Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • - I'm Elise Labott and this is the 'US In The World'

  • presidential candidate interview series.

  • We're sponsored by a coalition of leading

  • nonprofit organizations, and we're asking

  • the candidates their views on the challenges

  • and the opportunities facing the U.S. beyond our borders.

  • I'm here with Andrew Yang.

  • Mr. Yang, thanks for joining us.

  • - It's great to be here. Thank you for having me, Elise.

  • - Now, the United States is the richest and most powerful

  • nation, what in your view is the responsibility

  • for the U.S. in the world?

  • - Well, we're the biggest beneficiary

  • of a world order that we helped establish

  • over the past number of decades after World War II.

  • But unfortunately, that order is now disintegrating,

  • in part because our current president

  • is an erratic and unpredictable leader

  • who is calling into question even some of our

  • longest-standing commitments in treaties like NATO.

  • So our role in the world is to help restore

  • and maintain the world order that's been painfully

  • built over the last number of decades

  • and help bring more countries

  • into the developed world as possible.

  • Now, the presidential budget request

  • is really a, you know, statement of principles of the

  • United States and American values.

  • How would your budget reflect American values,

  • as far as the U.S. role in the world?

  • - Well, you have to look at what we're spending

  • money on right now.

  • We're spending about $700 billion on our military,

  • and a lot of that money is not truly making us safe.

  • If you look at the biggest threats of the 21st century,

  • they are not other countries.

  • They are climate change, cybersecurity,

  • infrastructure, and artificial intelligence,

  • the proliferation of loose nuclear material.

  • Like, these are some of the biggest threats of this era.

  • And having another aircraft carrier floating around

  • doesn't necessarily address climate change,

  • as an example.

  • So, to me, we have to try and reprioritize

  • what we're spending the money on,

  • shifting some of this $700 billion in the

  • military-industrial complex over to domestic needs

  • like infrastructure, but also to help mitigate

  • climate change not just here in the U.S.,

  • but around the world.

  • And I think this administration has made a mistake

  • by cutting foreign aid, which, in the scheme

  • of the federal budget, is minuscule.

  • Yeah, it's just about 1%.

  • It's about 1%, and there's a joke

  • that this bank robber, Willie Sutton, told.

  • He was like, 'Why did you rob the bank?'

  • 'Because that's where the money was.'

  • If you're looking to save money in the federal budget,

  • you don't look at the 1% you're spending on foreign aid,

  • you look at the hundreds of billions you're spending

  • on the military-industrial complex.

  • So you would increase foreign aid, then?

  • I would because if you look at it,

  • you get a lot of bang for your buck

  • when you put resources to work in some of these

  • environments where a little goes a long way.

  • And so, if you can help maintain and strengthen societies

  • in other parts of the world, that often will end up

  • helping the U.S. national interest, as well.

  • So you've talked about directing more

  • of the federal budget from foreign pursuits

  • to building infrastructure and other programs at home.

  • How do you see the relationship between the U.S.

  • role in the world and life here at home?

  • Well, to me, they're very much tied together, Elise.

  • And so, you could take it from the fact that

  • if you don't have a sound society here at home,

  • then you end up electing someone like Donald Trump,

  • and then you have a very hard time projecting

  • U.S. strength abroad.

  • So, to me, step #1 is you have to have

  • a society that's functioning at a high level

  • here in the U.S. first.

  • And we don't have that right now

  • on a whole number of measurements and dimensions.

  • We have record high levels of not just financial insecurity,

  • and depression, and anxiety, but also even suicides

  • and drug overdoses.

  • It is gotten so bad that American life expectancy

  • has declined for three years in a row,

  • which is not something you ever see in a developed country.

  • The last time that happened in the United States of America

  • was the great, the flu pandemic of 1918, the Spanish flu.

  • So think about that: You have to go back 100 years

  • to find a time in American history where our life expectancy

  • declined for three years in a row.

  • You don't see that in a developed country traditionally.

  • So step #1 is we have to make ourselves

  • strong and functional-

  • To project power.

  • To be able to project power abroad.

  • Because if you fall apart here, you wind up

  • electing narcissist reality TV stars

  • as your president, and then it's very, very hard

  • to get everything done abroad.

  • So you've pledged to be very judicious and restrained

  • about intervening in other countries' affairs.

  • Under what circumstances would you use military force?

  • We have, at this point, been engaged in continuous

  • armed conflict for the last 18 years.

  • And that's not the way it's drawn up

  • in the Constitution, and that's not the will

  • of the American people.

  • So I have a three-part test for sending our troops

  • into harm's way.

  • 1) There needs to be a clear American

  • national interest or the ability to avert

  • a humanitarian catastrophe.

  • So it needs to be an important reason to go.

  • 2) There needs to be a clearly defined time frame,

  • where it's not open-ended.

  • You can look the troops in the eyes and say,

  • 'You're gonna be here for this long,

  • and we can complete the mission and bring you home.'

  • 3) We need to have partners and allies

  • that are willing to join us in the mission.

  • If these three things are in place,

  • then I would actively consider military intervention.

  • So, is it worth putting U.S. forces at risk

  • when American values and the security of allies

  • are on the line, but our direct security is not?

  • We are only as good as our word.

  • If we have entered into a treaty to defend

  • another country or ally, and then that country

  • is threatened, then that to me is a very clear

  • American national interest because if people don't

  • believe in our word and our commitment,

  • then it's going to very, very hard to get anything done

  • in any foreign theater.

  • So what would a U.S. military footprint look like

  • in a Yang administration?

  • Well, to me, it's about getting smarter and not bigger.

  • So, if you look at, again, the list of major threats-

  • climate change, infrastructure, and artificial intelligence,

  • loose nuclear material-that's not about having

  • more military bases, that's about having more responsive

  • 21st-century military footprint.

  • So, I would invest in cybersecurity and a cyber corps.

  • And, you know, what's funny is someone asked me yesterday,

  • and they said, 'How would you feel about a cyber militia?'

  • Because it turns out that a lot of the leading experts

  • on internet security don't work for the U.S. government.

  • So what does this cyber militia look like?

  • Like 20-year-olds in a basement or something?

  • Well, it's people like where you're crowdsourcing

  • vulnerabilities, like if you put up a system

  • and say, 'Hey, have at it, and let us know

  • what the vulnerabilities are,' they'll actually

  • be able to tell you.

  • They'll have fun doing it.

  • In a way that, frankly, would be superior to, like, if

  • the government hired a consulting firm military contractor.

  • Like, they just hire different pools of people.

  • And for better or for worse, these loose hackers

  • are much more analogous to the type of people

  • you're worried about than the people

  • in the giant corporate office.

  • So we've talked about what you think are the most

  • major threats. What are the biggest crises

  • facing the U.S. right now?

  • It begins with climate change, which is driving

  • many of the problems around the world.

  • Where what's happening is that you have crop yields dropping

  • and then conflict breaking out in various societies

  • that's kicking off migrant crises

  • that have even destabilized various democracies.

  • Where many societies are not able to properly welcome

  • and acclimate large groups of refugees,

  • and then there have been real issues politically

  • as a result.

  • So climate change, I mean, it's an existential threat

  • to our way of life.

  • I'm a parent and I used to think that we were

  • messing up the world for our grandkids,

  • but now it's clear that we're messing up the world

  • for ourselves and our kids, and that's going to

  • destabilize things, unfortunately, in poorer

  • parts of the world first,

  • where if you think about a flood or a natural disaster,

  • who suffers the most?

  • It's always the poor-

  • Well, exactly.

  • So a lot of these poor, they're not necessarily

  • contributing to it- Oh, of course not.

  • But they also have to adapt to it.

  • How do you make sure that climate policies

  • don't just, aren't beneficial to just the rich,

  • who can afford these renewable energies,

  • but you actually look at the world's poor, who are affected?

  • I was just in New Hampshire, and they have buildings

  • that I know are flooding regularly.

  • They have a shrimping business that went to zero.

  • And if you look around the world, you have Pacific islands

  • that are literally going underwater.

  • And did that Pacific island contribute to global warming?

  • Essentially zero, you know?

  • They didn't have a whole lot in the way of carbon emissions.

  • But they're still affected.

  • But they're still affected, and they're going underwater.

  • So the goal has to be to have a Global Marshall Plan

  • to address climate change.

  • Because the tough truth of it, Elise,

  • is that the United States of America only accounts

  • for 15% of global emissions.

