are outlying war and we are reaffirming that in article 24 and we are creating a whole structure to make that work, a structure that we didnt have under the pact of paris. But the central argument that we make here is that you cant understand that moment until you understand the moment in 1928 when they decide today outlaw war. You cant really understand whats going on in the un charter without understanding the way in which they decided to recorrect the central organizing principle of world order and put in place a different one and hard work to figure out what it may not from 1928 to 1945, 1945 is incredibly important in the un charter, central set of institution that is we look at today but you really cant understand that without understanding the process from 28 to 45 that made that possible. Thats the argument of the book. The last part of the book talks about the new world order and how we see the world differently today and some of the consequences of this transformation, so just to give you one example, we have one chapter where we say, what happened to conquest, our argument is, territorial conquest becomes illegal and so therefore it becomes more weird but did it really . So we gathered data on every territorial conquest from 1918 to the present 1816 to the present and we analyzed with brilliant yale law students and found out that the average date for conquest once in a human lifetime. After 1928, the average state could expect to suffer a successful sticky conquest, roughly once or twice in a millennium. The numbers really do bear out the idea that something important has changed. Its not that they are no conquests in the modern era, the russian seizure of crimea is a good example, butduh those are rare, those are relatively rare. Certainly compared to the trade prior to 1928 when conquest was quite common and was sort of acceptable in which states would resolve disputes with one another. So the latter part of the book tries to lay out the modern consequence order and some are not so happy. A good example is even if you have decline of intrastate war, civil war, intrastate wars in part because state nos longer have to protect themselves from outside conquest, they dont necessarily have to have effective governing institutions in order to survive and that does leave to weak states and, indeed, failed states. The answer to that is not to give up but to recognize part of the problem is that we dont have the same kind of reasons for having strong states we once had and we need new ones and Capacity Building and invest in other ways of improving domestic institutions within the states and recognize the failed states are going to be more of a problem in the modern era and International Community to address that and need to focus on investing in capacity states. Its not simply everything is perfect story, we recognize that there are that there are there are still wars going on, many of them wars internal but the world is overall a much more peaceful place, much more prosperous place, its in general much better place to live than the old world order and the story here we tell is how that came to be and why its important to continue to defend it. With that, i will stop and invite for questions. [applause] we are happy to take questions since we are being filmed for cspan, you all will have to use a microphone, sorry about that. Thank you very much. Okay, great. One of the sort more prominent critiques i have seen in the last few weeks has been question of causation, big part is describing the law, caused certain things of not just the peace since world war ii but United States went to war with mexico because of these debts and rather than others sort of explanations like imperialism, et cetera, whats the best evidence that you found that the pact really, you know, i dont think you say the only cause but what do you think that theres evidence of a causal effect here . Yeah, thanks. I mean, thats like its like one of the Big Questions that one might have and thesis in the book and i thank you for asking it, so one of the things one of the problems in any attempt to give an explanation of a historical event is the inability to run a counterfactual. You cant run the world again, it might be cruel. So you have to figure out how does one give causal explanation in the absence of the inability to run a controlled experiment, run it again. And so, what we try to do is we try to use the technique sometimes called inference to the best explanation, whats the best explanation for why a certain series of events happen at the same time, so we see that with some variations, state practice is largely consistent for hundreds of years. You have states going to war claiming certain justifications, so with mexico, the claim is not that thats why they went to war, but thats why they are claiming they go to war which it would be the unthinkable now. I mean, i guess nothing is unthinkable now. But, i mean, probably our president wouldnt say we could conquer mexico to pay for the wall, that that wouldnt work, thats happened in 19th century. The point being that you have a relatively stable set of reasons, basically any legal wrong why states are that states claim, thats why they are going to war, you have conquest which is recognized by all the other states, no neutrals are imposing economic sanctions on other unbelligerence and they are claiming my hands are tied. And in the play hamilton, its