this stage. of the best evidence is five countries have pulled it off and all of latin america and the rest of the countries in asia did not. they are not stupid people. . . the mid 90's that sort of illustrate the point you basically i sometimes described in brazil not now because the room gap is rapidly closing but described it as a middle-income country consistent and the poor country living in the same borders. that is not a high-growth environment over a sustained period of time. >> one left? >> yes. >> thank you. of i enjoyed the talk. what does china's demographic structure suggest for looking at the long-term growth trajectory and the long-term budget feed demand? >> it's a very good question. china's experts like peter dimond and jim and others that have advised the government so they are still in the window where the state balance sheet which is gigantic is big enough to sort of thwart but it's not going to last forever an uncharacteristically i think olivia would concur the tendency to move quickly when a problem is identified has not been demonstrated in the pension and social security area. they've had a problem for i don't know probably ten years and only now are they starting to sort of elaborate and make the universal systems -- -- [ringing] i will get it. [laughter] -- it is no where serious yet as it is in europe in terms of, you know, adjusting fiscal and other arrangements or japan or its in its most extreme form then it's on the horizon, and if they don't deal with a fairly early, it could slow them down. on china's growth trajectory, demographers are have different opinions and how they are aging growth. david bloom at harvard says if you make enough institutional adjustments including how long people work and how many transitions they make in their lifetime and so on what he may or may not think are realistic assumptions there's no reason to think the aging grows. and any fall-off from those institutional adjustments than multiple dimensions should get growth and in addition china is now in the lower end of the oecd spectrum that's somewhere like to decades that doesn't put them anywhere near us, 75,000 plus per person, but they are going to slow down on the catch up model starting fairly soon. they've probably got another slightly less than a decade of high growth the sometimes have experience and so that is what aging will slow them down. now to go back briefly to an earlier question, when we say china will get there with me in the advanced country lower end of the spectrum whether or not you can continue and become more like singapore and the country i lived in most time, italy, is a function of a whole different set of considerations which is trade-offs between incentives, labor markets and all the things we talk about among ourselves in the advanced country so that is a different set of considerations i think and i have no idea if china will make those choices and where they will end up in the advanced country hierarchy. >> have you perceive china as getting off its export growth? is this going to be something that natural or is that something that occurs? >> there's two parts to that. it's not natural, okay? they have to solve this problem on the aggregate demand household income side. if they are successful on the social insurance and securities side there will be able to lower the rate which is 30% and that will make a contribution, but you can't solve the problem with just the household savings rate and asian countries tend to say so why wouldn't that the store on that. it really has to do with income i think mostly come and then the question that both outside and inside worry about if the export sector the labor-intensive one that used to exist and is about to be replaced by high year value-added export sector and leave its significance to the domestic economy, then where are the 400 million people who still have to move to the urban area going to go? and the answer people frequently come up with is there isn't anywhere to go because there was the route into the modern economy and the upgrading of skills and so on. and i think that is wrong. i think the answer to the question of where they are going to go is to the massive service sectors that are going to be built in the massively expanding urban environments. it is a different route into the modern economy. but if that door way closes down, then you will get the thing people fear which is the dual economy structure where they are trapped and one of the reasons the chinese are a little bit cautious about the exchange rate mechanism and bias towards the undervaluation even for people outside who are sympathetic to the idea of managing that relative price is uncertainty about the effectiveness and speed of the sort of urban service sector as an observed mechanism, and i know they have huge fears of having a version of the persian versus poll where people move to the city not because there's open opportunity but because the opportunity has declined so dramatically that there is nowhere else to go. and we have seen that in other parts of the world. so scared to death of that and one of the reasons they drag their feet on dismantling the urban resident system is precisely because that essentially turns this whole process of urbanization over to the market and market forces incentives and it can go very wrong. >> thank you very much for having me. thank you. [applause] coming up next, book tv presents "after words," an hourlong program where we invite a guest hosts to interview authors. this week author erick stakelbeck on his latest book, "the terrorist next-door." the news host asserts the obama administration is concealing the true magnitude of the threat of terrorist attack on u.s. soil. he makes his case using interviews with covert operatives and people he says artur riss with links to al qaeda. he discusses his findings with former u.s. house representative and retial host fred grandy. >> host: >> after i read this book, i came across a few facts i want to run by you because i think it sets up the discussion pretty well padded according to some data i have just seen, there are over 1200 governor organizations across the country involved in intelligence, counterterrorism, and homeland security. we've got about 850,000 people with top security clearances, and the intelligence budget since september 10th, 2001, is now 2.5 times the size it was about 75 billion. yet if you read this book, you have to conclude that we are not intelligently assessing the islamist threat to this country. now all of that having been said what are we doing wrong? >> look, number