now why does the emperor decide to intervene? as a lawyer dealing with witnesses and documents, one of the things i have certainly put a lot of stock in when you're talking about something that happens, the most reliable evidence about what was going on, what people were thinking is what they said at the time or what was recorded at the time. if you go back and go through everything we have about the what the emperor talked about, three things come through consistently in what he says in august of 1945. . the first of which he delivers at this conference is that basically he's lost faith in the armed forces. this is glossed over in a lot of accounts, but it's important because he's saying two things. first of all, that the strategic plan for continuing the war is bankrupt. secondly, i lost faith in the armed forces. he basically with this comment crushes the moral of the senior leadership in tokyo to secure their compliance. the second thing he talks about repeatedly is his concerns about or fears about the effects of atomic bombing. and the third thing he talks about is what he refers to as the domestic situation. this is an element that i talked about over the years i've come to realize is much more important, what does he mean? he's talks about something that his adviser talks about in june and other leaders talk about. most specifically the navy minister, he makes a comment on august 12th to one of his ed advisers and has this statement that says this may sound strange, but in a way the soviet intervention and atomic bombs are gifts from the gods because they cause us to surrender about what is going to drive us is the domestic situation. what they are really talks about is fear. of an internal revolt. they say the trajectory of society with the deprivations of food from the bombing, that it's going to produce an internal revolt. that's what he's talking about what he says domestic situation. and i have assembled a whole series of quotes from all kinds of people, both military and civilian, and they keep coming back to this point. i keep thinking with all of these people talking about this and the emperor talking about this, you would have thought we paid more attention and not make this an issue of atomic bombs versus soviet intervention. at heart probably the single most compelling reason to decide to surrender is this fear about a domestic appeal. back when they were talking about the problem of the japanese government to surrender, after the emperor said we're going to surrender, several things happened. the most famous of which have been written about greatly is this in tokyo. these officers who seize the imperial palace. too much emphasis has been placed on this. this gentleman i mentioned earlier, his diary records that after the emperors intervene, he comes to him and says they intervene in order to surrender, but i don't think the commanders will comply. he says i don't think they will comply either. two of the three senior commanders overseas says basically we don't agree to surrender. the man is in southeast asia. it's a quarter of arms and initially responding we're not going to comply with the order. what shows you that the perception on the american side that e we might not get an organized was not a fanciful notion. on top of this, the soviets do attempt a landing on one of their islands north of the japanese islands and they used marry maximum capability like a light division. and they almost get creamed. they are very desperate situation becomes even more alarming in tokyo because the senior army commands and the emperor are sending orders to the soldiers on the islands to cease and deskpis they keep fighting for another day. there's genuine fear if the soldiers have a victory over the soviets, it could start unraffling of the whole surrender process. so to the public, there are several days in which it remains very fraught in tokyo as to whether there's going to be an organized capitulation. now, when i started this lecture i showed you this photograph. all of you sat there and immediately processed this as this must be hiroshima, nagasaki, maybe one of the japanese cities that was fire bombed by the u.s. this is manila in february 19 ha 45 after 16,000 troops conducted a horrendous fight to the biggest urban fighting in the pacific war that resulted in the customary figures of 100,000 dead phil pea knows and they were slaughtered, women were raped, it was horrendous. that's manila and it gets back to the asian-pacific war was one huge catalog of horrors. so i said, death toll probably about 25 million. that's probably a conservative estimate. there are people who will argue that there were 30 million dead in china alone. i use a 15 million figure for deaths in china that's on the low end of the range as i have seen from scholarship over the last ten years or so. of those as i talked to you about the 6 million military, 19 million civilian, that's a ratio of 1 military to three civilians, that's worse than europe in terms of noncombatant deaths. and one of the things that doesn't get talked about is the soviets overrun a bunch of other locations on the asian continent. and the japanese have colonized and they have crushed the japanese army. they have killed about 80,000 japanese soldiers in combat. they have captured the rest and during the further period of captivity, estimates between 500,000 japanese nationals dire disappearance over the captivity. recent scholarship by of university of california berkeley found in those evidence that 62,000 japanese military p.o.w.s died in soviet captivity. 180,000 japanese civilians died in soviet captivity. these are deaths among those who were acknowledged to actually have been in captivity. the japanese government had ripped rice from korea to deal with the food crisis. had that rice been moved out of korea, a large part of the korean population would have been peril. the toll goes on and on and on. the other kicker to all of this is that after the surrender of germany, we sent a team to analyze the effective bombing on germany and they came back and reported the two effective bombing target systems were transportation and oil. so a new targeting directive is issued to the strategic bombing effort in august 11th, 1945, which basically dropped down much lower in priority bombing cities and raised up the importance of bombing transportation specifically the rail system. well we found out later because we did not fully appreciate at the time that a combination of japanese demographics to e say half the population lives on the main island, which was a tremendous deficit area was dependent upon food surplus being brought from other areas brought by ship now they only have to rely on rail. had we bombed the rail system we would have triggered fa anyone much earlier than we ever appreciated. also because the japanese food production had had collapsed. and when we get to japan and begin the occupation, we quickly find out about how desperate the food situation is. there are various scholars will say at that time it was sought to be 10 million japanese in a population of 72 million were in threat of death from starvation. and as you can well imagine in 1945, japan and its people were not exactly high on the friendship list of the american people. and if we had been as racist and angered about japan, we were in a a position in which we could permit them to fall into famine and for many of them to die. in 1946 our government decided that that was not acceptable. and a japanese government headed off what would have been a humanitarian catastrophe that would have overshadowed a number of dying during world war ii. that is how the asian-pacific war ended. thank you. [ applause ] we're going to have a question and answer period. there's going to be a microphone down here. we ask those with questions to come to the microphone and ask it so it can be recorded properly. the sciences they thought that the radioactivity, they only thought in terms of detonation. they thought anyone close enough to receive a dose of radiation from that would already have been killed by blaster heat. but they did not examine and think about at length what we call fall out. had they understood that and been conveyed to top policymakers, that would have moved the bombs from the concept that mr. simpson and others had to do with a bigger bang into the category to be something like poison gas. it was a very powerful policy and moral revulsion over the use of poison gas. . when general marshal proposed gas against japanese, mr. truman citing policy refused to abide it. had harry truman, and i think henry simpson and others, understood that aspect o about what a nuclear detonation was about, i think they would have had very big-time issues over authorizing the use of the weapon. i can think of virtually nothing else that would have deterred them from using atomic weapons in view of both the military