0:00

this is Robert Scheer with another edition of

0:02

Scheer Intelligence, where the intelligence comes from

0:04

my guests, and this is no question. I

0:07

wanted to really most

0:09

well -informed people I know

0:11

about China journalists. He's

0:13

actually living in China

0:16

working there and is getting

0:18

his PhD. He converts it

0:20

with the language, which is not

0:22

always true. of people who claim

0:24

expertise about China. He's

0:26

got vast experience. And

0:28

he is the editor of the

0:30

Geopolitical Economy Report.

0:33

Economic or economy? Economy

0:35

report. Yeah. And

0:37

check it out. And

0:40

let me just begin. We're

0:43

here. It's now Thursday evening in

0:45

California time with the President of

0:47

United States, Donald Trump, has just

0:49

made comments as he was signing

0:51

one of his executive orders, talking

0:53

about, I think we'll have a

0:55

deal with China. He said

0:57

maybe in the next three, four

1:00

weeks, which I took as a good

1:02

sign. I'd rather we have a

1:04

deal with China than go to war

1:06

with China or destroy each other's

1:08

economy. But I'll leave it to you

1:10

to tell me, where are

1:12

we in this whole,

1:14

and he keeps professing

1:17

respect for the leader

1:19

of China, Xi. So

1:21

what's going on? Yeah,

1:24

well, my guess is as good as

1:26

anyone's. It's really hard to know

1:28

what Trump's doing. He's kind of pursuing

1:30

this madmen theory that was pursued by

1:32

Nixon. But in the case of

1:35

China, I think this is a clear sign, as

1:37

some analysts have said, that Trump is

1:39

blinking, right? That essentially, He's acknowledging

1:42

that his trade war on

1:44

China has backfired very significantly. And

1:46

Trump has already made several steps

1:48

back. So while he keeps raising

1:51

the tariffs on China to cartoonish levels,

1:53

they're now at 245%,

1:56

which is mostly symbolic because

1:58

once you get over like 100%,

2:00

you're going to limit basically all

2:02

trade, the vast majority of trade between

2:04

the two countries, which is

2:06

why China was responding to

2:08

Trump's. tariffs every time he

2:10

raised them China would impose reciprocal

2:13

tariffs actual reciprocal tariffs

2:15

and After 125 or something

2:17

China said they're not going

2:19

to increase them anymore because after

2:21

this point it's meaningless now after

2:24

Trump did that he also

2:26

issued an exemption for the

2:28

most important products that China

2:30

exports to the US which

2:33

are cell phones Computers and

2:35

semiconductors as well as several

2:37

other electronics goods Now, electronics

2:39

make up more than one third of

2:41

China's exports to the US. Trump

2:43

exempted them from his sky -high

2:45

tariffs, which also raises the question. I

2:48

mean, if he thinks that the US is

2:50

going to reindustrialize with tariffs, then why is

2:52

he exempting the most important electronics goods that

2:54

he says he wants to make in the US?

2:57

I think I'm very skeptical. I don't

2:59

think he's actually going to reindustrialize.

3:01

In fact, the evidence suggests

3:03

that these tariffs may lead

3:05

to further deindustrialization, deindustrialization. of

3:07

the U .S. But as for this most recent

3:10

comment he made about making

3:12

China sign a deal, I

3:14

don't think that's going to be nearly

3:16

as easy as he expects. In

3:19

China, people have been preparing for a

3:21

U .S. trade war for years. Trump

3:23

started a U .S. trade war on

3:25

China in 2018 during his first term.

3:27

And then Biden continued those policies.

3:29

This was bipartisan. Biden

3:31

imposed 100 percent tariffs

3:33

on Chinese electric

3:35

vehicles, semiconductors, batteries, and

3:39

solar panels. So

3:41

China has been preparing for nearly a

3:43

decade now. And they

3:45

didn't expect 245 percent tariffs,

3:47

but essentially they expected that the

3:49

U .S. would try to economically decouple.

3:51

This has been a term that's been

3:53

popular in Washington, decoupling

3:56

from China. Many think tanks have

3:58

been calling for this. And China

4:00

essentially rerouted many of its exports.

4:02

and increased its trade with

4:04

other regions of the world. So

4:07

China's largest trading partner is no longer the

4:09

US. That was true a decade ago. Now

4:11

its largest trading partner is

4:14

Southeast Asia, the ASEAN countries. And

4:16

if you look at China's

4:19

exports, in 2018,

4:21

19 % went to

4:23

the US. And as

4:25

of 2024, bit

4:28

over 14 % went to the US. So

4:30

that's a pretty significant decline in just

4:32

a few years and that number continues

4:34

to decline further. Another point

4:36

about China's economy that's important to keep

4:38

in mind is that there's this idea

4:40

that China is so dependent on exports

4:42

and without exporting its economy would collapse.

4:44

But if you look at exports as

4:46

a share of GDP in China, it's

4:49

about 20 % of Chinese GDP, but

4:51

the world average is 30 % of GDP.

4:53

So in fact, China's economy

4:55

is less dependent on exports

4:57

than South Korea, than many

4:59

European countries, certainly than Germany.

5:02

And over time, China has been

5:04

massively expanding domestic consumption because it

5:06

has 1 .4 billion people. So there's

5:08

an enormous internal market. So if

5:10

they don't export something, they can

5:12

sell many of those products locally.

5:15

So Trump thinks, and not just Trump,

5:17

that people around him, so his Treasury

5:20

Secretary Scott Besant, who's a billionaire hedge

5:22

fund manager from Wall Street, And

5:24

also his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick,

5:26

who's another billionaire from Wall Street. Both

5:29

of them have constantly claimed in their

5:31

interviews that the U .S. holds all

5:33

these cards. As Besant claimed,

5:35

China only has a pair of twos.

5:37

But it's actually the other way around. It's

5:40

actually the U .S. as we've seen

5:42

from some of Trump's actions in recent days.

5:44

It's the U .S. that is much

5:46

more dependent on China than vice versa.

5:48

Because yes, China... export to the

5:50

US market, but again, it

5:52

can redirect those exports elsewhere or

5:54

increase domestic consumption to replace

5:57

for the fallen exports. But

5:59

the US can't easily

6:01

replace all of these goods

6:03

that it gets from China, which not

6:05

only includes electronics, it includes for

6:07

instance, you know, 80 % of iPhones in the

6:09

US are made in China and many computers

6:11

and legacy chips. So not

6:13

the most advanced semiconductors, but the

6:15

chips used in most modern. consumer

6:18

electronics. But furthermore, a

6:21

bit over half of the ingredients

6:23

and inputs in US pharmaceuticals come

6:25

from China. So US

6:27

drug companies, which are one of

6:29

the few areas in which the

6:31

US is still economically competitive, without

6:34

Chinese inputs, they simply cannot

6:36

operate. And this is true for so many

6:38

other things. I was talking with a friend last night,

6:40

who just had a little kid, and she

6:42

pointed out that 97 % of

6:44

strollers in the US are made

6:46

in China. 97 % of car seats

6:48

are made in China. So

6:51

Trump says he wants to

6:53

reindustrialize. And I've been clear

6:55

on record for many years that I

6:57

think the US does need to reindustrialize.

6:59

But this is a process that will

7:01

take years, if not decades. It's

7:03

not something that you can easily

7:05

solve simply by imposing tariffs and cutting off

7:07

trade with China. All that's going to

7:09

do is cause a recession, which is why

7:12

many US financial institutions, including

7:14

big banks, like

7:16

JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have

7:18

significantly increased their forecast, their

7:20

probability for a recession. And

7:22

I think it's very likely there will be

7:25

a recession in the U .S. And it's quite

7:27

likely that there will be inflation

7:29

because China exports so many

7:31

important consumer goods to the U .S. And

7:33

now those are going to cost over

7:35

twice as much, three times as much, depending

7:37

on how the tariff costs are borne by

7:40

U .S. importers. Because, you know, Trump claims

7:42

other countries pay for tariffs. It's not

7:44

true. It's U .S. importers, which means

7:46

that inevitably US consumers will eat a

7:48

lot of that increase in cost. So

7:50

what we're going to see is an increase

7:52

in prices and a recession. So this

7:54

looks a lot like a recipe for

7:57

the stagflation that we saw in

7:59

the 1970s. You know,

8:01

let me try to

8:03

demystify. First of all, every time

8:05

I talk to you, I realize you really

8:07

bring up most sorts of

8:09

stuff that is left out of

8:11

the. reporting the

8:13

conversation in the United States. And

8:16

then after I talked to you,

8:18

I go and check these things. You

8:20

know, I used to consider myself

8:22

a budding China expert. I was in

8:24

the Center for Chinese Studies in

8:26

Graduate School at Berkeley. I was a

8:28

fellow there. And I actually tried

8:31

struggling with the language. I had my

8:33

hats off to you for actually

8:35

being able to Go further.

8:37

I'm gonna go get into it.

8:39

But you know the perspective

8:41

and I you took me to

8:43

school last time we talked

8:46

that this is not China of

8:48

the low cost low product

8:50

qualities that a lot of the

8:52

discussion about China was economy

8:54

15 years ago or something and

8:57

somebody who agrees with you

8:59

And I don't always agree with

9:01

him. It's Thomas Friedman. And

9:03

I have to watch a podcast

9:05

last night, Thomas Friedman, who's been

9:08

going to China quite a bit

9:10

lately. and was talking to,

9:12

I guess, Ezra Klein at the

9:14

New York Times. They just did this

9:16

podcast. And they

9:18

both were in agreement that

9:20

not only the Republicans

9:22

and Donald Trump, but the

9:24

Democrats, really don't

9:26

understand the Chinese economy

9:28

anymore. Elon Musk

9:31

obviously does. But

9:33

generally, we're still talking

9:35

about trying to that produce cheap

9:37

goods with cheap labor and

9:39

still there's some of that and

9:41

one of the points I wanted

9:43

to raise I see this sort

9:45

of a meme war or something

9:48

going on in social media in

9:50

China and they have made a

9:52

big joke about like Calvin Klein

9:54

and the markup is so high

9:56

on on what they actually pay you

9:59

know the Chinese producer of t -shirts

10:01

or whatever else they're talking about

10:03

suits or I don't know my suppose

10:05

almost everything I'm wearing was made

10:07

in China wasn't my intent but every

10:09

time I check labels it's still

10:11

the case but that's not where China

10:13

is really going they're going into

10:15

high tech they're going into and in

10:17

fact some of the very stuff

10:19

that Trump says he's now going to

10:21

not subject to these high tariffs

10:24

right their ability and

10:26

stuff we really need in

10:28

terms of climate change. I

10:30

mean, why we want to punish. our

10:32

country for producing solar panels

10:34

at a reasonable cost so

10:36

we can all take advantage

10:38

of free, ultimately freer source

10:40

of energy. But why

10:42

don't you tell me about that?