one, first thanks for being here taking the time to do this. number one, we cannot identify the enemy. terrorism is only a tactic. there is a well-defined well-established ideology that motivates the terrorism. i described in the book i have sat down with al qaeda terrorist face-to-face, associates of osama bin laden who have told me we are not doing this because of poverty or because of the israeli-palestinian conflict. we are doing this because islami's courts text command us to do it. that is very politically incorrect this is no time to match words and this is not me singing it. it's the bad guys saying it themselves in this case at least we should heed their words at the first rule of the war know your enemy. this is something this administration and our government cannot wrap its head around. >> host: why not? first allows you point out and the chapter that you talk about how this is the ideology stupid, and you do point out that it's not illiteracy, it's not poverty, it's not the palestinian homeland. those are convenient ploy is for supposedly the growing islamic revolution or revival, whatever you want to call it. but what it always has been is a deep commitment to islam and from what i can tell strict islam. sharia law as you define it and let me ask you, you do a great description in this book of what it is. why don't you tell us what sharia law is and how it undermines all of the ideologies talked about? >> first of all this is the fundamental thing to the member, it is inherently incompatible with the u.s. constitution. >> that isn't what faizal says of ground zero on till he was somewhat demoted. why is that? if you've got people telling us that sharia law is compatible with the constitution, why? >> guest: sure via there's not only religious component to the sharia, this is an all encompassing ideological system that controls every aspect of the muslim's life and if they have their way it would also controls sifry aspinall muslim's left. the new freedom of speech, freedom of religion, women's rights out the window stoned to death under the sharia society choosing to leave to jews and christians, second-class citizens. that's only the beginning. there's also a mandate to wage a violent jihad conquests. but as a spiritual struggle as our friend who you mentioned would like to free met but jihad as a violent ideology of conquest. this is all mandated under the sharia law. >> host: okay if that is true and they are telling us that they are falling a strict adherence to a religion they all believe mandates sharia law and then why, and you talk about this in the book as well, why does our government and why does most of our media look at somebody like faizal shahzad work carlos blood cell abdul hakim mohammed involved in the shooting in little rock. why are the lone wolves? why do we continue to assume that, and i love this term, our self radicalized? >> the case is you mentioned, they are all part of a broad global ideological movement and that is another way. the subtitle of the book is how the government is deceiving you about the islamist threat and to frame these guys as loan extremists, which in every case be at fort hood, the christmas day underwear bomber, the times square bomber last may if every case the obama administration frames them it's as you say, lone wolves, extremists, no brard connection to the global movement where we had the ball has on exchanging e mails with on our al-awlaki, the al qaeda leader in yemen. we had the underwear bomber trained by anwar al-awlaki in yemen and the times square bomber inspired by al-aulaqi that trade with the taliban in pakistan, yes, there are broad flanks but there's a few things at work here. number one, a crippling political correctness, absolutely crippling. another thing quite frankly is that it is very difficult. say that islam is not a religion of peace. say sharia is a threat, that is a difficult thing to come to grips with, because that means you are at war with a good slice of the muslim population who does follow islam fundamentally, who does follow sharia to the teeth. that is a very scary thing to add it for our government. >> host: i want to go back to that because no less a person than george bush right after mine a legend says islam is a religion of peace. right after the close of a radical muslim walked into the airport in frankfurt and shot a couple of american soldiers, barack obama said islam is one of the world's great religions. my sense is we want to believe that because we are a tolerant people, but you've got quotes in this book, known terrorists and consider terse and collaborators who say no it's not, it's about submission. it's about jihad. if we do not believe their own words, how are we ever going to understand the threat? >> guest: we can't and that is the bottom line. we are starting off very politically correct off the bat. i like it. right up my alley. [laughter] if you are intellectually honest person, you cannot look at a five speed, is on's cortex. any intellectually honest person cannot look at them and say they espouse a a religion of peace. a person cannot look at the example of islam's profit, mohammed, and say that he was a man of peace and espoused peace. look at is on's history. kermit, older, this is not a religion of peace, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that it is. >> host: let me ask you this because the term that crops up in this discussion somewhere is moderate muslim, or if you prefer, personal jihad. and i want to go to a couple of people that you quote in this book, john brennan, the president's chief counterterrorism advisor and of course james clapper was the director of national intelligence. clapper said in front of congress muslim brotherhood, secular organization, kind of like the club of greater cairo. and of course, brennan has been saying jihadists a good thing because it's like a personal struggle. now, as you interview people, as you have studied this, if you take the average muslim immigrant to this country, do they believe that? or are they inclined to be scripted that says jihadists not a personal struggle it is a global struggle predominance and it's not achieved until people of the book, christians and jews and other non-believers are either submitting to us or our did. >> host: >> guest: not every muslim believes that. i work with many in washington, d.c. who don't want jihad, don't want sharia and they are truly moderate. but look, i point them out in the book that some 13 -- this is a key research poll. doesn't get more than pew. 13% of american muslims support suicide bombing in some