tv After Words Vivek Ramaswamy Woke Inc.- Inside Corporate Americas... CSPAN November 12, 2021 3:55am-4:56am EST
congratulations on the book. i know how much work it is to write a book so congratulations on finishing and its great success. have hit a chord a lot of people are buying at that is great. and a very important topic. i am delighted to be here to chat with you. before we get to the book, before we get to the book i would like you to tell us a little bit about your biography. i think your biography shaped things you're riding in this book. it's a very interesting biography one that i did not know until a year or so ago. tell us a little bit? : : :
and at the joke we tell in our family it's the only state with india contained in this state. best joke we tell. but we were born and raised in ohio. my parents did have an education and that's one of the valuable things they gave us. i went to public school and private catholic high school even though not catholic, graduated in 2003. 9/11 took place into shaped my worldview as a young american. i then went to harvard. we didn't overlap but i took the class you teach now. i was a biology major. i was a nerdy science guy through college, and when i graduated i got into the world of biotech investing in the fall of 2007 before the 200 not only
capitalism but the merger of capitalism. i did that for several years and for seven years, three years i told my boss as i was going to leave and go to yale because i had this image to be in political philosophy that i'd never scratched. it turns out that got me career mobility instead. they said you can have a portfolio, do it from yale and that's what i did. i spent three years there, met my wife, she was my next-door neighbor in mid to school. when i graduated i came back as an investor and realized i was more interested in getting hands-on involved in addressing some of the inefficiencies that i couldn't address as a bystander and investor. so i started a biotech company which i built from a 2014 to 2021. i served for seven years as the
ceo and stepped down this january to give myself latitude to speak freely in an uninhibited way not only rolling out this book, but addressing the contentious issues i'm speaking openly about as a citizen. having built a company was a challenge where the most gratifying thing i've done in my career but i did to step down because i felt i needed to speak freely in a way that didn't harm the company but also needed to emphasize my own duty and putting a spotlight on what i had seen behind closed doors over the last 15 years. i wasn't born into elite america but i've lived at the last year and a half and some of the things i learned were experiences and insights and perspectives i thought needed to be shared to shape the conversation and i think that is what is at stake at the heart of the discussion of the relationship between capitalism and democracy. >> you did a great job in the
book and summarizing the themes that i take as when capitalism and democracy mixed themselves up to much they each have a role on our society but it's not clear what each of those two pillars are and what they might do. you experience as a ceo but even before you were running a major company even as a student so as a great story. a. >> a goldman sachs is one of the archetypes i kept coming back to about the relationship between the private sector and government, between capitalism and democracy. goldman sachs for better or worse, in my opinion, typifies that relationship. >> goldman sachs, for those that don't know, was traditionally an
investment bank but is one of the financial institutions considered elite. so the students like you were, getting a job at goldman sachs is the pinnacle you aim for. >> there are things i would have liked, getting into protected corner doors of elite america over the last 50 years. there are better skills one could have but it turns out that is the one on accident or on purpose i have repeatedly practiced. i did that in the summer of 2006 as a student in harvard i took a internship at goldman sachs, and there was something i learned that day, but i thought i would learn about evaluating companies and the important part i didn't learn very much about that. however, i did learn a lot about how to aggregate power. how to aggregate power in a way that wasn't actually to smack the aggregation of power.
goldman sachs had a hallmark hallmarkevent that summer, whics service today, you go and plant trees. the one thing i noticed, nobody was really interested in planting trees. everybody showed up except for the boss, who was nowhere to be found, but nobody was really planting trees. they were catching up on gossip, nobody was planting trees. then the boss shows up, an hour late, the guy at the top of the food chain -- by the way, little known secret, they wear suits and tailored to shirts but they don't wear rolexes, they wear visibly cheap black rubber wrist strap digital watches as a show of sort of false humility. but anyway, she was up with that watch and gucci boots into says we are taking the pictures and getting out of here. that's exactly what we did. we went to a bar nearby and a started drinking. i asked one of the associates nearby, look, if we wanted to call it a social day, we should
have called it that rather the in-service day. his response stuck with me. have you heard of the golden rule? of course i had. treat others like you want to be treated and he said no. the golden rule is this, he who has the gold makes the rules. and that stuck with me. i called it the goldman rule and it turns out i did learn something valuable. later when goldman sachs declared from the mountain tops, where else, that they wouldn't take a company public in the united states if the board was, for example, insufficiently diverse or they didn't meet ideological diversity and gender diversity. to me, that abuse of market power, to be able to exercise power in the marketplace of ideas was a question i thought needed to be decided in our democracy at large that was actually the greatest form of corporate overreach at all that is the big part of why i wrote the book.