  • So even if we were to go net-zero immediately,

  • like magic, the world would continue to warm.

  • So if we're going to help the people on that Pacific island

  • and the people in other developing countries

  • that are going to be in some cases literally underwater,

  • we have to get our arms around climate change,

  • but we cannot do it alone.

  • It's one reason why international cooperation

  • is so vital in this era because we can't solve

  • the biggest problems alone.

  • So how would you use U.S. foreign assistance,

  • and you talk about climate diplomacy,

  • to address these challenges?

  • So if the rest of world accounts for 85%

  • of carbon emissions, we have to be there at the table

  • with them, trying to guide them toward more renewable

  • sources of energy.

  • And right now China is exporting coal-burning power plants

  • to Africa and other developing countries.

  • They're showing up and saying, 'You need power,

  • I've got a coal-burning power plant for you.'

  • And then what does the African country say?

  • Thank you. Great, thank you, right.

  • Right. They're just thrilled

  • to have some power.

  • So the climate diplomacy we have to engage in

  • is to be there at the table with the African government

  • and say, 'Hey, instead of the coal-burning power plant,

  • how about these solar panels?'

  • That's the kind of relationship we have to have

  • with these developing countries to try and move them

  • in the right direction.

  • Would you condition foreign aid on sound climate policies?

  • Well, I think we have to try and provide carrots

  • to move people in the right direction.

  • And so, if you're going to put aid into people's hands,

  • then you want to align their interests with ours.

  • So you've talked about, you know, using military assistance

  • for determining what needs to be done

  • in terms of the climate.

  • Tell us a little bit more about that.

  • Well, what we said before is that the poor are the people

  • that suffer the most with the advent of climate change.

  • And so, to me, it's the military, yes,

  • but it's also the aid policies, putting more money

  • into people's hands actually will help

  • strengthen communities and make it so they can develop

  • in the right direction.

  • On the military front, the tough part is that

  • we've gotten really bad at building through our military.

  • And we've seen it in multiple theaters at this point.

  • And so what we have to do is try and refashion

  • our military expertise so that it would be better able

  • to mitigate some of the worst effects of climate change.

  • Amp up the Army Corps of Engineers and our ability

  • to literally build bridges, roads,

  • help update infrastructure so that in the case of,

  • let's say higher water levels, that people

  • don't feel the need to relocate.

  • So what are the one or two foreign policy changes

  • you'd make on day one as president?

  • Well, the first thing is I would let our allies

  • know that we're open for business.

  • That we need to renew our partnerships and relationships

  • that are fraying now, disintegrating

  • because of Donald Trump.

  • And our allies are looking up and saying,

  • 'Who do we talk to?'

  • There's been a massive level of tension

  • between Korea and Japan, and traditionally,

  • we would have been there to mediate that.

  • Exactly.

  • But we are not there because the current administration

  • doesn't have an interest, so now they're meeting in China.

  • And I'm going to suggest that is not the way it should be

  • because we've historically been allies

  • with both South Korea and Japan.

  • So #1 is let everyone know,

  • look, we are back, our word is good,

  • we're interested in helping. Rebuild our relationships

  • for the long term, that's the big move #1.

  • So you talked a lot about AI and the automation challenges,

  • but how do you think AI will affect diplomacy and warfare?

  • You know, former Secretary of State [Henry] Kissinger

  • talks a lot about AI will be used to make decisions

  • on diplomacy and warfare. How do you see it applying?

  • I see it a little bit differently.

  • Where right now the main applications of AI

  • are in the commercial realm, so people are taking

  • massive levels of data and then refining

  • how they're putting resources to work.

  • And a leader in this is China because they have

  • more access to more data than we do

  • and their government is supplying billions

  • of dollars in infrastructure.

  • So what Kissinger is suggesting is that you'll have

  • an AI sort of doing game theory and figuring out

  • what kind of decision you're gonna make.

  • Yeah, making decisions on warfare

  • based on this AI data.

  • I am more concerned that you're gonna use AI

  • to be able to hack vulnerable systems and infrastructure.

  • Where AI actually is much easier to use

  • offensively than defensively, and so it's going to make

  • different systems very vulnerable.

  • Imagine it's 2030, what does the world look like

  • in terms of AI, and how has your administration

  • helped us get there?