all about inability or the claimed inability of the United States to be able to help france over Great Britain because it would be violation of neutrality. Now, these and as i mention, its not handed over by the netherlands, these are all changes really suddenly and dramatically after 1928, economic sanctions are imposed in 1932, conquers are not identified, the United States treats treats the belligerence in world war ii differently than it treats it doesnt excuse me, it doesnt treat the belligerence the same, favors what came to be the allies over the access. So all these changes are happening rather suddenly, number two, theyre happening and when theyre happening the actors who are who are playing the role are saying, you know why, because war was outlawed in 1928, right, so the book is long as it is because we are trying to show at each point the arguments that are being made, oh, look, war is illegal now, so therefore, we have to we are allowed to act differently. And so the the the challenge would be to people who think that the pact of paris didnt have an effect is what is your story, what is your interest space but all the changes rather suddenly and why are people claiming something that, in fact, is unrelated. The last thing i would say is that everything changes exactly as it should if we were right and so we are in for the best explanation which is that we are right. Its fun. Its one example he wants to exercise degree. [laughter] he does. Various roles and writing this book and that means a lot to you. Yeah. Now im going to turn to the first code, a summary of world order and ask you two questions. What did you find was the earliest attributions of being called the father of International Law . I found reference and im wondering if theres something going back further than back. Something that my parents like to cite. Secondly, im curious about formulation, do you stand on the idea [inaudible] is not an impossible piece but im wondering whether you stand on intellectual tradition with somebody else. So first, we are incredibly grateful to Library Staff. This this is a book that could not have been written anywhere but here but for two reasons, one is the Library Staff is unbelievable. I mean, the amount of help we have gotten over the years, it took us six years to write this book and we assembled every war manifesto that we could find from libraries around the world because arguments that states would make are very different, the Library Staff did that. We would send insane requests for documents that no real human being could find and they manage today track them down. In multiple languages, we are not just talking in english n german, russian, chinese, we would send, this one is going to stump them and it never did. So really we feel unbelievably lucky and the other reason we are incredibly lucky in the book and only written here because our students are so amazing and we had two big teams of Research Assistant students who worked with us on the book, without them we could not have possibly written the book so we are really grateful for that and so lucky that they have been here. Just a quick word on kellogg, kellogg is just a terrible man. [laughter] hes a terrible human being. Hes he served as personal, personality is just awful. Hes mean and hes kind of craving and he gets angry at everybody around him and he would he would swear at everybody, bittersweet story and he ultimately does get on board on the idea of the pact which is become as the kelloggbriand pact. Hes resisting it up to the very last minute. He does eventually get on board and without his support it couldnt have happened, in that sense he does deserve, he does almost everything he can to throw himself in front of him and people like levinson, people to ignore. Its activist who wont let go of the idea and pressing the administration to do something and thats part what we find so powerful in the book, the way in which ordinary people are making the difference here. Yes, you to give the politicians on board, you couldnt have done it if kellogg have come around and you couldnt have gotten if briand didnt get behind the idea, to get on board with the idea, the people had to get on board but certify said by ordinary people who had an idea that they were they deeply believed in and they fought for and one of the sad stories here is that levinson and kellogg are put for the peace prize and kellogg says, ive never heard of the man, i have no idea, he had nothing to do with it, im not going to campaign for it, meanwhile he hires somebody to campaign for it and he does in fact, win it and levinson is confined to the dust bend of history and we are trying to pull him back out and put him in center stage. Just to follow up about the im reminded that bill murray, steve martin and theyre at science fair, steve martin builds a Nuclear Reactor and bill murray says i could have done that if i had the plutonium. [laughter] youre the plutonium so, thank you. So, you know, who was the first one to call the father of International Law . I actually i am blanking on that. We say in the book in the 19th century people were already questioning that. Actually it escapes me about who who coined that. One of the things we discovered that he was called the miracle of holland but he probably wasnt called the miracle of holland. About him about him a the prince of peace, i think part of the reason is that hes called into service, ordinary lawyer looking for his clients and he gets called in at a very young anal around 20 years old and doesnt know much about International Law and gets called in because his cousin captures a portuguese off of singapore and the dutch, wants to defend against the charge of piracy and its a hard case, they give it to grocious. 20yearold lawyer but a child prodigy and comes with the theory why his husband was cousin was allowed to attack a ship in singapore and this becomes the theory of war of the old war that essentially what he was doing was enforcing the rights of those who had been harmed by the portuguese in east indies. Whats fascinating is that this manuscript where he lays bear why he wrote why he developed the theory which was to defend his cousin and this money for as a lawyer for hire is lost. Its lost for 250 years and discovered in 1863. Its published only in latin in 1968 and translate intoed english into 1950. Most people dont know how he got into the business and they just see the later work where he refines it but hes no longer gun for hire. Theres a whole new school of studies that understands his work within colonial imperial framework and i think its the new emerging received wisdom but i think if you read his work, if you look at the early the early that he wrote to defend his cousin and his letters, i think it becomes pretty clear that, you know, hes hes pretty bellicose. International lawyers, when we say those, its their hero, but, you know, it is what it is. Yeah. At least in telling us i havent read your book but in telling us about it you start the story with levinson whom you obviously liked but it made me think about all of the peace conferences that we were goig 1890 up till 1914 and the image flashed on my mind because Country House are all the pictures of these 200 people in black tie in this country setting all meeting for peace which obviously didnt do them much good. So were they these conferences that took place over a period of years part of what led levinson or helped levinson in his what i would say as far as i could tell from reading papers, it wasnt that he was influenced by those he really had no interest in it. He was busy being a bankruptcy lawyer in chicago and that was really his occupation. He had two fightingage world war sons. And he has initial efforts to get people to talk to each other. After the war, he then really launched on this mission he pulled into a huge existing network and he there was this huge Peace Movement out there that preexisted his coming up with his idea, you know that was new, the idea of outlining war and the idea that we could get of war was not new. A lot of people who had been protesting for peace and built networks and connected to, worked with and use today help used to spread his message about lowery. One of the things levinson, james adams, peace and freedom and they are still around and we correspond we them and spoken with them. Theyre awesome. Theres still heros fighting out there and its an honor to have worked with some of them. Thank you for that talk and all that interesting food for thought. I was wondering if you could speculate now on the future of the world order based on what you said about its evolution up until now. It seems that there are two main challenges to its legitimacy, the first in war theres, okay, we cant go into syria, russias involvement is the only legal one, you know, what does this say about the International World order and russia and crimea and the second major china, legitimacy what you hinted on and the major assumption, neoliberal democracy as main organizing principle, so what do you see as the main challenges to legitimacy of the world order and the most significant ones and where do you see that going . Ly take the first crack at this. The end of the book really on this note, the book is devote today telling you what the world used to look like and how it transformed in this period 1928 to 1945 and the world that transformation gave us, the new world order, but we end on a somewhat cautious note which is we are at a moment right now of real uncertainty about whether this new world order that was created by the internationalist is going to survive. We are at a moment right now where the commitment to ideals of the new world order are sometimes being questioned. We see russias seizure of crimea as a good example, the ongoing civil war in syria and the ways in which countries are feeding that, some legally and some illegally, the tweet storms coming out of our president , some of them threatening actions that are not entirely consistent with the new world order and its rules and thats very dangerous and the message of the book is the world as it is organized today is not how it has always been. It was not that long ago that the world was organized around different set of principles and states are going to resolve disputes, that was a very brutal world, and that very brutal war was a brutal world where we didnt have the technology and weapons we have today and so part of the message of the book is to say be very careful about what you put at risk because things have changed and things could change again, theres nothing inevitable about the world order that we have today. We have it because people worked really hard to create it, they are dedicated to it and worked hard to maintain it and we have to do the same today. We cant let it slide and assume everything