Grace Creek Media
"IIA US Exports"
INTERVIEW WITH CLAYTON YEUTTER, LORI WALLACH, DAN IKENSON
Correspondent:  Jim Glassman
Media ID:  IIA US Exports

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action.  A television series about ideas and their consequences.  I'm Jim Glassman.  This week U.S. exports, can they be doubled?  President Barrack Obama has vowed to do just that over the next five years.  Expanding exports could create thousands of new jobs and help grow the economy.  But will other nations be willing and able to buy American?

Joining me to explore this topic, Ambassador Clayton Yeutter, former United States trade representative during the Reagan administration.  Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizens Global Trade Watch Division.  And Dan Ikenson, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.  The topic this week, rhetoric or reality?  Can the U.S. double its exports in five years?  This is Ideas in Action.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at Investors.com
(MUSIC)
JIM GLASSMAN:
The Obama administration's national export initiative has a goal post.  But can it be reached?   The government and large and small businesses are all working to boost exports.  CEOs from some of America's largest companies are offering advice to the administration about increasing the sale of American goods abroad.

But big obstacles remain.  For U.S. exports to grow, key foreign markets like China's would need to expand domestic consumption.  At home, business and labor groups are at loggerheads over free trade.  And so are some members of the president's own party.  This week the big push to boost American exports.

Clayton Yeutter, let me start with you.  You recently described President Obama's national export initiative-- the NIE as a comprehensive, well conceived, sophisticated approach to the export challenge.  And that's pretty high praise.  Especially from--
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
From a--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--A republican.
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
--Republican.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Right.  (LAUGH) What is it you like about this plan?
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
Well, what I like-- Jim is that-- it's-- it's well-conceived.  It's-- it's been well-thought through-- within the administration which was a bit of a surprise.  Because-- most of us thought the administration was just spinning its wheels-- for its first year because there wasn't any trade policy out there.

And all of a sudden this emerged in the State of the Union address.  And-- and then we began to say, "Well, you know, maybe the administration is paying a little attention to trade policy.  So let's give credit where credit is due."  And the fact that he's laid out a-- an export initiative-- to go from a trillion and a half of exports-- where we are now to three trillion in five years-- is indeed ambitious.  But it's also laudable.  There's-- there are a lot of jobs involved-- in that move-- if it can be done successfully.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Actually let's talk about that.  Lori, the president wants to increase exports from one and a half trillion to three trillion in five years.  Now according to my math that's about 14 or 15 percent a year.  Do you think that's possible?
LORI WALLACH:
Well, on the one hand, in fact, we've only had that kind of a growth in five years-- a doubling in the period between 1969 and 1974.  And if you control for inflation there's no other period that we had that kind of a jump.  The flip side is if they're starting in the year 2009, they already in a way going to boost-- just getting back to normal.  Because there is a huge drop off in both exports and the imports related to the global crisis.
JIM GLASSMAN:
By 300--
LORI WALLACH:
So--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Billion in exports I think.
(OVERTALK)
LORI WALLACH:
--Well, and it also depends what kinds of exports.  So the total of 1.5 is services and goods and oil.  If we look at goods which i-- which is a lot of what they've been talking about.   What a lot of the programs are actually aimed at that's-- that's actually a trillion was the-- the number of exports just for goods for 2009.  Which, you know, is 1.4 I think in 2008.  So you're almost-- you're part of the way-- you're 28 plus percent of the way there--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Just to get back to--
LORI WALLACH:
--Just to go back to--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Normal--
LORI WALLACH:
--Normal.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Right.
LORI WALLACH:
So it could be doable.  It's going to be-- a challenge.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Now you talk about the period '69 through '74.  And how was that achieved?  As I recall there was an increase in import tariffs--
LORI WALLACH:
Well--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Into the United States.  Goods coming in the United States.  They slapped a tariff on them.  That's how they got the exports up.
LORI WALLACH:
--Well, yes and no.  The-- the-- that was Nixon's surcharge.  It was for about nine months, 13 percent across the board.  And what that was aimed at doing was to get certain countries-- at that point Japan and Germany to devalue their currencies.  To-- sorry-- to raise their currencies so that their currencies actually weren't being manipulated to help their exports in third markets.