>> another story that you tell in the book that is similar is about the fearless girl, the famous sort of statue that was put in front of the wall street. >> it was supposed to be an iconic feminist. so she, capital she makes the difference under the base of the statute. she is supposed to stare down the iconic wall street bowl but that stood for. it turned out that was commissioned as you know, and it turns out that it stands not just for she but also the exchange traded fund so-called like the diversity index that embodied some of these progressive social values and of course they charged a fee in the process. it was even better than that. they built a statue around at the time they were facing a lawsuit from the females that alleged they didn't get paid enough, very much as their male
counterparts. when accused by female employees about not paying them or as much as their counterparts, the firm did exactly what you would expect them to do. they built a statue for the women. you can't make this up. the creator of the statue created a few more copies because she was a feminist and proud of what she created. at the states could sue her for creating unauthorized reproductions of the statute that they had commissioned. so it comes full circle. you pretend like you care something for other than profit and power to gain more of each. a good trick isn't just about making the money disappear but you have to bring the money back. it's a joke i tell in the book but you might remember this shortly after, you introduced me to it who had taken an interest in some of these and subsequently invited me to the class to give an early draft of the book as a workshop that we worked out with this corporate law and one of the things that
happened to be the chapter. there was a girl in the class who raised her hand at the end and said this story you've told the fearless girl still inspired me and no one can take that away, even state street, and that is something that took me deeper into my exploration in the early draft and god knows that looks nothing like the final book because i was able to go deeper, and i think there's something to be said for exploring the way in which it can stand on its own 2 feet with capitalism. it is the merger with capitalism, which actually paints both the progressive values that they are asked to be stewards of as well as taking corporate purpose in its own right as well, so that is what the heart of the book is about more so than criticizing one end of the spectrum or another.
>> one's perspective might have different motivations and state street. >> exactly. and it embodies this merit between the progressive left and big business in this country if an arranged marriage i think of it more like mutual prostitution where each side gets something out of the transaction. the artist got money out of it, straight the same thing is happening writ large in the post-2008 era. effectively if you are a big bank it is a tough pill to swallow. what i think you effectively had happen is a generation of big banks with woke millennial's
together they had woke capitalism and that is what allowed them to put wall street up for adoption. everyone else started replicating it. silicon valley has a version of it where they effectively censor or moderate content the movement doesn't want to see online. the new democratic party looks the other way when it comes to leaving the monopoly power. whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing is working masterfully for both sides to shine some sunlight on that reality so the consumers into the citizens can at least make their own judgments about whether it's a good thing or bad thing but step one is seeing the phenomena itself that is part of what i try to do in the book. >> the examples that we talk about when the companies were
deeply cynical, they were sort of using a progressive agenda to further their own goals which were not political at all. what about the stakeholder capitalism more generally. can a ceo and race stakeholder capitalism, does it make sense should the shareholders have other goals so as ceo i'm going to pursue those whether it's combating climate change, diversity. >> i'm going to take this as an opportunity worth unpacking in the discussion. a few different kinds. it is a problem, the phenomenon
that it decides he only lives once and is going to use his position to advance his social good, even if that means using some of his shareholder resources as part of his platform to do it. the shareholders are the victims and for the people that don't like this kind of behavior, he may be distributing by the resources if they make a multimillion dollar donation to the high school or to the temple where he worships i think most people would agree that is something that is a breach of the fiduciary duty being a custodian of those resources. if it is written to a different temple, why should that be treated any differently, is that something we should come back to? the second is actually different. it might be the perpetrator where you have a shareholder that says you executives, ceos, you work for us.
and we demand that you actually advance these particular social values, or else you are breaching your duty to us, the shareholders. in its capacity as a shareholder where they say they have sustainability accounting standards that says if a company doesn't meet its standards they will divest from that company. i think you have a problem of the woke executive where it's not as an investor but the investors that have their money and the ceo and manager that is the executor all over again. you have a number of investors that say you [inaudible] both of those are different from the third phenomenon which is the consumers themselves.
