tv American Politics CSPAN October 3, 2010 9:30pm-11:00pm EDT
invest in the industries of the future and support the small businesses and entrepreneurs who can be the lifeblood of our economy. the new generation in my party understands the fundamental new labour lesson that we must build prosperity as well as redistributing it. and it also knows that there are huge vested interests and huge barriers to the wealth creators in this country, particularly small businesses and the self- employed. these must be tackled. i tell you this, i will make labour the party of enterprise and also the party of small business. and i want british businesses, large and small, to be able to make the most of the advantages of globalization. new labour was right to be enthusiastic about the opportunities that come in a
more connected world -- the movement of goods and services, the chance to travel, the new markets for our companies. but this new generation recognizes that we did not do enough to address concerns about some of the consequences of globalization, including migration. all of us heard it. like the man i met in my constituency who told me he had seen his mates' wages driven down by the consequences of migration. if we don't understand why he would feel angry-and it wasn't about prejudice-then we are failing to serve those who we are in politics to represent. [applause] i am the son of immigrants. i believe that britain has benefited economically, culturally, socially from those
who come to this country. i don't believe either that we can turn back the clock on free movement of labour in europe. but we should never have pretended it would not have consequences. consequences we should have dealt with. we have to challenge the old thinking that flexible labour markets are always the answer. employers should not be allowed to exploit migrant labour in order to undercut wages. and if we have free movement of labour across europe we need proper labour standards in our economy, including real protection for agency workers. [applause] and, as every democratic country recognizes, it is vital that workers have a voice that speaks for them.
i remember during this campaign i met some school dinner ladies. they had to buy their own uniforms, their shift patterns were being changed at a moment's notice, frankly conference they were being exploited. so they looked to their union to help them. they weren't interested in going on strike, they loved the kids they served and wanted to serve their schools. but they wanted someone to help them get basic standards of decency and fairness. responsible trade unions are part of a civilized society,
every democratic country recognizes that. but all of us in this movement bear a heavy responsibility. we want to win an argument about the danger this coalition poses to our economy and our society. to do so we must understand the lessons of history. we need to win the public to our cause and what we must avoid at all costs is alienating them and adding to the book of historic union failures. that is why i have no truck, and you should have no truck, with overblown rhetoric about waves of irresponsible strikes. the public won't support them. i won't support them. and you shouldn't support them either. [applause] but it is not just from trade unions that i want to see responsibility.
this new generation demands responsibility from business too. during this campaign, i have met some extraordinary people doing amazing service for our country. i remember a care worker i met in durham. she worked hard and with dedication, looking after our mums, dads and grandparents when they couldn't look after themselves anymore. she is doing one of the most important jobs in our society, and if it was my mum or dad, i would want anyone who cared for them to be paid a decent wage. but she was barely paid the minimum wage - and barely a few pence extra for higher skills. she told me that she thought a fair wage would be £7 an hour because after all she would get that for stacking shelves at the local supermarket.
i believe in responsibility in every part of our society. that's why i believe in not just a minimum wage but the foundation of our economy in the future must be a living wage. [applause] and we need a tax system for business that rewards responsibility -- to pay a living wage, to provide high quality apprenticeships, and family-friendly employment. and we need responsibility at the top of society too. the gap between rich and poor does matter. it doesn't just harm the poor it harms us all. what does it say about the
values of our society, what have we become, that a banker can earn in a day what the care worker can earn in a year? it's wrong, conference. i say responsibility in this country shouldn't just be about what you can get away with. and that applies to every chief executive of every major company in this country. and, just as businesses have responsibility to ensure fair pay, so those who can work have a responsibility to do so. this is one of the hardest issues for our party because all of us know in our communities people who are in genuine need and who worry about the impact of new medical tests, or changes to rules on them.
at the same time, let's be honest, we also know there are those for whom the benefits system has become a trap. that is not in their interests or the interests of us a society and we are right when we say it must be challenged. reforming our benefits system is not about stereotyping everybody out of work; it's about transforming their lives. real help matched with real responsibility. that is why on welfare, i will look closely at whatever the government comes forward with. not arbitrary cuts to benefits but a genuine plan to make sure that those in need are protected and that those who can work have the help they need to ensure they do so.
work is a central part of life. but it is not all that matters. we all care about making a living but we don't just care about that. here is our generation's paradox -- the biggest ever consumers of goods and services, but a generation that yearns so much for the things that business cannot provide. strong families. time with your children. green spaces. community life. love and compassion. new labour embraced markets in our economy and was right to do so. but lets be honest we became naïve about them. we must never again give the impression that we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. we must be on the side of communities who want to save their local post office, not be the people trying to close it.