10:45

I mean, Chris, this from our last

10:47

conversation, I found so interesting. I

10:49

see today, for instance, a story in

10:51

the South China Morning Post that

10:53

China has had a breakthrough in actually

10:55

the peaceful use of nuclear

10:58

energy if it works. the

11:00

switching from uranium to thorium

11:02

and that there's an ample

11:04

supply of that in Inner

11:06

Mongolia that can carry China

11:08

for 10 ,000 years or

11:10

something as a source and

11:12

a more reliable source. They're

11:16

all sorts. They're very successful obviously

11:18

in shipping. I noticed that there's

11:21

now a decision was made by the

11:23

US government to slap higher tariffs

11:25

on their shipping or tax them at

11:27

the ports. I don't know if

11:29

you followed that. So bring us up

11:31

to date here on what the

11:34

Chinese economy is all about. And

11:36

the other one I want to add

11:38

to you is if they turn to

11:40

their own consumers, and supply

11:42

them with more goods instead

11:44

of people in the United States

11:46

and can expand that market,

11:48

that should help with the common

11:50

prosperity that Xi says that he wants

11:53

to have. I mean, yes, let

11:55

the Chinese, I would think that's a

11:57

great thing for human rights, but

11:59

the Chinese live better and prove

12:01

their consumption and so forth.

12:03

So it's a big package

12:05

to take apart, but we'll try

12:07

to go there with that. Yeah,

12:10

well, this is all related. So

12:12

if you look at average income in

12:14

China, according to World Bank data,

12:17

in the past three decades, average income,

12:19

daily income has

12:21

increased by 10 times in

12:23

China. And if you look at manufacturing

12:25

wages, this was reported by the economists, which

12:27

is not in any way like a pro

12:30

-China outlet. The economists noted

12:32

that China's industrial wages

12:34

for manufacturing workers are

12:36

significantly higher than all of the countries

12:38

in the region. I mean, excluding South

12:40

Korea and Japan, but if you compare

12:42

China to Southeast Asia, which is where

12:44

a lot of manufacturing is now happening

12:46

in Vietnam, Thailand,

12:48

Malaysia, Indonesia, India. Chinese

12:51

wages are significantly higher than in all

12:53

of those countries. But the reason

12:55

that China is still so

12:57

competitive in manufacturing is because the

12:59

government has planned out very

13:01

carefully over decades, all of

13:04

the different inputs needed and

13:06

infrastructure and education needed to be

13:08

competitive and manufacturing. So wages are

13:10

just one small part of it. For

13:12

instance, the Chinese government still

13:14

has state ownership of the

13:16

commanding heights, the most important parts

13:18

of the economy, including infrastructure,

13:21

telecommunications, public transportation, finance.

13:24

So China has minimized the cost, for

13:26

instance, of energy, because the energy

13:28

grid is state owned, is very cheap.

13:30

for companies to get energy. It's

13:33

very cheap for workers to have public transportation.

13:36

The state -owned

13:38

banks provide very cheap loans to

13:40

strategic industries, and that's how they

13:42

can move resources away from things

13:44

like, for instance, real estate. They

13:46

had a real estate bubble. The government wanted

13:48

to pop the real estate bubble because,

13:50

as President Xi said, houses should be for

13:53

living, not for speculation. They

13:55

popped the real estate bubble partially

13:57

by... three major

13:59

restrictions on leverage, on debt. In

14:01

2020, what were known as the three red

14:03

lines. But then also, the state

14:06

-owned banks were ordered by the

14:08

government to stop lending to

14:10

real estate developers. And instead, they

14:12

redirected a lot of that

14:14

lending to high -tech industries, like

14:16

electric vehicles, like solar panels, like

14:18

semiconductors and artificial intelligence. So

14:21

wages are just one small part of

14:23

this. And Trump, you know, Again,

14:26

I think the US needs to

14:28

reindustrialize, and I've said this

14:30

for a long time, but Trump is

14:32

ignoring all of the other parts of

14:34

a necessary industrial policy. Every single successful

14:36

industrial economy in the world has industrialized

14:39

and developed advanced manufacturing

14:41

through a state -led campaign. The

14:43

government identifies certain sectors that

14:45

it's going to target to provide

14:47

subsidies and other benefits and

14:49

infrastructure investment and education spending in

14:51

order to develop that sector.

14:53

This is what the US did

14:55

in the, originally, ironically,

14:57

it was the father of industrial

14:59

policy was Alexander Hamilton, the first

15:02

US Treasury Secretary. This is

15:04

what the European economies did. This is what Japan

15:06

and South Korea did, the Asian Tigers.

15:08

And China followed that path,

15:11

except with even more state

15:13

direction and state ownership. But

15:15

Trump is ignoring all of that part

15:17

of it and just relying on tariffs,

15:19

but he's talking about dismantling the

15:21

Department of Education. He's

15:23

cutting. spending on infrastructure

15:25

and all these other necessary

15:27

parts. So that's why China

15:29

is so competitive. And this

15:31

is why, you know, Tim Cook, the CEO of

15:33

Apple, there's this famous interview he did with

15:36

Forbes where he's asked about

15:38

why Apple still makes some 80 %

15:40

of its iPhones in China. And

15:42

he said, look, we've tried to go to other countries.

15:44

For instance, they're trying now. They've been trying

15:46

for years to open up factories in India. But

15:49

he pointed out that India's infrastructure is

15:51

not very good. The government has

15:53

not invested significantly in infrastructure. There's

15:55

very little public transportation for workers

15:57

to get to those factories. And

16:00

furthermore, they have a shortage of

16:02

the skilled workers needed to actually make

16:05

these very advanced electronics. We're not

16:07

talking about toasters or something. We're talking

16:09

about some of the most advanced electronics in

16:11

the world today. You have to know how

16:13

to use all of these machines, these

16:15

machine tools that are very complex. And

16:18

as Tim Cook said, You know,

16:20

China has, the government has invested

16:22

in all of this education and technical

16:24

training. And he pointed out that China

16:26

could fill many football stadiums with these

16:28

skilled workers who know how to use

16:30

all this equipment. Whereas in the US,

16:32

Tim Cook pointed out, the US couldn't

16:34

even fill a room with the people who know

16:36

how to use all of this equipment. So

16:39

that's part of the. Why China is

16:41

so competitive still? Now, in

16:43

terms of what China... Can you

16:45

stop? I don't want to

16:47

hear the rest. But it's

16:49

interesting because I keep trying to

16:51

follow this thing from afar. And

16:54

I've seen remarks that have

16:56

actually come out of the

16:58

Trump administration and others that

17:01

they trivialize the production of

17:03

an iPhone as just screwing

17:05

little screws in. I

17:07

don't know if you've seen

17:09

those references. Yeah. And there's

17:11

almost like, let them have

17:13

that kind of work. Maybe

17:15

Chinese women have smaller fingers

17:17

or something. But

17:20

you're presenting a picture

17:22

of China's industrial success

17:24

that is not often in the mass media

17:26

in this country. And

17:28

once was true to

17:30

some degree, but now

17:32

we're talking about advanced robotics, advanced

17:35

machinery, obviously the use

17:37

of computerized functions and all

17:39

sorts of production. So

17:41

I just would like to throw that in

17:43

there. And

17:45

in fact, that's what those, I don't

17:48

know if you've seen those social media

17:50

in China. We always talk about that

17:52

there's no room for dissent in China,

17:54

but I know during the pandemic there

17:56

was a lot of somebody I worked

17:58

with in the graduate school who

18:00

specialized in how medical issues

18:02

were being covered. There

18:05

was a vibrant debate about

18:07

the inadequacies, failures of the

18:09

medical system or the

18:11

successes during the debate. And

18:14

right now there's this lively discussion

18:16

I gather. I've just read

18:18

about this. American

18:20

media or elsewhere in

18:22

China mocking this idea

18:25

that it's all this

18:27

unskilled work and they even

18:29

show a Nike plant if you had

18:31

it in the United States and

18:33

they show out of shape American work

18:35

is trying to assemble a

18:37

sneaker or something but you're really

18:39

presenting a different Image here

18:42

of and and it's

18:44

interesting you have this expression

18:46

of the labor cost

18:48

is not the major cost

18:51

This is a big

18:53

factor, but anyway continue with

18:55

what you were you going

18:57

before? Yeah, I mean it

18:59

was even Tim Cook again a billionaire CEO

19:01

the CEO of Apple It was even

19:03

he who pointed out in this interview with

19:05

Forbes. He said look labor costs

19:07

in China are much higher than in

19:10

neighboring countries in the region. We would

19:12

like to go to somewhere in Southeast

19:14

Asia or even India to make these

19:16

iPhones, but simply the cost would be

19:18

too expensive in the other elements in

19:20

terms of infrastructure, in

19:22

terms of education and training. So

19:25

despite the higher wages, they still are

19:27

more effective in China. Another big reason

19:29

for this, as you alluded to, is

19:31

automation. There are already so

19:33

many automated elements in many of these

19:35

factories. There are so many robots. A

19:37

good example of that is the car industry. So

19:40

I have had the privilege of being

19:42

able to visit an EV factory, like

19:44

an electric vehicle factory here in China. And

19:47

it's really amazing. I mean, there are, of

19:49

course, a lot of workers still there, but

19:51

so much of the process is already automated.

19:53

And you can go online and find videos

19:55

of this. Seeing these

19:57

very modern factories they now even

19:59

have these things that are known as

20:01

like dark factories where at night There

20:03

are basically no workers there, but the

20:06

machines keep operating they turn the lights

20:08

off to save money so It would

20:10

take many years if not decades

20:12

to replace all of these Aspects

20:14

in the US to create a

20:16

new supply chain to build these

20:18

factories and then if I mean again

20:20

and again like I'm not in any

20:22

way opposed to reindustrialization I've been saying this

20:25

and one of my my close friends

20:27

and my mentor really is the economist

20:29

Michael Hudson. He's been saying this for

20:31

decades. I mean, this is, you know,

20:33

but from a more left -wing perspective. But

20:35

the point is, is that you can't just

20:37

magically do this overnight and then use

20:39

tariffs to cut off trade, especially considering

20:41

that let's say the US does actually have

20:43

a plan, which Trump doesn't, but

20:45

let's say there is a plan to

20:47

reindustrialize targeting certain sectors. Think

20:50

about all of the machinery and all

20:52

of the capital goods, all of the equipment that would

20:54

have to be imported from China. Well, there

20:56

are now 245 % tariffs

20:58

on all of those machine tools.