So the literature I've read actually said by helping get those currencies back to the real value it helped U.S. exports 'cause we weren't unfairly being knocked out of third markets.  And that was the effect.  Because the surcharge actually was very short.  But the export growth was really in the years afterwards.
JIM GLASSMAN:
So maybe the answer here to increasing exports is to slap a-- an import tariff on which might scare the Chinese into revaluing their currency higher to make American goods cheaper in China.  Is that a good idea?
DAN IKENSON:
No, it's absolutely not a good idea.  There's a very strong correlation between import growth and export growth.  You know, we don't live in the world of 1969 to 1974 where it was our producers against their producers.  Or us versus them.  Globalization has taken hold.  And-- and as a result-- the supply chain is-- i-- divided up.  We-- we share production with the Chinese and with people in other countries.

We are at the higher value end of-- of-- of the process.  China currently is doing low value production and assembly.  We need imports.  In fact, 55 percent of U.S. import value is imports made by U.S. producers.  We rely on imported raw materials, components, capital equipment.  That is a recipe for making-- you know, reducing revenues, reducing profits for business.  And-- and-- and retarding-- job growth.
JIM GLASSMAN:
How about that Lori?  We-- we need export-- we need imports.  That there's something-- even in the Obama plan, the notion, "Hey, well, we really need exports," rather than we need to increase trade.  That-- that's kind of-- it seems to me that that's playing to a particular political audience.  I mean, don't we really need imports as well as exports?
LORI WALLACH:
Well, we need some imports for sure.  That's the whole idea of specialization.  But we need to have more a balance in our trade flows.  And the lopsidedness that we had gotten to by the mid part of this 2000s-- the 2006, you know, 834 billion adjusted deficit-- that is destabilizing.  That's almost six percent of our GNP.  That's not sustainable.

If we were a developing country the IMF would have thrown the treasury secretary out.  And on top of that it contributed as we've heard now the G20 discussions, it's a lag in our growth.  But it-- it contributed to the instability globally.  And so getting a balance-- well, yes.  We need imports.

But we don't need imports at two times the rate of our exports.  We both boost our exports.  But we figure out what are the unfair reasons why they're imports?  So if there's currency manipulation and that's leading both a displacement of our exports in third markets.  But also to imports that wouldn't be competitive here if the currency, for instance, in China or Vietnam were the fair value, then that needs to be dealt with as well.
JIM GLASSMAN:
I-- like to get-- Ambassador Yeutter's view about exports and imports.  You know, I-- Adam Smith said the reason we trade is for imports.  It's for-- it's for things that we consume.
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
You know, this issue came up when I was U.S. trade representative back in the--
JIM GLASSMAN:
I'm sure.
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
--Reagan years just as it is today.  And the fact that it's-- déjà vu all over again.  And the attitude that we took back at that time was that we're not going to solve this imbalance problem that Lori was talking about-- because it existed then just as it exists today.  Not with quite the magnitude that is today.

But we said we were not going to solve this problem by impeding-- imports where they don't deserve to be impeded.  There are cases where you've got unfair trade practices around the world.  And we got to attack those.  But fundamentally we don't-- the-- going protectionist is not the answer.  You want to solve this problem by expanding exports-- rather than impeding-- imports.

Now if-- we've got an exchange rate problem, we got to deal with it.  If we've got unfair trade practices, we ought to deal with those.  But the far greater challenge is to make sure that we get export growth.  And that includes one doing some of the things that the-- Obama administration has announced to help export growth.  Doing everything we can.  And then the other piece of it as Dan said is that-- we've got-- we've got to have economic growth and demand generating in the rest of the world.  And that means-- countries like China, they've got to do more in the way of purchasing our products than they have been in the past.