we must be on the side of people trying to protect their high street from looking like every other high street, not the people who say that's just the forces of progress. and we must be on the side of those who are dismayed by the undermining of the local pub with cut-price alcohol from supermarkets. we must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line. we stand for these things not because we are social conservatives but because we believe in community, belonging and solidarity. and i tell you this, the good life is about the things we do in our community and the time we spend with family.
i feel this so deeply since the birth of my son sixteen months ago. as we rebuild our economy, we must think how we protect families up and down this country. families can't do the best job if they are stressed out, working 60 or 70 hours a week, can't be there when the kids get home from school, doing two or three jobs. we've got to change our culture on working time not just for the good of families, but because it is through family that we learn right from wrong, develop ambitions for ourselves and show kindness and respect for others that is the foundation of our society. when i look at some of the challenges we face as a country -- from gangs to teenage pregnancy -- it is only a government that stands up for families that are trying their best to bring up their kids that can offer answers. so as we rebuild our economy we must think about how we protect
and nourish the things that matter to families and to family life. this new generation also wants to challenge the way we think about the state and what it can achieve. i believe profoundly that government must play its part in creating the good society. but our new generation also knows that government can itself become just such a vested interest. that unless reformed, unless accountable, unless responsive, government can impede the good society. our new generation, hungry for change, is unwilling to see that happen. like millions of people around the country, i went to my local comprehensive. i know the value of a good school, a good teacher. and i know there are many parents frustrated, with a school that doesn't suit your child or live up to your hopes.
there are amazing secondary schools in my constituency and amazing teachers and head teachers. but one of them was consistently failing its pupils. and it pained me as an mp to see those kids being consistently let down. now that school has been taken over, the kids' life chances transformed. that is what good public service reform is all about. my generation recognizes too that government can itself become a vested interest when it comes to civil liberties. i believe too in a society where individual freedom and liberty matter and should never be given away lightly. the first job of government is the protection of its citizens. as prime minister i would never forget that. and that means working with all the legitimate means at our disposal to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks. but we must always remember
that british liberties were hard fought and hard won over hundreds of years. we should always take the greatest care in protecting them. and too often we seemed casual about them. like the idea of locking someone away for 90 days -- nearly three months in prison - without charging them with a crime. or the broad use of anti- terrorism measures for purposes for which they were not intended. they just undermined the important things we did like cctv and dna testing. protecting the public involves protecting all their freedoms. i won't let the tories or the liberals take ownership of the british tradition of liberty. i want our party to reclaim that tradition. so too in our foreign policy the new generation must challenge old thinking. we are the generation that came
of age at the end of the cold war. the generation that was taught that the end of history had arrived and then saw 9/11 shatter that illusion. and we are the generation that recognizes that we belong to a global community. we can't insulate ourselves from the world's problems. for that reason, right now this country has troops engaged in afghanistan. they represent the very best of our country. they and their families are making enormous sacrifices on our behalf and we should today acknowledge their service and their sacrifice. [applause] our troops are there to stabilize the country and enable a political settlement to be reached so that afghanistan can be stable and we can be
safe. i will work in a bi-partisan way with the government to both support our mission and ensure afghanistan is not a war without end. but just as i support the mission in afghanistan as a necessary response to terrorism, i've got to be honest with you about the lessons of iraq. iraq was an issue that divided our party and our country. many sincerely believed that the world faced a real threat. i criticize nobody faced with making the toughest of decisions and i honor our troops who fought and died there. but i do believe that we were wrong. wrong to take britain to war and we need to be honest about that. wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the united nations.
america has drawn a line under iraq and so must we. our alliance with america is incredibly important to us but we must always remember that our values must shape the alliances that we form and any military action that we take. so many of the world's problems need functioning international institutions. the days in which any country could achieve their goals on their own are over. there can be no solution to the conflicts of the middle east without international action, providing support where it is needed, and pressure where it is right to do so. and let me say this, as israel ends the moratorium on settlement building, i will always defend the right of israel to exist in peace and security. but israel must accept and recognize in its actions the palestinian right to statehood.
that is why the attack on the gaza flotilla was so wrong. and that is why the gaza blockade must be lifted and we must strain every sinew to work to make that happen. the government must step up and work with our partners in europe and around the world to help bring a just and lasting peace to the middle east. but to achieve all these things - a different economy, a different society and reform of the state we must change our politics too. let's be honest, politics isn't
working. people have lost faith in politicians and politics. and trust is gone. politics is broken. its practice, its reputation and its institutions. i'm in it and even i sometimes find it depressing. this generation has a chance -- and a huge responsibility -- to change our politics. we must seize it and meet the challenge. so we need to reform our house of commons and i support changing our voting system and will vote yes in the referendum on av. yes we need to finally elect the house of lords after talking about it for so long -- about a hundred years. yes we need more decisions to be made locally, with local democracy free of the constraints we have placed on it in the past and free of an
attitude which has looked down its nose at local government. and i want to congratulate all our local councilors and tell you, i will be shoulder to shoulder with you at next may's local elections. and the following year, we will be proud not only of the olympics in london, but proud too to see them presided over by the next mayor of london. ken livingstone. [applause] and let me also congratulate oona on the campaign that she fought.
let's be honest, changing our institutions won't be enough to restore trust on its own. look in the end, it's politicians who have to change. this generation must reject the old ways of doing politics. and must speak to the issues our generation knows it must confront. the focus groups will tell you that there's no votes in green issues. maybe not. but taking the difficult steps to protect our planet for future generations is the greatest challenge our generation faces.