evidence they had and the diplomatic evidence they had in 1945. first of all, let me compliment you on your analysis of this development, very fascinating. >> i will agree with that. >> i'm curious about mcarthur's role in all this. he has an image of doing successful things with japan because he understands japan. to what extent is he informed about the sophisticated and complex set of factors that go into the decision of accepting the surrender. >> douglas mcarthur is one of the most difficult individuals i have to deal with in the asian-pacific war. he's the guy that there are times when i want to chew the carpet and the drapes and i think about him. but i will say that there are other moments when i try to give him his due. and his role in all of this was basically he was concerned only with the invasion. he was informed very belatedly about the bombs and given this portfolio of programs to implement in japan, which he then proceeded to claim were his own ideas and inspiration. e he had some latitude about how he could implement that, but basically in terms of what's going on with the bombs in the final surrender, he was not a participant in the top councils and how that went on. there was one thing that happened. i think probably shrewdly was very important. we really weren't sure what went on behind the curtain and in the effort to secure the after that original broadcast, the navy sent out a message basically summari summarized the decision making process. we intercepted that and that gave us what e we thought was hard evidence about the importance of the role of the emperor. it validated that notion. which argues correctly that that played an important role in the ultimate decision which i would emphasize was only made downstream. no gauarantee it was going to b maintained. he was told to not do anything without approval by washington and the decision doesn't come until late 1945, early 1946. he does play a role claiming he's investigated and the emperor had no role in all this stuff, which is complete malark malarkey. but basically in terms of the back and forth, the joint chiefs, mcarthur, his issue was only invasion. his glory as the commander of this greatest invasion of all time. >> yes, sir. >> addressing this situation, my understanding is we had only two and they were delivered as soon as possible when we had the material. do you have any idea when we could have had a a third one? >> yeah, first of all, they thought we had 100 bombs, not a thousand. the interestingly enough, this gets. back to the concept behind the program. there was a fellow who was a naval officer who was on this committee who was overseeing the effort. he convinced les lee groves, who ran as the straw boss running the manhattan project which built the bombs, and he said from very early on it's going to take two bombs to convince the japanese to surrender. the first bomb to show them we have a a bomb. the second bomb to convince them we have an arsenal of bombs. and looking back on it, this is a guy who deserves a lot more credit about what happened in 1945. that he understood exactly that the leadership would have a basic grasp and they were convinced we had an arsenal. and we didn't. we dropped the two bombs as rapidly as possible. we had orders to drop them as rapidly as possible and it was a decision made in the field to do the nagasaki mission because the weather was closing in and the sense of urgency it would help a lot, which in my view, was correct. the third bomb components were ready and probably would have been ready. they gave them the 18th of august. but it was held up. the third thing about this, and i didn't have time to get into this, but general marshal tried to support general mcarthur as much as possible. what's interesting is marshal details one of the senior staff officers to talk to one of the officials of the manhattan project asked and basically we had the transcript of the phone conversation. basically what the phone conversation goes is marshal's designated representative says marshal believes either they will surrender after two bombs or never surrender no matter how many bombs we drop on cities. and that therefore, he wants to know how many bombs will be available by the fir1st of nover because he's thinking of using them a as tactical weapons. and what's chilling about that conversation when you read it is that basically their only safety concern is what if we drop one of these things and it doesn't go off and it's a dud. there's no mention of, by the way, we're going to send our guys marching through this area that we have just dropped an atomic bomb on because at that point, like i said, the leadership does not understand the concept of fall out in its hazards. that's what marshal was doing. thankfully we never had to have an answer to the question of what would have happened. yes, sir? >> thank you so much. it's always a pleasure to listen to a scholar. i have a question about your evaluation of the emperor. i enjoyed what you said about him at the end, but overall, what was his position in the japanese war from your perspective? was he the master mind behind this or was he being used by the militaries in power? >> that's a very good question. it's a very difficult question. it's a very controversial question. basically one argument is that the emperor was not sitting on the sidelines a as this figure head. he was, in fact, this driving master mind of the japanese imperial empire decision making. i agree with him, you can certainly find instances in which they say do this and they do that. when you go. through and find there are other instances and they don't do this there's it disconnect between what he orders and what he follows. the notion that he's sitting on the sideline as this woe is me figure head, i can't believe what these other people are doing, that won't fit either. he's a a very engage. ed figure. he gets briefed about what's going on in the position war. he asks shrewd questions on numerous instances. he knows all of this stuff very well. so he's very much engaged and everything is done in his name. this is the really troublesome aspect about it. basically the japanese conducted the entire war in the name of the emperor and we keep the emperor on and the ultimate. consequence of that, although we get a lot of good things and one of the things we don't get is this sense of war responsibility. and my personal take on this having thought about this is basically because facing really fraught times in 1945 and the first two, maybe three years of the occupation with the issues of are we going to get a sure compliance of the japanese armed forces with a surrender, and secondly, this food crisis, which actually goes on -- it's three years the japanese public is very on the narrowest of margins in terms of food. in may of 1946, the official food ration in tokyo is 1,040 calories, and they don't deliver the ration every day. that's how desperate it gets. so keeping the emperor for the stability he can bring through that period seems to me to have been a very reasonable judgment by the occupation authorities. i think they would have been gambling a lot to have done something else. but at the end of that period, that was the moment when we should have stepped in and said now it's time for you to abdicate, to accept war responsibility. that would have solved a lot of the problems that we have to grapple with today. yes, sir? >> getting back to macarthur -- >> somehow in kansas city we always get back to macarthur, don't we? >> after world war i, the world war i veterans had a tremendous demonstration in washington, d.c., which eventually led to the g.i. bill after world war ii, according to some historians. macarthur was given an order to clear the washington mall of those demonstrators. macarthur not only cleared the mall, he went across the potomac and burnt all their tents and decimated them. when hoover was told of this, he said that wasn't his order, he disobeyed my orders. macarthur should have been fired then. guess who had took the firing? our little foreign boy from missouri got rid of him. >> yeah, one thing i will say about having studied this, if you go back and read the actual dispatches macarthur is sending back to washington from 1942 to 1945, my view is that revered figures like henry stimpson, george marshall should have stepped down big time to say the sort of things he's articulating in these messages are totally unacceptab unacceptable. but they let macarthur get away with it. mr. truman inherited an absolutely horrifying situation. macarthur had been let free range to do all this stuff for years. he had this public prestige he gained, rightly or wrongly. truman inherits an absolutely terrible position to be in. a lot of it goes back not only to the bonus margin, that episode, but basically to marshall and stimson and roosevelt, letting macarthur get away with things. >> truman went