Some of that is a matter of getting their markets open where they're not open today.  And that requires negotiations.  Some of it is just a change-- their own-- macroeconomic policies as, you know, to make a much more-- domestic-- oriented.  Instead of so expert oriented.  You've got a lot of Mercantilism yet in Asia-- too much.  And that's where a lot of this imbalance comes from.
JIM GLASSMAN:
You know, the-- the-- Chinese-- depending on what-- what particular exchange rate you use, the average Chinese only makes $6,500 a year.  I mean can we expect a huge consumer demand in China for American goods?
DAN IKENSON:
Yeah I think so.  I think, you know, we're seeing the emergence of a middle class.  We are seeing demand increase.
JIM GLASSMAN:
So why is it that our goods are not-- as appreciated in China as Chinese goods are in the United States?
DAN IKENSON:
China's a much-- much smaller economy.  Our-- our export growth has been increasing more dramatically to China than-- than anywhere else.  In fact-- exports to China prevented our exports from going o-- off a cliff-- in the wrong direction-- during-- during the recession.
JIM GLASSMAN:
I think you-- you-- you note that-- our exports to China have been increasing at a rate of 20 percent a year.  Or at least did through 2008 between I guess 2000 and 2008.
DAN IKENSON:
Yes, that's-- that-- that's--
(OVERTALK)
JIM GLASSMAN:
That's a pretty big number.
DAN IKENSON:
--It's-- it's a big number.  Its-- its going to get bigger.  But we-- we also need to recognize that the-- the trade statistics don't entirely tell the truth.  Imports-- a typical-- container of imports from China-- includes about one third to one half-- o-- one third to one half the value of that container is Chinese.

The other half to 2/3 is the value of components made in Japan, Singapore, the United States, minerals from Australia.  So-- when we say that we import $300 billion from China, we're really importing about $100 billion to $150 billion.  So we should-- we shouldn't rely too much on the statistics to-- to-- to dictate our policy.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Actually that's-- that's a good point.  I mean, really why are we so worried about what our trade balance is with individual countries after all?  Should we be, Lori?
LORI WALLACH:
A number of jobs that we could have are capacity in manufacturing or other tradable sectors is a formula that's basically domestic private sector demand, government demand, plus exports, minus imports as far as what the base of demand will be.  So if we're trying to grow our own economy in the tradable sectors and employ more people which is Obama's goal means double exports.  But the real goal was so as to create net two million more jobs--
JIM GLASSMAN:
But why are--
LORI WALLACH:
--Then--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--We so worried about China especially?  In other words, you know-- the Australians, for example, buy a lot more American goods than they ship to the United States.
LORI WALLACH:
--Well, the reason--
JIM GLASSMAN:
So?
LORI WALLACH:
--Why everyone's so focused on China is because it comprises about a third of our tr-- trade deficits.  So because China is quickly becoming one of the, well, is about to become the world's largest economy-- is moving up the scale, is now our second largest trade partner by volume, when we have a super lopsided trade balance with China it means a lot.

