there is no limit to how far a dream contains sta in your own adventure, no counter and the . ready ready ready time the fox into how the top stories and i would just say were thousands of palestinian families and guys have a sleepy a have an open when going out 10 some during rain, freezing temperatures and strong winds under the ceasefire agreement between israel and from us $200000.00 tents was supposed to be allowed into gaza. 72 percent of those of arrive sofa, a massachusetts rela, preventing the delivery of temporary shelter. the head of gulls is government media office is also accused. these are the ministry of obstructing other deliveries. they're essential to recover the bodies. obviously the captives killed in casa,

and i'll be on in the might not, is really um, is denial of the delivery of heavy equipment and machinery into the gaza strip, which is required to remove more than 55000000 tons of concrete debris means that we will not be able to recover the more than 12000 dead bodies of the palestinians who are buried and missing under the rubble. it also means that the mass will not be able to honor their obligation to recover unreturned. the dead bodies of these really captives killed and buried under the debris as a result of the ruthless and indiscriminate button. and it will not be possible to recover and return the bodies without the heavy machinery and equipment. and another group of 49 medical of activities are leaving because as to the raffle border crossing to receive urgently needed treatment abroad. world health organization is one to more we was out of the strip of desperately need present. donald trump has sanctioned the international criminal court accusing it of illegitimate and basis actions against the us and israel trump signed the executive

order during his ready prime minister benjamin netanyahu visit to washington. any of this week replaced financial and travel restrictions on individuals who assist. i see see investigations of us citizens. well, allies, u i. c c has condemned. the decisions is where the army is cut out as strikes and some of the level one attack target says i'll be sorry, a town in the side on district. is there any ministry? he says it targeted hezbollah, ministry sites to accuse us the group of violating the seas finally came into place in november. us deputies special envoy to the middle east organ ortega, this is in, favored following towards the present. joseph our own. she says has, below must not be a pos of level government. a bullet was defeated by israel and we are grateful to our ally. israel for defeating has bola. but it's also thanks to you, thanks to the lebanese people. it is thanks to present in our own and private, the prime minister designate on watts alarm. and everyone in this government who is

committed to an end of corruption who's committed to reforms and who are committed to making sure that his bullet is not a part of this government in any form. and that has buller remains disarmed and militarily defeated. almost or direct employees of america's international humanitarian aid agency has been put on administrative leave. us id work is a being side line. this part of the trumpet, ministrations, push to shut down the agency. some essential personnel are expected to continue working with media reports, putting that number 2 and 300 a syrian whistle blower who exposed systematic torture to human rights abuses under the sab regime is revealed his identity for the 1st time and an exclusive injury without just say i'm fired on my don, also known as caesar has confirmed, he was behind the law just leak of evidence, exposing thousands of photos documenting mass killings and syrian prisons. he documented the death of at least 6786 people in detention unless the head of the

forensic department for the ministry police in damascus and the photographer responsible for documenting the bodies of syrians kills. i mean the, every time i thought of defecting from the military police, i was overwhelmed with fear and anxiety. i had the flash drive in my socks simply to protect myself. i have to leave regime controlled territory and go to an area controlled by the state. throughout the study and i was searched thoroughly at several checked points of view for ships america from at least 60 countries has taken passed and naval exercises and the baby and see if the coast of pakistan, the us, china, iran, i'm russia among those taking part in the ma naval exercises pocket study organizers say the a. mr. mote a shed understanding of maritime security issues. you're up to date, so make sure you stay with us for the bottom line is coming up. next bye for now. the

a. hi, i'm steve clements. i have a question, will president trump's tony shakeup of the us government, including trade wars and the gutting of us aid, help or hurt the country? let's get to the bottom line. in the trade wars, but we're all most launched by us president donald trump, against canada. and mexico, this week, a crisis was averted, at least for now. both countries got a reprieve of 30 days after they promised that each deployed thousands of new border policing officials and to crack down on the flow of drugs to the united states. china, however, hasn't yet made such a deal and it saw a 10 percent across the board chair in post on its goods. but trump is making good on another one of his campaign promises. and that is to shrink the entire united

states government. one of the 1st targets was born aid, and now it seems that the us agency for international development might just be gone with the width. so how are all these changes supposed to benefit the american worker? as trump argues, today we're talking with economists. joseph canyon senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics and former official app and u. s. federal reserve board. joseph, thank you so much for joining us today. let me just start. i want to play a clip for you of present donald trump. addison argue ration and some thoughts that he had on task list, listen, instead of taxing our citizens to enrich the countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens. for this purpose, we are establishing the external revenue service to collect all terrace duties. and revenues that will be massive amounts of money pouring into our

treasury. a joseph is a lot to one pack. they are the external revenue service, a new agency of government, as he's getting rid of other agencies. and i think the biggest thing in terms of the way he talks about terror thing, other countries are turning tariffs into a verb. but how is going to yield so much revenue for americans from these other countries? can you unpack that is the president on the right course? i don't think so. although it's interesting, we've had a customer service ever since the founding of our nation, and they used to be the main source of revenue for the country. we don't need an external revenue services called the customer service, but the federal government is much bigger now than it was a 100 years ago or more. and there's no way to hire us could raise enough to replace say, the income tax is just not possible. who's paying the tariff as well? the economists say could possibly be paid by foreigners and partly be paid by americans. but the studies i've seen of the trump tear of san china suggested was

almost entirely paid by americans. because china raised the price of his eye and in china didn't lower the price of his exports to us when we impose tear us. so the us importers paid the difference. so i want to do this because this is now, it seems to be a favorite tool of president trump and you know, he, he is already come out of the box. been in office just a couple of weeks. we've heard major uh terrorist threats against columbia based on whether or not and how they would receive labor that had been round up that was on documented in the united states and sent back to columbia. he's threatened to other countries with terrorists, but particularly canada and mexico. that he threatened, then he sent the market's crazy, but large 25 percent tariffs against canada and mexico, china at 10 percent across the board chair us. and so as we kind of look in this, i'm just sort of trying to understand what's going on inside this white house because we did see a significant market reaction. a negative market reaction to what donald trump had

threatened with canada and mexico within 24 hours. he had reversed those and put them on a 30 day hold up or the. so what do you, i mean you're in this world of economists and people worked in the federal reserve board and, you know, you know, people inside the administration has economics got a new new north star. and i don't think so. i think that's the administration doesn't, isn't quite clear within itself as to what they want or how to use these tariffs. we know that the top advisors, uh, treasury secretary, national economic council chairman are not big fans of tariffs, but they're willing to work with them because the president wants them. but i think there's all this, you know, are they use as negotiating strategy? was there a negotiating strategy then? presumably if you get what you want, you know, if you go she ations, you don't get the terrace, then you don't get the revenue. so they can be both for long term revenue and for negotiations they have to choose,

they haven't said which they're going to choose. but it seems to me that tears against canada and mexico are really quite a different animal from the chairs that goes everyone else. because our production process, our economies are so entered, twined, or canada, and mexico goods across the border back and forth. the same auto part goes in the mix. so it comes back to us because the new mexico comes back to us multiple times before the car, paying a tariff every time you have to pay a tariff every time it would be prohibitively expensive. 25 percent tariff on autos is effectively much, much higher. it would kill detroit, so that is a totally destructive tear of now 10 percent or more in china and maybe on some other countries farther away there are less integrated with our economy. we could survive that better as not saying it's a good thing. but you could see the case for that as a somewhat of a revenue razor. but even there, if, if trump put a 10 percent tariff on everybody and this would include canada and mexico, which is disruptive, but to say he did a $300000000000.00

a year. that's the federal government, spend 7 trillion dollars a year, 300000000000, isn't nearly enough to find the government. one of the stated objectives that i think a lot of the people who have come in with president trump has been worried about china is g o. strategic challenge against american interest in the world. and that to do that, we need to become less dependent on what we're importing from china on pharmaceutical ingredients that are coming into us pharmaceutical agreements on strategic metals and minerals that we need even for our defense space. and so we will try to bring a lot of back back to the united states, or a lot of that back to friends into friends. sure. don't you need friends to french or if you're going to deal with china? i think so, steve, i love, i think terrace against china especially targeted broadly towards national security interest. and i, i think nasa carried interest can be viewed broadly. i mean, we need an auto sector in united states. china has a capacity to replace our entire auto sector and we could have all our cars made in

china, but i don't think that would be a good thing. so we have to prevent that. but you're absolutely right that we need friends. we can't do it all ourselves. the 1st and foremost friends, we need our canada and mexico. so they're in the class by themselves. we have to think of north america. but beyond that, i mean, do we want europe on our side or do we want europe on china side? i think the answer is clear. so why antagonized europe? i mean, the europe is not going to take over on a sector of the way china might. so i think we have to focus on the chinese threat, but also take a reasonable view. i mean it's not everything from china. that is a risk. i mean, we can still buy toys. ready toys and you know, toasters and refrigerators from china. they're not national security interest. i think we have to think the, what do we need going forward? and i think we need, we need broad tariffs on things like all those. what are the things to keep our industry here? well, one of the things that i become obsessed with recently are all of our needs by way of precious metal sport, even and precious metals copper. you know, for the a,

i revolution, you need a lot of copper. it turns out you need, where are it's, you need um, you know, materials that are, are strategically significant from around the world. and, you know, i think one of them, and i'd like, i'd like to, you know, play clipped for you of, of donald trump and how he sort of sees these important strategic needs. the united states had less listen. it would tell in the ukraine a very valuable, rarer we won what we put up to go in terms of the guarantee we want to guarantee we want. we're handing a money hand over fist. we're giving them equipment. european is not keeping up with us. they should equalize, i mean you're, you're talking, you just mentioned soft power, which has been on my mind a bit because we even had john mearsheimer, one of the hardest core national security realist in the world. talking about the importance of soft power and how america is diminishing that right now. and i know you're in the trade in economics space, but it raises

a fundamental question of an america that has allies and global financial networks and trade flows and has set the terms really for what for, and direct investment around the world needs to look like. and what that bar needs to be, and this is what you're an expert in. but if we withdraw from all of that infrastructure into our own, what i'm trying to get my head around. is that a new era of american power, or is it a new american, a new era of america that has shrunk, and no longer is really dictating the heartbeat of the world financially? i think, yes i, i would not want us to shrink back into fortress, america, or fortress north america, or even fortress western hemisphere. we need to be engage with the world, the peer that might be happening. i worry that we could be heading that way. i think there are some voices in that, in that direction. i think we need to be engaging. well, we don't have to like control the entire world or, you know, be the world's policeman all the time, but we absolutely need to be engaged. well,

if you withdraw from the world, you become argentina, overtime you become, i insulated, you become, you lose, you don't keep up with the rest of the world. it's harder to keep up with the rest of it was you don't know what's going on if you weren't involved in argentina, which used to be one of the richest nations. yeah, i met in the southern hemisphere. i believed in becoming self sufficient and withdrawn from the world and look where it got them. me, let me ask you about another question and, and again and i, i sometimes wonder if we're, you know, doing battle over climate change like equation where you've got climate deniers and those who believe in climate change. but it's also about trade deficits. you know, a lot about trade deficits and it is an obsession of president trump. he wants america to have trade surplus as it sounds like he wants to be china. he wants have prayed surpluses around the world to be a strategic acquire and we won't college retention credit or, but a strategic, a choir of assets and, and, and place around the world. maybe even, you know, parts of the where, like the panama canal greenland, maybe now gaza. but in that,

in that kind of formulation, he's obsessed with trade deficits. i was trained early on in my economics one a one course to understand that trade deficits are a function of savings and investment. and the gap between them, not just a function of bi lateral and balance between 2 nations and trade. that to, to solve your current accounts and balance. you would have to actually save more as a nation and invest more as a nation. right. it is complicated because as you say it's, it's saving an investment and that's such a, you know, wow, that seems so separate from trade, but it is central we. we see it in, in history and in the data. and we understand in theory, but boy, it's hard to explain. but let me say that the we are the largest rich economy in the world. not quite the richest. i mean, i don't q weight or norway might be richard, but we are the richest large economy in the world. and yet we have borrowed more

from the rest of the world than any country in human history by a long shot. why are we borrowing? why are you not doing our own saving? well, basically because the rest of the world has for various reasons, safety, but also mercantilism bought up us assets, push their price way out, push the dollar way up. that has made us well sir. and we feel like we don't need to save so much because our assets are worth so much. but that is not a good place to, to be permanently we, you know, we, it may not, it may not last forever. i mean, people might change their mind at what hazard, but why not stay there forever? we are in the united states, a rich nation, most of the world to do transactions has to use the dollar. and, and that actually makes a, you know, create a window where the united states can be sloppy with this account. it's charge a, it can run massive uh, both domestic budgetary government deficits, trade deficits,

investment deficits, and have other nations finance those. because we're such, you know, a hot property out there in the global world. yes. and when was there one way to fix it was to say, hey, let's get rid of the reserve currency status of a dollar and all of that would flip over night. correct. so when we were paying 0 interest rates on our national debt, and you know, that's in real terms because of inflation, that's actually they're paying ops, right? so that was fine. then then then let's, let's do it because you know, they're paying us to, to borrow from them. but that's not true anymore. we're paying real interest rates on our dad, even more than inflation. so now the tables will turn. now it's still not a high burden, but the path ron is gradually higher and higher interest rates over time if we keep doing this. so i think i would recommend that we cut our budget deficit and push the dollar down and try to reduce the trade deficit. but terrace will not help. cash will not help, but let me ask you another thing that donald trump is out doing is out promoting meeting the oligarchs around the world, mostly oci stone, or i'm

a how i've been. so i'm on the crown prince of saudi arabia and others and getting commitments about the dollar. a level of investment that they will invest in the united state is wanting a trillion dollars from us, the yoshi stone or a trillion dollars. you know, saudi arabia actually pads, $600000000000.00 of investment directed towards the united states. and donald trump said, hey, let's raise it up to a trillion dollars. and i just interested, as you think about trade and investment, whether that kind of maneuvering matters when it comes to the fundamental economic bottom line. and some of these obsessions that trump has on rectifying america's great depths. boy, that's a complicated one to unpack. but when keeping easy, you know, when china was investing trillions of dollars in the us, we didn't like it. we call the currency, me probation, and propped up lots of chinese imports to us, which, right, which is cause problems and we have the china shock. so now if we have, uh,

you know, im sorry, ravia doing the same thing. uh, you know, they'll still be some of those same problems. no, maybe it's different this time because they'll invest in more productive assets than treasury bills. maybe. but that's a gamble. i think the dollars very strong now is hurting us, like supporters, and this would only make it stronger. let me ask you a question about what's going on domestically in the us because another part of this a question. you know, equation is it, donald trump is really doing what he said he would do and that he's decimating the size and scale of the us federal workforce. he is attacking the regulatory state. so to you on mosque is his friend and conrad in arms is locking federal government officials out of key databases, payments databases, which the treasury department is running. and in that space, us aid the agency for international development, which seems to be gone,

even though congress says it can't be gone until we say it's gone, but seems to be disappearing before our eyes. i'm just interested in that, in that space as you begin to look at the role of and function of government and in the space you are even when it comes to economic data collection. when it comes to, you know, the bureau of labor standards or statistics and other things out there, do you, where do you see this going in and is this kind of reset and shaking up with the federal government? are there some net positives that can come from it? i could imagine, so i'm not positive what i see. so why don't you give me a few of them? well, it's, you know, over the programs i get in implemented tend to last forever and you only add to them, you know, and, and you never get rid of the bureaucrats doing something. you only add more when you need more. and i would be good to re think, well maybe that we're doing some things we don't need to think about, but that would take time and careful study and wouldn't be these things you're seeing the controversial in the process right away. i mean,

you would expect that to be more of a long term project. what i see now is high profile controversial moves, like you mentioned like usa id on parts of the budget that are very small. so, you know, you, i say id, 40000000000, federal government spend 7000000000000. you know, it's tiny, you know, uh so, uh, yeah, it gets attention. uh, but uh, and it's not yet a deep rooted mass of roofing. do you think when it comes to the department of education when it comes to the government service administration, when it comes to expertise in various roles and functions are never michael lewis wrote a book called the 5th risk about donald trump's 1st time coming in about what are you worried, was going to be the gutting of expertise in very, very non a very low profile, parts of government that play the central services in the government. as an

economist who's depended upon data is dependent upon, you know, the role and function of government and transparency on that. i'm just worried are we entering into an era where that's just not no longer the ethic in this country? what the consequences of that are. i do worry, i do worry because i see it in economic data. the economic data agencies have very small budgets, very small part of the federal budget. and they have not kept up with inflation. and they're having a big problem that the people are not responding to their surveys in their question . they're supposed to fill these forms up and response rates are dropping and, and when they get very low, then the data quality gets very bad. and we, you know, you only have a few people answering the question and they don't have enough staff. so this seems to me an area that doesn't cost much and has big payoffs. because if we don't understand what's going on in our economy, how can we possibly respond to this is part of the solution we solve. it might be, might be

a good thing. i haven't gotten my head around whether it is or not. you know, as we see thousands of people here, it's up to 20000 people that have opted for what's calling a buyout. we're donald trump is offered, you know, in a very unique way and opportunity of us federal work for workers, including at the c, i a to just say we're not going to work anymore to be paid until much later this year. and to stop going to work and we're up to about $20000.00 officials. you've accepted that deal thus far. can we replace them with a guy? are we going to automate and, and robot a size and a i these roles and functions of government. i have no doubt that a i could have some cost savings and labor savings and sure, sure it, well, but we, we need to do this carefully. we do think well, which just, you know, don't just good blanket offers to everybody think carefully about who is needed. who is not i, i think that would take time. i don't know that the time has been put in to answer that question. let me ask you, if we made you all powerful in the last bit of our program here and said we did

want to impact america's x journal current account to come to actually shift the trade deficit that we have structurally with asian governments or with other governments writ large and we wanted to change that equation. what would be the right way to do it? what would be if you were sitting as an economic adviser to president trump and that was his obsession. what advice would you give him on how he could achieve those objectives? i think there are 2 pieces that he needs to. one is that our physical demonstrate is too high if it's not at it and does immediate disaster, but it's not good for the long run and we should be on a path to reduce it. and the problem with reducing the budget deficit is it often can shrink the economy. it can hurt, you know, people are spending less so that's not good to the economy so that you combine that with agreements with other governments to push the dollar back down the dollars to strong. now it's way it's very high and historically perspective and is hurting our

exporters. so what you want is to push the dollar down to encourage more us exports a and to replace them in parts. and that will work better than terrace because it will actually reduce the balance, reduce the balance, and that will fill in some of the loss from the federal government, not doing so, you know, more ex, sports, less federal spending. you and i have a mutual friend, a friend, richard vague who's written a book called the paradox of debt. and he was able to show that over time as the federal government budget deficit has grown. so to has household savings in america . so as america, in a government sense has gone, broke household savings to become very rich, but it's the top top one percent, even the top half of one percent who become hyper rich in that if we were to successfully really turn around that debt level and the government wouldn't that also be the 1st time that really began to eat into the super wealthy in this country? probably in part because presumably you might raise taxes on them. but also in part,

because as you push the dollar down and as you try to get a less of a to trade deficit oriented economy, that might raise interest rates and reduced asset values in the us. i mean, one of the prices we're probably gonna have to pay is if we don't borrows much from the rest the world, if they aren't sending their money in right of interest rates will be a bit higher. now the way to offset that is to cut the budget deficit because the budget deficit is keeping interest rates high. so that's why the to the to part strategy is the best reduce the budget deficit. but push the dollars. and then you have a big double impact on the trade balance and without raising interest rates too much . well, we will leave it very economist, joseph canyon. thank you so much for joining us today. you're welcome. bye. so what's the bottom line? countries trade because they need things from other countries and america is no exception. it's not about america subsidizing other nations. trump talks about

terrace on goods from other countries. like he talks about sanctions and other punishments. and it makes him sound tough. but he's not dealing with the real issue facing america, and that is debt. mountains of us debt invite buyers like japan and china to buy america's debt bonds. and as long as the us doesn't save and we invest in its own country, it's always going to run a deficit. and that's going to drive a trade deficit. trump is up ending alliances and relationships, and believes that america can go it alone. this is going to rewrite the way the entire world works and how it sees america. and it's going to hurt many people, including americans. the suez crisis in the 1950s was the moment the world stopped to be leaving in british hedge and money in the world and saw america then as the new global power. this moment, self inflicted by its own president may actually be americans who as mom, and that's the bottom line, the

of the youngest country in the world child sedan economy is mostly dominated by what we call in for my sector is also the poorest health schooling and foot by 2 to an economy, the not being provided by informing the claim set. and the 1st part of the series out is there, examines the intricacy of south sit on society and the extraordinary resilience of its people. i always advise you don't have to dig the book, but a couple of africans, new directions. pigeon strengths on al jazeera, the latest news as it breaks 1st, then zalinski has guides the international guarantee to step up on these deliveries to ukraine to take the defensive with detailed coverage people with must department of government efficiency showed up here at the us is headquarters demanding access to the building from around the world for the people of what they need. a new page

has to be a 10. it's the end of a pain from chapter of displacement, the or the document or how the top story is on. i would just say that i was and so if posting your families and causes are sleeping out of the open or in worn out, tends enjoying rain. freezing temperature is a strong winds under the ceasefire agreement between israel and a minus $200000.00 tents was supposed to be allowed into gaza. for 92 percent of those have arrived. stay from a massachusetts around the preventing the delivery of temporary shouts. as the head of gauze is government. media office is also a q is the, is really ministry of obstructing other deliveries that are essential which would cover the bodies of his ready captives killed in gaza. and i'll be on in the my not

he's really armies denial of the delivery of heavy equipment and machinery into the gaza strip, which is required to remove most.