to a ball game after he fired macarthur, and he was actually booed. this concept about starving them out, starving the japanese out, how many u.s. prisoners of war was in japan and we'd have starved them out too. what's your comment on that? >> that's exactly right. there were about 140,000 caucasian prisoners of war being held by japan in 1945. about 130,000 civilian internees, one of whom is with us here today, i believe, she was in shanghai. people who are usually forgotten. basically, it seems very clear that had they reached absolutely desperate straits and home islands, one of the last groups of people they were going to feed were p.o.w.s. there's some interesting back and forth in these last days because marshall, i think to his great credit, as soon as the first indication the japanese are going to surrender appears, marshall is immediately drafting up messages to send to the japanese to warn them specifically that if any ill befalls our p.o.w.s from this point forward, we're going to hold those responsible severely accountable. that's one of the very first thoughts that comes to marshall's mind at the moment when we're still not sure whether we're going to get a surrender, but it looks like for the first time we might get a surrender, and the first thing marshall thinks about or just about the first thing is what's going to happen to our prisoners of war in japanese captivity. yes, sir? >> when i was in the marines, i was assigned to the war crimes trials on guam. my always wondered how they picked who would be tried and who wouldn't be tried because they committed some awful atrocities on our prisoners at our prison camp. we didn't maybe treat them too good, but they sure didn't suffer like the others. you had the death march. for years i always wondered what process did they use to determine who should pay something for what they had done. >> that's a really deep and complex issue. i've read some stuff about the war crimes trials. the ones that were famous were the ones in tokyo, the ones we call the class a defendants who were basically the top-level leadership. we had decided with our allies that what we called the b and c categories of war criminals were going to be tried at the locale where the alleged crimes had taken place, which is one of the reasons we used guam for japanese in the pacific. we had a limited ability to identify who these guys were. some of them, of course, slipped away immediately. those of you who have seen "unbroken" or read the book, you know the story about zamperini's principle antagonist, who slips through the net. despite the japanese police make a sincere effort to cam up with this guy. so there's a lot of criticism about this, that not enough guys were tried, they didn't catch everybody they wanted to. i think there was an important issue of limits of what we could do at that time. the other thing about this whole thing is that we had given the japanese ample notice that we were going to conduct war crimes trials. right after the emperor's broadcast and the japanese make no bones about this now, there was a tremendous destruction of documentary evidence that might be related to war crimes trials. and it's plagued us, you know, down to today. the comfort women issue, for instance, is a classic example. we did have evidence about war crimes in intercepts, but that was all super secret classified, and they weren't going to use that in a trial. they might use it to tease out other evidence, but they wouldn't directly use that. in japan, there's a view there was victor's justice or whatever. the nationalist forces there intend to propagate that notion. >> i wonder, there was another condition of surrender, we ought to be able to pick who we were going to try and who -- instead of them. i didn't know what process they were using. >> they made a good faith effort, but there was a limit on what evidence they could cobble. but you're absolutely right. those of you familiar with what germany did -- among the catalog of terrible things germany did. the medical experiments on people. the japanese fully matched anything the german did. the treatment of some of our aviators who were captured in japan. just horrendous, totally sickening stuff. like i said, it was fully equal to anything the nazis did. >> i greatly appreciated your presentation. brought back a lot of memories. >> thank you. [ applause ] american history tv is in primetime tuesday with more on the bombings of hiroshi ma and nagasa nagasaki. first a look at the manhattan project in a 2000 documentary co-produced by the library of congress and los alamos national laboratory. that's followed by the personal stories of two bomb survivors. then a look at what led to japan's surrender in the final days of world war ii. that's tuesday night at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. this weekend, we're joined by charter communications to learn more about the history and literary life of grand junction, colorado. the mining of a certain mineral had a long-term importance in this part of colorado. >> all over the colorado plateau, and especially here in mesa county, outside of grand junction, we are surrounded by morrison rock. we find a lot of dinosaur bones, a lot of fossils. that's really intrigued scientists more a long time. the other thing we find in the morrison is a mineral, a rock, called carnatite. it contains three different elements. it contains radium, which is radioactive and was used to help solve and fight cancer. it also contained vanadium, which is used to strengthen steel. so during the buildup to world war ii and during world war ii itself, it was of extreme value. it also contained uranium. uranium, as we know, is one of the best sources for atomic power and atomic weapons. >> colorado congressman wayne aspenal was largely responsible for this area's agricultural development. >> he fought the battle to reserve water for western colorado by making sure that we got our fair share. how did he do that? well, beginning in his state career and then going on to his federal career, he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to exercise, i think, more power than you might normally have. certainly in the united states congress, where he was able to make sure colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly in any divisions of water. his first major success was the passage of the colorado river storage project in 1956. >> see all of our programs from grand junction saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here's our schedule. beginning this weekend, we're life from the 15th annual national book festival from our nation's capital. near the end of september, we're in new york for the brooklyn book festival, celebrating its tenth year. in early october, it's the southern festival of books in nashville. after that, we're live in austin for the texas book festival. near the end of the month, we'll be covering two book festivals on the same weekend. back on the east coast, the boston book festival. at the start of november, we'll be in portland, oregon, for wordstock, followed by the national book awards from new york city. and at the end of november, we're live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. that's a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's book tv. ♪ more democrats have come out in support of a nuclear deal with iran, three from new york. patrick murphy also endorsing the deal. the state department has posted about 7,000 pages of e-mail from hillary clinton's e-mail server. 150 of the e-mails were partially or totally redacted because the state department determined that they contained classified material. it's the first day of september, and you're watching "washington journal." there's a new poll out from quinnipiac university that asks respondents if they were satisfied with the way things are going in the united states today. 71% of those respondents said they were, quote, dissatisfied. for the next 45 minutes, we want to hear from you. if you're satisfied, be sure to tell us if you are or not and why. here are the lines. 202-748-8000 from democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, 202-748-800. you can post on our twitter page. that's @cspanwj. about 250 people so far posting on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. if you want to send us e-mail, [email protected]. quinnipiac university putting out the poll yesterday. it asked about satisfaction with the way the nation is today. only 2% of respondents said they were very satisfied with the way of the direction of the country. 26% said they were somewhat satisfied. 30% said somewhat dissatisfied. 41% of respondents said very dissatisfied. if it broke down by political party, 1% of republicans very satisfied as opposed to 3% of democrats. if you go to the very d dissatisfied column, 61% of republicans said they were very dissatisfied. 15% of democrats registering that. about 2% of independents saying they were very satisfied with the way the country is going. about 50% of independents said they were very dissatisfied. joining us on the phone to talk a little bit more is peter brown from quinnipiac university. he's the atlanta poll director. mr. brown, start off with how often do you take this survey, and what does this survey tell us this time as opposed to previous surveys that ask similar type of questions? >> well, we ask this question most times when we do a national poll. so we do it, you know, somewhere eight times a year probably, give or take. these numbers are not hugely unusual for what's been going on the last year or two. the 71% total dissatisfaction is ten points lower than the least satisfied time since we've been taking this poll. that was in november of 2008. which was the week after barack obama was elected president of the united states. it obviously is showing unhappiness that had shown itself in mr. obama's election. the time when americans were the most satisfied was december 11th, 2001, which was almost three months after 9/11. then only 29% said they were dissatisfied. 10, very satisfied. 19, somewhat dissatisfied. that probably reflects a sense of national purpose that gripped the country after 9/11. >> so as the snapshot of this figure is put out there, did respondents get a chance to elaborate on what made them say if they were satisfied, somewhat satisfied, very dissatisfied? is there a sense? >> no, polls are very good about asking what and where. they're not so good about asking why. >> do you think -- go ahead. >> but for instance, since 2012, every one of the polls that we at quinnipiac did on satisfaction had a dissatisfaction of 15% total or higher. so this number is not the worst it's ever been, or the highest, depending on how you want to classify it, but it's certainly nowhere near the lowest either. it shows a country that is not very happy with the way things are going. >> as far as other parts of the poll, do you ask about specifics that might drive their satisfaction or dissatisfaction, the state of the economy, the state of politics today? do you ask those type of questions? is there a way to -- >> sometimes we will ask about how they view the economy but not every time. >> because one of the questions that you put out there was about trust, especially trust in members of our government. you asked the respondents about who would you trust more, president obama or the republicans in congress in this case, with 44% of them saying the president, and 44 equally saying the republicans. 11% saying they didn't know or that information wasn't available. >> we ask that question occasionally, not every time. and it's not unusual to see a close tie between president and congress. the president's job approval has been steadily under water for a couple years now. by under water, i mean higher disapproval than approval. it's not at its lowest, but it's certainly not doing well these days. so that's part of it. part of it is the general sense about the economy that we don't pick up because we don't ask the question, but it's clearly there. this is not unusual. you know, we were not asking this question because quinnipiac polling institute did not exist at the end of the second reagan term, but there was a time when president reagan towards the end of his second term was not doing all that well in public opinion polls at the time. his image has gotten much, much better over time. but it's not terribly unusual at the end of a second term of a presidency that people aren't happy. >> that's peter brown joining us from quinnipiac university. the poll he's been talking about with 71% showing and registering some type of dissatisfaction with the way the country is going. if you want to go and find out more about the poll, quinnipiac university is how you do that. their website. and mr. brown, thanks for coming on and talking to us about this. >> my pleasure. have a good day. >> so you heard some of his thoughts on dissatisfaction with the country and how people responded. now is your chance to respond as well. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we're asking if you're satisfied with the direction the country is going. tell us if you're satisfied or dissatisfied and why. let's start with dorothy in baltimore on our democrats line. you're first up. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. well, i'm calling because i'm dissatisfied because of congress. the reason i say that is because -- a few reasons, if you'll give me a minute. one is congress says they want to build a wall on the southern border. but they don't want to do infrastructure. they could do both. there's no reason why we're still talking about building a wall when congress could easily pass a bill to do it. but they want to keep republicans upset. so they just keep talking about it. but they never do it. two is citizens united. there's no way that congress should not vote to get rid of citizens united. no way. so my dissatisfaction is with congress. congress does nothing but keep everybody angry and upset about things, especially immigration. but they're not doing anything about it. they could pass a bill any time they would like. clear up the wall, stop donald trump from talking foolishness by just doing it. hook it to the infrastructure bill. they want the wall, we want our infrastructure fixed. >> dorothy from baltimore, maryland, is the first call. thanks. jim from chicago, illinois, independent line. >> caller: good morning. i'm very, very disappointed with the way the country is going. in fact, america is on life support. there's no leadership, including the idiot in the white house. the congress, you know, really don't care. there's a lack of morals. the crime rate is increasing. anyone under 40 years old, you don't have a future. between student debt, not being able to find a job, and just people in general who basically either their heads are in the sand or they feel there's nothing they can do. and these politicians, i don't care if you're a democrat or republican, they act like they don't care. >> james from new jersey, atlantic city, democrats line. hi. >> caller: good morning. i have one question for c-span, and i would like to get my point out about the direction of the country. i'll start with the direction of the country. compared to when republicans was in charge, everything is going great. are you kidding me? who would want to go back to putting republicans back in charge after they drunk drove the economy after a cliff? my question for c-span is, i want to know, where can i go to find out what hillary clinton is saying on the campaign trail, what she's going to do as president? when i watch c-span, i know what her e-mails are doing. sometimes c-span has a segment on hillary clinton's e-mails and then a segment right after that, you have a republican on to talk entirely about her e-mails. you just had a segment earlier in the day about her e-mails. when are you going to have a segment about what hillary clinton is saying she's going to do as president of the united states, c-span? when are you going to have a segment? you know where i got to go to get information on what hillary clinton wants to do as president? i have to read "the huffington post" because i'm not going to get it from the news stations or c-span. >> we do plenty on all the candidates, including hillary clinton. in fact, if you want the video library to show you exactly things she's said and policies she's putting out, i would direct you to our website at c-span.org. the video library is where you can type in the name of a candidate, the candidate of your choice, find out everything that's not only done on this program but all other avenues of the network as well. the caller brought up the e-mails. a story about the e-mails today. 