[applause] when i think about my son, i think what he will be asking me in twenty years time is whether i was part of the last generation not to get climate change or the first generation to get it. and climate change, just like the aging society, can't be tackled by the politics we have. they don't lend themselves to the politics of now -- instant results, instant votes, instant popularity. x-factor politics. so we can't be imprisoned by the focus groups. politics has to be about leadership or it is about nothing. i also know something else. wisdom is not the preserve of any one party. some of the political figures in history who i admire most are keynes, lloyd george, beveridge, who were not members of the labour party. frankly, the political
establishment too often conducts debate in a way that insults the intelligence of the public. we must change this for the good of the country. i will be a responsible leader of the opposition. what does that mean? when i disagree with the government, as on the deficit, i will say so loud and clear and i will take the argument to them. but when ken clarke says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re- offending rates, i'm not going to say he's soft on crime. when theresa may says we should review stop and search laws to prevent excessive use of state power, i'm not going to say she is soft on terrorism. i tell you this conference, this new generation must find a new way of conducting politics. and that brings me to some of the names i've been called. wallace out of wallace and gromit -- i can see the resemblance. forrest gump -- not so much.
and what about red ed? come off it. let's start to have a grown-up debate in this country about who we are and where we want to go and what kind of country we want to leave for our kids. [applause] a few days ago our contest came to an end and now the real contest has begun. i relish the chance to take on david cameron. we may be of a similar age, but
in my values and ideals i am of a different and new generation. the new generation is not simply defined by age, but by attitudes and ideals. and there is a defining difference between us and david cameron, and that is optimism. we are the heirs to an extraordinary tradition, to great leaders who were above all the optimists of history. the optimism of 1945 which built the national health service and the welfare state. the optimism of harold wilson and the white heat of technology and the great social reforms of that government. the optimism of tony and gordon who took on the established
thinking and reshaped our country. we are the optimists in politics today. so let's be humble about our past. let's understand the need to change. let's inspire people with our vision of the good society. let the message go out, a new generation has taken charge of labour. optimistic about our country. optimistic about our world. optimistic about the power of politics. we are the optimists and together we will change britain. thank you very much. [applause] ♪
university where he spoke with students and to questions. he called for global financial constitution to establish rules for finance around the world. this is about one hour. [applause] >> thank you very much. can i say, first of all, what a real privilege it is to be at harvard, at the inner-city which is one of the greatest international -- at a university which is one of the greatest international universities around the world, and a university where i know, from my own experience, that students leave your not only as citizens of their own country, but as genuine citizens of the world. i am grateful to be here at the request of becky kennedy.
ted kennedy taught me a huge amount in politics. at the very young age of 30, i he started in the senate. i was in parliament for many years as well. i thought about what i would say enough to my election. and he told me would be said to a set of the last election in massachusetts. he said that this state needs the senator of maturity and experience. [laughter] i was once a university lecturer and i know that universities like harvard stand for object to the and rationality and for the pursuit of truth and knowledge and objectivity and these are all the qualities you have to leave behind when you go into politics. [laughter]
it's is my intention this evening that you feel that what i sesay is of some use in the future. he could spend much of his day is writing poetry. the fact that nobody liked his poetry did not seem to matter to him at all. he formed what was called on the midnight club for fallen women. i do not know what the press would make of this, but he went out into the streets of london trying to recruit prostitutes and turn them from their ways into decent law-abiding citizens. i think some of our newspapers would have a great deal of fun with that. then we have raspberry prime minister in our country -- rose prime minister in our
country. his greatest achievement in life was not being the prime minister, but his worst winning the grand national race. when we came into the 20th century, i think our political systems were totally unprepared after these great events. we were amateurs and their world with huge problems that had to be met. "how we can conquer unemployment" is a book that set to deal with the economic crisis. when i arrived in the treasury in 1997, but it cited to see the documents in the treasury library. it was very interesting that the
head of the treasury and at that time had written only three words on this document -- " inflation, extravagance, bankruptcy." churchill thought of the response and he is one of our great heroes and was a great prime minister. he made a resolution early on in life that he would not drink before lunchtime. [laughter] and then he changed its later. he made resolution he would not drink before breakfast. he set off the -- he said of the 1930's that we resolve to be resolute. we were solid for solidity. and we were powerful for evidence. now we are in a totally new world. the new policies -- we need new
policies. there is a fundamental shift in the way the world works. i want to suggest that to you, that we're not dealing simply with a global financial crisis that arose in 2007 and is going away in 2010. what we're dealing with is not even an economic crisis similar to the 1930's in many respects. we are dealing with what i would call the first crisis of the global age. we're dealing with problems that are so global in nature that global problems cannot be solved by simply national solutions. if you have global problems, then you need global solutions. if you look at the policies of the 19th century and the 20th- century, it was obviously the right thing.
