ideas in this. >> okay. would you want to say more than that? >> he said it e -- elegantly. i just don't see it has roots in voltar. it belongs to a family of views. if i had to track the makings of that thinking, i wouldn't feel the need to drag voltar into that. [laughter] >> there may be other reasons. >> we don't care as long as canes doesn't show up again. >> he really studied capitalism, and i believe you also originated the term surplus value that people have interpreted as profit. to get rid of the surplus value, you had to exportment i think was one of the prime contributions to the wealth of the nations, and we see today china is a principle exporter and the u.s. is a tremendous deficit in the balance of trade. would you say that china is a great follower of adam smith and the u.s. is a poor follower of adam smith? [laughter] >> adam smith is read in china. i live in the hope of getting a chinese translation to my book. [laughter] but i very, very much doubt whether the present government and the governments of the last half generation in china has actually been sitting there with copies of the wealth of nations on the desk. i think the intellectual history of policy formation in respect to management of trade in china over the last 25 years is much more complicated than that, and i suspect extremely interesting. as i say, i'm no economist, but it comes to me as a much more multifaceted and not necessarily exclusively pragmatic approach to the management of trade, but as i say, that is from an economic's amateur like myself. >> can i say something to that? >> sure. >> i would say in the last 30 years or so china has been surprised, the leadership has been quite surprised to the extent smith's idea worked. what they did has affected in small and targeted ways areas in which smith-style markets have been allowed to operate, giving people property rights, they can do with their profits what they'd like and exchange the surplus value and goods as they would like and look at the astonishing growth in production that enabled chinese communist government turning into a pragmatic government? no. on the other hand, are they coming perhaps some of them garagingly to the power of what markets can do? yes, i think they are seeing that. >> one more comment on that. i think one of the things that we don't take enough account of in smith is precisely what he means by