21:00

China is the world's leader in producing

21:02

machine tools, in producing much

21:04

of this equipment. So even

21:06

if you make the factory, how are

21:09

you going to make the, because you know you can

21:11

build a factory, but it's going to be empty. You have

21:13

to have all of the machinery. The US doesn't make that

21:15

machinery. So if you look

21:17

at the supply chains and the

21:19

production process for an iPhone,

21:21

for even Android phones for computers.

21:23

These are very complex. There

21:25

are parts from many different countries,

21:27

not just from China. For instance, now

21:29

a major part in the global supply

21:32

chain is Southeast Asia. Vietnam

21:34

has been closely following the

21:36

Chinese model. It's like 20 years

21:38

behind China now. I'm very

21:40

optimistic about Vietnam's economic growth is

21:42

incredible. Incomes are rising

21:44

rapidly. It's industrializing. But

21:46

then also Malaysia, Indonesia.

21:49

All these countries are becoming major manufacturing

21:51

hubs and especially because, you know,

21:53

we were talking about China's technology. And,

21:56

you know, China is a huge country. It's basically

21:58

a continent or a subcontinent, 1 .4 billion people.

22:01

So, yes, it does have now

22:03

some of the most high tech

22:05

industries. We saw this with

22:07

artificial intelligence, with the company DeepSeek. which

22:10

released an AI model that is just

22:12

as good as those produced by

22:14

OpenAI, which is 49 % owned by

22:16

Microsoft. And a big difference,

22:18

though, is OpenAI, despite its name, it

22:20

actually has closed models that are not free

22:23

for anyone to use. Whereas DeepSeq,

22:25

this Chinese company, released these open

22:27

source AI models. Anyone in the

22:29

world can use them for free

22:31

and install them locally on their

22:33

computers because the code is open

22:35

source. So, of course, there's been a lot

22:37

of attention to that. There's been a

22:39

lot of attention to China's electric vehicle

22:41

industry. The Chinese company BYD

22:43

has become the largest

22:45

producer and exporter of electric vehicles, Which

22:48

Warren Buffett invested heavily

22:50

in that, right? This

22:54

is not some commie trick. This

22:56

was America's most

22:59

effective investor, was

23:01

very early to the BYU, and he's

23:03

taken a lot of profit out of

23:05

it. He's sold a lot of shares,

23:07

but still has a very big holding.

23:10

On the contrary, by the way, I just

23:12

want to, there's a connection there. I

23:15

was unaware. I've

23:18

owned General Motors electric

23:20

cars. two versions of them

23:22

for so for six years I drove nothing wrong

23:24

with the car but you couldn't get

23:26

them fueled this Tesla had an advantage but

23:28

they also were very pricey I was paying

23:30

actually more for my electric car than I

23:33

would have for a gas car and then

23:35

I also bought a Tesla and so forth,

23:37

but I wanted to get one of those

23:39

Chinese cars, and I didn't

23:41

realize what one of the difficulty didn't

23:43

come from Donald Trump. People blame

23:45

Trump for everything, but it came from

23:48

Joe Biden. I just learned

23:50

that a couple of hours ago, I

23:52

don't know, yesterday, I was reading that

23:54

Biden put 100 %

23:56

tariff on these

23:58

cars, right? I'll be

24:00

right here. I don't know why I didn't

24:02

know this before. I don't know how many

24:04

people watching this or listening to this know

24:06

this, but, you know, so you can't blame

24:08

Trump for the idea of trying to

24:11

punish China. The Biden administration really went

24:13

out of its way to punish

24:15

Panamanu. We're not punishing for developing weapons,

24:17

which they do do. We're not

24:19

punishing them for having, you know, a

24:21

very significant military force now, which

24:24

is one reason why they can have

24:26

some confidence in resisting. this

24:28

bullying as they put

24:30

it. But the irony

24:32

is, and this I want to get

24:34

to a basic question, I

24:36

think it's a

24:38

mistake. I just had lunch

24:40

with someone who was in the

24:42

old Clinton administration and everything. And

24:45

a lot of people

24:48

are freaked out about Trump

24:50

now. Most of the

24:52

people I know are very freaked out. There

24:54

are a lot to be freaked out

24:56

about. But nonetheless, I kept asking, what is

24:58

the method in his madness? You

25:01

know, this guy, you know,

25:03

he got reelected and this guy

25:05

manages to pull off a lot of

25:07

things. And as you mentioned, he's got

25:09

a bunch of billionaires around him, including

25:11

Elon Musk, who are not fools. They

25:14

may be immoral, but

25:16

they're not fools. So

25:18

what is he doing with China? Because

25:20

now I don't know if it's just

25:22

blinking. He's obviously has

25:25

to take a recognition of their

25:27

resolve, and the Chinese are not

25:29

just tumbling. In fact,

25:31

Robert Reich had a column yesterday,

25:33

said, there's three obstacles to Trump.

25:35

One is China, one is Harvard, and

25:38

I forget, what is the third one?

25:41

Oh my goodness, I forgot. You

25:43

know, resisting Trump's, there's

25:46

some people pushing back. But

25:48

what is Trump trying

25:50

to get from this? And

25:52

isn't it possible? that

25:55

his tactic is art of

25:57

the deal making and all that,

25:59

that, yes, okay, he'll get

26:01

some concessions. And some of

26:03

them are probably valid. Right?

26:06

You can always get a better trade deal. Right?

26:10

Yeah. Well, what's

26:12

the real question? Yeah,

26:15

I will respond to it one second. I just

26:17

want to finish this thought about China's technology, just

26:19

because it was an important point that I was

26:21

going to make really briefly, which is

26:24

that So China now is seen

26:26

around the world for being a leader

26:28

in these advanced technologies. And you're

26:30

absolutely right that it was Biden, the

26:32

Biden White House that imposed 100 %

26:34

tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar

26:36

panels and semiconductors and batteries, which

26:39

are of course very important

26:41

for the energy transition away from

26:43

fossil fuels to mitigate climate

26:45

change. a stupid reactionary. thing

26:47

to do. We want people to have

26:50

solar panels. If the Chinese can

26:52

make them cheaper and if they can

26:54

make electric cars cheaper and they're

26:56

good, why would you

26:58

deny American consumers the

27:00

opportunity to buy a deal? Get a

27:02

deal. Get a deal. Why

27:04

do they have to pay so

27:06

much more? We can't even find them.

27:08

We have shortages if we cut

27:11

out China. Big

27:13

screen TVs. You

27:15

know, the Chinese obviously are very good at

27:17

that. Why do you want to punish?

27:19

You're punishing as you point out to the

27:22

American consumer. But I want

27:24

to ask you once, because we have time,

27:26

but I want to ask you one specific

27:28

thing about infrastructure before I forget it. Well, one

27:30

quick question. I just want to finish this

27:32

thought on technology. Yeah. In terms of that,

27:34

that rules interrupt me anytime you want. No,

27:37

really, what I don't mean

27:39

to flatter you, but really, you're

27:41

very good at guiding the

27:43

discussion. So. Go ahead. Yeah.

27:46

Thank you. Well, just to briefly answer

27:48

that question, I mean, the Biden White House,

27:50

their argument was that they wanted to

27:52

pursue a kind of industrial policy to reindustrialize

27:54

the U .S. But in certain sectors, targeting

27:56

green energy. That's why the

27:58

Biden White House, Biden administration passed the

28:01

Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act.

28:03

They were targeting those sectors and

28:05

saying the government is going to

28:07

provide investment, subsidies, infrastructure development to

28:09

make electric vehicles in the U .S.

28:11

to make semiconductors in the US.

28:15

But it's also, there's an element

28:17

of corruption in here because

28:19

ironically it was Elon Musk last year

28:21

in 2024 before he was even in

28:23

the government. And before

28:25

he was like really openly campaigning

28:27

with Trump in early 2024,

28:29

Musk told investors on a call,

28:31

he said that we really need

28:33

protection from the government because without

28:36

protective measures like tariffs, Tesla is

28:38

going to go bankrupt. We can't

28:40

compete with BYD. And a few

28:42

weeks after he said that, the Biden

28:44

White House put 100 % tariffs on Chinese

28:46

EVs. So I think there was

28:48

clearly some kind of lobbying going on

28:50

by Tesla. But really briefly on

28:52

this point of technology. So like I

28:55

said, around the world, people see China as

28:57

now like a leader in high tech.

28:59

And it's true. But like I

29:01

was emphasizing, China is a continent. And it's

29:03

so big that really, if you

29:05

look at the kind of international

29:07

division of labor, if you

29:09

look at the most high value

29:11

added. capital intensive products like

29:13

technologies, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, China

29:16

is competitive in those sectors. But

29:18

if you look at other parts of this kind, if

29:20

you think of the global division of labor as a

29:22

kind of pyramid, at the bottom

29:24

of it, you have the

29:27

lowest value added, most labor intensive

29:29

products like textiles, like

29:31

basic consumer goods,

29:34

t -shirts, hats,

29:38

shoes. China still produces a lot of

29:40

that, less and less over time

29:42

as wages have risen. But because the

29:44

country is so big, there a lot

29:46

of people still making that. And also,

29:48

if you think of this pyramid in

29:50

the middle of the pyramid, you

29:52

have consumer appliances, refrigerators, washing machines. China

29:55

still produces much of that.

29:57

So normally what happens when an

29:59

economy industrializes and develops, they lose

30:01

the low end of that production

30:03

because wages increase a lot. And

30:06

instead of emphasizing production of low

30:08

value added labor intensive goods they

30:10

emphasize high value added capital intensive

30:12

goods and China has been making

30:14

that transition but because it's so

30:16

big and because some of that

30:18

development has been uneven and some

30:20

areas like the coastal cities in

30:23

particular have developed much more quickly

30:25

than parts of the center of

30:27

the country more rural areas so

30:29

China because it's so big China is at

30:31

all the parts of that pyramid but what

30:33

I'm getting at is that over time China

30:35

is going to be losing the kind of

30:37

lower end of that value chain. And

30:40

it's going to go to other countries. And

30:42

it's especially going to South Asia and Southeast

30:44

Asia. So what's happening is, you

30:46

know, the US says it wants to

30:48

reindustrialize and they want all this foreign investment,

30:50

but they expect that the foreign investment will go

30:52

to the US. But in fact, what's actually

30:54

happening is that a lot of this foreign

30:56

investment is going to other parts of Asia. And

30:59

China's supply chain is

31:01

being integrated, especially with

31:03

Southeast Asia. So when Trump put

31:05

tariffs on China the first time

31:07

in 2018, China's exports

31:09

to the US decreased. But what also

31:11

happened is that a lot of Chinese

31:13

investment went to Mexico and went to

31:16

Vietnam. It went to Indonesia. And

31:18

then their exports to the US increased.

31:21

So these supply chains are very complicated.

31:23

And if Trump targets one country, they

31:25

can move somewhere else. So he's

31:27

using these tariffs also to try

31:29

to block off other countries. But

31:31

that regardless, It doesn't solve

31:33

the problem, which is that if the US

31:35

wants to reindustrialize, you have to have

31:37

a plan to reindustrialize. And if

31:39

the US wants to reindustrialize, why

31:42

should the US make all of these textiles

31:44

and sneakers? That doesn't make sense to

31:46

make those in the US. It does

31:48

make sense, I agree, to make things

31:50

like electric vehicles in the US, to make

31:52

computers, to make sunny conductors. At the

31:54

high end of the value chain, that makes

31:56

sense. And again, I was

31:58

infinitely critical of the Biden administration, especially

32:00

for his support for Israel and the war

32:02

crimes and Gaza and all of that. But

32:05

despite my critiques of the Biden

32:07

administration, at least that policy made a little

32:09

sense, like saying we're going to target these

32:11

sectors, whereas Trump just has blanket

32:13

tariffs on all, all exports, except now

32:16

he has exceptions on the most important

32:18

sectors from China. So what is,

32:20

is the, is the US going to

32:22

reindustrialize and only because, you know, China

32:24

does, for instance, its main

32:26

exports of the US are electronics. But

32:28

they represent about 40 % electronics

32:30

of Chinese exports to the

32:32

US. But China also still

32:35

exports textiles, plastic products

32:37

like Tupperware, office

32:39

supplies, furniture is

32:41

another major Chinese export. So

32:44

is the grand plan to reindustrialize

32:46

the US people getting good manufacturing jobs,

32:48

making Tupperware and sneakers? I

32:50

don't think that's realistic. This

32:52

whole terror strategy needs to be rethought.

32:54

But to answer your question again,

32:57

briefly your other question about what is Trump

32:59

trying to do? Like, what is his goal with all of

33:01

this? Well, actually, it was spelled

33:03

out by Trump's top economic advisor,

33:05

Stephen Myron, who's a

33:07

Harvard educated, very right wing economist.

33:09

But he's a smart guy. And

33:12

in November, when Trump won the

33:14

election, Stephen Myron published

33:16

a paper, a lengthy

33:18

report, and it's titled.

33:20

something like reshaping the

33:22

global trade system, global

33:25

financial system, a user's

33:27

guide to reshaping the global financial

33:29

system. And in this report,

33:31

he outlined some ideas

33:33

in which the US could use the

33:35

exorbitant privilege it has as the printer

33:38

of the global reserve currency, the dollar, in

33:40

order to pressure other countries to

33:42

take measures that would benefit

33:44

the US. And he determined two

33:46

main problems of the dollar system

33:48

that the US created. that gives

33:50

the U .S. this privilege of, the

33:53

term exorbitant privilege came from

33:55

France's finance minister in the

33:57

1960s. They were complaining that the U .S.

33:59

will never run a balance of payments

34:01

crisis because there's all this global demand

34:03

for U .S. dollars so they can keep running

34:05

big deficits. In fact, they have to run

34:07

deficits in order for the system to work

34:09

because other countries need dollars in order to

34:12

use the dollar in international trade and to

34:14

hold dollars in their reserves. If the U

34:16

.S. doesn't run a deficit, there's going to

34:18

be a shortage of dollars. There's going to

34:20

be a liquidity crisis, which could cause a

34:22

financial crisis. So what

34:24

they're trying to do is they want to have their cake

34:26

and eat it too. It's a very difficult,

34:29

it's very difficult. They're trying to

34:31

do, but essentially they're trying to use

34:33

tariffs to force other countries to

34:35

subsidize the US. This is what Stephen

34:37

Myron said. And

34:39

they want Stephen Myron had

34:41

proposals he made. One, other

34:43

countries can convert the US

34:45

government debt they own. or

34:47

buy new U .S. government

34:50

bonds at 100 years with

34:52

no yield. So they're subsidizing

34:54

the U .S. government, they're losing money, but

34:56

in return, as he put it, these

34:58

countries benefit according to the

35:00

Trump administration from two public

35:02

goods provided by the United

35:04

States, which they say are

35:06

the dollar system. So the dollar

35:08

itself and the Treasury

35:10

security U .S. government debt

35:12

as the main reserve asset

35:14

in the global financial

35:16

system, which backstops loans across

35:19

the world. It's used as

35:21

the most important form of backing

35:24

of collateral around the world.

35:27

So that's the one public good. And then

35:29

the other public good that they claim they're

35:31

providing is what they call the US

35:33

security umbrella. So the US has 750, 800

35:35

foreign military bases everywhere. And

35:38

the US spends a lot on that. And

35:41

the Trump administration says, well, other countries

35:43

should subsidize us. And what we'll do

35:45

is we'll put tariffs on them. And

35:47

if they want the tariffs to be lifted,

35:49

they have to pay us. So essentially,

35:51

what they're really calling for is tribute, is paying

35:53

tribute to the US. And they

35:55

think that because the US plays a central

35:57

role in the financial system, they have

35:59

all this leverage over other countries. And

36:02

they have some leverage. But actually, what this

36:04

is also doing is accelerating the search

36:06

for alternatives, which we've seen for years

36:08

now, countries, especially Russia. with

36:10

all the sanctions on Russia and China

36:12

with the sanctions and tariffs. They've

36:15

been seeking alternatives and trying to create

36:17

new institutions, a kind of alternative

36:19

infrastructure for a global financial system. So

36:21

this strategy by the Trump administration can

36:23

also very much blow back. And

36:25

maybe they'll force countries that are

36:27

close US allies that are

36:30

militarily occupied like South Korea or

36:32

Japan or Germany. Maybe they'll

36:34

come to the table and sign what

36:36

they're calling a Mar -a -Lago Accord, which

36:38

is based on the idea

36:40

of the Reagan administration's Plaza

36:42

Accord in 1985, where the US

36:44

pressured its allies, Japan, West Germany,

36:46

France, and the UK to

36:48

appreciate their currencies against the US

36:50

dollar to devalue the US

36:52

dollar to make manufacturing goods more

36:55

competitive in the US. What

36:57

they want to do is what they

36:59

call loosely a Mar -a -Lago Accord based

37:01

on that idea. But there's no way

37:03

China is going to come to the

37:05

table. I think Trump Thought and

37:07

Scott Besant he hinted at this

37:09

they thought that by putting these heavy

37:11

tariffs on China that China would

37:13

become afraid very quickly and that China

37:15

would you know bend over backward

37:17

to reach a deal with the US

37:19

that would be more advantageous to

37:21

the US But I think they had a

37:24

rude awakening Realizing that China has been preparing

37:26

for a decade now for this kind

37:28

of trade war and that China actually

37:30

can withstand this economic

37:32

pain Much longer than the

37:34

US can it's a kind of economic

37:36

game of chicken and Trump thought he

37:38

could force China to sign this deal But

37:40

it's looking very unlikely, which is why he's

37:42

taking a few steps back Yeah,

37:45

he's taking a few steps back

37:47

because it's scaring the hell out

37:49

of a lot of people in

37:51

America who even voted for him

37:53

and as I say, he's no

37:55

fool And there is method to

37:58

his madness. I think one

38:00

of the big factors is that To

38:02

talk about tariffs and

38:05

bringing manufacturing jobs, all

38:07

of that is very

38:09

important for the public

38:11

to hear because people

38:13

remember that time when you could

38:16

be an auto worker and make

38:18

50 bucks an hour when 50

38:20

bucks an hour was a lot

38:22

of money and get all sorts

38:24

of benefits and, you know, job

38:26

security and medical coverage and everything

38:28

else. And so there was already

38:31

some talk in the United States

38:33

of a labor aristocracy. It was

38:35

not bad to be a skilled

38:37

worker. Well, that was

38:39

also thanks to unions, which of

38:41

course the Republicans are against. It

38:43

was strong unions. I understand that.

38:45

But the fact is, a lot

38:48

of Americans, I come from a

38:50

working class background, and I was

38:52

told not to go to college,

38:54

actually, by my relatives who were

38:56

machinists and working on airplane construction

38:58

and everything else, that I would

39:00

not make as much. But if

39:03

I was going to go to

39:05

college, at least I should study

39:07

engineering, which I did, to

39:09

be able to get a

39:11

job. But what I'm saying is,

39:13

I want to cut from

39:15

the propaganda whole thing to a

39:17

reality that America will not

39:19

increase its overall wealth by going

39:22

to manufacturing because the main

39:24

source of America's wealth and privilege

39:26

and why we're such a

39:28

big consumer market is our financial

39:30

industry. And that is

39:32

what has been the big dramatic

39:34

change in the last what three decades

39:36

or so for four decades. And

39:39

the U .S. financial industry

39:41

rips off the whole world. You

39:43

know, and part of

39:46

that is this thing of

39:48

we also represent security. So

39:50

your funds are secure here.

39:52

We're not a banana republic.

39:54

We're solid and everything else.

39:56

That is all being challenged

39:58

now. And people are scared.

40:00

What is it all about? I

40:02

think there's a reason why Trump

40:05

might want to make a deal.