you have a national policy for the infrastructure, for inflation, for delivering education, and you would consider what we did as a nation to be competitive, successful, and to deliver the best prosperity for your people. but look at the problems we face in 2010. climate change, if you agree with the evidence, cannot be solved by one country alone. it cannot even be solved in one continental loan. it can only be solved by global coordinated action. equally, terrorism and security affects every continent. while one country leads on the action against terrorism, it needs other countries to take action as well. so have a global problem that needs will coordinated action. when you come to the financial and economic issues of our time -- and i am very pleased to be giving this lecture because of the great interest in economic
policy -- if you look at the problems we face now, these are global problems that can only be dealt with by globally coroneted solutions. what is happening around the world -- we had a financial crisis, lost 30 million jobs, lost a massive amount of trade that may not easily be recovered. but west -- but what has actually occurred is more fundamental than that. europe and america produced most of the world's goods for 200 years. between us, america and europe was responsible for the majority of manufacturing products in the world. for two hundred years, we were responsible for the majority of trade in the world. it was trade initiative by europe and by america. for two hundred years, during this industrial era, we were
also responsible for the majority of investments in the world. as a result of that, we were responsible for being the consumers of the majority of goods and the world. but what has happened in this deck is quite fundamental. for the first time since -- in this decade is quite fundamental. for the first time, we are no longer the majority producer in the world, nor the majority manufacturer, nor the majority trader in the world. we have a minority in production. we have a minority and trade. and have a minority manufacturing in the world. we are not the majority investor in the world either. the majority investment is not being made in europe and america. it is now being made by the rest of the world, particularly in asia. what is the lesson that i learned from that? it is absolutely fundamental to
how we solve the problems of the future. no longer can we make decisions that do not take into account the asian consumer, the investor in asia, the investor in other parts of the world, and the demand that can be created in these parts of the world. when i look forward to in the next 15 years is -- what i look for to in the next 15 years is agents not just being the producers of the world's goods, but they become the consumers, a population that is far bigger than america and europe combined. if we simply think that each of us can export our way out of the present economic problems and every country thinks they can export, it cannot happen. someone has to import goods. we have to get to a situation in this world economy where the consumers of goods are increasingly not just us,
america and europe, but consumers in china and india and in the rest of asia. a billion people will join the middle-class in these countries over the next year. we need to think of a world trading system that allows us to be exporters and manufacturers and, in the high decibel you added products, joining in these goods for sale, not just in america, but in the rest of the world. we have to coordinate economic policy if we will make sure that everyone has the best chance for prosperity. there are juices that have to be made. my friend was a great professor here at harvard. many of us were very much influenced by the work that he wrote. he told me in 1985 that he went to the austrian republic to
celebrate the 40th anniversary of the austrian republic that had been created in 1945. he was invited to be the lead speaker in this great gathering. in the front row, as he was speaking there was the great neo-liberal economist von hayek. a friend made a joke. he wanted him and others for what they had contributed to the success of the conference. if i had not left the country then, then austria would not have enjoyed the strength and prosperity it has. [laughter] the imf has just done a study which shows that, if the world could court made its policy -- if we could have an arrangement where we could increase investment in europe and
and and work on a deficit-reduction, we could create 30 million more jobs. we could take 50,000 people at a party. we could reap $3 trillion of economic activity in the world. global problems -- and these are global problems that need global solutions. my second message is about the financial crisis itself. when i came to harvard in 1998 and spoke at this rostrum and generally i was speaking at the rostrum compared to what i am today, i talked about the global financial system.
hi suggested that we have an early-warning system so we could easily take the actions necessary. i was unsuccessful in persuading my fellow colleagues that we needed to take that action as a result of the asian crisis. now we have found something bigger, i think, about the working of financial institutions that we have to deal with. i think people would be surprised if we thought that the subprime crisis that started in america, $1.50 trillion of mortgages that had to be written off, have these mortgages were actually sold to europe and ended up in european banks where they have no idea what the value of these products were. what we have is a financial
system that was taking risks, one that did not have sufficient capital to underpin the risks that had been taken. i think the lesson that we learn is that none of the theories that we have before 2007 stood up to examination. it could not explain why markets did not self-addressed. markets actually self- destructive. -- self and just -- self-adjust. markets actually self-destruct did. -- markets actually self- destructived. we had not understood that, behind the operation of markets, led the responsibility that we
saw in the banking system that was not able to be controlled. it comes down to the simple issue, that markets need morals, that markets operate in a society and in an environment where the values do not come from the markets themselves, but come from us, the people, and that the values that we want to achieve, fairness and enterprise competition, these are values which up to bring to the marketplace. that is why we need a global financial constitution that deals with the issues of fairness and responsibility as well as enterprise competition and risk and make sure that we can never get into a situation again where the relationship between markets and government is such that we have not taken prior action necessary to avoid abuse in the financial system. i have two big proposals. first, we need global coordination of economic policy.
that is difficult for countries to achieve. a second proposal was that we need a global financial system and probably a constitution for the global financial restitutions that sets down the rules and standards not just in one country, but right across the board. i believe america has a very important role, always, in leading the way forward. you have the most successful economic power of the century. you have the most successful technologies and entrepreneurs of the world has ever achieved. you're the first to recognize after the second world war that we needed a martial ban so that europe could be reconstructed. it was george marshall here and harvard who put forward that proposal. you the first to realize that we had to build global institutions
for this new era. i think that american leadership would make a huge difference that is essential for jobs and growth and for prosperity in america and in the rest of the world. some may say that to achieve these proposals would be a dream impossible. i could not have imagined that nelson mandela would go free from prison and apartheid would be ended in the early 1990's, despite all the campaigns we have had. we never thought it would happen. and we never thought that the cold war would be brought to a sudden and in 1990 with the ratification of europe -- with the unification of europe
in peace and democracy and the letter -- and the liberty of the individual. i think it is possible to imagine in this century, given the climate change and the financial crisis and dealing with the problems of terrorism, we can fashion a global cooperation that is far stronger and deeper than we have ever had before. when uri student, this is the time when the decisions creek -- when you are a sudden, this is a time when the decisions you make may influence the rest of your life and influence the public service you can do. i was very fortunate. i started with my brother is encouraging me to form a charity ed with under in africa.
we gave billions of pounds in debt relief to other countries in the world. i am very fortunate to have worked in a constituency riddled with unemployment and to see that we have created 2 million jobs on the road that we wanted to achieve, which was full employment in our country. i took the things i did when i was a student and when i it was young and yielded results. if you, as students, think of what you're doing now, your commitment to public service, are ashieve in the future ba impossible as the things in the 1980's and 1990's, they can actually be things that can happen.
when those who do not suffer are as angry as those who do, that is the injunction for all of those who have privilege and great opportunities to help other people. my suggestion today is to work together to bring the nations of the world closer in a time that will make possible a real recovery from this recession. it is not an impossible dream. if it is entirely achievable. we can do it. thank you very much. [applause]
>> it is time now for questions. there are four microphones, two on this level and two on the second level. if you would like to ask a question, please go to one of the microphones and i will take questions in order. we will start here and go around. let me remind you all of the rules for asking questions here in the forum. the first rule is that we ask that you identify yourself when you ask a question, your name and where you are from. secondly, you are to ask one question and to keep it brief and succinct. the third rule is that your question and with it? -- and with a question mark.
[laughter] >> thank you for speaking with us this evening, mr. prime minister. what types of articles or statues do you see in this global constitution? i'm curious to hear some specifics you're interested in a. >> thank you very much. allow me to explain why i think it is really important that we not only have national supervision of financial should titians, but that we have global supervision. we had the g-20 in london in april 2009 where the 20 leaders of the world discussing all the big issues. one of the issues that divided people was the issue of tax havens. the french were very determined that we make a commitment that there be an exchange of information between tax authorities so we could eliminate the race to the bottom that is involved when you have tax havens that take away trade
from one center and put pressure that lowers standards. if you don't have a global agreement, increasingly, you have areas in the world that will allow themselves to be regulatory havens and escape regulation necessary to have a global financial order. what would be in the global financial constitution? first, you have to be absolutely sure that your financial institutions operate in a way that is transparent. secondly, you need to be absolutely sure that they have sufficient capital for the risks they're taking. thirdly, you need to be absolutely sure that they have the liquidity necessary to continue. fourthly, you need cooperation throughout the world so that, where companies cross borders, we know exactly what is happening in steadily what is happening in one area of the world.
there is general support now for action to be taken. the problem is, after the asian crisis, people tend to for get and then leave the issues on the table without resolving them at the conclusion. if we move quickly on these issues, we can put in place measures that will actually give people an insurance that you could not have the same sort of crisis again. that is what i mean by a global financial constitution. >> mr. brown, i am a graduate of the kennedy school. my question has to do with -- we have had a cumulative excess of imports over exports of roughly $6 trillion in the past 10 years. what actions would you suggest would be appropriate for the united states to deal with that very serious trade deficit? >> this goes to the heart of what i am saying. it is a very important question.
