is intentions are with regard to northern guys or do you think that also gives a clarity when it comes to the negotiations that blinking is going to be having with other countries in the region that it is not becoming theater. what israel does intend to do as far as cost was concerned? yeah, i think so. i mean, again, i think the question that this is liked any kind of clarity for the last year in part because i think the idea was to try to build some sort of consensus to make sure that there wouldn't be states poor traditionally allied with the united states and perhaps even we can say at this point or allied even, you know, with, with israel given the scale of normalization that's occurred in this region over the last kind of half decade. that they wouldn't kind of step out of line once there was more of a declared intention to maintain a permanent occupation to try and permanently expel palestinians for many of them. of course, we know our, our defendants of refugees themselves who have been relocated to guys are going back to 1948. and now there's a 2nd wave of attempting to expel the population that lives there. and so this is

perhaps an attempt to try and shore up as much support for the future political future and part by getting some type of buying. not just the economically, of course, we know that there's an expectation that eric states should put the bill for whatever reconstruction supposedly looks like. again, we're talking about a place and gaza that the, when his estimated will take over 350 years to rebuild back to its original form. i mean, these are catastrophic levels of destruction. so even when we talk about rebuilding, we have to really ensure that we know exactly what we're saying is incredibly limited in scope. but also there are attempting to be co opted and brought into the political resolution. one that of course relies on this notion of the complete destruction of him as a viable political alternative within palestinian territory and palestinian society . and one that brings about some sort of co opted palestinian leadership perhaps supported by arab states perhaps even by our true presence. although these are very much open questions and so we don't quite know the details yet of what that entails . be on just some of the speculative reporting that we've seen over the last months

. mm hm. the and we appreciate you being with us giving us the benefit to all of that analysis and say we're going to be watching for this price conference whenever, whenever it begins, we are expecting to hear from the cause of the phone administer. i'm fine. the associate mohammed been on top of them and i'll sign a as well as you a secretary of state and to the banking. and as i've done, let me just explain the. this is the 11th visit that the secretary of state blanking has made to the region. and it does seem as though that the offer of the options and opportunities for diplomacy in the region, particularly when it comes to gaza are fairly limited. but nevertheless, it does seem that there is something that the us does feel in might be able to achieve them. we're going to be trunk, finding out what that is, hopefully at that press conference when it comes up to stay with us. and obviously the

a hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. the west likes to dismiss the bricks. alliance is

a political side show, but isn't starting to crack the us led global order. let's get to the bottom line. the next week, the group of countries known as the bricks meeting russia for its annual summit after the alliance of emerging economies expanded last year. these 9 countries now represent a bigger slice of global wealth, and the g 7. the main economic group of the united states and his junior partners population wise, rich represents about 5 times more people around the world than these g 7 nations. and it literally, it has 40 countries knocking on his door to join. but what power does it really have and can the bricks pose a challenge to america's grip on global dominance and the global economy even if it wanted to. today we're talking with richard. well, professor emeritus of economics at the university of massachusetts and offer a more than a dozen books on the global economy, including democracy at work a cure for capitalism. richard is

a real honor to have you on the show today. i want to just ask you like point blank bricks? is it a real new thing that's going to challenge the american global order, or is it still an illusion as well? the short answer to your question is, it's a real thing. probably an illusion. it's already challenged that the order that was dominated by the united states and it promises to continue to do so. it certainly is, as we are speaking. um, it is only wishful thinking on the part of the major countries of what we used to call the collective west, or maybe we should still call it. it says self delusion on the part of the less to minimize it. to brush it off. really is a new world, the order that we are living through. and i believe many of the problems, many of the tensions, many of

a hostility is we are in the midst of as you and i are speaking or do riveted from our shapes, the by the challenge posed by the brakes. so when i look at this group of nations, it's hard for me to understand what do they represent, what are they for in terms of, i know that they may be against american dominance, but what are they collectively for? they should not be thought of as some sort of monolith they are, but they share that the highest priority they have is do it emerge from the state of under development, less development, whatever language you find comfortable. these are countries that don't yet have the standards of living of the united states and who do not accept the notion that they can't, or mustn't, or shouldn't aspire to at least the same standard of living,

if not inside a higher standard. and they want the freedom and they want the opportunity to do so . and now the tension, they feel that the united states with its major allies, the g 7, that is canada, japan, britain, france, italy, and germany. those 7 have held them by the 1st as collies. and secondly, as variety is as nations that are hemmed in by all kinds of restrictions. that is what's unacceptable, that is what they agree on. and that's where the rub with the g 7 emerges. now, when i ask you a complex question about the dollar, why can't there be a challenge on that status tomorrow? why can't rubles, or the one or, you know, the currencies in brazil, et cetera,

be bundled together, which i understand is part of the objective of the bricks. but why is there such primacy of the dollar? well, it's been the case as you correctly point. it's been the case basically since the end of world war 2. and if i may let me suggest the importance of, of a historically understanding what we're doing here. what situation that we are in, at the end of world war 2, all of the countries that might have been competitors of the united states in terms of their economic power. they are influence on the world, their importance in the flows of trade and money. all of the potential competitors, then we can list the britain, france, germany, japan, russia, or destroyed by the war. by contrast,

the united states emerges after having a war, but the war l, the american economy, people have to remember, we were in a deep depression. the greatest depression capitalism has ever suffered from 1929 to 194041 with world war 2 gets under way this economy the u. s. was depressed in 1933. we had a 25 percent unemployment race. one out of 4 workers had no work and this affected every family in the country. so we came out of the great depression by means of world war 2. we took half of the millions who were unemployed and put them in the uniform and the other half of the unemployed went to work, making the uniforms and the guns and the ships and the plains and all the rest. and so we came out of the war. yes, we suffered loss of times before. that was certainly significant,

but not comparable to what happened in those other countries. but we had to begin tact, beacon nomic system, other than pearl harbor, no bomb fell on the united states for the rest of the war. and so there was no contracts. we weren't tenure to help. we, the us was dominant. if you're going to can conduct phrases, you better use the dollar because that was the only thing you could be sure was valuable alongside of gold. and so the dollar became the international symbol as well as the real transactional material to get your economy going again. so that by the end of the 20th century, it had become the norm. as you rightly say, we're central banks around the country to hold dollars, as well as gold, as the reserve banking their currency. and the easiest way for americans to grass.

what the dollar as international currency means is to think very simply, and here's how it goes. a foreign country sends the united states the fruits of its labor, wine from france, electrical equipment from japan, copper from app for good, whatever. and we send them little green pieces of paper, the dollar, the $10.00 bill, a $100.00 bill, which costs absolutely nothing to produce. its, its a cheap piece of paper. they accept the paper and we get the product goes, wow. they agree normally with other countries, they're not going to send you their produce the products of their industry unless you send an equivalent to them. it's an exchange. and in many cases we still do

that even in the united states with our head countries. but if you have the dollar and the world wants it, you basically get something for nothing. the world holds the dollar. satisfied with that, because they need it for their currency support. and we get the fruit of other people's labor without having to give anything of our own. in exchange, it's an extraordinary power. and guess what other countries would like to participate? let me ask you about the bricks versus the g 7. isn't this in a way a bit of a charade, where the dominant be a power in the g? 7 is the united states and the dominant be a power in the bricks? is china. and then you get here about brazil. you hear about russia, you hear about india, but i mean, i'm just wondering whether these 2 gargantuan just sort of hiding the fact that

we're in a, you know, essentially a g, 2 world of china in the united states, at odds negotiating and masking what they're doing how, how do you look to china versus the united states versus the g 7 versus brakes? now you're absolutely right. i don't know if i would use the word hiding, although i understand and why you do that. uh, it is a diploma added politeness. you don't mean it out that you are the bigger of the partners in a deal. it's a polite everybody knows, but you kind of don't say it. but so let me 1st say you're right. the united states is the overwhelming dominant player among the g 7. and china is the on question. be cool, dominant on the breaks. all right, let's start with the russia, because it's a big important play it, the, the g, d, p of russia last year in the neighborhood of say, 2 trillion dollars is

a rough measures. so it's the order of magnitude, it's all you have to keep in your mind. what is the comparison with the united states? united states, the g d. p is last see about 2425 trillion. so you understand russia is to trillion the united states 2425 trillion no contest. no one should ever imagine that even the soviet union and the patch or russian now is some kind of economic competitor of the united states never was, isn't now, only the height of the cold war would make one think like that. and that's it. something you should correct if you've never had it explained to you. now let's move to try and what's the g d p last year of china? again, the debates about how you accounted but order of magnitude, $1718.00,