40:07

You know and yet keep up

40:09

the pressure. Yes, we want to

40:12

bring back manufacturing jobs and and

40:14

and there are good manufacturing jobs

40:16

that could pay well that it

40:18

would be good to improve You

40:20

know for example, I just in

40:22

terms of infrastructure I just saw

40:24

an item now Trump today cut

40:26

the funding from administration for the

40:28

train that's a bullet train that

40:30

the Japanese were building between Houston

40:32

and Dallas in Texas And

40:34

that's now a four -hour

40:37

drive between your two major cities

40:39

there and that you could reduce it

40:41

very much by having a high

40:43

speed. They killed it because it sounds

40:45

like a socialist idea or something. Biden

40:49

had actually delayed the funding for it,

40:51

but they still thought it was a good

40:53

idea. And you know,

40:55

here is China where, you know, I

40:57

think the figure is somewhere like

40:59

over 90 % of the people who

41:01

live in a large or medium city

41:03

can have access to a bullet

41:05

train and actually go see their ancestral

41:07

home or go visit relatives or

41:09

so forth on the lunar holiday

41:11

and move around in the hundreds

41:14

of millions of passengers and so

41:16

forth. So I think The method

41:18

to Trump's madness is that

41:20

he knows we're not going to

41:22

bring back a lot of

41:24

manufacturing. There's some manufacturing

41:26

that's environmentally friendly. We

41:29

still do have a lot of

41:31

laws about what you can produce and

41:33

you can produce it that also

41:35

could involve more skilled labor that

41:38

would be attractive to bring

41:40

back. But I think the

41:42

real threat And the

41:44

reason they're pushing back on

41:46

China is something that

41:49

they didn't discuss in their

41:51

talk was the BRICS

41:53

alliance and the whole idea

41:55

of a multipolar world

41:57

in which people will be

41:59

less dependent on the financial

42:02

community. We already have trading

42:04

without even using currencies and

42:06

so forth. But I think

42:08

that's the big fear. And

42:10

he's actually, at times, made

42:12

a threat. If you go

42:14

off the dollar, you're going to really

42:16

see what we're about. Now,

42:19

it would seem crass to bring

42:21

that up, that this is

42:23

really about preserving the superiority of

42:25

our financial community backed by

42:27

the dollar. But I'd

42:29

like to talk about that a

42:31

little bit, because when you

42:33

look at the BRICS threat, There's

42:36

other kind of alliance. That includes China.

42:38

It even includes Saudi Arabia in a

42:40

friendly, not as a

42:42

member, but friendly relations. And

42:45

it's something that's not focused

42:47

on enough. This is really,

42:49

I think, a war against

42:51

China is really a war

42:53

against the multipolar world here. And

42:56

maybe you could

42:58

develop that if you

43:00

agree with it. Yeah, you hit

43:02

the nail in the head. The war on

43:04

China is a war on the multipolar

43:07

world. And what the US really would love

43:09

to do, but they're recognizing that it's

43:11

not going to happen, is to go back

43:13

to that moment in the 90s, which

43:15

famously Charles Krauthammer, the neo -conservative columnist, called

43:17

the unipolar moment. And he famously

43:19

wrote that article in The Washington Post, and

43:21

he warned that the unipolar moment would

43:23

not last, so the US should take advantage

43:26

of it. And it did take advantage of

43:28

it. The US attacked Iraq

43:30

twice. The U .S. then

43:32

attacked Libya. It destroyed the

43:34

U .S. economy. thought we'd be declined after

43:36

the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yeah.

43:39

Yeah. So the unipolar

43:41

moment was the time in which

43:43

we saw the neo -conservatives ascendant in

43:45

the 90s and early 2000s. We saw

43:47

the Bush administration, the war on

43:49

terror, the peak of U .S. unilateralism,

43:52

bullying the entire country. And

43:54

when you engage in that kind of activity, of

43:56

course, this is much bigger than just Trump. This

43:59

goes back decades when The US empire

44:01

bullies the rest of the

44:03

world. In the 90s, the US

44:05

was so strong that many countries could

44:07

not resist. But eventually, those countries

44:09

are going to fight back, especially when they're

44:11

strong enough to fight back. There are

44:13

always small countries trying to resist like Cuba.

44:16

The people of Cuba have been suffocated

44:18

for over 60 years by a

44:20

US blockade. And Iran is

44:22

a country that had a revolution. And

44:24

it's a medium -sized country, but not strong

44:26

enough to actually really fight back substantially,

44:28

only kind of through a kind of

44:30

international guerrilla warfare, if you will, like

44:33

that kind of parallel. But

44:35

China has 1 .4 billion

44:37

people. It has the largest economy

44:39

when you measure its GDP at

44:41

purchasing power parity. And that's been

44:43

true since 2016. So,

44:45

I mean, it's also like the

44:47

case with Russia, right? Like, these are

44:49

countries that are so big that

44:51

the US is used to bullying small

44:53

and medium sized countries, Venezuela, Nicaragua.

44:56

It's easy for the US to do that. It's

44:58

like a big bully picking on a little kid.

45:01

But in 2022, the

45:03

US and the EU froze hundreds

45:05

of billions of dollars of

45:07

Russian assets, thinking that, and then

45:09

they posed heavy sanctions on

45:11

Russia. And as Biden said, the

45:13

US wanted to turn the ruble

45:15

into rubble, the Russian currency. It

45:18

didn't work because we saw that Russia was

45:20

too big to sanction. And

45:22

China is much bigger than

45:24

Russia. its population is 14

45:26

times the size of Russia. The

45:29

entire global supply chain, not all

45:31

of it, but huge parts of it are located

45:33

in China. So these are countries are too

45:35

big to sanction. So as the US has

45:37

abused this kind of sanction weapon, it

45:40

has actually accelerated the process of

45:42

the further multi -polarization of the

45:44

world. You know, the Washington

45:46

Post reported last year that one

45:48

third of all countries on earth are

45:50

under some form of US sanctions,

45:52

one third, and 60 % of

45:55

low income countries are

45:57

under some form of US sanction. Eventually,

45:59

those countries, despite their differences,

46:01

they're going to come together and seek

46:03

some kind of alternative. So a good

46:05

example of this is China and India. Politically,

46:07

they have a lot of differences. Their

46:10

parties are very different. The BJP,

46:12

the ruling party in India is very

46:14

conservative and anti -China. Obviously, China

46:16

is ruled by communist party. They're very different. They see

46:18

things in a different way. But they

46:20

have some common interests that have

46:22

brought them together in bricks, which is,

46:24

one, a pursuit of a

46:26

more multipolar world with a weakened West

46:28

in which the global South has more

46:30

protagonism, two, a new

46:33

financial system because the financial

46:35

system was created by the

46:37

US largely at the Bretton Woods

46:39

Conference in 1944 with the US

46:41

dollar at the center. But also, you know,

46:43

when Richard Nixon took the dollar off

46:45

of gold in 1971, it gave

46:48

the US even more power, as

46:50

the economist Michael Hudson famously showed in

46:52

his book, Super Imperialism, where

46:54

the US could

46:56

weaponize its currency because the currency

46:58

was no longer linked to gold. There was no

47:00

limit to how many dollars the US could print to

47:03

fund wars. And the

47:05

US deficit didn't really matter,

47:07

US deficit balloon, because global demand

47:09

for dollars guaranteed that whereas most

47:11

countries, when they have a deficit, they

47:13

would have a balance of payments crisis. They

47:15

would have hyperinflation. if they have significant

47:17

sustained deficits over a long period of time. For

47:20

the U .S., it doesn't matter. They can do

47:22

this over decades, add and finite

47:24

them, because they have this exorbitant privilege.

47:26

So all of these factors

47:28

have pushed together many

47:31

countries, even countries that have

47:33

historically been U .S. allies, like Saudi Arabia, like

47:35

you mentioned. And BRICS is

47:37

a kind of loose alliance of

47:39

these countries. It's a bloc that

47:41

brings together the Global South plus Russia.

47:44

And what are their two main goals?

47:46

The stated goals of BRICS, as articulated

47:48

by the current chair of BRICS, which

47:50

is Brazil, every year they have

47:52

an alternating chairmanship. Last year it

47:54

was Russia. Brazil has

47:56

emphasized constantly that they have two main

47:58

goals. One, reform of

48:01

global governance institutions, as they

48:03

say. That means reforming the UN

48:05

Security Council. They've said this

48:07

for many years. India

48:09

doesn't have a permanent seat. That's ridiculous. Why

48:11

do the UK and France have permanent

48:13

seats? These are countries with 70 million people.

48:15

Whereas there are 1 .4 billion people in

48:18

India. There are hundreds of billions in

48:20

Pakistan and Bangladesh and Indonesia. So

48:22

they want to reform the UN, reform

48:24

the IMF, reform the World Bank, all

48:26

these institutions they see as colonial, which

48:28

they largely are. And then that's

48:30

the first goal. And the second goal is, as they

48:32

say, deepening global

48:34

south cooperation and integration.

48:38

So they want more trade, more political

48:40

groups of the global south. So

48:42

I see. The BRICS as

48:44

very much continuing in the footsteps

48:46

of the non -aligned movement, right? And

48:49

when we talk about the original Cold War,

48:51

we often forget that, you know, it wasn't

48:53

just the Soviet Union in the US. There

48:55

was the entire global South, most of

48:57

which was in the non -aligned movement. And

48:59

many of those countries in the

49:01

non -aligned movement were actually revolutionary,

49:03

socialist, nationalist, anti -imperialist movements. And

49:06

they wanted to create a kind of new

49:08

international economic order, as they put it,

49:10

the NEIO. So the N -I -E

49:12

-O. So I think BRICS is very

49:14

much following in those footsteps. And

49:16

the more that the U .S. lashes out, this is

49:18

not just Trump. This is Bush with

49:20

his wars and the war on terror. This

49:23

is Obama with his wars in Libya and

49:25

Syria. This is Biden

49:27

with his tariffs on countries around the

49:29

world. And now, sorry, with his sanctions

49:31

on countries. And now Trump with his

49:33

tariffs. All this is doing is

49:35

accelerating this process we've been talking about

49:37

of the multi -polarization of the world. So

49:40

much so that at the Munich Security

49:42

Conference this year, which you know,

49:44

is a major meeting of basically NATO

49:46

and they invite a few other

49:48

countries at the Munich Security Conference, they

49:50

publish an annual report every year. And

49:52

this year, the title was

49:55

multipolarization. They're acknowledging that the

49:57

world is increasingly multipolar. And

49:59

this is why the Trump administration, they're

50:01

trying to use their

50:03

control over the financial system, the

50:05

role of the dollar. to try

50:07

to force countries to pay the

50:10

U .S. tribute, essentially, as Stephen Myron,

50:12

Trump's top economic advisor, argued openly.

50:15

But again, in my view, this is

50:17

actually just going to continue to

50:19

accelerate that process of the

50:21

creation of alternatives and actually

50:23

weaken U .S. hegemony. So we're

50:25

at this moment where, you know, when

50:27

an empire is in a moment

50:29

of decline, they often lash out. The

50:31

Roman Empire did this, the Ottoman

50:33

Empire, and of course the German Empire

50:35

culminated in Nazism. And they tried

50:37

to use violent force and

50:39

threats and aggression to lash out.

50:42

And we've seen this in recent years, especially

50:44

under Bush, but also under Obama and, of

50:46

course, under Trump. And all this

50:48

is doing is accelerating that decline

50:50

further. Well, you say, of course, under

50:52

Trump, but Trump's a

50:54

mixed bag. And I would like

50:56

to get a deeper

50:59

understanding and not just be scared

51:01

of the guy. And it

51:03

seems to me there's two ways

51:05

to look at it. But

51:07

I think we're on the right track here. And

51:09

this is where Thomas

51:12

Freeman and Eli Ezra

51:14

Klein, where they went

51:16

wrong because they said, let's

51:18

just face it, it's going to be

51:20

the United States and China running the

51:22

world and we have to adjust and

51:24

accept some kind of balance.

51:26

That's their a notion

51:28

of an enlightened view. You can't reverse

51:30

it and so forth. So they agree

51:32

with you that you can't try to,

51:35

you know, so

51:37

you can't just push them back

51:39

in their place, you know. However, I

51:41

think we've opened up a really

51:43

interesting idea here, which is it isn't

51:45

China in the US. It's

51:47

that the US being

51:49

willing to be a more

51:51

normal nation, not be

51:54

an empire. and

51:56

a living with other centers

51:58

of power. And

52:00

the Chinese basically have gotten hold

52:02

of this idea and say, we

52:04

don't want a Chinese empire. They've

52:06

never been inclined to be an

52:08

empire. There's nothing in Chinese philosophy

52:10

going back to confusion

52:12

or anything else. In fact,

52:14

they're actually one of the few places

52:16

that you know, the Han majority, I

52:18

don't know what's well over 90 %

52:20

isn't it in China? It's

52:22

like 89 % now, but it's

52:25

the majority. Yeah, but I

52:27

mean, it's incredible. It's not

52:29

a society that really depended on

52:31

large inflows of population and

52:33

attracting other workforce and so forth.

52:35

But the interesting thing that

52:37

threat I think the real threat

52:40

here is the bricks thing.

52:42

And Trump has called it out.

52:45

And the

52:47

United States will never be

52:50

a poor country unless it's

52:52

totally mismanaged. Here, as

52:54

Trump is right, if you want to

52:56

make America great, the way is to

52:58

make it proportionate to its population. So

53:01

what are we, 8 %

53:03

or 7 % of the

53:05

world's population? I forget

53:07

now. 4%. 4 % now. It

53:09

used to be 6 % one. I was

53:11

in graduate school. So we're 4 %

53:13

of the world's population. We got a

53:15

great land mass, good climate, you know,

53:18

a lot of resources. The

53:20

land is still quite virginal compared

53:22

to many others, you know, and

53:24

not exhaustive. So there's really no

53:26

reason why the United States can't

53:28

be, per capita, the most prosperous,

53:30

and should be, probably the most

53:32

prosperous country in the world. You

53:34

have a well -educated population. and

53:37

so forth, and there's no reason why

53:39

they can't figure out ways to have

53:41

very productive economy and trade with the

53:43

rest of the world. It's just when

53:45

you have this idea of the empire

53:47

that it has to control everything. The

53:50

wisdom to Trump, it seems

53:52

to me, is he recognizes that

53:55

the cost of empire is

53:57

prohibitive, that you're paying for this

53:59

notion of security for you.

54:01

However, he doesn't want to lose

54:03

the intimidation factor. He

54:05

wants the advantage. But

54:08

he sees contradictions. Right now, you're

54:10

being very generous with your time, but

54:12

if we could just take a

54:14

few more minutes. Right now,

54:16

there was a hope in the Biden

54:18

administration and elsewhere. that despite Vietnam,

54:20

this is an irony. We fought this

54:22

whole Cold War over this word

54:24

communism. The irony is that

54:26

we spent this last, what, 20

54:28

years trying to get communist Vietnam

54:31

to be an old arrival

54:33

to communist China. And

54:35

we want Apple products to

54:37

be produced in communist

54:39

Vietnam, not communist China. So

54:41

communism is now just

54:43

a neutral. flavor

54:45

or something color. But

54:48

the irony is

54:50

here that Trump, in order to

54:52

get leverage over these other people,

54:55

and this is where we see Trump,

54:57

the selfish, Trump the powerful. where

55:00

he said, well, I can push them

55:02

around and get something better from my home

55:04

country here. We're going to get them,

55:06

as you said, to pay for a lot

55:08

of other stuff and everything. Suddenly, we

55:11

are doing again what communism couldn't

55:13

do. We have brought Russia and

55:15

China together. Now, Russia is not

55:17

its anti -communist, but we brought

55:19

them together. We're now bringing communist

55:22

Vietnam and China together maybe closer

55:24

than they were before. They're actually

55:26

doing now joint military deals there

55:28

you know we wanted to stress

55:30

the fights over the man -made islands

55:32

and everything but now we're actually

55:35

and we're bringing China and India

55:37

together now China is not stupid

55:39

They know you can't bring them

55:41

together and with Saudi Arabia after

55:43

all the thing that prevented the

55:45

boycott of Russia over the Ukraine

55:48

everything was that Saudi Arabia didn't

55:50

go along and And they wouldn't

55:52

lower the price of oil so

55:54

Russia's have been able to actually

55:56

improve its GMP and I don't

55:58

know what 5 .0 no 4 .7 %

56:00

growth last year because they

56:02

have this natural resource and they

56:04

can also build up that

56:06

they can have a military industrial

56:08

complex and do it the

56:10

old fashioned American way of prosperity

56:12

through armaments. But the

56:14

irony is the threat

56:17

to the

56:19

old American empire

56:21

idea, pre -Trump

56:23

at least, is

56:26

precisely that they're rallying

56:28

all these other countries

56:31

to argue for a multipolar world, to go

56:33

their own way, to feed their own

56:35

people, to succeed. The test

56:37

for Trump will be

56:39

if he can accept that and

56:41

still have a notion of American greatness.

56:45

And America will be very prosperous

56:47

if it stops messing around

56:49

all over the world. On

56:51

the other hand, he's under pressure, ironically,

56:55

from People who

56:57

should know better supposedly, you

56:59

know, we don't have much

57:01

of a peace movement anymore

57:03

and people who don't really

57:05

want Peaceful competition with the

57:08

multipolar world and are really

57:10

looking so he's being attacked

57:12

from all sides and I

57:14

suspect Being that he's not always

57:16

so balanced and you know

57:18

that you can be in temperate

57:20

That he will welcome certain hot

57:22

spots. He will welcome

57:25

certain conflict and that

57:27

we will remember he came in

57:29

saying he's going to end

57:31

wars not make them but the

57:33

fall back position of a

57:35

failing empire is to pick more

57:37

fights and to have more wars

57:39

that's the fall back position

57:41

at a time when this

57:44

planet is threatened by yes

57:46

climate change but also by

57:48

possibility of nuclear war that

57:50

is really scary so I'll

57:53

let you wrap this up, this discussion, take it

57:55

wherever you want, and what did we leave

57:57

out? No, agree with you.

57:59

You raised some important points there. And this is what

58:01

I often emphasize. The most important thing that we

58:03

need to try to do is to do

58:06

everything we can to prevent a military

58:08

war. I mean, unfortunately, I think

58:10

it's uncontroversial at this point

58:12

that we're in a new Cold War, a Cold War

58:14

II, if you will. But we need

58:16

to prevent that from escalating into a

58:18

hot war. a direct military war between

58:20

the US and China. These are both

58:22

nuclear powers. It could be catastrophic for humanity.

58:25

And in Washington, I

58:28

think many people recognize that that would

58:30

be catastrophic. Excuse me. You

58:32

didn't say can be catastrophic. It

58:35

is no question. would be. No

58:37

question. No, it's the end. I

58:39

mean, people lost the proper

58:41

language. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

58:43

Yeah, good point. It would

58:45

be inevitably catastrophic. And

58:48

in Washington, I think most people recognize

58:50

that. In fact, you can see these

58:52

reports in the military media in the

58:54

U .S. that every year the Pentagon

58:56

runs these war games with China, and they

58:58

almost always lose the war games. In

59:00

the best -case scenario, both sides are

59:02

destroyed, but that's the best -case scenario. So

59:04

I think there are some level -headed

59:07

people, but there are also a lot

59:09

of hawks and really crazy people in

59:11

Washington. And one of those people

59:13

is actually Pete Hegseth, the

59:15

defense secretary. This guy is really

59:17

crazy. Trump found him because he was

59:19

a Fox News host. And

59:22

he wrote a book in

59:24

2020 called American Crusade. And

59:26

in the book, he proudly declared

59:28

that he's a crusader. On the

59:30

first page, he said that the United States is

59:32

in a holy war. It's the term he used,

59:35

a holy war against China, Islam,

59:38

and the international left. This

59:40

is the guy who's now the head of the Pentagon. He's

59:43

a fundamentalist. He wrote in

59:45

his book against secularism. He

59:47

said that the U .S. needs to destroy the

59:49

Communist Party of China, all this stuff. I mean,

59:51

that guy is running the Pentagon.