the obvious temptation is that, if you have a flood of imports into our country, to take action against imports. the obvious temptation is to have a big trade barrier or let's protect ourselves against what is often classified as unfair competition from countries that pay very low wages. but the problem is, if you start to put protectionist measures in, you actually mean that trade will be disrupted and even your exports will not be able to get to the countries you want. what i am suggesting to you is that perhaps it is better to look at it another way. chinese/indian countries want to prosperity that has eluded them in the last century and to be there for them to enjoy also. their wishes and their desires i
not different from the american and european consumers to buy the modern goods and equipment and electronics necessary and felt to be important for a good standard of living. while we can see a situation where we come with our expertise in the high- technology, custom built, value- -- these are billions of potential consumers where american brand names are the only names that matter in storm parts of the world. -- in some parts of the world. european products and services are quite unique and a far higher quality than can be produced elsewhere. my answer to you is, in a situation where the american consumer and the asian consumer wants similar things, why can we
not put ourselves in a position where we are exporting more to these countries? lead is a better way to secure the wealth and prosperity of workers in america -- that is a better way to secure the wealth and prosperity of workers in america. chinese origins are $400 a month. thailands wages are $300 a month. philippine wages for two hundred dollars a month. then you get to vietnam which is which is $100 a month. then we can get engaged in low- wage competition for the rest of our lives. it is far better to be exporting with countries around the world. my argument is not protectionism. that will not protect people's jobs. my job is to increase trade and to make sure that our products, by pushing the chinese and other governments to get into these markets. that is how the world will start to recover.
>> my name is daniel lores. i am a junior at the college. the recent troubles in greece are examples of these problems that can arise without economic coronation. how would you deal with problems that might arise with increased global coordination? >> i think greece's problems -- let's be honest and the prime minister will tell you -- i rise from problems made by the greeks that were not in the interest in the greek people. vereins -- they arose from an unwillingness over a decade to tell the truth about their fiscal position. if you are in a situation where they published the financiers and did not include the defense budget, you do not have a picture of what happened. greek problems need to be
solved -- they are solving the deficit. the only way of sorting out the problems of a low-growth economy is to insure that you can grow faster. some of you will be graduates next year. you will be going up to look for jobs. i know that harvard graduates will do well in the labor market. but there are many graduates who are looking for jobs who cannot give them at the moment. many people want to go to college and university in and out -- in a lot of places where it is insufficient. but where will the jobs come from. where will the growth come from in this international economy? the real problem is that we face a place where unemployment will be high over the next 10 years unless we take action. there are only two courses of
action. you can take a protectionist course and look in on yourself and try to protect yourself against imports and what will happen in the rest of the world. the second way is that we look to cooperate with other countries and coordinate economic policy in such a way that there is mutual benefit to everyone. when you add up what everybody else to do in the world -- china says they want to raise people out of poverty. then have them raise consumption in china. europe wants to reduce unemployment. they need economic reform that limit the possible. america wants to export and that is the right course of action, but let's make it possible for the trade in the world to be sufficient in a growing economy for american jobs to be expanded and not cut back. >> thank you, mr. prime minister, for taking time out of
your busy schedule to deliver us at harvard. i am from turkey. i am a freshman at the college. i have a question about problems than a global cooperation. what role should the u.n. play in this global cooperation? where do you see the u.n. in that picture? >> i was at copenhagen at the climate change conference. it was a fascinating occasion because you had 190 countries in one room trying to make a collective decision. it turned out to be quite difficult. in fact, as we started the proceedings, one delegate from one country proposed that the prime minister of denmark, who was about to chair the proceeding, should not be allowed to take the chair. there were debates over whether the person who convened the conference in support of the
united nations should be cheering the conference. -- should be chairing the conference. we were not in a good position as we arrived. we were in a worse position because we did not have a mechanism of making decisions. if the united nations will solve the problem -- solve the puzzle with nations working together, you have to find a way of making the decisions. as far as economic policy is concerned, the g-20, all the major economies of the world and at the end representatives from different continents meet together to make critical decisions. having already had decisions that prevented a global
depression as a result of the activities of a number of countries in the g-20 and having a rest of the rest of the banking system, we cannot stop there and satisfy ourselves. i do not think that we can have that happening with 190 countries meeting to make one decision. but i think it can happen with the g-20. that is probably the best target for getting the world economy moving again. >> hello, mr. brown. i am a student here at harvard. i have a specific question about -- i would like to get your thoughts on zimbabwe. do you share the same regrets mgabe?not toppling agav
what are your thoughts on this? do you think it this time, for the sake of progress, that sanctions are removed? >> it is a tragedy. i think the people who look at the zimbabwe see this tragedy of a country that is potentially the richest country and most prosperous country in africa. it is laid low by massive unemployment, by the crane basket of that part of africa and not being able to produce what it needs. last year, several people suffered from cholera from the failure of health care and sanitation policies in that country. what can you do about something that is completely abhorrent to