700 pages worth, 150 e-mails of those redacted partially or fully because of confidential content. the secretary of state wrote about -- talking about the call that was done with russia that dealt not only with iran but the treaty. it also talks about e-mails exchanged with her one-time adviser. says it continues to be one of clinton's most loyal correspondents. he passed along gossipy tidbits and articles of interest. the correspondence covered the 2010 academy awards and the supreme court justice john paul stevens citizens united case. that's in "the washington post." the state department also posting those e-mails as well. here's bill. we're asking about the satisfaction, if you're satisfied with the way the country is going. bill is on our independence line from rhode island. hi, bill. >> caller: hi. i'd like to make the point of i think it's all greed at the top that's killing this country. they say bernie sande diegders socialist. this country started out on socialism. if we never helped our neighbors, we wouldn't have made it anywhere. i just think it's all the money. it's all about money. >> so what it comes to your personal dissatisfaction, it's about money issues involved? or are there other factors involved too? >> well, i mean, there's other factors, of course. but it's mostly the money. they put the money before our health, the money before our safety. that's all i got to say about it. >> lisa from west palm beach, florida, independence line. hi there. >> caller: good morning. i am so disheartened listening to the callers calling in this morning. i am completely dissatisfied with the way the direction of this country has gone the last seven years. and there's a good reason. we have to blame the leader. the leader is barack obama. we have 92 million americans who are unemployed. we have 50 million people on food stamps. there are no jobs. the gdp sucks. i mean, this is a funk. this is a disaster. and we immediate to turn the country around. i'm hoping everyone will vote for donald trump so we can get this nation turned around, we can get some jobs, we can get some patriotism in this country again because people are pissed off because we have a divider in chief sitting in the white house. >> what is it about donald trump you think could change people's satisfaction with this country then? >> caller: well, the man has like a 30, 40-year career of being successful. an extremely successful businessman. you have to take that into account. i know some people don't like the over-the-top language and people's feelings are getting hurt. we have to stop with the nonsense. we need a strong man who is tough, who is smart, who will be able to turn the nation around. we need a businessman. barack obama didn't have the qualifications to run a mcdonald's franchise, and that's why we're in the mess we're in today. point-blank, that's it. we' we're -- >> we're asking you about the satisfaction of the direction of the this country. if you are very satisfied, dissatisfied, be sure to tell us that and why. the viewer brought up donald trump. donald trump mentioned in two stories today, specifically stories that deal with our republicans are taking a look at his tax and other policies as well. showing some concern. this is "the washington post" picture this morning from reuters with the headline "some republicans fear lasting damage from trump's bid." the author saying many republican candidates besides trump have voiced opposition to new free trade deals, including the proposed transpacific partnership being negotiated by the obama administration with a dozen countries around the pacific rim. some are expressing an openness to reducing levels of immigration. free market economists have long argued trade and immigration are critical to u.s. economic growth. top republicans have frequently adopted these beliefs, but a growing portion of the conservative base and to a lesser extent the country as a whole blames u.s. workers' economic woes on immigrants. the other story looks at tax policy, that donald trump has talked about, with some republicans showing concern as well. to the satisfaction of the country and your thought on it. lewis, long beach, california, independent line. >> caller: thank you. i'd just like to say that i find the question somewhat ambiguous in the sense that it asks the question of the direction of the country, how do you feel about the direction of the country, but it doesn't allow you to pinpoint why you think it is. freblgs, i might feel that america is headed in the wrong direction, but i might feel that way because the republicans in the house are causing it to go in the wrong direction. i could have mixed feelings about it because i feel the president's done some good things that i could have other feelings about it that other things are not going right. but it doesn't -- the assumption seems to be if the country is on wrong course, it's the president's fault. everybody's saying he's a leader, but that's not exactly the way this government is set up. we have equal branches of government. no one branch is supposed to trump the other. they have their own independent responsibility. as far as -- i'm sorry, i couldn't hear you. >> no, i didn't say anything. but lewis, you talked a little bit about it as far as pinpointing concerns or at least what the background. if you were asked, you know, first of all your satisfaction level, i think you register it, but would it be just because of what's happening in congress, or are there other factor there is as well? >> caller: right. well, it's a mix. and that's the whole thick. one of my points was, how do we know that when someone says they're disappointed with the direction of the country, whether they mean it's because of the democrats or because the republicans, and if they say it's mixed, it could be there's some good things on the republican side and there are some good things on the democratic side. but i don't think that without pinpointing the questions more specifically about who people feel is to blame for the wrong direction of the country, then i feel that would help answer more of these questions. as far as this thing about people talking about trump being a businessman and all that and how that would help the country along, well, then why has he filed so many bankruptcies? every time he files a bankruptcy, a whole bunch of smaller people, nonbillionaires, are losing out. so all this stuff about -- the government is not a business. and it shouldn't be run like a business. >> that's lewis from california. to lewis' point, if you want to pinpoint reasons why you're satisfied or dissatisfied, this is the format we chose to let you do that. again, the numbers will be on your screen. earnestine, democrats line, from nashville, tennessee. >> caller: good morning. >> you're on. go ahead. >> caller: i am very satisfied with the way this country is run. barack obama can't do a thing. the republicans said they'd shut him down. they didn't really want him to have but one term. everything he brings up to do for the country, they shut him down. blame the republicans. all of you. and stop talking about sending immigrants back because we are all immigrants. they took this country from the american indians. if the american indians rise up and say, get out of my country, then what will they say? thank you. >> four democrats backing the president on a nuclear deal with iran. the story in "the new york times" highlights the fact that out of new york, it's representatives velasquez, mooeks, and clark. also, representative patrick murphy, the democratic establishment's choice to compete for the senate seat being vacated by the republican presidential candidate marco rubio. mr. murphy's decision was the most surprising. democrat leaders supporting the deal had written him off. from indiana, pennsylvania, here's joe, democrats' line. >> caller: good morning. i'm calling in conjunction with the phone call from the gentleman from california. he's absolutely right. it's a mixed bag right now. much of the -- it's a divided government, and it was set up that way by our founding fathers and the constitution. everyone needs to take responsibility. if people are unsatisfied with the direction of the country, then we need to look at how many people do not vote, how many people do not participate in the democracy. i find that appalling. i also think the president has done an excellent job of bringing of from something that could have been greater than the great depression of the 1930s. he's moved us out of war in iraq, which cost us trillions of dollars in blood and treasure. i just think we all need to take a deep breath, look at where we were eight years ago, and move forward. we need to have some direction in that we all need to work together. and the division in this country is appalling, appalling. some of the comments i'm hearing are appalling. i just think that a more -- looking at mr. trump and his message, it's more divisive than anything i've heard in a long time. for those that think it's telling like it is, i'm afraid that telling it like it is, if we wanted all of our elected officials to have some sort of tourettes syndrome so they could say what they were feeling, i think we would all end up with nothing but a babble in washington. much worse than it is now. >> new jersey is where al is. he's on our republican line. hi, al. >> caller: yes. >> go ahead, you're on. >> caller: i feel that the country is absolutely going in the wrong direction, has been going in the wrong direction for seven years. absolutely due to the policies of our supposed president. i say supposed because i wonder in which direction he wants this country to go. because all we've done is in the wrong direction. obviously the debt is out of this world. all our statistics show that we're in a bad place and a far worse place than seven years ago. for example, the number of people who are out of work. for example, the number of people who are on the debit