sumption as one point and so the companies who are inventing new technologies and new processes related to the energy consumption and production of c o 2 emissions are certainly when it's all of this situation and on the other hand the question of climate change is linked to migration and they're all it interrelated is it that's it's really the problem because you know there are as you pointed out there are forces that want to retreat from internationalization but on the other hand to solve some of these problems it has to be international jumpier you want to do is to try to answer could lead to your question who we knew who was as a foreigner in a was you needed terrorism you know out there on his own you know from the united states governing everything and now we constantly and we are 1st have come back with protectionism and we are and all of the worldwide globalization now the new frame easier e generally is asian or does it change you know of asia you of both america and

you off china or of course if we we are not working together on europe and continue on in his breach between asia and the united states as west and east and you know we lose or because you know who us doing is a gross underwear is under happiness of the population so in that case we have to give. access. to the groups and of course. if we don't do is out to europe on the rush on the continent and we don't all get nice z's new frame. that is asian of of the trade and business or of course only our friend from china will win because you are to be an point 7 again 150 years 8000000 and big media europe plus russia and 6000000 united states so it is young then let's go to paul paul jump. i thing in this context actually

put action is a no win this everybody will loose one bail at the idea from destroying it on the global growth. the impact on business investment decision and hiring as well as the volatility in the financial market so we we in hong kong obviously being a founder of. we and will cain full fee trade multilateralism based so that there is a division of labor and it would supply chain being built up over the world so that we can leverage our respective strength and shared a foot of success isn't really that one of the biggest problems in it's highly contentious because it's a political issues and ever since the end of the 2nd world war socially tute to now is the united states of the washington consensus it's called it's made the rules it's not a clickable in the end rules don't work for their advantage and now we have

a changing economic global system and all the rules hold some people back and promote to others it picks winners and i think this is the thing it's it's going to be a very contin a shift political debate because the rules favor some at the expense of others david you know sure i do agree with out there and always there's a column is there also if economies of advertising i went to you have you know i would have been to be expected in this panels of the player all of someone who represents the usuals of neo liberal views but in fact i would actually think that i think that you know as frank mentioned obviously that in the way back to sort of regionalization everybody would lose and you know that's that's something that has been emphasized again but i think it was good was the issue was always that there are distribution consequences right now they are what he believes and they would be cardo even if you do believe in the recorder the art was always the. one who came

up with the idea of comparative advantage there are winners and losers within societies and i think we have many companies feel to pretty do with that which has led to the issue of massive inequality which which which happened in the face of a massive decline in clovelly inequality it all we have now these particular issues in the western countries to deal with. and i think we disagree a little bit the point that everybody loses it's true that it reduces from a global perspective but if you look at it from a distribution of perspective within some countries there may actually be some people who gain and at least in the relative basis and the inequality is about. the perception of will being countries may have a great ability to again regulate the domestic economic systems but then. again that the station away from individuals back to corporates and again obviously not in the interest educating that but that's that's that's possibly the way it's going to it's going to go or. dmitri thanks in all my battle.

point of your because you know all ideals new paradigm what is new paradigm we have a global economy during 5000 euros a goal so really all our life is kind of a little move to global economy and production is it's not possible to say that global economy is absolutely beautiful or protectionism it's a kind of evil and it is mitigated by brutal but there is there's there's issues i mean you know like the trump in ministration is weaponized the dollar ok i mean that it takes everybody in the world the next global trade significantly you can talk about globalization in that sense him and i suppose the entire world will become is always connected but when you have one or 2 countries we can call the shots that can change the oil prices in a heartbeat not based on any economic rationality but because of a political decision take issued a little bit with this idea that train you know the slow. down in global trade

growth is inherently a bad thing might just be a quite a natural phenomenon the trade doesn't grow forever faster than income and i think a large part of the reason why trade growth is slowing is because china is becoming more developed so instead of export all of its output there are certain there's a growing domestic market you know i think that a part of this story and on the input side in the what previously were imported into china china can now supply itself so there's a vertical integration going on in china and because it's so large it affects global trade flows so eventually you probably reach some equilibrium way down the road where where trade and income i.e. g.d.p. kind of grow at the at the same levels in terms of the income distribution argument which we hear a lot of winners and losers i think one you know let's think about it this way you think about income distribution within countries and think about income

distribution between countries it's hard to argue the fact that global trade the growth of global trade has improved income distribution between countries so we have fewer very poor countries so national income levels rise i think that's been demonstrated china again is probably the best example of that but within countries we can clearly see that income just is getting worse so that's not an issue for for governments to coordinate with each other it's governments need to address these issues on the rome there is a very strong correlation between economies that are open with the exception of hong kong and singapore because they're very small but more open economies tend to have a larger governments because those governments recognise that there is a redistribution role for governments and i'm thinking about really western european countries the nordic countries in particular so there is a redistribution role for government when trade is a larger. share of g.d.p.