us? they entered into a power- sharing agreement. the issue in africa is not whether britain or america can take unilateral action in relation to the zimbabwe regime. the countries surrounding zimbabwe, who are friends of the zimbabwean people, south africa, what they can do to persuade zimbabwe to change its ways? we are unhappy to be flexible about the sanctions issue. but the question is whether africa can agree on a policy that can ensure we have a transition of a government at an
election that would take place in the future. it is not an easy answer to say that britain or america could take direct action here. but it is an answer to say that the african community can persuade the zimbabwean people that its interest in zimbabwe is such for the future and we have to see an end to the practices that are prevalent to dictatorships and not democracy. >> mr. brown, it is an absolute pleasure to have you here tonight. i am a sophomore. the united kingdom has been a key player in the world commitment to the green revolution. it has managed to reduce pollution in its largest city, london, by 12% since the early 1990's. but it has become increasingly dependent on oil but does not
always come from the north sea. how does this speak on behalf of the development of the world? what is a viable global solution? >> thank you very much. britain is the biggest country for the next generation of when the power and wave power. we have renewals that will grow jobs in the years to come. but to many countries are too dependent on one source of energy, which is oil. i was talking about the climate change conference in copenhagen. anyway, i did not prove to me that people could cooperate. we miscalculated what people were willing to offer. if you look at the conclusions
of the climate change conference, it is fascinating to know that we agreed on a target of carbon emissions, a 80% for the rich countries by two thousand 50 and a target for all countries. we agreed on transparency so that people could know what happens in each country. we agree that each country would develop a carbon emissions plan. we agreed that we would support, financially, the adaptation and mitigation efforts taken by the poorest countries in the world. so we have the progress on the measures, but we did not agree on a treaty itself. we have all expected that countries, having -- -- having reached the agreements, a treaty barring international failure. but we do not have the level of investment and the carbon -- in
low-carb and alternatives. could you get the same results by having a framework agreement that did not require a country to legislate in its own parliament in a matter that a tree would advise and to do. we want to get these individual measures which are the equivalent of a climate change agreement moving forward. but we need a framework for the future. it makes my point anyway. this is a global problem. we know that pollution and what the effects of the environment has on each of our countries. it is a global problem and cannot be solved by one country. but many of us are resolved to find an international agreement that is binding. perhaps the way ford is to have a framework agreement -- way forward is to have a framework agreement that can be successfully administered in the international community, but
leaves the responsibility on the individual national governments. my conclusion from copenhagen, apart from my talk about the difficulty of reaching decisions with 190 groups of people, there may have been a lack of will to come to an agreement, but we failed to understand what they would agree to bring to the table. we want to make sure that the chinese and the indians are prepared to buy low carbon technologies. >> hello, mr. brown. i am tom snyder, a sophomore at the college. companies like germany still maintain have their manufacturing dynamism and other aspects of their manufacturing,
but their populations continue to shrink. how can they continue with sustained economic growth while still decreasing in population and facing a lot of those issues as well? >> germany is worried because, with a rising population of elderly people, there will be a lot of cost born in pensions and social security. if you have a smaller which population, you do not have the tax revenues necessary. the reason germany is more worried about a fiscal position and other countries as they have to make provisions for the future where the bills were be higher. but germany is successful in manufacturing. for 10 years, when it barely grew at all as a country, when it took time adjusting to the euro, where wages fell, they
adjusted to the changes that were made. but people underestimate the manufacturing strength of america. you should be more vote -- you should be more vociferous. the aerospace orders coming to america are coming from china and asia. i think they're building 100 airports in china. there are major orders for those who are leading the world, like the airbus in europe and like boeing in america. it is true that you see computers -- the work force in computers in america was 150,000. and the work force directly in computers, in the manufacturing, is very low now. and that is certainly because they're making computers in
china. but those in the i.t. industry are in the design, software, the creative talents, like in the iphone and the pipe had and the different computer -- and the ipad and the different computer innovations going on. but the wealth is not being traded in america as well. the cost for the production of an ipad is very small for the producer. most of the profit lies in the innovation and the greatest talents. he should be very confident in your country and for your creative talents and entrepreneur real flair. -- entrepreneurial flair. you have to create a situation
where the rest of the world is ready to buy from america. it makes my point again that trade will be the engine of growth in the future. it is really important to understand that there is a market of billions of people ready to be taken up. >> thank you so much for speaking with us tonight. i name is mary reed, a freshman at the college. you addressed a great deal on the need for global coordinated efforts and dealing with economic crisis and the economy in general and also about the rise of asia in terms of global importance. i am wondering how you propose dealing with the fact that often the interests of the developed world, the u.s. and the u.k., do not coincide with the interests of china and in yet in terms of environmental policy, human rights, things like that. how would you propose specifically trying to convince china to sign-on to