So, for instance, there have been some studies by the chamber of commerce that suggest that if you have trade agreements with countries you increase exports more quickly.  That's actually empirically not true.  If you actually look at the 17 countries with whom we have free trade agreements, the export rate to those countries-- the growth in exports over their life term is two percent.  But the growth rate of exports including to country with the countries that aren't in the FTAs is almost five percent.  And what's an interesting--
JIM GLASSMAN:
FTAs or the--
LORI WALLACH:
--Free trade agreements.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--The individual--
LORI WALLACH:
Not the--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Free trade agreement.
LORI WALLACH:
--Et cetera.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Right.
LORI WALLACH:
And what's very interesting about that particular statistic is when you look at the particular countries and you look at how, for instance, the-- there was a chamber study that said the opposite; all they did was average the averages.
JIM GLASSMAN:
So are you against these-- individual free trade agreements?  You know, a lot of people have complained including Ambassador Yeutter that the Obama administration has done nothing to move on, let's say, the Korean free trade agreement or the Columbian free trade agreement.  And besides the economic effects there's some political ones.  So are you against these kinds of deals?
LORI WALLACH:
Well, that particular model we've seen over time hasn't boosted exports.  And has been-- I mean, since NAFTA went into effect as well as the World Trade Organization given the trade deficit that's grown from what was with NAFTA about $6 billion to one that by the end of-- before the drop off in trade in 2009 was $130 billion, we've seen a lot of jobs lost.  And a lot of production displaced.  And that creates downward pressure on wages in our economy.  So the answer is those agreements with particular countries like Korea that could be a good idea.  The question is what terms?  And the current terms, no.
JIM GLASSMAN:
L-- l-- let me ask you just in general.
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
Yes.
JIM GLASSMAN:
What do you think the Obama administration can do to actually increase exports?  I mean, you know, this is like saying, "Well, gee, we-- we'd love everybody to have a 50 percent higher income."  You know, everybody's for increasing exports.  But how do you do that?
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
Well, there are a lot of things that can be done.  And-- and I think the Obama administration i-- is at least off to a reasonably good start in getting some of those underway.  With respect to this issue I don't agree with Lori in terms of her assessment of the impact of NAFTA.  But-- but that's neither here nor there.  In the context of what we're talking about today-- if you look at those three free trade agreements that are still pending-- they really ought to go to the Congress.  They're ought to be a 535-zero vote on those.  Because they are so tilted in economic terms toward the U.S.

You know, those three countries-- fundamentally have, you know, a pretty close to total access to the U.S. market.  We don't have total access by any means to any of those three markets, which means we've got a lot more to gain-- than-- than to lose in those agreements.  So we ought to get 'em done.  Because there are some jobs in-- in-- related there.

But to-- to get back to your specific point, I think one of the nice things that has come out of the-- the-- proposals by the Obama administration has been an effort to help small and medium size businesses with their export programs.  Now that's one thing they can do.  You know, we can't control the policies of other nations which are going to be-- which are so important in this respect because we need those other nations to buy product from us.  And I think that'll ultimately happen in China.

But-- but we-- but what we can control is what we do to help American exporters.  And if we help small and medium size exporters in a significant way- that-- that can be useful.  One of the objectives of the Obama administration is for s-- for those-- those companies-- that are now exporting to one nation-- get them in the next five years to be exporting to at least one other one.  And that-- that kind of thing--
JIM GLASSMAN:
So this is--
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
--Can help.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Some kind of technical assistance.  Or it's--it's loans?  Or w-- how-- how do you help small--
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
Kind of all--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Small business?
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
--The above.  All of the above.  But one of the good things is to-- is-- is to have some more commercial counselors scattered around the world, help these people in the country is where they're actually doing sales.  But-- but let me to go back to just for a minute to China.  It-- it seems to me that we're going to-- we've got the potential for China to buy a lot of American exports-- in the next half century.