because yes there are winners and losers but if you think trade is advantageously then that's an appropriate role for government to have when we you look historically if you look at the major complex almost every single major conflict in history has a economic trade component to it. and i'm wondering if with this paradigm shift alone that we're. do we see a potential conflict built into it because you know we have the cities trap that's what we're really essentially talking about here in this paradigm shift you know and when one country is ascending the major power that is the status quo power has options either you allow the rising power to continue their rise even to surpass you you negotiate your decline in the relative rising of your come opponent and then of course there is the 3rd variant and it is called conflict ok

and in modern history have seen many many of them ok we can look at the the the competition between great britain and germany prior to the 1st world war we can look at the sanctions with the united states applied on japan prior to the attack on pearl harbor i mean all of these were about trade yet is the new part of the room we are not to forget scenes did you shouldn't because our little would be formed after the 2nd world war i have math you are central to world bank board central bank you have all these big institutions but. today for the global days asian and now the re read a generalization it is globalisation on the back of the products and has them i am not sure we have to involve more went to court but you'd be going to the past. where does exactly today's emerging go in trees sometimes our growth you know is our more powerful do that in europe you know and then that. disease notion of

greeks you know well russia is emerging countries is a joke saw zeese economies view is need to out they did no global institution us to be modernized a way. to give everybody's a right to world easy go but a world if not to use protection as him just protectionism now pushed by our friend from united states is a very negative. move it does same time zone rules of the game when our big problem like you say it's always before big conflicts into context 3 seasons sanctions we have to stop these sanctions because now we are saying showing you know russia. against russia from united states on europe now we are. you know in this conflict of sanction to everybody where do we go we have to stop b.c. to get.

good food descriptions sound up to tell using even for the owners so how to choose just had food industry is telling us what to feed our pets really more based on what they want soundness then what's necessarily good for the path turns out that food may not be a sofa the best people belief we have animals that have you know diabetes in arthritis they have auto immune disorders they can't allergies we are actually creating these problems and it's a huge epidemic of tom's all of them i believe can be linked to very simple problems of diet and some dog owners so heartbreaking stories about their pets streets to larger corporations are not very interested in proving or disproving the value of their food because they're already making it a $1000000000.00 on it and there's no. reason to do that research.

you know world of big partisan movies lot and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the bats and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks. as we speak large organized caravans are on the march to the united states. then 70 and a player coming out party carrying. no swarms remains slowing down. this

is a virtual invasion of our country. so far to. say . that i met a man i meant. for nothing up in the parking lot but they are you know it's going to sell this in. a nice. as you do is you know we're going to see a more little girls who noticed this is an issue for a player for 2 oceans that. the. earth.

if you look at the trade negotiations between china in the united states. just over the last few weeks i mean there was the western media really gave a very odd skewed interpretation of what happened because essentially what the united states is doing is demanding. regulatory tory changes the way china does business i mean outside power dictating the terms and conditions of how you run your economy and of course the chinese said no the thing is what what does sovereignty mean in all of this paradigm shift i think that's the big question right here because we started out you know no one said the word yet but i'll say it brags it ok we have the european parliamentary elections that showed the the

the center is collapsing and a lot of it gets down to understanding how this paradigm shift is moving forward and remain maintaining your sovereignty and no one has been able to really figure out how to square that circle when you look at how china responds it has been very measured. a lot of self defense and going back to your you know your earlier question about a possible conflict it has always been stated that it is not the ambition of china to claim well number one or to become a supreme power if you look at the bam enrollee initiating what just being emphasis is working too bad for mutual benefits openness in course if innes and not being a crony. so the mentality all fall off of china is really different when compared to that of the united states lets me come back to the brics it's a very good point we are starting from mon losers and winners between nations by

the raw losers and the winners inside the countries and that is so much bigger problems that it's a clear signal that the. more rich and more satisfied from of the go the globalization solves all for england long them. there is an awful finland which is absolutely dissatisfied the last 20 years. on the political system in the us it's the same story the senate story so maybe this is an even bigger problem sure and i don't rule political consequences so for. windows and losers inside the countries i just want to say that in the past 30 years up until recently their global economy has been living a dream and many new developing countries were integrated into the system they learned to enjoy the fruits of the system of the architecture of financial trade

legal that was actually created by the western world and now that their roles in their economic power and they basically compete for the same share of the buy with those who created this architecture and. and this is a more. this is a. conflict because the paradigm that was created during those 30 years is based upon the supply chain system so. they used the local markets in the developing world they use their labor costs lower labor costs they shifted their production overseas to maximize their profits and those countries. from those supply chains integrations and now that they moved to a higher level so value. they basically compete with those who created the supply chain and so the question of the title of the session is whether this is

a paradigm shift the answer to this question is very tricky because a lot depends on how this conflict in substance is not a trade conflict but it's purely economic financial existential how this conflict is managed so that they do is the soft and everybody will be fine if they do the hard. created supply chains and there will be a shift. of interest. so. everybody. knew.