trillion dollars way more important that russia, but still not the size of the united states. or although it's catching up. and most people believe at current rate, so they can amik road. china will surpass the united states by the end of this decade, and it has been catching up, let's remember, 50 years ago, which in historical time is a moment. 50 years ago china was among the poorest countries on earth. and now it is the only country in the world even close to the united states. and as i say, catching up. so china dominates russia, brazil in the india, by the way, is doing remarkably well. the problem is they have a, a poverty stricken mass that is holding them back. and until they can do something

about that, which they still have a long way to go. they will not be equivalent to china either. right? china, it is you correctly see the new thing for the united states? what do i mean? it's the 1st real economic competitor that the united states has had in the century. that's why it's so hot or just for americans, including our leaders, to a, just as the whole world must now write to this re for the that the dominance of the united states is over and there is no prospect that i wrote was a forklift to come back, so let me ask you, richard about your view of the us selections. right now we have a raging lehigh stock market. we have very low unemployment. but if you go out and talk to americans, there's a lot of anxiety out there when our lot of the, you know,

surface data are pretty good and i think comma harris is running on that. and she's running against someone who's running on populist economics. i'm interested in how you see these choices. we're going to have an election here in a couple of weeks, and you think i frame that correctly? well, i would go further. let me give you some other numbers. we have a greater degree of any quality in our economy. then we have had for 50 years, the quality that came out of the great depression. the new deal that was remarkable about the united states, the end of world war 2, the united states was less on the quote that all of our allies in europe today, it's reversed. we're more, i mean, well, that all of our allies in europe. what happened? we cut taxes and corporations. we exported huge quantities of the best paying jobs in manufacturing, which we don't have anymore on. i could give you

a long list of symptoms of data of realities that suggest this economy has got huge problems. and so here's the difficulty, there are people in our country who are enjoying the good things. and then there are people in our country who i excluded from the good things. let's remember for example, that the 10 percent rich just americans own about 90 percent of the stocks. so when you're saying the stock market is doing well, it is good news for those 10 percent. no question. but for the other 90 percent, they're watching the 10 percent, but they're not included in that happy experience. so they feel deprived, neglected, and they are beginning. you can see where trump support can begin to develop the

idea of what we want to go back maga. we want to go back well, because of present it looking very good at the prospects for their children in large parts of the united states. a pretty grim if you're going to be honest about it. so we shouldn't be surprised if you don't distribute the good news equally across the society. you're going to get the results that we are now watching. right? terms of the close of this election. well, that this content that you just described also seems to echo in what we're hearing from the bricks that there is sort of, you know, all around the world. you sort of see this boiling discontent. i think it's hard to know sometimes when that infrastructure falls and is replaced, you know, by, by those that, that, that have that discontent. but it's very easy. i would be remiss, richard if i didn't ask you to share your thoughts on the middle east as well. i mean, you've been essentially, in my view, a cold, hard realist on economics,

you know, beyond morality, beyond politics, look at the economics of things and be a realistic telling that story when you look at today, the crisis in the middle east, we see unfolding, you know, is real and this broadening crisis in the middle east and america kind of acquiescing uh to a lot of this. i'd love to get your thoughts and insights on where you see this going to. yeah, i try to be realistic. i try to look at the data, i try to give a balanced view um, in all of these things. so let me try a little bit there. if you ask for the big picture, the way you opened our conversation by looking at the, the large geo political framework within which to think about these things, then i wouldn't have to say that much of what the united states has been doing, including its support for what israel is doing that the strikes me

as on fortunate, i'm choosing my words carefully. attempts by the g 7, the wes, whatever you want to call it. and unfortunately, efforts to hold on to a position that simply is no longer historically available to them by you understand the look, the american empire is shrinking. if you have a historical sense, you what is known that the special position i described a few moments ago that comes out of world war 2 with the united states sitting on top that, that can be sustained, that never has been in human history. no and fire last forever. every empire rises out of particular circumstances evolved was over time, and then passes away the united states in missouri as

a dominant player in the world. i mean, look, we have 7 to 800 military bases around the world right now. no other country has anything remotely like that, that. so the reflection of our empire, you can put whatever fancy words you want around it, but that's what this is. and there's had no chance of surviving forever. it wouldn't eventually fade away like every other empire. and that's a very difficult experience for americans, just as we can watch over the previous century, the poor british had to go through the loss of their empire, which is now absolutely gone from them. we are now our empire peak, and we are on the way down. and that is how we try to hold on. we don't want the russians to tell us. they can take a piece of ukraine back into russia and we don't want our ally,