We should not underestimate the export potential into that country.  It is going to be a growing economy.  And they are going to ultimately-- o-- open up in my view.  It's a little bit-- like what we've experienced with some other countries through the years.  And people-- people like to buy American products when they get a chance to do so.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Actually, let-- let me ask Dan about that because he may disagree.  Do Ame-- do people like to buy American products?  I mean, is-- isn't part of the problem the fact that people, you know, that-- that maybe we're not making the kind of products we were making before.  Maybe they don't want to buy American products.
DAN IKENSON:
What is an American product?  It's-- hard to say.  I mean, the-- the largest-- American steel company-- the largest-- steel company in the world is ArcelorMittal.  They are the biggest company-- steel company in the United States.  The-- the biggest German st--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Which is-- which is an Indian--
(OVERTALK)
DAN IKENSON:
--Which is an Indian company with headquarters in Europe.  We have Tison Krupp building a very large stainless and carbon steel plant in Alabama-- $2.4 billion.  It's going to be employing several thousand people.  Are they an American company?  Is U.S. steel an American company?  It gets 25 percent of its revenue from steel that it makes in Serbia and Slovakia.  GM does better in China than it does in the United States.
JIM GLASSMAN:
So why don't we make it easier for a foreign country or company from a foreign country to move to the United States.  Or for foreign investors to buy American companies?  Like, for example, the Chinese.
DAN IKENSON:
I-- I-- well, I--
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
We should.
DAN IKENSON:
--I think that is a big-- solution to-- to the problem we have.  We have people complaining about Chinese practices.  China would love to diversify its portfolio.  They've made some pretty bad investment by being so heavily vested in U.S. debt.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Don't we make it difficult for foreign countries that we don't particularly like for one reason or another to invest in the United States?  I mean, we stopped the-- the Chinese from buying an American oil company.
DAN IKENSON:
Unocal yeah.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Yeah.
LORI WALLACH:
But let me go back to this question though about getting into China and the prospect for exports.  There is a prospect for exports.  That is a market that we should be paying attention to for the U.S. future.  But it has a currency that some say is undervalued by 40 percent.  So just from day one no matter how great the product is, how much Chinese people want it, how efficiently it's made, there's a 40 percent penalty on the cost.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Just so our viewers understand-- 'cause all this currency talk gets a little complicated.  The point is that our goods are more expensive in their currency than they ought to be.
LORI WALLACH:
So what's an interesting question now and we all saw Professor Samuelson's article about this four or five years ago.  When you look at what the gains are on the consumer side for exports in lower prices, you have to balance those out.  And what on the export side in lost jobs--
JIM GLASSMAN:
For-- for imports, in other words.
LORI WALLACH:
--The wage-- for imports-- the gains in cheaper imports, how does that balance out against income lost by workers who lose a job to exports.  And then are reemployed in a sector that pays less.  And the most interesting study I saw about that looking at just the classical economics-- and this is again, the-- The Annals of Economics, shattering article of Professor Samuelson, father of modern of macroeconomics in free trade-- he said that balance is at a point now as we're off shoring higher wage, higher end value added jobs that automatically you can't say as economists used to that the gain from the imports always wins out.

And in fact in certain sectors even though there is-- a gain for consumers on the import side, the loss in wages of the shift in the composition of available jobs in the economy has gotten to the point that for a whole sector of workers-- those who don't have college degrees, which is a large share of our population-- the net is now slightly negative.

And so for them-- though there are gains, it doesn't balance out positively for what they lose in income.  And that I think and the issue of rebuilding consensus in favor of trade expansion gets to what kind of trade rules do we need so that we harvest the benefits of trade?  But like, for instance, by boosting our exports and therefore creating more manufacturing jobs, create more high waged jobs that have people win-win.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Okay, I want to-- I want to get Dan into this in one second.  But I-- I like to call on Clayton first.  This is of course a classic discussion about whether we are-- how much of a penalty there is from imports versus exports.  But-- and this gets to jobs, which is really what everybody cares about here.  So can we gain more jobs through this export program?  Or are we constantly going to be hurt especially with manufacturing?
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
Well, in-- in my view an aggressive export program is going to gain jobs-- irrespective of-- what's happening on the exchange rate front.  So-- I would encourage the adminis-- the Obama administration to continue with its export initiative and to work hard to open up markets around the world.  And to do all the good things that you want-- and need to do to expand exports.

But-- w-- we need to deal with the exchange rate issue too.  That has to be done-- by negotiations.  But the fact is-- the Chinese exchange rate is out of line.  I don't know whether it's out of line 40 percent or not.  I think the economists will debate whether it's-- ten, 15, 20, 25, 30 or 40.  But the fact is-- we-- we ought to let the market determine that-- exchange rate relationship just like we let the market determine-- the-- cost-- cost and-- and sale price relationships of goods and services.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Dan, you-- you-- you have written about this manufacturing issue.  Is it a ca-- is it a canard?  Will we never get manufacturing jobs?  B-- we're certainly manufacturing a lot more than we used to manufacture.  Just with fewer people.  It's kind of like farming.  You know, should everybody be back on the farm?
DAN IKENSON:
Right.  It's-- it's the myth of manufacturing decline.  Man-- manufacturing is doing just fine.  I mean, they went through a recession recently like every other sector.  But for years we've been hearing from-- from Capitol Hill that manufacturing is in decline.  But if you look at every statistic from profits, revenue, investment, return on investment--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Except for jobs.
DAN IKENSON:
--Except for jobs.  And that's the only-- the only thing that matters politically.  The problem is-- this is what happens when a society moves up the value chain.  We-- we produce more with less.  And that-- that-- that is the basis for-- for rising living standards.