  • In an ideal world, we don't have this arms race

  • with China in particular. We start a world data

  • organization, where we set up standards and protocols

  • analogous to the WTO for trade, where we've created

  • international norms that China felt like it had

  • to bend to in order to join and participate

  • in the benefits.

  • If we do the same thing for data

  • and artificial intelligence, then the U.S., the EU,

  • and Japan can start setting international norms

  • and standards, and then China will look up and say,

  • 'Are we content to just have our own silo

  • in terms of how we're using this data,

  • or do we wanna join the world community?'

  • That's the best way to bring them to the table

  • and prevent what could be a new cold war in data and AI

  • between the U.S. and China.

  • So we've discussed multiple threats that don't respond

  • to traditional security policies like climate change.

  • I wanna talk about some of the others

  • like nuclear proliferation, rising authoritarianism,

  • and the misuse of this technology.

  • How would you reduce those risks to Americans

  • and people everywhere?

  • Well, this is where foreign aid comes in.

  • Because the less stable a society is,

  • then the more you have to worry about extremist groups

  • and non-state actors that are trying to get their hands

  • on loose nuclear material and other things

  • that will help destabilize world security.

  • So if you have, for example, I mean, closest to home,

  • you have various groups in Latin America.

  • Unfortunately, there are several states

  • right here in our backyard that are starting to become

  • unstable and are sending migrants heading north to us.

  • This is one reason why various candidates, including me,

  • have been saying, look, if we send aid to these countries,

  • it's going to help keep them whole.

  • And then if those societies are whole,

  • then you have to worry less about extremist groups

  • who are trying to do us harm and get ahold of things

  • like loose nuclear material.

  • So it sounds like you're saying, prioritize aid

  • as preventionary, and that's how you build

  • sustainable peace and conflict.

  • Yeah, it's a little bit like preventative care.

  • You know what I mean? Like, right now, what you don't

  • wanna do is you don't wanna wait until the patients sick

  • and ready for the hospital because it's very, very hard

  • to get them back on their feet at that point.

  • What you wanna do is you wanna have them

  • be healthy the whole time.

  • And that's the way I see foreign aid

  • to various societies, that it's much easier to maintain

  • a healthy society or maintain a healthy world order

  • than it is to rebuild it after it has

  • collapsed or fallen ill.

  • What about those in extreme poverty?

  • I mean, you've talked very eloquently about, you know,

  • entrepreneur and helping build, you know,

  • create growth in society.

  • How do you kind of do the balance between

  • creating dynamic societies and still lifting up

  • those 1 in 10 that live in extreme poverty?

  • I think the answer to extreme poverty

  • is really straightforward, Elise.

  • Give them money, truly.

  • And this is something that I feel is the future

  • of a lot of foreign aid,

  • where if you look at different aid programs,

  • when you put money into people's hands,

  • it benefits women most of all.

  • Women go to school at higher levels.

  • Women start businesses at higher levels.

  • Whereas if you funnel the aid to something concrete,

  • like books, or nutrition, or mosquito nets, or wells,

  • or toys, or computers, or any of these things,

  • a lot of them end up being less useful

  • to these communities than straight cash,

  • which they'll use to then to start cottage businesses

  • in their own home.

  • And the reason I'd love aid to places

  • that are very, very poor is that it doesn't even

  • take that much money to be transformative

  • in many of these communities.

  • There's an organization called GiveDirectly

  • that's demonstrated this very powerfully,

  • where they put relatively small amounts of money

  • into people's hands, and then all of a sudden,

  • you see women's health and nutrition go up,

  • rates of business formation go up,

  • kids and girls going to school go up.

  • It's very, very powerful.

  • So you've talked about the need to prevent companies

  • from working with authoritarian regimes

  • or repressive regimes and giving them technology to do so.

  • And you have talked about criminal and civil penalties

  • for U.S. companies, tell us about that.

  • Well, unfortunately, we're at a point now

  • where everything revolves around the almighty dollar

  • in our society.

  • And if there's a company that feels like it can profit

  • to the tune of hundreds of millions or billions

  • of dollars and then pay a fine, they'll do it, you know?

  • And we saw that very clearly with the opiate crisis,

  • the opiate epidemic, where Purdue Pharma

  • paid a fine of $600 million, which sounds like a lot,

  • until you realize they made $30 billion.