they demand that those they buy their products from and body the values that match their own values as consumers. i think you could argue that is capitalism working. it's cultural commentary that it is a cultural malaise where we are cultured and hungry for a cause and for reasons of purpose, but we have resorted to the superficial means like mixing morality to satisfy the hunger that demands a more substantial fit. you can cut the three types, the executive, the directors or the consumers. you touched on this as well, those that pursue it in authentically i think goldman sachs and state street fall into that category. that's the majority of cases i'll lay out in the book about the decided minority of cases that have corporations and executives in the board and investors sometimes who believe
in the values that there ultimately is anticorporate platform push, and here is a place that i change my mind in the course of writing the book. i begin taking aim at the capitalism. i was convinced of the bigger threat was the authentic kind where you have somebody that is using their corporate platform as a way of sidestepping the debate and using force, economic force nonetheless to settle the questions that ought to be settled to free speech and open debate in a political democracy in the public square where everyone's voice and vote is weighted equally by the number they control in the markets and that is the biggest threat of all into the realization in the course of writing the book and evolution in my own perspective. >> not only is it the consumers but the employees.
when you were ceo of what happened in the aftermath of the black lives matter movement. >> it was nearly identical so in the wake of george floyd's death, add to this point we can say it was a murder, there were protests, there was a national reckoning on the use of police force but also a demand that companies somehow play a role in rectifying that problem. i certainly take issue with the blanket claim of systemic racism without defining more specifically what that means on the content of the demand that was being made but i had a more principled issue. i didn't think corporations should be using it to substitute
for the free speech and open debate that ought to be taking place in the democracy. a lot of employees didn't feel the same way. we came to work at a place that did more than just pursue the prophet. medicines for the patients that needed them. in the eyes of the employees it also meant that there was a new expectation the business play a role. that was something that led to a deep level of reflection wondering not only whether i was going to make the right return but some of my investors felt the same way and it made me
question if i was misguided and being a slave of some intellectual slave of some philosophy that i'd learned in places like economics and harvard and whether i was in the wrong in failing to think about the unique challenges of modernity where the government was failing and maybe they did need to step up and address the issues. on the other side of it i would say with a stronger conviction in my own position is why it was important for the sake of democracy and capitalism to separate each from the other, but it was on the other side including taking it through a journey with greater and more solid foundation on the other side. you eventually stepped down and with these continuous pressures coming down the border, how do
you think you would have responded? >> one of the places that ended is when i realized that actually the philosophy of taking me full circle are the sort of ceos that have a different worldview and are comfortable using the corporate power to force their views on to others. i didn't do that during my time as ceo of a company, however, i'd begun speaking out and regularly appearing even on cable television and other media expressing my own views on the very topic of capitalism and the spread of critical theory in academia and the spread of ideas sparked by political theory and corporate sector in others and i had to take a step back and in some ways practiced what i preach, walk the walk and recognize while i did my best to
avoid using the corporate platform the nature of the topic were such that that was impossible to do perfectly so to protect a company from my own perspective and my own ability to speak freely with the stewardship role as a citizen the best thing to do was to separate my role as ceo. i had been a ceo for years and if i had to also run it through the lens of deciding what impact it was going to have on being extrapolated to be the business of boys on these issues so separating myself i stepped down as the ceo of which i'm a member elevated as an ordinary citizen and i hope that everybody would find a bit of what i had to say
worthwhile. the cynical kind of woke capitalism for the shareholder value in the era with the strange alliance on the progressive left and corporations with shareholder value may be was in fact pursuant. >> it's possible and i explore that in the book. symptomatic of a deeper cultural malaise in the country, the hunger for the cause and moral vacuum with more substantial merger of progressive values and consumerism, but it may be right if you take that as a given may be they are doing the right
thing. there's also the school of thought certain sectors could be true this is a market efficiency and a great opportunity that is frustrated with nike signaling its virtue and alignment with black lives matter when there is an alternative opportunity to create an alternative version to the left wing version. with the prophet in a way that has different kind of hunger for a cause i don't think that is good for us as a people or as a