shape or form. the number rises to 26% when we talk about young american muslims. that is problematic to say the least and if you estimate ten to 15% of the world's muslims which credible estimates show time and time again ten to 15% are radicalized and to follow the osama bin laden brand of islam you have 1.6 billion muslims in the world that is roughly 157 muslims. that is very problematic. moderate muslims in my experience and got less than they are brave. i worked with them but many times the moderates, the genuine muslim moderates i meet are muslims who do not follow circassia. they don't follow the koran fundamentally to the t come. i believe if you follow islam fundamentally the cortex to the teeth fundamentally you cannot be moderate because they are not moderate tasks to the text. >> you talk quite a bit about the somali community in the twin cities in minneapolis and st. paul growing, which has now been proven to be actively recruiting young men to work for al-shabaab, this a moly terrorist organization. but if you are not aligned and are a member of a mosque in the twin cities and you just believe what you just espoused, i'm going to take my faith and kind of hold it at arm's length or you're not an apostate? is that not a tough case to make inside the mosque, these enclave communities whether it is in minneapolis or shelbyville tennessee and other places you talk about here? how do you hold that view publicly and espouse it to others without some kind of reprisal from the religious infrastructure that your part of? >> guest: that is a great point and as you said, you do so at great personal risk. in the book i outlined several cases of genuine muslim moderates who are not only at task now in their community that were physically threatened one brave individual named jamal in tulsa oklahoma of all places, the heartland, tulsa, al qaeda carried out in new attack. this was 2007 for the release a new videotape threatening blood shed and he was outraged. he said these people giving muslims a bad name. so the next day he wrote an editorial in the tulsa world newspaper condemning al qaeda saying they distorted islam. well the very next day he went to his local mosque a large center in tulsa, the largest. he was confronted not only by average worshipers, but the mosque's leadership physically confronted him and threatened him, called him a traitor because he wrote an op-ed condemning al qaeda. he literally feared for his life. this is in the american heartland. that gives you an idea what truly peace-loving muslims are up against when they do speak out. >> host: i'm glad you brought up the question of mosques, because -- and this is a mother figure that just jumped out in this book. since about 2000 or 2001, we have gone from i think it will hundred mosques to about 2,000. the number of these religious sanctuaries is proliferating around this country at an enormous rate. in your view, are these legitimate religious sanctuaries , or are they battalions as they are actually describe in some of the islamic writings that were uncovered at the holy land foundation trial, or even though the prime minister of turkey had a poem that he used to quote before he became a legitimate -- greet moderate, but that said, mosques are battalions. which is it? are these now a place where a moderate muslim can either be brought into the fold and become a potential terrorist or somebody like carlos bledsoe who doesn't have any connection at all can be implicated, radicalized and turn on his own family and country? >> guest: absolutely. look in the book i describe how i have been in mosques from coast to coast in america and europe i've been in the mosques and interview diman thank i'm not just in an air-conditioned office in d.c.. these are my firsthand observations come experiences, and i have to tell you, far too many times in american mosques, which by the way it is estimated some 80% of american mosques have saudi funding behind them. it's very problematic because saudi arabia is the epicenter of this global jihadists train. 15 of the 19 hijackers at the refunding mosques, building mosques from coast to coast even though we can't build a church in saudi arabia. but look, i've been in the mosques, and the literature in many in this country, literally stand on the back made in saudi arabia. it comes from saudi arabia. it comes from a muslim brotherhood groups. i know we are going to talk about the brotherhood. this is right in the mosques, and to talk to these he moms and not in all cases but in many cases they can't tell you that they recognize israel's right to exist. they can't condemn hezbollah as terror groups. they can't say that sharia law is a bad thing for america, and this is a common strain in the mosques in this country, and real quick, i interviewed a member of the revolutionary guard corps. this is the elite, the most radical vanguard of the regime. he told me look, we ran operations out of the mosques in europe and the u.s. and i outlined several cases of terrorism arrests, terrorism funding coming from american mosques. >> host: this is the deep cover guy that you talk about in the book. >> guest: the reason i bring it up is because as you probably know, a the chairman and the homeland security committee in the house, peter king, has begun i think very gingerly a series of hearings on the radicalization of the american muslim community and has been vilified by the press and the organizations we will describe in a minute are tearing into him. but in your view, can we understand this threat? can we keep from being deceived without going into these mosques and finding out exactly how deeply involved they are insufficient because that's really what this is. and the last time i looked there was still a crime. >> guest: you can't have a firm grasp of what's going on in the muslim community, fred, if you don't have a presence. as intelligence in the mosques, you simply can't. a mosque is the center of the islamic community, and that's strategy for groups like the muslim brotherhood, and that's why you bring up those numbers. winstrol hundred mosques just ten years ago in america. that number has nearly doubled in just ten years. it's not a coincidence. the strategy for the saudis, groups like the muslim brotherhood, and i have seen this. i've been in the enclaves drop the west. they build large as we call them mega mosques, multimillion-dollar projects stretching over several acres, city blocks, that becomes the center of all the activity for the local community. it's more than just a place of worship. it's a meeting place in some cases a plodding pl