will be fine. All more true because of the events of the years and that we one of the messages that we hope the book will get out there how the ordinary people are commit today these ideals, let politicians know that they care about of the rules of the system and hopefully do what we can and theres room to improvement. And thats the message we are trying to communicate. I think we are getting the signal that we need to we can do one more . We have room more one more. Great, fantastic. Thank you, its been really interesting, i think its the most optimistic take on the kelloggbriand pact that i have ever heard. Cool, one thing that strikes me is that it does change the way you think about war and what is war and whats legitimate about it or not. Since world war ii and the beginning, the United States specifically feeling very comfortable, and not being so comfortable and congress specifically willing to authorize use of military force but not willing to call it war and i wonder if theres a danger in that is maybe contributing to some of the things we are seeing now in syria and in yemen and in unstable parts of the world which we are using violence force that amounts to war but not calling it war. Yeah, so i will say a few words about that. Youre absolutely right about that. One of the challenge that is we face today is that so when they created the legal system that we have today the un charter included the pact commitment and included explicit exception for selfdefense which was implicit in the pact and what we are seeing today is an expansion of that exception, a stretching of that exception to a point where the exception is at risk of following the rules and so we see that 2001 authorization for use of military force which was enacted within about a week about september 11th attacks which was justified by selfdefense against those who had attacked us and that remains a Legal Authority under which the United States can choose to operate today. Even when those who were involved in september 11th attacks are no longer part of the conflict that we are a part of in the middle east today and thats one of the dangerous we do point to in the book and we do have to look carefully, whether we are stretching those exceptions to the point where they no longer are the exception and part of the cautionary note that we try to have on the book, these rules are there for a reason, these rules are there to create a much more Peaceful World and that theres lots of instances where its very tempt to go use military force to get what you want and there was a world in which you could use military force every time to get what you wanted, to collect debt, to engage in humanitarian intervention, to enforce treaty obligations, to attack someone who was interfering through trade relations but thats a brutal and dangerous world. I think youre right. You have to be careful about and its something, i think, our leaders havent been attempt i have to particularly in the last 15 years and thats part of the reason why we are in the mess that we are finding ourselves in today. Thats a great question. Thank you very much for being here today. Its been a great pleasure. Thank you. [applause] thank you, everyone, for coming. If you would like to get a book, scott and ooana will be happy to sign them for you. Come on up. Thank you so much for that, that was great. Book tv is on twitter and facebook and we want to hear from you. Tweet us, twitter. Com book tv. Or post a comment on our facebook page, facebook. Com slash book tv. Sunday on after words, historian on the life and political career of newt gringrich, making of a reagan conservative. Hes interviewed by former virginia congressman tom davis. This is an era before cable television. It was before nbc. Mostly reruns of i love lucy and andy griffin. And he quickly realizes the potency of giving fiveminute speech because being carried over cable into, you know, 100,000 homes around the country and former congressman dick army, he used to say this is a dick, would you give audience, would you give speech to a hundred thousand people. Of course, thats what youre doing with cspan, special orders every afternoon. Cspan became he quickly becomes a political leader and hes getting, you know, 700 letters a week from people around the country to member from georgia who is a member of minority party. Watch after words sunday night at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2s book tv. One common investment fraud is the pyramid scheme which involves promises of profitability and then initially delivering on those promises by the money that later investors put in and using that to pay dividend to early investors. Of course, this cant last forever because eventually you run out of people at the bottom of the pyramid. The actual form of that is consistent but so the mode of marketing and almost the type of schemes, approaches to look for some group of insiders and to have someone in that group, almost all of the schemes perpetrated by individuals who can expect to have trust because they are selling the scheme to people like them who are from the rest of society. [inaudible][inaudible] once that starts going the chief marketers of the scheme, its not advertising its wordofmouth. That is a pattern that has occurred right up to our time. You can watch this and other programs online booktv. Org. [inaudible] mocha
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.