59:54

So there are some people in the

59:56

Trump administration who are really crazy that

59:58

really concern me. And Pete Hegseth

1:00:00

just went, he took a trip to

1:00:02

Asia. He visited Japan and the Philippines. And

1:00:05

in both countries, he met with

1:00:07

their defense secretaries and made very

1:00:09

provocative comments. He said that the

1:00:11

U .S. is turning Japan into

1:00:13

a war fighting base. and they're

1:00:15

vastly expanding their resources and their

1:00:17

military investment in Japan. So

1:00:20

that's what really concerns me is that

1:00:22

this could escalate into a full -on military

1:00:24

war, especially over Taiwan, because there are

1:00:26

a lot of separatist forces in Taiwan

1:00:28

who are pro -US and who are

1:00:30

really pushing the envelope here, and they're

1:00:32

really poking the bear and they're trying

1:00:34

to provoke a conflict. And there are

1:00:36

a lot of fears that this could

1:00:38

become like the new Ukraine, right? So

1:00:40

that's really what concerns me and keeps

1:00:42

me up at night. I don't think

1:00:45

it's inevitable, but I think it's quite

1:00:47

possible. And in terms of Trump, I

1:00:49

mean, he's really a wild card

1:00:51

because he did say he wants to be

1:00:53

a peacemaker, which is obviously good to

1:00:55

hear from a president. But he immediately came

1:00:57

in. He's now bombing the hell out

1:00:59

of Yemen and posting on social media about

1:01:01

how he's killing all these people in

1:01:03

Yemen. And he's also,

1:01:05

you know, he brokered the

1:01:07

ceasefire. And then immediately Israel violated

1:01:09

the ceasefire. And it was

1:01:12

reported, including by Fox News, that

1:01:14

Trump gave the green light

1:01:16

to Israel to renew this war

1:01:18

in Gaza. So, you know,

1:01:20

Trump says he's a peacemaker, but let's not

1:01:22

forget in his first term, he killed

1:01:24

Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian top general. He

1:01:26

did not withdraw from Afghanistan as horrible as Biden

1:01:28

was. And he was one of the worst presidents

1:01:30

in my lifetime. He did withdraw

1:01:32

from Afghanistan. Trump didn't. I mean, so

1:01:35

Trump also boasted of taking Syria's oil.

1:01:37

So. I don't think we can keep

1:01:39

Trump at his word. And, you know,

1:01:41

Trump says that he wants to withdraw

1:01:43

from the world. But at the same

1:01:45

time, a lot of his policies are,

1:01:48

you know, he says he wants to expand

1:01:50

the territory of the U .S. He wants to

1:01:52

colonize Greenland. He wants to take over the

1:01:54

Panama Canal. He wants to take over Gaza.

1:01:57

And, you know, in his

1:02:00

inauguration speech, he invoked

1:02:02

manifest destiny. And also a

1:02:04

few days after his inauguration speech, Trump

1:02:06

Gave a speech in Las Vegas and

1:02:08

he said he promised we're going to

1:02:10

vastly expand the territory of the United

1:02:12

States so Trump says one thing and

1:02:15

does another and I'm not saying that

1:02:17

like Trump is I agree with you

1:02:19

that like Trump is not like this

1:02:21

This uniquely evil cartoon villain all US

1:02:23

presidents are war criminals. They're all the

1:02:25

head of an empire I mean Obama

1:02:27

carried out so many wars and yet

1:02:29

has this percent. He won the Nobel

1:02:32

Peace Prize. It's crazy. I mean he

1:02:34

bombed bombed Yemen bombed Afghanistan bombed Pakistan

1:02:36

destroyed the Libyan government tried to destroy

1:02:38

the Syrian government and which later succeeded

1:02:40

I mean Obama was one of the

1:02:42

most hawkish presidents of my lifetime I

1:02:44

mean second probably to Bush and yet

1:02:47

he won the Nobel Peace Prize so

1:02:49

I agree that like Trump is not

1:02:51

unique but I also think that we

1:02:53

can't take Trump at his word when

1:02:55

he says that he's pursuing peace because

1:02:57

in his first term and still today

1:02:59

he's continuing many of these very aggressive

1:03:01

policies You know, it's interesting.

1:03:03

Well, yes. And by the way, they

1:03:06

gave him the Nobel Peace Prize early

1:03:08

in his presidency. You have

1:03:10

it no matter what you do. And

1:03:12

now go for it. They could give

1:03:14

it to Trump. But, you know, you

1:03:16

really make an interesting point about what

1:03:18

we should be afraid of and how

1:03:20

to think about this world. Because, I

1:03:22

mean, I've spent my life, I mean,

1:03:25

I'm an old guy now, real old.

1:03:27

And, you know, and I

1:03:29

interviewed Nixon, you know, I was,

1:03:32

somebody singled out by Nixon for

1:03:34

punishment and everything else. But

1:03:36

after he was president, I interviewed him

1:03:38

and found him very sensible and so

1:03:41

forth. So, you know, and he did

1:03:43

do the opening to China. And,

1:03:45

you know, even Kissinger now looks better

1:03:47

in some ways. I mean, you know,

1:03:50

I'm not forgiving Nixon for

1:03:52

expanding the Vietnam War and

1:03:54

doing the genocide in Cambodia

1:03:57

and so forth. But, you

1:03:59

know, it's really Strange

1:04:01

how because a lot of people I

1:04:03

know and this here again Friedman and

1:04:05

Klein were very good in that the

1:04:07

hysteria about China which extends right it

1:04:09

deep into the Democratic Party They're right

1:04:11

to call it out. We have to

1:04:14

have devils. So everybody else is the

1:04:16

devil Putin's a devil and you know

1:04:18

and disease the devil there are they're

1:04:20

all devils and now Trump is a

1:04:22

devil and so forth, but the devil

1:04:24

is inside all of us that That's

1:04:26

a little bit of that old Christian

1:04:28

education. And the fact

1:04:30

the matter is, you know, when

1:04:32

it comes to doing awful things,

1:04:34

like torture and torture camps and

1:04:36

everything, it's bipartisan. When it comes

1:04:38

to killing lots of children and

1:04:40

bombing them and all that, it's

1:04:42

in both parties. And

1:04:45

so the scary thing is

1:04:47

people's reliance on the

1:04:49

notion of the good or

1:04:51

limits. Right? That was

1:04:53

something I think that carried most

1:04:55

of us raised in the United States

1:04:57

even if we consider ourselves progressive

1:04:59

or even more radical than that. What

1:05:01

have you? You always have the

1:05:03

feeling there are some restraints. The

1:05:06

fact is that's been a lie

1:05:08

ever since I've been around. You know,

1:05:10

I mean, I went to Vietnam

1:05:12

to report on 64, you

1:05:14

know, early into the war. And I

1:05:16

realized, no, these people who are nice

1:05:18

to have dinner with, they're monsters. That

1:05:20

is to say, they're incapable

1:05:22

of monstrous behavior. You know,

1:05:24

you mentioned the treatment of Cuba all

1:05:26

these years and so forth, but you

1:05:29

can go right down the line. And

1:05:31

so what is really, we

1:05:33

have, you know, what's been called

1:05:35

Trump derangement syndrome. And I

1:05:37

find this almost in daily

1:05:39

conversations, people, well, if we just

1:05:41

didn't have Trump and Trump is going to destroy

1:05:43

everything, Trump is a Nazi, Trump is going to

1:05:45

do, you know, now there's a lot of reason

1:05:47

to be worried about, as you say, any American

1:05:49

president, anybody who's trying to

1:05:51

keep the empire going. And in

1:05:54

this particular time, like we had these

1:05:56

rallies here that Bernie Sanders was

1:05:58

speaking and everything, very little attention to

1:06:00

what is most dangerous about Trump,

1:06:02

which is this. Attempt to you

1:06:04

know picking this fight with China. You

1:06:06

know, it's this single most destructive thing

1:06:08

that he's doing and yet That's not

1:06:11

what they want to fight about they

1:06:13

want to say you're always going to

1:06:15

threaten Social Security or something. Come on.

1:06:17

Nobody's gonna go after Social Security That's

1:06:19

the one thing would end your presidency.

1:06:21

You need to pray be impeached over

1:06:23

that, you know, if you actually went

1:06:25

after that, but you know, so I

1:06:27

We have a little seesaw going we're

1:06:29

gonna run out of time. You're very

1:06:32

generous with your time But

1:06:34

trying to think logically about

1:06:36

Trump is really a

1:06:38

challenge these days, you know,

1:06:40

really. And the ease

1:06:43

with which we descend into this

1:06:45

simplistic thinking, all the problems started with

1:06:47

him. He's the unique amendment. If

1:06:49

we could just figure out how to

1:06:51

defeat him in the midterm, that's

1:06:53

going to be the next rallying thing,

1:06:55

right, as we get closer to

1:06:57

it, you know, and then we'll just

1:06:59

get the Democrats back in. But,

1:07:02

you know, I take it

1:07:04

back to China. You know, it was

1:07:06

Nancy Pelosi. If you want to talk

1:07:08

about feeding the idea of Taiwan breaking

1:07:10

away, who did more for that than

1:07:12

Nancy Pelosi? And then people who defend

1:07:14

her say, well, you know, she did

1:07:16

have in her district a lot of

1:07:18

ex -nationalist people. Well, in fact, the

1:07:20

old nationalist shank, I shank people. And

1:07:22

Taiwan want to get along with China. I

1:07:25

mean, they're not really the

1:07:27

ones. feeding this breakout

1:07:29

way thing. It's the people who want to

1:07:31

have war with China who are feeding

1:07:33

it. I'll

1:07:38

let you talk to as long

1:07:40

as you want, but why don't you

1:07:42

wrap it up and I hope

1:07:44

we can keep having these conversations. Frankly,

1:07:48

I do this because I want to learn. I

1:07:50

don't have any

1:07:52

illusion. I'm going to

1:07:54

change America with this kind of,

1:07:56

I think it's an illusion

1:07:58

of descent. I understand

1:08:00

just how algorithms and everything

1:08:02

work up in this business

1:08:04

a long time. But

1:08:07

I just find it really interesting

1:08:09

to talk to you about this

1:08:11

because when I have to go

1:08:13

to Thomas Friedman for Enlightenment, then

1:08:16

you know we're in trouble, okay?

1:08:18

I mean, he's the only one

1:08:20

or one of the rare voices

1:08:22

making some sense about China. And

1:08:24

then you got Ben Norton, who

1:08:26

at least has a more complex

1:08:28

and expansive view of it. Okay,

1:08:31

so tell us, how can we go to

1:08:33

sleep tonight? Or is the world gonna blow

1:08:35

up? Well, in the case of

1:08:37

Thomas Friedman, even a broken clock is

1:08:39

right twice a day. I

1:08:42

vehemently oppose many of Friedman's ideas,

1:08:44

but on this issue, I mean, I

1:08:46

think it's not just him. There are

1:08:48

many people who recognize that China plays

1:08:50

a pivotal role in the global economy

1:08:52

and it cannot be ousted from that.

1:08:54

I mean, the idea that the U .S.

