finally, if you thought american debt was worthless, think again. i'll explain. but first, here's my take. the american economy seems to have picked up. the dow jones industrial average is hovering around 13,000, the highest since the financial crisis began in may 2008. the nasdaq is actually at its highest level since the technology bubble burst more than a decade ago. now, stock prices around everything, but data from the economy on the ground is also slowly getting better. jobless claims are down. housing starts are up. things do seem to be getting better, slowly, as i said, but surely. this is all good news for president obama because there is a very strong correlation between economic growth and a president's prospects for re-election. the unemployment numbers are still pretty high, but they are also falling. also, many models suggest that unemployment is not the crucial statistic to determine whether a president will win re-election. most people, after all, are employed. it is the rise in per capita gdp, the average person's income rise, that determines whether they feel things are getting better and thus whether they will vote for the incumbent or seek a change. so does that mean that the economy and the president are in good shape? well, they're in better shape than they looked six months ago. many of the crises that people worried about now seem unlikely to completely derail american growth. mario dragi and the european central bank have ensured that they will not be a total european financial collapse. there might well be a recession in europe, but that will have a smaller effect on american growth. derek thompson of the atlantic points out one worrying prospect that the next debt ceiling renewal might actually have to take place before the elections in which case expect another absurd and politicized drama since all the republican candidates have already announced that they will not raise it. but let's hope that this is an unlikely scenario. what's more plausible is a slowdown due to high oil prices. oil has been creeping up now for months. it is up to $105 a barrel and over $3.50 at the pump. why prices have moved so much so fast is something of a mystery. oil was at around $50 a barrel in early 2007 when all major economies were booming. today demand from america, china, india, europe are all somewhat weaker, and yet prices are sky high. the one obvious factor is the political instability in the middle east. worries about iran are probably the principal driver of these prices and the speculation surrounding it. ironically, president obama's foreign policy is having an impact economically that is not advantageous to him or the american economy. now, there isn't an easy economic path to lowering oil prices. drilling more, raising efficiency, none of this will have much impact in the short run. for now, as so often in the past, the geopolitics of the middle east, america is rarely run, is the crucial driver of the fate of the american economy and possibly the fate of this presidency. let's get started. long before brzezinski was national security adviser for president carter, he was a professor, a thinker, a theorist of foreign policy ideas. and with his new book, "strategic vision: america and the crisis of global power," brzezinski puts his professorial cap on taking a long hard look at america's standing and offering up strategic solutions of how the united states ought to approach this brave new world. welcome. >> fareed, it's good to be with you again. >> we'll get to the big picture in a moment, but since i have you, i cannot but ask you, what do you think is going to happen with this crisis with iran? you have israel on the one hand threatening to act. you have the united states which has been putting a great deal of pressure on iran, but now trying to dial back a little bit of the rhetoric. what do you think -- where is this going to end up? >> i think it all depends on how determined, clear-headed and explicit the united states is. if we drift, if we fuss the words over, if we are ambiguous, it could end up very, very badly. if the united states is clear-cut, if it makes it very clear to the iranians that they're not going to be part of the global community, if they persist in violating the npt, but if at the same time we don't offer them only the choice of capitulation or strangulation, which would force them to lash out, and if we at the same time make it clear that if they continue with their investigation and research and perhaps weapons development, we will, in any case, guarantee the security of the middle east including that of israel the way we have done it for japan and south korea, very effectively, over the years. >> put a nuclear umbrella over the region. >> and we did it for europe, the soviet union. we can do it here, too. so we don't need to go to war. and we have to make that very clear to our israeli friends. we're not going to go to war. they are not going to go to war by flying over our airspace over iraq. we're not going to support them. if they do it, they will be on their own. the consequences will be theirs. because the price we'll all pay if they start a massive war, which the iranians interpret as being done with our connivance, will be disastrous for us in afghanistan, in iraq in the terms of oil, stability in the middle east, more generally. >> there is an interesting window here when the israelis talk about the window which is closing in terms of iran's technical capacity, but the real window i wonder about is the israelis surely know that if they are going to attack, the best time to attack is before the november election. >> oh, i completely agree with you. >> because it will be difficult for the president to oppose them. >> absolutely. absolutely. right. my sense is right now they're