  • And now eight Americans are dying

  • of drug overdoses every hour.

  • So the only way you can try and keep these companies

  • from not profiting at the expense of our people

  • is to say, look, they're going to be beyond

  • just these fines, where you're doing a cost-benefit

  • calculation and saying, it's worth it.

  • Like, I can pay that fine. We'll still be rich.

  • Instead you have to say, look, there is personal

  • culpability for this, that if you're the CEO

  • or primary shareholder of a company that's done something

  • unconscionable, then you're going to pay a price personally.

  • You've spoken very passionately about the need

  • to bring high skilled immigrants here to the U.S.

  • or, you know, keep students that are learning valuable

  • skills, but what about the idea that America was founded

  • on the premise that you could come here with nothing

  • and you could still build something of yourself?

  • I mean, how do you square that?

  • I don't think it's an either-or, truly.

  • I think that-

  • 'Cause your father was an immigrant, lived on a peanut farm,

  • and came here and really made something of himself.

  • Yeah, I'm certainly very proud of my dad and my mom.

  • My dad did grow up on a peanut farm in Asia with no floor.

  • I saw it as a teenager, and I was like,

  • 'This is where you grew up?' Like, looking around.

  • I must have seemed so American.

  • 'Cause I was, like, walking around. I was like 18 or 19

  • years old in whatever American teenagers were wearing then.

  • But I saw the peanut farm, and I was like, 'No way.'

  • So he grew up on that peanut farm in Taiwan,

  • and then he got his physics degree in Taiwan initially,

  • but then he came over to the States for his graduate degree.

  • He got his doctorate, and there he met my mom.

  • So you're right that I'm very passionate about the fact

  • that we need to be trying to attract talented immigrants

  • from around the world to try and create lives

  • for themselves here because that's what happened

  • with my brother and me.

  • But you don't think there should be a litmus test, do you?

  • But I also believe that there's a place

  • in this country for people at every, like, educational

  • level, and that people who are coming here to create

  • a better life-you know one story I like to tell?

  • One of the founders of Google came here on a family visa.

  • It was not, like, a-

  • you know, it's, like, a family reunification.

  • So, you don't need to just serve one goal,

  • you can serve multiple goals with

  • a moderate immigration policy.

  • What about our responsibility to refugees?

  • You know, what is our responsibility?

  • The Obama administration had about 110,000 as an average.

  • Now the presidential determination

  • under Trump administration is like 30,000.

  • What do you think is about the right number?

  • I think restoring it to the Obama-era levels

  • is the right move.

  • And even that level, and you know this, Elise,

  • is relatively low compared to the rest of the world.

  • Like, as, you know, a proportion of our own population-

  • we're a country of, you know, 320 million plus, like,

  • being able to acclimate 110,000 refugees a year

  • is very reasonable.

  • Let's talk about LGBTQ issues.

  • As president, how would you help protect

  • those populations internationally?

  • You've talked a lot about putting them in your Cabinet

  • and programs here, but abroad.

  • Well, this is one reason why it's so important

  • for us to maintain an international world order

  • where if a country adheres to values that we

  • hold very dear, then they feel like they're

  • going to win through that.

  • Where we can put soft pressure on other countries

  • through a combination of both carrots, primarily,

  • but then a few sticks, too, where if they are abusive

  • of ethnic minorities or LGBTQ community members,

  • then they feel like,

  • oh, there's a price to be paid for that.

  • Right now, it's unclear what that price would be

  • in many contexts, and it's making us less able

  • to push our values to other parts of the world.

  • And what about women, how do you see promoting

  • the rights and status of women and girls,

  • including economic empowerment?

  • One, again, is trying to maintain international norms.

  • That helps women, it helps journalists, as another

  • example, and you've been in foreign theater,

  • so you have this sense.

  • But, to me, the best way you can empower women

  • is by trying to lift them out of poverty,

  • getting them in a position where they

  • can control their own future, go to school,

  • get educated, start businesses,

  • and they have economic independence

  • from the men in their societies.

  • It's one reason why I'm so passionate

  • about a universal basic income,

  • not just here in the U.S., but internationally.

  • There was a joke someone said to me where they were like,

  • I would be even more for universal basic income

  • if only women got it.

  • Me, too.

  • Because the fact is when you think about the use

  • of these proceeds, you instinctively think that women

  • in a developing country would do great things with it.