line. so we have not had a good leader, and we need a good one. i feel that one certainly would be donald trump. i think that his experience as a businessman would help as compared to barack obama, who had very little experience at anything worthwhile. >> here is milton from topeka, kansas, also on our republican line. milton, go ahead. >> caller: it is -- it's very natural to me that people would have distrust in our elected officials because they lie all the time. and i personally have a solution for that. we simply put shock collars on them set to go off every time they tell a lie, every time their blood pressure goes up, they get a little shock. >> jay from las vegas, nevada, democrats' line. go ahead, please. >> caller: yeah, i'm happy pretty much how the system is treating everybody. it seems fair. it seems unbiased, in a sense. everybody has their angles. but i think americans in general, i think they have to look to the future. and really think about it and how the world is going and how the global system of governing economics is kind of the way the world is headed to. a lot of you don't like that idea. >> and you think the united states isn't prepared for that? >> you know what, the mentality of the american people is not. i think the government knows how it does. i think the eu system is a big test market. the euro, the currency. you have to look 20 years downed road. slowly the american people have to realize that to get out -- to get out of what has been created environmentally, socially, the poverty and overpopulation, you really have to start thinking about how we're going to interact with an international, global system of making things better. at a certain point, a country gets in debt, and there's no way out of it because it's a global issue to fix it. it's going to be hard for a lot of people to start thinking about a global fix because people get scared. people are not used to the unknown. >> how do you think the current administration is responding to what you said, and is there a candidate looking forward to 2016 that kind of, you know, is aligned or at least captures the ideas that you're thinking about? >> caller: like trump, he has international business experience, and some of the things that he has -- like the wall or taking 12 million immigrants and they have to go, you know, it's a radical change, but in the global sense, some of the things he says kind of rik true where a radical change has to happen. he's dealt with a lot of people globally, internationally. some of his ideas he talks about, they're simple. simple but radical. in the long run, some of the things he says, it makes sense that way. it's a blig global fix that needs to come. some candidates touch on it a bit. with the age epidemic, which is pretty much a squash, but the rich people talk about they control the world and that, but they're thinking about a global answer to stuff. it scares people, but i think that's -- it's something to come. >> that's jay from las vegas, nevada, mentioning donald trump. monmouth university put out a poll of iowa gop caucus goers, likely iowa gop caucus goers, asking about support as it currently stands. at the top of that list, tied with 23% each, ben carson leading that list followed by donald trump. following that, carly fiorina with 10% of support. these are residents of iowa who identify as republicans. paula, asheville, north carolina. republican line. we're asking about satisfied with the direction of the country. what do you think, paula? >> caller: i'm not very happy. let's start with obama. he's been dividing this country, which is just unbelievable. there's too much happening, and nobody's controlling it. too much political correctness. we've got hate groups out there. we've got black lives that matter, and they should be arrested. nobody's doing that. we've got a congress that's a mess. they just don't care what's happening to america. erybody's looking out for themselves. we have illegal immigrants that are allowed to stay here instead of being deported and bringing in all the people that have rightfully waited to come to this country. nobody should be here. they ought to swap out every illegal immigrant for every person that has gone by our laws. and people need to learn if they're going to come to america, this is america. we don't have to learn anybody's language. you're coming over here. we don't have to give you special treatment. we don't want to provide social programs for you. if you come over here, come over the right way. that's just basically how i feel about everything that's going on. >> cory from maryland. you're next. go ahead. >> caller: yes, i'm really dissatisfied with the country. i think that there's too much money in politics. when you have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to be elected as a president, there's something really broke with the political system. in doing so, with the new trade deals and everything else going on and all these other candidates, they're all pushing their agenda. all it does is pushes the buck to the people at the lower end of the scale such as the middle class or even the upper-middle class down to the poor to subsidize health care or subsidize with programs for people that can't afford health insurance or even just basic food because our minimum wage is too low. and i think as a country, we totally miss the point as society, as we're fighting amongst each other about immigrants, race, religion, with people on extreme ends of things. we're being bamboozled by our own government. they're just taking money out of our pacts. they're making the rules, and we got to sit idly by while this happens, while we're too busy voting for our sports teams or not paying attention to what really is going on when they do the free trade -- the tpp and stuff like that. they're stacking the cards against us to a point where we might not have a say if we don't start getting money out of politics and start redirecting the country in the right direction. a country is like a large ship. it takes a long time to turn the ship around and steer to the right course. but right now nobody took the wheel and turned. we're just heading for the wrong course, and this is what we're doing. until somebody actually gets in the office and we vote, enough people vote for the right person to get in the office until we start doing the right things and start looking at everything, getting money out of politics, putting caps on spending at your local level, all the way up to the presidential level, where there is no hundreds of millions of dollars anymore to elect the president. it becomes a lot lower. so the average person can have more of a say into what's really going on in our country and the rules that are dictating our every day lives. >> from quinnipiac, remember that only 2% of those who responded said they were very satisfied with the way that the country was heading. 26% saying they were somewhat satisfied. 30% saying they were somewhat dissatisfied. then it breaks it down republicans and democrats. independents weighing in as well with only 2% of independents saying they were very satisfied. about 50% saying they were very dissatisfied. wesley, sacramento, california, democrats' line. hi. >> caller: yes, hi, pedro. i am somewhat satisfied. one of the first things that happened was a person calling in, calling the president an idiot. they're kind of biased. obviously, i think a lot it has to do with the fact he's black. i'm 75 years old, spent 20 years in the marine corps. boy, the way this country is going now, there's nothing but hatred and a divided country. so my suggestion is that everybody takes a deep breath and think about where we were eight years ago compared to where we are now. and thank you very much. >> ted from virginia, republican line. hi. >> caller: yes, i'm satisfied with the direction of the country because, i mean, the past 25 years we've just been going up and down, up and down, and we're at the bottom now, but we're going to dig ourselves out. i just think once we get rid of this democratic regime that we have in the white house now that finally i think people will be able to get back on their feet slowly but steadily. i think we'll go up instead of back down. hopefully either donald trump or i'm a ben carson fan. i think he would be the direction, the guy that could take us to that direction. and yeah, thank you. >> here is john from mississippi. john's on our independent line. >> caller: hello, pedro. nice to get on here. i praise c-span to get some real news, to get the feel of the pulse of the people. move to amend.org. look that up. i don't watch corporate news tv, any of them, other than to learn what their slant is based on their responsibility to their investors to make a profit. they're not going to give you the information you need, the critical judgments to guide our government. we are the people. the people's government is the representation of the people. when we vote, the government follows us. the government is not our enemy. i don't want to be pro or con. i don't want to name call. what i want to do is let's take a critical look at history. we have a problem with iran because in 1953 we were tricked into overthrowing their democratically elected government for an oil company, which today is named british petroleum. on the money side of it, wall street, when you take their money away from them for their acts and you put them in jail like ronald reagan did with the loan debacle back in his presidency, then things change. i don't want to demonize people. i want glass stooeg el put back. the corporations are not paying for the commons. when president clinton -- excuse me, jimmy carter tried to push a clean energy agenda. if we would have followed that course, the discoveries that would have been made along those new energy lines and batteries, we can't even imagine to this date, but they would have been enormous. we might even have propulsion systems that would allow us to get to great distances quickly or by the way energy opportunities. let's not fight each other. when you're listening to a program, it tells you it's your neighbor's fault or it's somebody else's fault. they want you to blame somebody else. let's not do that. >> okay. john from mississippi. that was his thoughts. tom is from ft. worth, texas, independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yes, this country is basically controlled by big business, and i am for donald trump in one direction, but the immigration deal, you basically need to make the people pay that are willing to -- i work with hispanics and mexicans. they are legal. i mean, they will follow the laws, but they do need to buy their own medical insurance, pay their taxes, and you need to quit letting big business control this country. donald trump is right. this country has been brainwashed, and our citizens are cowards. and that's basically the way it's going. >> we'll hear next from jerry in north carolina, democrats' line, asking about the satisfaction you have with the direction of the country. hi, jerry. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, good morning, pedro. thank god for c-span. what the last caller was saying about the corporate media is -- corporate -- there's only six companies that own all the media in the country, and they're all republican based. we're only left with c-span and free speech tv. that's it for them. but as far as the way the country's going, i'm so dissatisfied with it. nobody seems to remember all the destruction that bush 43 did to this country in the first eight years of this century. obama has been trying -- it's so amazing what obama has accomplished. people seem to forget that the stock market, even though it's going down in a correction the past couple days, but under bush it went down to 7,000. now it's still up over 16,000. i don't know. bush's legacy is the destruction of this country. the republicans, you know, the day obama was elected, they say, we're going to be against anything this man does or tries to present. so just think what a wonderful country would have right now if the republicans had worked with him to bring about the new economy that we're having. someone mentioned jimmy carter a little while ago, and it's very true that what did reagan do. jimmy carter put solar panels on the roof of the white house. reagan came in and said, no, we don't need that stuff, and took the solar panels down. and it's just the country's been headed in such a wrong direction ever since reagan. it just amazes me that people seem to be so obtuse about it. i could go on and on and on, and i thank you for giving me all this time, pedro. jerry from north carolina. one of the questions from that quinnipiac pole asked the respondents if the election were held today, which party should control the senate. there was a tie. both 44% of those saying the republican party should control as well as the democratic party. for those who didn't know or didn't answer, 11%. there's a story today in "the new york times" taking a look at the 2016 fight for senate control. this is jennifer steinhower saying the republican incumbents appear to have snuffed out the ideological wars that have bedeviled them in the last four election cycles. there's little efld that tea party endorsed challengers are targeting sitting senators. for now, the party's fight for ideological purity has shifted to the race for the white house, and, too, within the halls of congress. a dearth of tough primaries will most likely leave incumbents' checkbooks and stamina intact for the general election. a drama of sorts has emerged in the democratic party where battle lines were drawn less between dogmas and establishment chosen candidates. in illinois, for instance, representative tammy duckworth is feeling pressure from supporters of andrea zopp. this past month, miss zopp told reporters that they won't be telling who voters they should choose. georgetown, maryland. this is dan. hi. i'm sorry, georgetown, massachusetts. good morning. >> caller: thank you. good morning. yeah, i think we're definitely headed in the wrong direction. a lot of things happen. laws are passed that the majority of people are just completely unaware. and quite frankly, i don't think they want to be aware. you know, it's like, do you want to see something or look into something that's potentially very painful. so most people decide, no, i'd rather just continue my life. so back there in the fringe, we got all this stuff happening that no one wants to look at because it's so ugly. so they're able to get away with things. for instance, the smith-mund act, this passed after world war ii, saying that our own government is cannot use our own tax dollars to use propaganda within the borders of the united states. well, this was rescinded in 2012. so now our government is operating with our tax money to use deceptive propaganda against us to mislead us. so we look at these big news stories that happen, and it's as if we believe everything they're saying without -- no matter what the evidence is or what the facts are. because people are too afraid to look at the facts because it counters what we're being told day after day after day. you know, it was very interesting yesterday. i listened to a journalist on c-span, they were talking about, you know, the republican nominees and their percentages and so on. and he made a great comment. he said that, you know, washington operates the way it wants to and it keeps saying the same thing over and over. so for instance, jeb bush, right, is eventually going to be the, you know, the nominee. they just feel this is going to happen, and they're going to do everything possible to do it. so i think there's a -- an unbelievable amount of deception that's coming from our government to us and we're basically being play pd like an orchestra. the people who are all walking in line, they all make a nice handsome paycheck, and a lot of them, quite frankly, are thinking -- are being paid to look the other way. >> that's dan from massachusetts. got to move on. thanks for calling in. harold from alabama, democrats' line. hi. >> caller: good morning, pedro. what we're facing now is a difficult time. hi, good morning. >> go ahead. you're on. >> caller: a lot of people can't understand why there's so much violence and so much hatred. it's in the bible. and another thing, pedro. people realize this, you had all the republicans, all the democrats -- >> harold, you got to keep going and not listening to the tv. go ahead. okay. jessica, camden, north carolina, last call on the republican line, asking about the satisfaction of the direction of the country. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, i am very dissatisfied. i'm a military wife. i don't like the way the country is being ran right now. it's wrong, and they're mistreating the military. you don't hear about military anymore being killed when they're overseas or ships aren't being like they're supposed to be. the military is being mistreated. the democrats haven't been doing what they should. we need a republican office right now. i'm talking about dr. ben carson a christian man, who is going to stand for biblical times and what it should stand for. christians are being mistreated. he's going to stand for what's being done. >> and that's jessica. she will be the last call on this topic. coming up on this program, in the papers today, even stories about the stock market crash that occurred a couple weeks ago. also, big questions about china's economy. joining us next, peter bottelier from john hopkins university. we'll talk about china's economy and how it affects the u.s. economy. later on, can robots replace workers? a science writer with "the new york times" will be here to answer that question. but first, president obama is in alaska for a three-day tour aimed at spotlighting the issue of climate change. he spoke to participants at a global conference on the topic. also met with alaska's native leaders. here's a bit from president obama in alaska. >> climate change is no longer some far-off problem. it is happening here. it is happening now. climate change is already disrupting our agriculture and ecosystems, our water and food supplies, our energy, our infrastructure, human health, human safety. now, today. and climate change is a trend that affects all trends. economic trends, security trends, everything will be impacted. and it becomes more dramatic with each passing year. already it's changing the way alaskans live. and considering the arctic's unique role in influencing the global climate, it will accelerate changes to the way we all live. since 1979 the summer sea ice in the arctic has decreased by more than 40%. a decrease that has dramatically accelerated over the past two decades. one new study estimates that alaska's glaciers alone lose about 75 gigatons, that's 75 billion tons of ice each year. to put that in perspective, one scientist described a gigaton of ice as a block the size of the national mall in washington, from congress all the way to the lincolnmemorial, four times as tall as the washington monument. imagine 75 of those ice blocks, and that's what alaska's glac s erros each year. it's now twice what it was between 1950 and 2000. twice as fast as it was just a little over a decade ago. >> again, if you want to hear that whole speech, that's president obama in alaska, go to our website at cspan.org. joining us now, our guest, good morning, sir. when we talk about china these days, we talk about china's economy and where it stands. how should people look at what it's going on in china, not only for what china is saying their economy is doing but what is going on. >> everything that everybody talks about the economic expansion slowed down a lot compared to a few years ago, and there's a concern that this slowdown may continue to fire and create social problems in china, so the slowdown per se is not a target, but they are trying to move to a new model of economic gross, less dependant on capital formation and more dependant on domestic consumption. in the middle of that, and the slowdown was part of that, now the concern is it may go too far. >> too far how? >> by contraction particularly in the manufacturing sector way beyond what the government sought as prudent. >> talk about china's economy, if you are saying it's experiencing a slowdown and there are reasons for that, and tack about how the u.s. is being affected, talk about how the connections are made? >> the connections are many. 20 years ago china was a very unimportant economy but that has completely changed, of course, in the meantime, and the u.s. and china are closely intertwined economically and any significant economic change in china has global economic consequences, including the u.s., especially the u.s. because the u.s. is a major trading partner of china and the longest single customer of china, and also an important export destination for the u.s., and so the china economy contracts significantly and it has an affect of the u.s. economy, and it also has an effect on the financial circles. china's financial system is not well integrated with the global financial system much less than the commodity markets, but still very significant. >> one of the issues that also came out was the transparency, and there are indicators it was 5% or less than what they were saying, and do you think khchin is being forthright? >> i am one that believes the growth has to be taken serious, and there's messaging of the numbers and the gross numbers have never been seriously challenged, in my opinion? >> up until now or do you think they will be challenged going forward? >> they showed a 7% gross, and many commentators have questioned that, saying it has been as low as 4 or 5%, and i don't think we have good reasons to fundamentally challenge these gross staus 't gross statistics. >> as far as the economy itself, you talked about the change in economy from one to another? what spurred that on? >> they were growing very, very fast. in the first seven or eight years of the century, the gross rate was 10% plus, and 7 was creating too many problems in the form of trade fricktions with other countries, and in addition, of course, we developed -- the chinese were developing huge environmental problems domestically, and there was deep concern that if this investment and export fuel gross was continuing indefinitely china would sooner or later run into a hopeless and unsustainable problem. the political leadership decided already almost ten years ago that the model had to be changed, that they had to become more dependant on the domestic demands, and more domestic consumption, and that's a fundamental change in the gross model. that was recognized already in 2006. any progress to that has to wait much longer because of the crisis, the financial crisis that started in 2008. that's important to remember. china was very dependant on exports at that time because of the contraction and the global economy, layoffs in china's consumption industry and manufacturing industry were huge, particularly migrants, and the government became very concerned about adverse social consequences and social stability. to avoid social stability problems from becoming dominant, they launched a massive stimulus program at the end of 2008, which was largely credit financed, and unfortunately they over did it and expound their credit more than they should have, and we are living with the consequences of that. there is vast over expansion in manufacturing, and also over in debtness of local governments. >> peter bottelier here to talk about china's economy and take your questions on it. if you have questions for him, democrats 202-748-8000, and republicans, 202-748-8001, and for independents, 202-748-8002. we will start with sal in california. good morning and you are on the air, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, sir. i would like to go back, if i may, to the time of richard nixon. was it mr. nixon -- >> sal, go ahead. >> sal has left us. so as far as taking a look at -- you say if the idea for china's government is to put more of the burden in trying the new plan on the domestic side of china is the average chinese citizens ready to take on the spending and things of that line? >> it's a large country, and more than four times the size of the u.s. population, and it's the most populist country in the world so it's hard to generalize a country of that size, and different parts of the country are affected by the economic transition, but i think the emerging chinese middle class in the big cities which has become large in the meantime is already beginning to consume at a much higher rate than in the past, consumption gross in china is higher than the gdp gross, so if this trend continues, the economy will rebalance in the direction of trade to domestic consumption. that process is already happening. >> you talk about an emerging middle class, then. what is causing that? >> high income gross. wages in china have been growing in real terms fairly significantly since the beginning of the century, and this is in spite of the slowdown still going on today, even though the rate of wage increase, real wage increase, actually inflation is less than it was four or five years ago, but it's still pretty significant. >> in what sector? technology? other sectors? >> basically in the urban economy, and the fastest growing part in the chinese urban growing economy is the service sector. it was always neglected and not an important focus of government development policy, but that has completely changed in the last ten years. service sector, employment and income gross is now very significant in china, and that is one of the main reasons why urban consumption, the middle class consumption is growing so fast in china at the moment. >> here is glenn from pennsylvania for our guests. go ahead. >> caller: i would like to ask one question i have, and i have a question for pedro and this gentleman here. pedro, next time you compare american economy doing good or bad, you should say doing good -- are you comparing for when bush was in the white house or reagan was in the white house? you have to compare it with something. the question for the gentleman here, sir, didn't we bailout the chinese economy in 1989 when president clinton was in the white house? i will take my answer off of the air. >> i am not sure i understand the question -- >> he said didn't we bail out the chinese economy at that time? >> in 1998? >> '89. >> '89, that was the time of the tiananmen disaster. i can't remember if there was any significant economic relationship between the united states and china during that time, certainly nothing that might be termed a bai,