country used to be places that brought people together irrespective of whether they were black or white or democrat or republican. once we lose that in a divided policy like ours we lose the possibility. if we lose those that would bring us together across the divisions, we may be closer to a trajectory towards the civil war then when we are on achieving solidarity in our own life and once we have two economies, that may be the beginning of the end of the american experiment as we know it where we grew up idealizing acknowledging the individualism and the american dream that we could pursue in the economy against a backdrop of solidarity that abounds us
together as citizens. if that policy now invades the sphere of the economy that brings people together and talking about it in the book the spread of capitalism and social structure in india, capitalism had the ability to bring people together across otherwise politically or culturally divided categories. once we lose that it is a source of further division. it may be where we are naturally heading absent a cultural intervention and i hope the book serves as one of those where i offered a different vision of where we go forward. i want to explore that a little bit because you mentioned without going into a lot of it, certainly the case the legacy of slavery and african-americans today on average experience
worse economic outcomes and difficulty in life than other racial or ethnic groups. it took to what extent this responsibility and if not the corporations, what other institutions do you think should be stepping up and what should they be doing? >> the modern systemic racism, one of them is actually a claim of descriptive clarity. the action on the basis of the prejudice lien it had in the prior and we've made it a steady progress over the decades to reduce the problems that racism represents and i think racism is a problem in america decades
ago. or where we were in the jim crow era or the era of the 1860s was a pretty preposterous claim. systemic racism is a sloppy way of actually defining what the problem itself is. i understand what racism is. i don't believe this has been flushed out to even be defined as a phenomena. a different problem with it, the same force that gives the verbiage of systemic racism exists as a solution that demands fighting racism with more racism and i personally am at the john roberts school of thought were the best way to end is to stop discriminating on the basis of race and take it from
me were the best articulate proponents the direct quote from the book is the only to pass discrimination is present discrimination, the remedy is the future discrimination. i disagree and i think that is a big part of my view without the dogma of the systemic racism effectively is combing gold in the solutions that demand further racial lysing solutions that are likely to be counterproductive in every direction including in the direction of actually serving poorly the black community and around the communities that i think are close to have been helped by this dogma. but there are things i reject as the ideas that bring a prism of race to evaluate the struggles equally or more powerfully through the lens in the theory of intersection intellectual
underpinnings which a black woman will always be disempowered relative to a person who might live 10 miles down the street from me here in ohio that might be going through the opioid epidemic, rustbelt version of white america that involves a load of poor people that may be having struggles of their own but may not be black or a woman and i reject the idea that opera winfrey and her struggle as a black woman ought to have more of the concerns than somebody that might be a poor white man. i think that 90% of what we could agree on is the people that are more economically disempowered access to a feared education and access to capital and to participate in the equal participants in the economy, that is a universal message for the left to embrace that lifts everyone up from the disempowerment that everyone shares in the same way.
part of the issue obfuscates what could empower everyone but instead of obsessing over the characteristics like race, gender, orientation which is what the movement is focused on today. the narrative is sloppy and lazy and ought to define what we need for the inequities we do need to address that affect people that has nothing to do with race. >> you might be rethinking affirmative action. >> i want to give my nuance position. affirmative action is a disservice to the people it's
supposed to help in part for the simple reason when you look at a black pilot once they have a quota system based on those of color that have to get rid of the test for with a previously used, there's no way that any human being can be faulted for having a moment or instinct of questioning whether they would have passed the same tests in order to create this new system and i think that fosters a new brand of judgment that no pilot deserves and that is something that is unjust not only to those excluded is so that might be one but the injustice that can't be
distinguished that creates a new wave of racism on its own reinforcing the idea that they could not excel but for the elite intervention. this idea that has gained popularity the to the discipline of math and of the idea of two plus two equals four because of the inequitable outcomes in the achievement is it to solve a racist idea and one of the things we risk doing when it's reached an all-time low we are throwing kerosene on it and that is part of it. as it pertains to harvard, there's something to be said in a liberal arts university to create the conditions for students to have an opportunity with every strike and banner.
i as a kid that came up as a first-generation kid would never have interacted with. it was a totally different culture just as my kids from the inner city that grew up in a different circumstance than i did and i think i benefited from all of those things. there is five times as many that could have been qualified as though the ability to use an idea of composing a diverse class on the basis of diversity experience is what i would say for the diversity experience is for the diversity of the experiences and the best way for the thought.