environmental legislation? through incentives? through economic consequences? >> you're absolutely right. the issue of human rights is always on the agenda when britain each china. it is our duty to point out the issues of human rights and executions and issues about the detention of particular people that have to be spelled out in any discussion. it is our duty on behalf of these people and really the importance that we attach to human-rights to do so. on the environment, we're close to getting some progress on the environment issues. china wants to create green cities. while they have increased pollution as a result of
increased industry, there is a chance of getting some agreed standards on environmental issues. this issue about whether to cooperate or not is absolutely essential. when i was chairman of the international monetary fund committee, we had anti- globalization protesters. two days ago -- one day, there was a banner that said " worldwide campaign against globalization." [laughter] you could see what people thought and what they're trying to say. france had a similar anti- globalization campaign. the slogan was simply "note to
2008." -- "no to 2008." [laughter] it is the easiest thing in the world for countries like ours, having made policy issues and international issues, to see that the interdependence is such that we will not prosper without achieving solutions to global problems. the global problems is not achieving growth where the majority production is now done in one part of the world and the majority of the consumption is in another part of the world. thee people might say i answers for this part of the world to increase consumption. but i city answer is for people in the other part of a world to raise their consumption.
i think that is where the break through is. i believe if with good will. the chinese objective in stated documents is to take millions more people out of poverty. that is what they say the purpose of their government is. you can doubt whether their import policies and export policies pursued her not taking the money away from consumers and putting them into industry and the belmont. but if china were to pursue the policy taking more people out of poverty, it would take more consumption. they would be in the position to buy more goods not only from china, but from the rest of the world appeare.
as the economies grow, it is possible to see china go from 40% to 50%.and 40 i think it is in our interest to pursue the policy, which is of mutual benefit with asia, america, and europe. >> we will take two more questions. >> thank you so much for your presentation. if the united states and united kingdom continue to fall behind china in production and manufacturing, what do you believe will come of the future? i am sorry. i am a bit nervous. >> that is right to the heart of the problem. people are worried about jobs
and the standard of living. it is true that the standards of living have not risen for some parts of america and europe for many years. people were borrowing heavily on incomes that were not rising. how do you wish to income tax if you are thinking -- income? about yourhinking next income, it is clear that the market in the future will say that those companies which have high technology goods and high-value products, not just a good, but services that have to be sold to the rest of the world, that is where the future lies. but to be able to prepare, you have to invest in education, technology, and industry. at the moment, in america, people do not see that there is
sufficient demand for businesses making investment in the future. you have a core of money not invested because they cannot see the capacity there to make the profits in the future. but if we could see world demand rising and if america is well placed like britain and other countries, with high technology goods and services, then, in a few years' time and even earlier, the consumer demands of the rest of the world can be met by our products being sold to the rest of the world. i think the american dream that every generation will do better than the last can be renewed by ensuring that people have the skills and the education and the technology to benefit from what will be a changing world market in the years to come. you can continue with low pay, but that is a race to the bottom.
there is no country that has -- there are no countries other than britain and america that have this standard of universities. >> we will do one more. >> hello, mr. brown. i am a second year reading history major at oxford. i hope to see what conference next week. [laughter] >> the question. >> ireland's economy shrank by 1.2% in the second quarter. of course, their austerity are championed by mr. cameron. what does that say about how
other countries should go about reducing their debt burden? >> you have to ask again what is the big problem we face? if deficit is the biggest problem of all, then you will reduce the deficit at the cost and expense of everything else. if you think it is because of lack of growth and jobs and an economy that can produce tax revenues and produced jobs for people who do not have to rely on social security and unemployment benefits, then you will concentrate on getting your economy growing again. that is really the message that i take to countries around the world. there is insufficient evidence that the economy will grow fast enough in the advanced industrial economies for us to take risks in the recovery. it is important to recognize that, over the next few months, you will see unemployment rising in some countries, rather than falling. the resources in the economy are
being pressured at a time when there's not sufficient growth. you can either take the exit strategy for this global recession, which will eventually somehow lead to a rise in private investment in a few years to come or you can look at the evidence and said a private investment will not rise without sufficient consumer demand. therefore you draw the conclusion that, if we do not have an exit strategy that i am talking about, expanding world trade and expanding world demand, you will be in a low- growth decayed for years to come. if the problem is growth and unemployment and you have to deal with that first, then it means that you have to make sure that the resources and the