our friends in the middle east is or have to be in any way else the back from what it wants to do the these are our allies. that is our enemy. we want to all that, but we can, we can, and this bit or less than look, be honesty. and i know it is difficult for americans as we lost the war, vietnam. it's now the communist party that runs the country. we lost the war in afghanistan. it's, it's all a bond that runs the country. we lost the war in iraq. i could go on, but the lesson should become plain to people. we can't do it. israel is the country of a few 1000000 people, is not going to control and run the middle east. it can do that with or without the united states. it can drive people crazy. it can produce

unspeakable outcomes. and to take off my realistic economist hat for a minute. one, these are what called war crimes are defined when you feel a civilian. a war is supposed to be a military against the military. and we went through a lot of trouble in the 20th century in world wars, one and 2 to come up with a war crimes definition and an international court that can't identify and try to stop war crimes. that's when you kill large numbers of civilians. but doesn't matter what the excuse is, you can. right. so yeah, that's how most people on the october last year killed civilians. that's a war crime. that doesn't mean you don't understand why palestinians would be resisting the dominant and the growth of israel. i understand why they would,

i think, is really understand why they would write and then the killing of civilians over the last year, by israel, in defense for me in defensible as a walk. right. as the international court has said, it is a war drawn address. it is missed and that doesn't, you know? but for me, the big picture is that these are efforts to hold on. israel is a kind of settler colonialism. it's when your opinions come and push out the local people, pretend they are there. that's that motion, you know, a people without glance, the jews are going to land without people. yeah, there's a lovely story. it's a lovely power love, but it is improved. there were people there. we know the story. we're americans, europeans came here, got rid of the local population, and the few of them the left are stuck in reserves where israel is going is in that

direction. but the problem is, the problem is that was centuries ago where you could do that. you can't do that now. you cannot and the work world is isolating israel. and what i see is a very, very unhappy and for israel in making the sad effort to hold on when the only possibility is working out a live and let live arrangement with your neighbors. so much to think about, i really want to thank you, renowned economist and author, richard. well, thank you so much for being with us today. thank you very much for having me. in my appreciation for having these conversations, united states in which i was born and lived all my life needs it now more than ever . so what's the bottom line? people just don't like people in change after world war to america and its allies

built a system that still exist today. folks normally go along with the system, but they try to reinforce it. they try to rationalize it to an almost absurd degree, even when they're hurt by it. until one day, all of a sudden the whole structure collapses. and from it a new paradigm emerges. it is true that china is challenging. america's primacy. it is true that africa is rising, it is true of itself. asia and latin america represent the biggest growth of the middle class world wide. but the american led order is going to continue to lead, and it's supporters are going to twist themselves into pretzels, trying to justify it until one day when it doesn't. the brakes just aren't very yet, but they're clearly clawing at the door. and that's the bottom line. the that was reported, looked at actual information on the ground,

looks at the way that this issue is framed in the media. how it's used to justify the escalation for louis clay. anything new years that are you know, the media and they think it's how it is weaponized is this online push has been aimed at the smartphone generation. the 1st ever female let this operational can't do that. what they're trying to sell right now is a full blown genocide. the listening pace because the media on out is era. the limits to have a dream contained key stuff in your own adventure, now counter and way in depth analysis of the day sidelines. how do you see the diesel system in gaza informed opinion it's feed

treaties? have a very high kid in getting serious critical debate. what happens as either now has to be seen in the context of a whole raft, especially as the as well has been taking against on the inside story. what is, is real trying to achieve in 11 on is there a strategy on how to 0? it was a full year of war in gaza and now it is rarely troops invading lebanon or the us and israel working to reshape the entire region, who americans trust to handle their economy, immigration, and the wars and ukraine and gaza. a quizzical look at us politics, the bottom line. unique perspective. we don't want ahead to well, but we no longer have any private spaces on the incident. that's a scary well on heard voices a year into this genocide, it still remains large. one section to connect with our community and tap into

conversation that you find elsewhere, but humanity. the number of people who want to stop sending weapons has gone up and up despite what they hear in the mainstream media in the united states. the stream on out just the or the the you're watching the news, our life or my headquarters and don't find any you navigate or here's what's coming up. in the next 60 minutes. israel's assault on 11 on intensifies air strikes, target a car outside of a roof and attacks near the border have killed at least 3 lebanese soldiers. for people are injured in northern israel, after raucous or fired from loving on israel says it's very defense.