1:08:57

can just wage economic war in China,

1:08:59

China will give in. The U .S.

1:09:01

can force China to sign a deal

1:09:03

that would benefit the U .S. at

1:09:05

the expense of China. It's not going

1:09:07

to happen. It was possible in the

1:09:09

80s with Japan. Let's not forget. I

1:09:12

mean, You remember, I wasn't even around

1:09:14

then, that in 1985 when the U .S.

1:09:16

signed the Plaza Accord with Japan, many

1:09:18

people thought that Japan would be

1:09:21

the next superpower. Japan was leading in

1:09:23

technology. And, you know,

1:09:25

all these people in the U

1:09:27

.S. who were like destroying Toyota

1:09:29

cars and at Capitol Hill, there

1:09:31

were Congress people who destroyed Toshiba

1:09:33

radios with a sledgehammer. And

1:09:35

the U .S. was able to

1:09:37

really sabotage Japan's economy. But. Japan

1:09:39

has been militarily occupied by the

1:09:42

US for almost, you know, for

1:09:44

80 years now and the US

1:09:46

has significant control over Japan. China

1:09:48

is a completely different case. So,

1:09:52

and also the other point you made

1:09:54

that I strongly agree with is that

1:09:56

I, you know, it's not just Trump.

1:09:58

Trump is, in my view, a symptom

1:10:00

of a larger structural rot in the

1:10:02

United States and the system of the

1:10:04

US, which has become a complete oligarchy.

1:10:07

There's no question about it. There

1:10:09

is no semblance of democracy, even if

1:10:11

there ever was, you know, obviously

1:10:13

there always was racism, Jim Crow, sexism,

1:10:15

imperialism, all of that. The US

1:10:17

was never truly democratic. But even the

1:10:20

the semblances of of bourgeois democracy

1:10:22

that existed have completely eroded. And all

1:10:24

we have is a system that

1:10:26

is just blatantly run by a bunch

1:10:28

of billionaires and corporations. And

1:10:30

you know, this is not just Trump. Trump has made

1:10:32

it very blatant. You know, he invited all these

1:10:34

billionaires to his inauguration. He's constantly meeting

1:10:37

with them at the White House.

1:10:39

But, you know, it was also Biden

1:10:41

who famously said during his campaign

1:10:43

in 2020, he told a bunch of

1:10:45

millionaires and billionaires in New York

1:10:47

at a fundraiser. He said, if I

1:10:49

win the election, nothing will fundamentally

1:10:51

change. That was his promise. That's the

1:10:53

Democratic Party slogan. Nothing will

1:10:55

fundamentally change or go back to 2016

1:10:57

when Trump was running against Hillary

1:11:00

Clinton and Trump said, make America

1:11:02

great again. And what was Clinton's response?

1:11:04

America is already great. Well, it's

1:11:06

not great for homeless people. first thing

1:11:08

that has always been great. Yeah.

1:11:11

Has always been great. Meaning when we had

1:11:13

slavery, it was great, right? Yeah. And

1:11:16

it's obviously not great for going to

1:11:18

today. It's not great for the hundreds of

1:11:20

thousands of people who are homeless. It's

1:11:22

not great for the people who are having

1:11:24

to work two or three jobs just

1:11:26

to make ends meet. It's not great for

1:11:28

people who are trapped in nearly $2

1:11:30

trillion in student debt. I mean, there are

1:11:32

so many problems in the US. And

1:11:34

the Democrats are just saying, well, everything's

1:11:37

fine. We're not going to change it. We just want

1:11:39

to go back to the way things were. And then

1:11:41

Trump says, well, I'm going to scapegoat

1:11:43

immigrants and LGBT people in China. And I'm

1:11:45

going to kick out all the immigrants.

1:11:47

And everything will be great. Obviously, that's not

1:11:49

going to work. But the reason

1:11:51

that he won the election is simply because he proposed

1:11:53

something. I mean, it was a crazy program that

1:11:55

obviously is not going to work. But

1:11:57

what were the Democrats proposing? Nothing. Everything's

1:12:00

already fine. We're just going to keep

1:12:02

things as they are. So until there's

1:12:04

an actual real alternative, I

1:12:06

think the U .S., unfortunately, I'm not

1:12:08

a pessimist, but I'm a realist, I think

1:12:10

the U .S. is going to become, the situation

1:12:12

is going to get worse and worse, more inequality,

1:12:15

more poverty, more homelessness, more

1:12:17

violence, more racism. There

1:12:19

needs to be a structural change. And,

1:12:21

you know, you said use the R

1:12:23

word radical, like we need a radical

1:12:25

fundamental shift in the U .S. political system.

1:12:27

And unfortunately, neither party is going to

1:12:30

deliver that. Well,

1:12:32

if I could dissent since you

1:12:34

give me a minute, you know,

1:12:36

I I I think The one

1:12:38

thing that the world thought it

1:12:40

could count on when it admired

1:12:42

America Was not that we were

1:12:44

the most enlightened country or had

1:12:46

the highest culture or you know

1:12:48

There was always a sense that

1:12:50

we were the Wild West or

1:12:52

we you know had very violent

1:12:54

why do we have so many

1:12:56

guns we People in the world

1:12:58

knew we were a deeply segregated

1:13:00

society after we were a slave

1:13:02

society. But the one

1:13:04

thing you could count on

1:13:06

was we seem to have a

1:13:08

notion of limits and some

1:13:10

notion of order. That was the

1:13:12

pride of our Constitution, our

1:13:15

separation of power. And

1:13:17

that was the opposite of the Banana

1:13:19

Republic, which was really quite contemptuous of

1:13:21

any country that has bananas or something,

1:13:24

but, you know, a lower level of

1:13:26

economic development. But the fact is, the

1:13:28

great thing that was admired, why so

1:13:30

many people from China wanted to get

1:13:32

an education in the United States, hundreds

1:13:35

of thousands are still here now, and

1:13:37

they're going back to China. Even

1:13:39

after very successful careers,

1:13:42

you know, 20 years or so

1:13:44

in the South China Morning Post,

1:13:46

I read about them every morning.

1:13:48

Another famous mathematician going back and

1:13:50

so forth is because they no

1:13:52

longer think that we're a center

1:13:54

of order, of law, of restraint,

1:13:56

of discipline. That's what is

1:13:58

causing some opposition to Trump

1:14:01

now in ruling class circles,

1:14:03

is that he's blowing our

1:14:05

cover. and that we are

1:14:07

now seen as a source

1:14:09

of instability. And

1:14:11

you see a lot of articles,

1:14:13

even in Foreign Affairs Magazine and

1:14:15

all the establishment top journals, now

1:14:17

Z in China. seems to be,

1:14:19

you know, he doesn't raise his

1:14:21

voice. He seems very responsible and

1:14:23

he can get along with people

1:14:25

he disagrees with, right? And, you

1:14:27

know, we can only keep pushing

1:14:29

the Uighur issue so far because

1:14:31

all the leaders of Muslim countries

1:14:34

go there and say, wait a

1:14:36

minute, you know, what are you

1:14:38

talking about? So, you know, really, I

1:14:40

think that the, yes, there's

1:14:42

real fear of Trump. And by

1:14:44

the way, he is, yes, as you

1:14:46

point out, really hurting people. People

1:14:48

being rounded up being deported and so

1:14:50

including people can't even know we

1:14:53

have advanced degrees and legal status and

1:14:55

suddenly find they can't even get

1:14:57

back in in the country here that

1:14:59

they thought was their home But

1:15:01

I think the thing that is troubling

1:15:03

the people of power in this

1:15:05

country is he's blowing our cover He's

1:15:07

showing the bully boy nature

1:15:09

of the Empire. It's like when

1:15:11

some of the Roman Empire

1:15:14

started drinking too much or you

1:15:16

know being cruel and vicious

1:15:18

in public, you know and and

1:15:20

I think that's why you're

1:15:22

starting to get some pushback But,

1:15:24

you know, the fact of the matter

1:15:26

is in terms of the people getting bombed

1:15:28

around the world, you know, after all,

1:15:30

it was good old Harry Truman who did

1:15:32

the greatest act of terrorism in human

1:15:34

history, blowing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So,

1:15:37

you know, I'll end on

1:15:39

that with my last editorial. Hopefully

1:15:41

you'll be willing to do this again, what, in

1:15:43

a few weeks or so? Will we keep in

1:15:45

tabs? Yeah, I'd be happy to.

1:15:47

It's always a real pleasure. Thanks for having me. It

1:15:49

was a great conversation. Okay, you're not going to hold

1:15:52

me for once a month. We could do it, what,

1:15:54

every couple of weeks? Because things are moving fast, yeah?

1:15:56

Okay, thanks a lot. Oh, let me give a plug. So,

1:15:59

okay, people really want

1:16:01

to follow you

1:16:03

on a more sustained

1:16:06

basis. They go

1:16:08

to the geopoliticaleconomyreport .com. Yeah,

1:16:11

just geopoliticaleconomy .com. geopoliticaleconomy

1:16:16

.com. I'll do my best to

1:16:18

put this on our online version

1:16:20

and everything. Thanks again for doing

1:16:22

this. If you'll hold on for

1:16:24

one second, let me just thank

1:16:27

Joshua Scheer, our executive producer who...

1:16:29

pummel me to get this done

1:16:31

tonight so we can post it

1:16:33

tomorrow. We'll have to stay up

1:16:35

all night posting it, so we'll

1:16:37

get it up there Friday because

1:16:39

it's on target with what Trump

1:16:42

has been saying. I want to

1:16:44

thank Diego Ramos, our managing editor,

1:16:46

for running this ship. Max

1:16:48

Jones for getting the

1:16:50

video up. The JKW Foundation

1:16:52

memory of a fiercely

1:16:54

independent writer, Gene Stein, who

1:16:57

we hinted a little

1:16:59

bit about. Ghazan, but she

1:17:01

was fearless in supporting

1:17:03

Edward Said and other people

1:17:05

in supporting the view

1:17:08

that Palestinians are human beings

1:17:10

entitled to self -determination. And

1:17:12

I want to thank Integrity Media, Len

1:17:15

Goodman, a terrific, very

1:17:17

successful criminal lawyer, who

1:17:20

is also spoken out on

1:17:22

these issues and taking

1:17:24

this position and gives us

1:17:26

some support. So see

1:17:28

you next week with another edition

1:17:30

of Share Intelligence.