the idea of using race or gender as a proxy commits the very transgression that racism was committing in the first place and i think we should reject it in the corporate sphere as it pertains to the liberal arts universities at the end of the day we would be better off there and elsewhere with the product of affirmative action and begin an earnest process and diversity of thought and we would end up with classes or corporate workforces that don't look that different that was a much more vibrant process. >> let's change topics a little bit. you talk about the woke capitalism and on the managerial
class who do you mean and how do they benefit? >> the entrepreneurs, the founders, the investors, the employees that follow for the three legs of the stool. it is hired management, people paid by the shareholders to run the company that then created bureaucratic layers between those other stakeholders. the problem is this, the more people you are accountable to, the less accountable you are to any given one of them and then you are accountable to no one. the managerial class and powers itself by increasing the number of not only shareholders but stakeholders to whom they are accountable and one of the
things that allows them to create power is an infinite set of people that can claim they are serving somebody else's interest when they could never communicate with one another. it's one of the failures that you discuss in the economic class or law schools to be a steward for the person that is the ultimate owner but this is the principal agent problem at large when you ultimately say not only are they responsible for the shareholders but also people that are not shareholders at all that might be so-called stakeholders and this is one thing progressives miss like systemic racism, stakeholders is poorly defined. anyone could be a stakeholder and the political implications once the corporations become
vectors they become vehicles to advance any values and no one has managed to make themselves a quiet stakeholder more effectively than the party of china and now flexing its muscle as a stakeholder to do some dangerous things even in the future of the free world as we know it. how does china take advantage of it? >> by turning on the head of the philosophy of the democratic capitalism in the 1990s and 1980s where we began in my opinion on the misguided premise that we could use capitalism as a victor to spread out our own political values like democracy. we thought we could use our money to get them to be more like us and instead, china has turned that on its head and have
used their economic muscle to get us to be more like them. they thought that would spread democracy but instead they loaded up the horses that are undermining american interests in the global state and i will tell you what, i mean. when you meet the demands of the stakeholder capitalism, part of the demand is the companies criticize injustice even micro aggressions like systemic racism or misogyny or bigotry yet as they continue to do business in china they said they could not shoot a film in the state of georgia if georgia and the equivalent of an antiabortion statute like a heartbeat will. they didn't say a peep as they
filmed mulan last year with over 1 million in concentration camps subject to forced sterilization, communist indoctrination. one of the human rights abuses with of the third reich of germany as he doesn't say a thing in fact at the end if you look at the credits they quietly thanked the local authorities including some of those that are responsible for committing the human rights atrocities. so it isn't just about hypocrisy. it's about the standing of the united states by creating a false moral equivalence between what i think of as chinese nihilism and i think that erodes the greatest asset of all it is our moral standing on the global stage and once we lost that, i think we lost our status as a great power in what i think is
the defining cold war of the next century. >> we need leaders. do we need to change our cultural mindset? who is supposed to change their behavior? >> the biggest solutions are in the culture and that is where i'm the most focused on the legal solutions in the book policy solutions that could make a difference. some of it is the on even work for us right now a lot of people are afraid of expressing their beliefs on their own time is the number of people over the course of the last couple of years for what they said at home or on social media is staggering and that is a good list of examples in the book and i think that is the policy that is not applied. for the race and gender and
sexual orientation and origin altogether we apply evenhandedly in a way that reflects the discrimination that we see in the workplace today on the basis of the political speech so add political speech or belief in the category right there for national religion and you can't be fired for being black, jewish, white, whatever or not spoken liberal for that matter. those are the kind of solutions where i spend it at a time. among other things it immunizes private companies, internet companies in particular for removing content that is otherwise constitutionally protected and it's one of the statutes that says otherwise in
the text of the statute itself. even if you don't get the special protection from the states or you do get the special federal protection bound by the same constraints in the federal government itself including the first amendment of the constitution of the united states and that is one of the arguments i make they are working hand in glove to censor hate speech information and my basic principle if it is a state action in disguise then the constitution still applies. you can't have it both ways. we have to apply policies in an evenhanded way. the backdrop that we do not need to those policies in the first place or the protected classes at a civil rights statutes, everybody else seems to think they are necessary but we need to modernize them in ways that actually request the unintended consequences of the political discrimination that they've
created today. what i think we really need in this country is a cultural cure and revival of the shared identity is. hard work, the kind of things that use to fill the void, those have disappeared and what we need to do is not to cancel the woke miss and return or the capitalism but the irrelevance by building the shared identity of what it means to be an american in 2021 that makes the other philosophies look irrelevant by comparison. the impact beginning to move the ball forward where we may not be celebrating our diversity as much or let's define this together as one people. what's harder in some ways is
much more grassroots sort of phenomenon. there may be some, but i agree it's hard. by definition there's unintended consequences of the policy i propose in the book and ones i didn't consider. but at the end of the day it's a surface level. we need the revival of the shared american identity. it's one of the most important things to talk about. we've lost a sense of the pursuit of excellence as an end in itself and personally when americans rally around the cry to make america great again, i don't think they were rallying behind a donald trump, i think they were rallying behind the unapologetic pursuit of excellence and we live in a
moment where there is a new anti-excellence culture of this victimhood and heights from victory that one of the defining ideals is the shared pursuit of excellence i see a lot of it in minority communities who may be blaming second generation rather than me who have a practice towards their excellence with the mediocrity and i was worried about that culture of mediocrity affecting the public life and i wanted that pursuit of excellence as a shared american idea that can bring us together and lift up the people along with it. that isn't something i touch on in the book but it's an undercurrent. if i write a sequel, that is
what it would be about but it's the cultural revival that i'm talking about here. you've had an amazing career and have written a best-selling book. i'm curious what does the future hold? >> i started thinking about that. to be able to speak in an uninhibited way at least the beginning to what it could be and one of the things i quickly started learning as i started thinking about what it could entail is that you become a presenter of your own plans end of the things you say have to
become the means to an end of achieving what you want to go after next and i found a way for me that was most liberating for the defined end for the time being. that's new for me. it's something i've been blessed with what that's given me. at the end of the day i wanted to take a year at least. i hope people benefit from it and probably this time next year i will have to figure out what plan comes after that.
it wasn't something that appealed to me this year in the context of writing this book. with a pull string of numbers or sort of understanding of how the focus group reacts to it. i wanted to finish that process and see it through. looking at the possibility for myself is it is not something that you should do for any
reason other than a thinking about it as a service and if i ever did go into politics it wouldn't be for a long time it would be with a predefined stint i was going to get off after i served and did my part. a big part of the change we need to see is in our culture and lawmaking can't fix that. do i think they are rare drivers of change in culture, sure. ronald reagan did it but i think that there are a lot of ways a lot of which come outside of politics to see where we could have the most impact personally,. >> did you see any moving out in the direction? >> not to that immediately come to mind i will be honest with
you. you explicitly endorsed the shareholder capitalism and he is explicit in moving the direction you are advocating. >> i still rooted for his success. he said he wanted to unify the country. i took him at his word and was rooting for him to succeed because that had been something that was probably what the country they need now more than anything else. i'm not sure how committed he was or is to that idea. look at the struggle with driving back the nation in the country and the single thing he could have done when taking office was to give credit to the administration. forget about whether you think it was deserved or whether you
like the guy or not if your goal was to bring the country together to end the pandemic where you have a lot of lipservice the greatest way to build trust around that and solidarity would have been to give credit to the predecessor or someone to your cells. i'm worried that even the president that made at the the platformunified in the couns already fallen short of the occasion to do the opposite of that. is there anybody that icn bodying that idea. it's going to be somebody i'm thinking of right now may not even be in the front pages of the newspapers. i'm sure that that person or those people exist i just hope they step up and do what the country needs.
>> somebody that writes about the psychological need created by capitalism itself, one of the books i wanted recommended was a story that i quoted in the book but i think that it is one of the books that captures the human experience in a way that only literature can. there's a story that didn't come from the bible titled the grand inquisitor where christ comes back to earth in the middle of the spanish inquisition and the grand inquisitor he has him arrested and puts him in a prison cell and of the dialogue of the chapter is what the grand inquisitor says to christ in that prison cell. we the church don't need you
anymore. being here is an impediment to the church and then he sentenced christ to death. in the book what i talk a little bit about is that parallel diversity with true diversity of thought all the while keeping up the diversity. there are so many different layers that i take away from what is written. a couple more books that are not bad either our senegal theories which i discussed in the book that talk about the postpartum philosophy that i gathered from the social media commentary but i quoted them in my book and i think there is a book that came out recently that doesn't focus on the corporate but focuses on