essentially pushing to force us to give the iranians terms of a compromise solution but formulated in such a way that they cannot accept it. >> that the iranians cannot accept it. >> yeah. and then prior to the elections, they'll be tempted to strike -- and this is why, when the president talks to benjamin netanyahu on march 5th, first of all, he was humiliated the last time netanyahu was around, and the president of the united states shouldn't be so humiliated, and that he represents the american national interest. he has to speak unambiguously as to what it is. >> if you were advising president obama, what would you tell him to say to netanyahu? >> well, more or less what i said a few seconds ago. namely, this is not compatible with our interests. this would be damaging to us. >> and we will oppose it if he were to do it. >> the iranians will blame us for it. they'll take action against us. we'll be paying the price. this is not acceptable. and we want you to know that. in different ways, presidents eisenhower, carter and bush one did that on other occasions. and the israelis are realists. most israelis, we also have to remember, most israelis don't support a war. much of the establishment of the military is against it. the american jewish community in the majority is not for it. it's just the top echelons. so when the president speaks, he speaks with some degree of political credibility, not only here, but also among the israelis. >> well, i had martin dempsey on the program last week. and he said, when talking about syria, he said very different from libya, really doesn't make sense at this point for the united states to arm the rebels. would you agree with that? >> well, it's not a question whether i agree with that, but my approach would be somewhat differently shaped or defined than the one we're pursuing right now. i would take the position that we will support anything that the turks and the saudis jointly contrive. because they are our friends in the region. they are responsible. they are very interested. and they have the capacity to play a decisive role. we can then back them if they do it. but i certainly wouldn't get out front. >> isn't what's happening in syria, though, a kind of proxy or a cold war with the iranians supporting the regime and the saudis increasingly supporting the opposition? >> yes. it's even more complicated because the israelis also have an interest. and they certainly don't have an interest in a strong united syria again ee emerging. although that's rather unlikely these days in view of what's happened. but we shouldn't be careless in any comparisons between assad and gadhafi. gadhafi was far more vulnerable than assad is. i think it's far from clear that assad can, in fact, be overthrown at this stage. >> because at the end of the day, the syrian government is being pretty brutal. >> absolutely. >> the question is will that brutality work? >> well, unfortunately, brutality, very often in history and throughout the world, works. but i would be very much guided by the turks and the saudis. the turks have a regional role to play. they're assuming that role. they have intelligent leadership. they have been trying. i think we should back them. but the choice of how to act, and particularly if one is to be engaged in some fashion militarily, i think has to be made first by them and also the saudis. and not first by us. >> egypt. what would you do about an egyptian government still essentially a military government that is trying americans? would you cut aid to egypt? >> well, if we're going to start cutting aid to governments that don't do our bidding, then we'd better be fair across the board. we're a little too selective on that. i would think about doing something along those lines without excess. we have a fundamental stake in egyptian stability. and we have also a stake in egyptian-israeli peace. so we have to be very careful not to overdo our negative reactions in a fashion that there is a backfire adversely affecting our other interests. >> we have lots more to talk about with mr. brzezinski. when we come back, we'll ask him how president obama is doing in foreign policy overall and what his long-term strategy for the united states would be in this new world. >> i mean, look at those republican debates. i must say, i literally feel embarrassed as an american when i see those people orate. oat... crispy whole grain. newtons fruit thins, one unique cookie. what makes us number one in motorcycle insurance? we love bikes. we love riders. and most of all, we love to ride. perfect hair every time. leading the pack in motorcycle insurance. now, that's progressive. call or click today. ask me. [ male announcer ] if you think even the best bed can only lie there... ask me what it's like when my tempurpedic moves? [ male announcer ] ...talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america. ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. [ male announcer ] these are real tempur advanced ergo owners. find one for yourself. try your friends on facebook. see what they have to say unedited. ask me what it's like to get a massage anytime you want. [ male announcer ] tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. [ woman ] ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait till i'm too old to enjoy this. [ male announcer ] start asking real owners. treat yourself to the ultimate sleep experience and save up to $200 during the tempur ergo savings event. plus visit tempurpedic.com for full details on our five day, five year special financing offer. don't wait. the tempur ergo savings event and five year special financing ends february 26th. tempur-pedic. the most highly recomended bed in america. [ male announcer ] when diarrhea hits, kaopectate stops it fast. powerful liquid relief speeds to the source. fast. [ male announcer ] stop the uh-oh fast with kaopectate. and we are back with zbigniew brzezinski, the former national security adviser. you supported president obama in some ways somewhat surprising because you have been traditionally seen as a sort of hawkish democrat. and you were quite enthusiast about him. in the book, i'd say you give him a kind of mixed grade. would that be fair? >> it's fair but i don't really discuss his foreign policy too much in the book. i try to look beyond the immediate, and i ask myself, given the crisis in america, given the shift in the center of global power gravity from the west to the east, given the new reality of global political awakening, how should the united states perform on the world scene, and how it has to overcome its domestic problems in order to be effective internationally? in that context, i comment on obama somewhat but not explicitly. my view, however, is the following. one, he really understands the world better than any other politician. and i wouldn't even waste time comparing him to what we hear from the republican candidates for presidency. because that's so unrealistic and so primitive that it's embarrassing. the question i have is whether he understands the world well has enough of an inner self-confidence and sense of historical conviction to use american power in a decisively effective fashion which doesn't mean necessarily militarily but which means with strategic wisdom and commitment. and unfortunately, for example, in the middle east, that these days is widely questioned. >> how would you do it differently in the middle east? >> well, first of all, i would have pursued the israeli/palestinian peace process. >> but he tried. >> no, not really. he talked about it. when push came to shove, he didn't try. >> he backed off. >> he backed off. i've been involved in that for 30 years. the fundamental lesson to me is this. the palestinians are too weak and too divided to make concessions, first. the israelis are too strong and too self-confident to make concessions first without something like the united states playing the role of a arbiter, there will be never be peace. and if there is no peace in the short run, the palestinians will pay a high price. in the long run, the israelis will be threatened. and in between, our interests will suffer. >> talk about this issue of political awakening that you describe in the book, and you've done it in a previous one because i think this is a really crucial part of this new world we're going into. >> absolutely. >> everywhere you see these stirrings that countries are more assertive, people are more assertive -- >> you're absolutely right. i think this is the new phenomenon of our time. for the first time in all of human history, all of the humanities politically conscious and active and staring and restless and resentful. that's a new reality. and that means that hegemeonic power is possible. >> when you read mitt romney and his advisers saying america is number one, this is an american century, we should just assert our power -- >> well, the last republican president said that god chose america, and history commissioned america to be playing that kind of a role. and that kind of rhetoric is just divorced from reality to the point of absurdity. actually, to the point of danger for us. i think we have to pursue it in which you build larger coalitions and manage relationships with greater skill. i advocate that we get a larger european community which embraces turkey, russia, if it democratizes. and in the far east, we play the role of great britain, the role of great britain played in europe in the 19th century. we balance. we maneuver. we don't get tied up in alliances. we don't get involved in wars. we try to reconcile china with japan. we try to mediate india and china. and we particularly pursue a stable partnership with china. that's a very complicated role that requires skill. >> now, i don't know if you're aware, but the chinese foreign minister has written a memo which really takes -- which attacks your foreign affairs article from -- which is based on this book. is the chinese view, what you're describing, this greater west as an instrument for the containment of china? >> that's wrong. that's a misinterpretation. i'm surpriseds he does it because i know him well -- and actually, that's a misconception. balance is not the same thing. i believe we do need a stronger west because otherwise the values that the west represents will be dissipated. i think it's important that those values be preserved and increasingly the rest of the world be encourage to emulate them to some extent. that is a very constructive role for the west to play. but the west that is divided into a weak europe, inward oriented and divided america and a hostile and stagnating russia is a world that will be very unstable because of the weight of asia and the uncertainties among asian powers. so we need a vital west and a strong america in that context to be a partner but also mediate towards the east. >> you say in this book, and you also do in a few books back, as you can tell, i'm a connoisseur of your books, you talked about how the internal strength of america was really at the heart of this and that america -- and you quite impressionately said this 20 years ago, it was a society based on debt and a kind of self-indulgence. >> and greed and social awareness. i'm very worried by the fact that our society has become so dramatically demarcated into the ma rich and poor. in this politically awakened world, interactions are so close and intimate that people are intimately aware of what other societies are like. and this is why i have a chapter in my book on the waning american dream. i think the american dream can be reawakened but only if we very seriously tackle our domestic problems, seriously across the board. and right now i don't see that being very likely in the near future. but i still am convinced that we have residual assets that would enable us to do it if we begin to seriously concentrate on these problems. >> in this election, you still prefer obama to the alternatives? >> oh, without a question. without a question. i mean, look at those republican debates. i must say, i am literally -- i literally feel embarrassed as an american when i see those people orate. one of them sounds like a medieval person. another one is trying to explain why he has some of his wealth located in the cayman islands and one goes back to 1780 and one of him using his kre deeshls as a repudiated speaker of the congress. i mean, this is just embarrassing. >> zbigniew brzezinski, thanks for being on. up next, egypt one year on from the revolution, this is a rising anti-american sent imime. who is behind it? welcome back to "the global public square." now for our "what in the world" segment. i want to show you a strange cartoon from egypt. it's of uncle sam. he looks sinister and mean, hunched over a door with a keyhole. the implication, i suppose, is that the u.s. is spying on egyptians. another cartoon shows him with a pistol. he's pointing it at an egyptian man with a cannon. the caption in arabic says "dignity." the point here is quite clear. americans are robbing egyptians of their dignity. what is going on? these cartoons were published recently in a state-run newspaper. and they highlight a disturbing trend. egypt's transitional government is trying to whip up anti-american fervor. its latest ploy is a high pub c publicity trial, nearly half of u.s. citizens who stand accused of illegally receiving foreign funds to promote democracy. the government claims they didn't have a license to do their work. in reality, they people have filed registration papers under the old regime of hosni mubarak. they were told their papers were in order. besides, it is the egyptian government which receives $1.2 billion in the aid from the united states every year to harass charities about getting funds from america. so what is going on? in a recent column, "the new york times'" tom friedman points out that the ongoing was a brainchild of an old mubarak crony, egypt's minister of planning and cooperation. her strategy, friedman says, is to unite egyptians by standing up to the foreigners. she plays this game by taking advantage of a fractured egyptian leadership. it seems she got the military on board by showing them how all these human rights workers from abroad are their most vocal critics. rounding them up would show how egypt's protests are really driven by external forces. in fact, egypt's uprising was entirely local. there were no evil foreign forces at work. america was caught unaware, as were all foreign governments, when the protests started. the real problem is that egypt's old regime is clinging on to power. people like her and the power behind her, the military, remember egypt's last four presidents including hosni mubarak came from the armed forces. and that group remains unwilling to cede control even to the newly elected parliament. many feel the army is now trying to shape a new constitution to its benefit. meanwhile, the armed forces have huge economic interests, and they have always been opposed to economic reforms, even the ones under gamal mubarak because it took away their privileges. last june the government refused an imf loan for more than $3 billion. last week it had to cave in and accept that money. all of this is happening as foreign reserves from plummeted to nearly $10 billion, foreign investment has almost entirely stopped, tourism has seen a 30% decline. now, think about the voice in the western media about post-revolution egypt. it's been all about the rise of islam. we keep hearing about how the party that swept egypt's elections, the muslim brotherhood, is a force to be feared. we are told stories about how egypt will become a sharia state and an enemy of the united states. but the real danger to egyptian democracy and american sentiment is the group that has always been a danger to egyptian democracy, the military. until they actually cede power, the egyptian revolution remains stillborn, and the country remains a military dictatorship. and we'll be right back. up next, an all-star panel on the economy. stay with us. the landscaping business grows with snow. to keep big winter jobs on track, at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill, and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota, that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ it was a week of mostly good news for the american economy. the dow jones industrial average flirted with 13,000. employers were hiring. a tax holiday for citizens became a reality. the president and candidates put forward plans to reform the tax code. but are these plans smart? and will iran and gas prices produce a new crash? robert reich joins us from berkeley where he is a professor of public policy. reich was, of course, secretary of labor under president clinton. here in new york, david stockman ran the office of management and budget under president reagan and later worked in private equity. and we have two of the finest journalists writing about economics, jillian tete is the u.s. managing editor of "the financial times," and zani is economics editor at "the economist." welcome. so zani, is this recovery taking hold? >> it's taking hold, it's not taking off. let's not get too excited. when there was opt micimism at beginning of the year. >> david? >> i think we have noise in april and january and the warmest winter since 1867, as i understand it. so i don't think much is happening. we're bumping along the bottom. we're not recovering. and rather than look at a month, we ought to look at the trend. we had 132.4 million jobs reported in january nonfarm payroll. same numbers december 2000 when clinton was president and we were hanging by our chads. now, when you have an economy that goes 12 years, two business cycles and has not generated over time jobs, that's an economy that's sick. and we need to look at the fundamental foundation of this as the sickness that underlies and not whether we're blipping up a little bit by month or by quarter. i think we're going to hit a brick wall in december. there's a freight train coming down the track. it's called $7 trillion worth of deficit impact when all the tax cuts and all of the cans that we've been kicking and the tax holiday and the doc fix and all the rest of it expires. >> the bush tax cuts expire, plus the payroll tax cuts. >> all of that. and the amt and all the tax credits and all the business benes and 100% depreciation and the automatic sequester. when the congress is faced with that in a lame-duck session, it will be paralyzed, frozen. >> there is a huge risk at the end of the year, a fiscal train wreck, as you put it. the bush tax cuts retire, that's a huge wallop to a very fragile economy. i'm looking for something to be optimistic about. one of the problems is, we've now had three years or two years where we've had a recovery start at the beginning of the year, and it's been knocked off course by seemingly unexpected ee veve like the eurozone, like the middle east. you get the feeling every time this happens, best and consumers, they get more skeptical and scared about the future. if you look at companies, there's a fascinating thing happening in the latest earnings season which is that four out of five companies are refusing to make any predictions of the future because they simply cannot work out where the world's going. so you look at things like the budget problems coming along, the brick wall in december. you look at the euro zone. you look at oil prices right now, and it's a pretty scary place. yes, she's right. it's whether it's going to continue that's a real worry. >> bob reich, are you as pessimistic as david? >> i'm not as pessimistic as david, but i do share a lot of his caution and a lot of the worry of other members of the panel. we are seeing the beginnings of a recovery. there's no question about that. but there's so many question marks hanging over the future of this economy, some of which have not been mentioned. american consumers are still under a huge debt load. much of that is mortgage debt. wages are going basically nowhere. adjusted for inflation. the median wage continues to drop. you know, have about 23 million americans who are still unemployed or underemployed. so you have a great number of americans who fear that they might be in this group sometime in the future. confidence is returning, but confidence is not enough to build a sustained recovery on. abroad, i am concerned about the european debt crisis. it is still very, very fragile. the oil prices could spike. and i think that they will continue to rise. nobody has mentioned china. i think that china, over the next year, could slow considerably, which would be a tremendous problem for the global economy. so, again, i'm cautiously optimistic given the direction we're going in, but i want to underscore the word "cautious." >> all of this is sounding more cautious than optimistic. but bob, let me ask you, your solution or your proposal for some of these problems, the mortgage overhang, the debt overhang, presumably is more vigorous remedial action by the federal government, would that be correct? >> yes, in the short term, fareed. i think it is important. and i think for the federal government to continue to stimulate the economy, the word "stimulate" is not necessarily a polite word to use any longer because republicans have condemned the economic stimuluses that have been used. but i believe that they have helped. most of the economic policy research shows that without the economic stimulus that's already been applied, we would be in much worse shape. remember, the real issue with regard to the long-term deficit is the ratio of debt to the entire economy, to the gdp. and unless we get growth back soon and get jobs back soon, that ratio is going to continue to deteriorate. >> okay. i know you disagree with this, david stockman, but i want to ask you a variation of this in a state you know well. you were once a congressman from michigan, right? >> right. >> so the michigan primary is taking place, and one of the problems the republicans have is that none of them supported the auto bailout. wouldn't it be fair to say that that was a case where remedial action by the government had an impact that was positive or at least perceived as positive? how do you make what i'm sure you're going to do, how do you make the case against the auto bailout politically, not just economically? >> well, it's tough politically, but i voted against the chrysler bailout the first time in 1980, and we should have put it out of its misery then. and the next election i got the highest vote that i had ever gotten in an auto district in michigan. so i think it is not as simple politically as people think. a lot of main-street businessmen know that they're never going to benefit from one of these bailouts. secondly, i think the auto bailout was an abomination. if we had let gm meet its demise, which it should have, and chrysler go down the chute which it should have, those are dinosaurs that wrecked the industry anyway, for years sf s destroying all the suppliers, and they went to washington. >> i have to ask this, zanny, because "the economist" is a laissez faire magazine supported the bailout, i'm guessing you wrote that editorial. >> we supported it with heavy heart. in hindsight, i think we were right to support it. in ordinary times, i completely agree with you. the government should not get involved in bailing out particular sectors. the only reason to do it if there is a broad systemic threat to the economy. think where we were at the beginning of 2009. global the global economy was shrinking at its fastest pace since the 1930s. we were in the middle of the worst financial crisis in 80 years. what would have happened if these companies had been pushed into bankruptcy? normally when credit markets -- when you're in bankruptcy, you get fresh funds. you get fresh funds to help you restructure. the credit markets were completely closed. there was no way to get that money unless it came from the government. so the alternative was liquidating gm, having a ripple effect on the supply chain, and i see you shaking your head. having a huge ripple effect at a time when the economy was imploding. for us, that was sufficient reason for the government to get involved. now, we can argue about it wasn't perfect. there were bits that could have been done better. but basically, the government went in, reing onnenized them, and got out again. so as far as bailouts go, this was a pretty well done one. and given where the economy was, i think with hindsight, we have to say that it was the cost benefit analysis that was positive. >> okay, we've got to stop with the auto bailout. when we come back, oil prices. could they derail the recovery? and the new candidates' tax plans as well as president obama's. ask me. [ male announcer ] if you think even the best bed can only lie there... ask me what it's like when my tempurpedic moves? [ male announcer ] ...talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america. ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. [ male announcer ] these are real tempur advanced ergo owners. find one for yourself. try your friends on facebook. see what they have to say unedited. ask me what it's like to get a massage anytime you want. [ male announcer ] tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. [ woman ] ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait till i'm too old to enjoy this. [ male announcer ] start asking real owners. treat yourself to the ultimate sleep experience and save up to $200 during the tempur ergo savings event. plus visit tempurpedic.com for full details on our five day, five year special financing offer. don't wait. the tempur ergo savings event and five year special financing ends february 26th. tempur-pedic. the most highly recomended bed in america. and we are back with robert reich, david stockman. bob, let me ask you. if you were back in the administration, what would you be doing about high oil prices? because it does strike me that this is something that has the ability to add to a slowdown in the united states. is there anything the administration can do? >> fareed, the irony here, the paradox is that there is really very little in the short term that any administration can do about oil prices and what really is the issue, and that is gas prices at the pump. that's what most voters react to very viscerally, and it's understandable. but administration, you have a strategic petroleum resooefserv. you can threaten to use it and thereby threaten speculators bidding up the price of crude oil around the world, but that's about it. and that's not terribly useful thing to do under normal circumstances. now, you're going to almost inevitably have some sort of restriction on supply over the next two or three years. then maybe the administration, to put that bubble, does need to talk about the strategic petroleum reserve. but i would hold off. i just don't think that we are going to see an oil crisis i think that, you know, when you look at all of these speculators who are -- i mean, you have almost no bears in this market at all. when they are all bidding up the price of crude oil, almost anything can tip the balance in the other direction and force crude oil suddenly downward. we've seen that before. in may of last year, for example. >> do you think -- what do you think will happen with oil? because the demand certainly doesn't justify $105 a barrel oil. china -- >> i think you can address this decisively by stop beating the war drums right now. and obama could do that. and he could say the neocons are history. the policy that they're talking about right now is the same thing we heard in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and he needs to clearly say we are not going to attack iran, we're not going to allow israel to attack iran. they're not part of the axis of evil, they're part of the axis of medieval. in other words, these are backwards people that around going to threaten the western world, and we need to get into a serious process of negotiation. if we did that, the price of oil would drop $30 within a few months, and all the speculators who are on the wrong side of the ship would learn a good lesson. but as long as the war drums continue to beat as they are now, we're going to see this kind of speculative froth. it's not real. it's not supply and demand world today. >> it's worth remembering that in terms of euros, the oil price is higher in europe than it is in the u.s., relatively speaking, and that's simply adding to the pressure on the eurozone economy. so it's issues feeding off each other. >> before we go, i've got to ask you, mitt romney has a new tax plan. what do you think of all of these republican tax think of a republican tax plans coming up? >> i think they're way off base. the fundamental problem is a deficit that's huge and being underestimated actually going forward for a decade. it's 10 trillion at minimum, and today an analysis was put out by the committee of the budget that i'm part of that basically shows each of these republicans would increase the deficit over the next ten years. yes, they're going to cut a little spending here and there, but their tax cuts eat up all of that change and leave us in the hole. so i don't know why the republicans can't understand that unless they're willing to dramatically cut defense, which they're not, unless they're willing to take on social security, which they exempted in their plan for ten years, unless they're willing to say medicare better off -- recipients will have to pay a whole lot more out of pocket. there is no way that we can avoid major tax increases across the board and none of these plans even are remotely realistic about taxes. unfortunately. so, therefore, we're going to be in a paralysis no matter who wins the election, and the congress and the next administration will, you know -- it's going to be chaotic. >> i can't really underestimate how difficult this is going to be and how destructive it's going to be. >> were you disappointed by romney's plan? he's supposed to be a business guy, private equity guy like you? >> it's just republican rhetoric. it's republican gospel. it's not a serious possibility. sure, it would be nice to have low taxes. everybody would love low tacks. taxes. we have to pay our bills in this country. we're going to have a day of reckoning here. it's going to be very unpleasant. >> at least they're talking about tax rather than having phony arguments or theology. i mean, there needs to be a proper debate about the tax issues for precisely the reasons you say and the fact that they're actually talking about the need to try to reform business tax is at least a positive element. >> well, there isn't a debate yet. on the republican side, it's the debate that involves how much are you going to cut. what are you going to do in term of raising revenue or cutting spending. then we'll start having the ingredients for real compromise. i don't see the republican party anywhere near that. >> on that note, david, jillian, zahrani and bob, thank you so much. up next, another economics lesson. this time from the mafia. why they're bullish on bonds. i'll explain. r... crispy whole grain. newtons fruit thins, one unique cookie. oh! [ baby crying ] ♪ what started as a whisper ♪ every day, millions of people choose to do the right thing. ♪ slowly turned to a scream ♪ there's an insurance company that does that, too. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? ♪ amen, omen can you get me out of it? of course. travelocity? that's amazing! but i'm still stuck. come on man, dig it! [ female announcer ] travelocity. get great deals on all kinds of beach vacations. [ male announcer ] engine light on? come to meineke now for a free code scan read and you'll say...my money. my choice. my meineke. the french government bowed to pressure from a powerful constituency this week against charges that it had long been discriminatory. that story is the basis for the question of the week. it is which group in france no longer has to out itself on official forms? is it, a, gays and lesbians, b, muslims, c, alcoholics, or, d, unmarried women? stay tuned. we'll tell you the correct answer. make sure you go to cnn.com/fareed for ten more questions, and while you're there, check out the rest of our offerings on the global public square website. remember also, can you follow us on twitter and facebook and if you ever miss a show, you can now find full video episodes of "gps" on itunes. go directly there by typing itunes.com/fareed into your browser. this week's book of the week is behind the beautiful forevers by katherine, a sue person and award-winning reporter for the new yorker. it's a riveting tale of the people we rarely think of in our day to day lives. the people who chronicles live in the mumbai slums whose centerpiece is a lake of raw sewage. the residents mostly earn their meager existence by picking garbage and reselling what they can. booth spent three and a half years there, and the picture she paints, the details she presents are truly compelling. now for the last look. for those who are worried last year that the s&p downgrade of america meant u.s. debt would be worthless, here is perhaps the ultimate proof that you were wrong. no greater moneymaking institution than the mafia is bullish on american bonds. anti-mafia prosecutors in europe recently confiscated $6 trillion, yes, that's trillion, in u.s. bonds from safety deposit boxes in zurich. now, what was the problem? well, just one small one. they were fake. what fascinating fakes this were. some were in denominations of $1 billion each and record a date from 1934. the u.s. treasury says the bonds were obviously fake. the highest denomination they've ever printed with half a billion dollars, and those weren't printed until 1955. if they had been real, they could have paid off all the outstanding student loans and credit card debt in the united states and bought everybody in the world an ipad. don't wait by your mailbox. the correct answer to our gps challenge question was, d, mademoisell was for unmarried women, and it is now banned from official french forms. in the past women had to say whether they were madam, a married woman, or mad mow sell, unmarried, but all men were simply miseur. thanks for being part of the program this week. i will see you next week. hello. i'm richelle carey with a check of our top stories. violence erupts at a plow test in northern afghanistan. one person was killed and several u.s. troops reported an explosion and small arms fire. the man who killed two american officers in afghanistan yesterday, is still at large after officials say he works at the interior ministry. mitt romney picks up a key endorsement. the contender received the backing