In China, they've lost many more manufacturing jobs than we've lost here.  Of course they have many more people.  But we-- we-- if we really want to think in terms of promoting our exports-- and this administration is talking about--opening up the trade agreements that our partners have signed and making sure that they're compliant.  And when not f-- compel them to open their markets wider.

That's-- that's fine.  I have no problem with that.  But we have to recognize that-- we have to look ourselves in the mirror first and make sure that we are abiding all of our commitments.  Right now we're-- we're-- we're not.  And as a result there's retaliation or planned retaliation-- keeping U.S. exports out of markets.
JIM GLASSMAN:
We just blocked-- shipments of tires from-- from China for example.  And there certainly is the big argument about whether Mexican trucks can come into the United States.  And-- and you know about that from--
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
Oh yes.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--From NAFTA.  So-- so we're-- our hands aren't completely clean.  Lori, you know, I-- this is the way of the world.  The fact is that as a country advances it makes less and less of its gross domestic product.  Maybe more and more out of manufacturing.  But fewer and fewer people employed-- let's put it that way--
LORI WALLACH:
Except that--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--In manufacturing.
LORI WALLACH:
--There's certainly--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Just as fewer people are employed in farming or in blacksmithing.
LORI WALLACH:
--There is a factor of that that's for sure.  Mechanization, et cetera, across the board.  Not just here.  Around the world is increasing efficiency in manufacturing and needing less people.  But that-- if you take apart the data does not actually fu-- that does not fully explain the numbers of jobs.  And in fact the whole sectors in manufacturing we've lost.  Including a lot of those that are high value, high end.  They're the ones we want to--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Name a few--
LORI WALLACH:
--Keep.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Of the-- have value high end.  Because th-- those seem to be where we're doing well, aircraft manufacturing-- software.
LORI WALLACH:
We have a trade deficit in high technology products right now.  The-- the set of SIC codes that are high tech goods and--
(OVERTALK)
JIM GLASSMAN:
SIC codes--
LORI WALLACH:
--Sorry.
JIM GLASSMAN:
You got to tell people--
(OVERTALK)
LORI WALLACH:
Commerce co-- they're the commerce department category g-- categorization codes for tariff levels in the subset of categories are high-tech goods.  So it's things, like, computers.  It's-- it's circuit board.  There was a period-- sort of, like, the period of NAFTA where we were basically making the-- the insides and then we were sending it to Mexico to be assembled.  And that's theoretically how the model of-- of specialization and different costs-- labor should work.  But the shift that's been happening really in the last seven, eight years is we're actually off-shoring the jobs that are the engineering the design.  And then the very skilled actually engineering style manufacturing.
CLAYTON YEUTTER:
You know, the American manufacturing is done awfully well through the years.  I can remember-- during my tenure in government when everybody said we were going to deindustrialize America, our manufacturing base was going to-- is going to c-- collapse, we would-- we would be a nation of hamburger flippers, it didn't happen.

I don't think it's going to happen this time either.  I think American manufacture is healthy.  I sit on the board of some companies that are significant manufacturers in this company-- they're doin' pr-- country, and they're doing pretty darn well.  Yeah.
JIM GLASSMAN:
On that optimistic note, thank you, Clayton Yeutter.  Thank you Lori Wallach.  And thank you Dan Ikenson.  And that's it for this addition of Ideas in Action.  I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER:
For more information, visit us at IdeasInActionTV.com.  Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at Investors.com.
(MUSIC)
This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.
* * *END OF AUDIO* * *
* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *