$23.00 foot out at a high level, but for many of the residents it's clear that this means that they have to go many of them so that over the last 2 years, some fled from fighting. others say they fled from abuses against civilians either by and 23 or by the big switching, fighting alongside comb, guys, army including extra judicial killings and rates. and nowadays that in the living. so many of them for up to 2 years and this swelling come from the west inside of the city of go math. many said he doesn't know if he's safe at home or even if they still have homes to get back to. but still, most of them appear now to be packing up the beginning with jenny some others and said they will wait and see if indeed when, if, when they're actually forced to leave. security officials have told al jazeera that a suicide attack, and afghanistan has killed at least 18 people that happened outside of bank and the

city of condos, north of the capital. couple people were waiting to receive their salaries at the time. at least another 45 people were injured. a swedish eiffel member has been jailed for 12 years on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity and syria. 52 year old lena alaina shock was found guilty of keeping 3 is easy women and 6 children as slaves at her home in the car between 20142016. if sweden's 1st case involving crimes committed by the ice will group against the usually the minority world, governments have traded visions for the future of artificial intelligence. at a summit in paris, nearly $100.00 countries including china, india, and the united states are meeting to decide if competing national interest and the ice space can be reconciled. european commission president personal of underlying announced an additional 50000000000 euros for the blocks invest a i initiative fund or to open. i hear that 0 is

late to the race by the united states. china have already gotten ahead. i disagree because the a i raise is far from being over. truces were only at the beginning. the frontier is constantly moving. global leadership is still up for grabs. and behind the frontier lives the whole world of a i adoption. that's all for now. you can find more information on our website out 0. com. the news continues here on elders here after the bottom line. thanks for watching the the,

there's no limit to how far a dream contains key stuff in your own adventure now counter and we we are to see the series of legend some clothes and the stories of civilizations that market history was. this is where the story of savannah didn't have any stories to tell 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 watched 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 off present. donald trump, addison argue ration, and some thoughts that he had on chatsworth listen. instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other 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 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 a 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 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 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 terrorists, 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 negotiation, 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 terrifying 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 the $300000000.00 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, my 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 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, a window in your brain, a very valuable, rare earth. we want what we put up to go in terms of a guarantee we want to guarantee one. 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. realistically, we're all talking about the importance of soft power and how america is diminishing that right now. and i know you're in the trade in economic 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 foreign 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 on the peer that might be happening. i worry that we could be headed 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 those. you don't know what's going on if you weren't involved in an argentine

which used to be one of the richest nations out of the southern hemisphere. i believed in becoming self sufficient and withdrawing from the world and look where it got them. me. well, let me ask you about another question and, and again and i, i sometimes wonder if we're, you know, doing battle over to climate change like a question 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 to have great surfaces around the world to be a strategic acquire. we won't college for teaching predator, 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, of bi lateral and balance between 2 nations and trade. that to, to solve your current accounts in 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 short 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 one 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 just 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 will have had been some 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. it's wanting a trillion dollars for mazda yoshi sound or a trillion dollars in

a saturday way. we 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 of boy, that's a complicated one to pa unpacked. but when it gave me an easy, you know, when china was investing trillions of dollars in the us, we didn't like it. we call the currency me, pollution, and it, it propped up lots of chinese, important to us which, right, which is cause problems and we have the time to shop. so now if we have, uh, you know, sorry, regular, doing the same thing. uh, you know, they'll still be some of those same problems. now maybe it's different this time because i'll invest in more productive assets then treasury bills may be,

but that's a gamble. i think the dollar is very strong now, is hurting us ex borders 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 a donald trump is really doing what he said he would do and that he's decimating the size and scale of the us. the federal workforce he is attacking the regulatory state. um 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 an 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, and it 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 saying that are controversial in the press 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 trade deficit oriented economy, that might raise interest rates and reduced asset values in the us. and we want to prices, we're probably gonna have to pay

a 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 of the budget deficit is keeping interest rates high. so that's why the to the 2 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 the latest news, as it breaks 1st in zalinski, has guides the international clearing fee to step up almost 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 are flooding that any annual page has to be 10. it's the end of a painful chapter of displacement the the impact told by internal conflicts disease. and um, then, um, on down there is of cruise have made the country's economy unstable. let me look and see if any deals that'll attempt the democracy. alger 0, it examines how struggling nation 6 to build new alliances and its quest for stability which may come to a very high cost for cause new directions. money. turning the tide on al jazeera, the so called l. salvatore's maximum security prison, the biggest in the world to, to house the gang members that the government's cool,

it's cracked. criminals who controlled entire communities have been put forward to ease of no plans to ever let them know that in the almost 3 years of the crackdown and you always say that systematic rights abuses have occurred. innocence sweats up to police and soldiers have been ground to power to pick people up on the street. we've little no proof that there are many more happier with a suddenly sites a nation. and this is the question of the injustices suffered by a number of salvadorans. a price was paying for the safety in the streets, but the crack down his pool of to use big stores and unload. the onset for the majority of salvadorans is yes. as long that is, as it's not your relative stuck in a weekly look at the world's tough business stories, how do you see the relationship with china developing over the course of the

trumpet, the ration from global markets and economies? the big question here is the, in still a safe haven costing to understand how we defense de nights counting the cost on al jazeera. the donald trump pushes the king of jordan to allocate a parcel of his land to forcibly displaced palestinians insisting once again on his plan to take over goss. we're not going to buy anything we're going to have is going to keep it and we're going to make sure that there's going to be peace and there's not going to be any problem and nobody's question it the time. how much room this is out is there a live from don't have also coming up.