  • Which is correct, they do do great things with it.

  • And that if you're worried about someone doing

  • something not so great, it's, like, the guys.

  • But I'm happy to say, even the guys don't do anything

  • bad with it. Like, you don't see any increases

  • in substance abuse or a decrease

  • in work level, the rest of it.

  • But we know that the women do awesome things with it.

  • [Elise] Women, right.

  • Ok, I have one more question, and then we're

  • gonna get to a couple fun questions.

  • Fun.

  • So you've said that Russia is the biggest

  • geopolitical threat, particularly because

  • of the hacking- Because of their current

  • hacking of our elections. Election interference.

  • But why not China?

  • I mean, you've talked about that being

  • the #1 relationship to reset, but U.S. intelligence

  • agencies have identified China as the #1 threat.

  • If you look at who our biggest rival is going to be

  • over time, it's definitely China, not Russia.

  • I would identify Russia as the most immediate threat

  • because they're literally hacking our democracy

  • from underneath our feet. We're about to vote again

  • next year, and Americans are not even sure

  • if their votes will be counted

  • and if our democracy is secure.

  • It's very hard to solve big problems

  • if you can't get that right.

  • So, to me, Russia's the most immediate problem and threat,

  • and it's actively working to undermine us.

  • But bigger picture, it's China on artificial intelligence,

  • it's China economically and militarily.

  • But you think working with them, rather than

  • kind of being an adversary, is the way to go.

  • Well, you need, again, a combination of carrots and sticks,

  • but I would suggest that it's gonna be very, very hard

  • to make progress on climate change,

  • or artificial intelligence, or North Korea,

  • or a lot of other things if we have

  • purely adversarial relationships with China.

  • Ok, lightning round of a couple questions,

  • and then we'll wrap it up.

  • As president, which world leader

  • would you welcome to the White House first and why?

  • I would say [Justin] Trudeau in Canada because

  • they're our closest neighbor and ally

  • and it just seems neighborly.

  • Which country would you visit first and why?

  • Again, the first thing that came to mind for me

  • is Canada or Mexico because, again, I feel like

  • we have the tightest trade relationships with them.

  • But after that, it would be one of our historic

  • allies in the UK.

  • What's your favorite band?

  • The Cure.

  • Hope that's cool for everyone.

  • It's cool for me.

  • If it's cool for you, Elise, then it must be cool.

  • Kids, if you don't know who The Cure-

  • The Cure is very cool.

  • They're very, very cool. They sang 'Just Like Heaven,'

  • which you like.

  • Might sing a few bars after.

  • What's the first concert you went to?

  • Oh my gosh, I love it so much.

  • I went to Depeche Mode in 1989, so.

  • Long hair? The 'Violator' tour.

  • My hair wasn't that long.

  • What's your favorite food to cook?

  • Well, it's not a very long list 'cause I'm a terrible cook,

  • so it would be spaghetti, like pasta, and meat sauce.

  • Pretty boring. Sorry, ladies. No, I'm kidding.

  • My wife definitely did not marry me for my cooking.

  • If she had, she just would have jogged the other direction.

  • What are you reading right now?

  • I do a lot of non-fiction reading and policy briefs.

  • The last book on my shelf was 'AI Superpowers,'

  • very apropos, by Kai-Fu Lee, about China's advantages

  • in artificial intelligence.

  • Pretty exciting stuff, huh, that's what you read.

  • It's on Amazon.

  • Tell us a fun fact about yourself that nobody knows.

  • My brother and I can speak in unison.

  • So, as kids, we used to do really stupid skits together.

  • It'd be like, what, there's only one of us,

  • are you sure you're not seeing double?

  • It was so dumb.

  • If you could meet anyone in the world,

  • live or deceased, who would it be?

  • Alive or deceased?

  • You'd definitely have to choose someone dead then

  • because, you know, alive you could get-

  • [Elise] There's still a chance.

  • Yeah, alive, you can get in real life.

  • Abraham Lincoln, because I feel like

  • he brought the country together

  • in the most dramatic way possible.

  • Well, Andrew Yang, thank you so much for joining us

  • for the 'US In The World' presidential interview series.

  • Good luck and thank you very much for joining us.

- I'm Elise Labott and this is the 'US In The World'

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it