the new rules of the game. very interesting currency for. everything. completely chance. of i.m.f. and exit corporately i would they did always go by the same europa always agreement of the united states when you just up if you but now we are. happy if you we have an economy of everybody so what we have to emphasis is the spirit of working together for share benefit mutual benefit when you go to our 1st row here see how you are and you want to. thank you peter has been a fascinating discussion. which covered many topics i've noticed actually peter you'll have been trying to bring the discussion in somehow to the dominance of united states and reluctance for the us to to to.

the dominance so maybe on that i would like to make some comments and 1st comment is about china's growth being looted by your panelist i think right now china needs to grow slower not faster that's a very different theme from this conference if china can grow at 4 percent. actually i would be very happy so to some hans most economists know who. he was born research years years because a current of growth rate is clearly not sustainable i think everyone knows that in china we cannot increase leverage and we cannot. have more conflict with the major trading partners i think that's very important secondly i think it's too early to say this is a paradigm shift cost by treating patients or treat

a war because i mean as a financial secretary of on kong has said reactions from china so far have been quite measured i think that's a correct policy response in fact i would i do or kate to think for china one to even get on higher moral ground and to reduce tariffs to help consumers i think this trade war is also a stress test just like financial institutions they need a stress test i think trade war itself clearly tallying us financial sector reform in china is a c.v. really liking imagine imagine if we do not have hong kong using you have all this in the background i mean kind of economic growth would have been less

impressive because we're being all sourcing capital market function 200 imposture here. so i think this is a stress test is a wake up call i think i think kind of should really really open up even further to more yeah i just want to say on the remaking the world. takes lot of courage and a lot of from those who are already in control that's why they have to think about the future. and make these institutions reflect the economic reality that has changed since since the world war 2 you know and whether this is something they can compromise or question we don't know that yet and one point on the financial sector the financial sector is very important but it doesn't exist in the void its primary object is to finance the real sector operations and that's where the trade in goods and services come into play and that's where you get all this competition let's

take a look at this. way i mean it's all about competition it's all about financing the best terms financially and the best products and fortunately if we don't come up with a rules with a rules based system this will go on forever why we have to do that if we come back to this question of world bank. system i mean it's not an immediate reaction to the 2nd world war it's a reaction to the pre loot to the 2nd world war which then which is certainly originated also. let's say to the trade conflict and the great depression which was there no i would say you need so that leaves 3 from these institutions so that they are able to give an answer to the new developments of the new challenges which are there but in fact you mentioned this before you have to compromise and everybody has to compromise here and if let's say the the major force which also has

safeguarded to functioning of these institutions is perhaps no broking these institutions or really wanting to compromise on this this certainly would bring us into trouble at the moment i would avoid the war over the world over trade war it's a trade conflict because if you look into the prehistory of the 2nd would there was a really trade war. that's a much more shop than we have it now but certainly we own a very it's a difficult danger. it's possible moment and here i think that political rationality has to prevail ideally i'm sorry of course album america's under russian parliament i think it's very difficult to predict what will happen in the world to quantum and world trade and yes because you know not now the meatiness on twitter is broken son pictures book at the moment for him and i remember very well and probably. true also remember what. we're

discussing here with the our american colleagues 10 years ago 20 years ago. i think in the ninety's and in the beginning on. this. 10 year as americans convinced russia to join w tool and actually. they positioned the self like a main guarantor the liberal economy although that will and. this is a paradox but knowledge i think. the united states look like a main threat to this liberal economy how they're built and. they're using all the. instruments all the world trade and dollar

as as a rope and as in the konami up on against russia china and even against mexico so that this is a quite new sedition nobody can predict this 10 years ago so i think. this trade was sanctions gone through sanctions. and the this is a lose lose situation for everybody and. i think they're old all day u.s. dollar and if you talk about the. occurrence errors or if you look at the russian currency reserves is changed or might carry and. percentage of the us dollar wasn't under something you know from from a to probe a bit of percent from where he's lived and he is a little down to $35.00 so this is a dramatical situation and i think if in the future the united states

will use the dollar as a verb that they're all of dollar will decrease will because their might to quicken isn't a global currency it's all about it's not it's value it's value is trust and if you compromise sort of trust then it's value is compromised that's what i'm getting out of sort of it is not a political weapon that is all the time we have i hope you've enjoyed our panel discussion we could have gone on and on but i think we've got to we've got to the main points and i appreciate it thank you thank you thank you thank you i'm.

just written on the pretext of national security truth is forbes countries simply ignore the w t o the reason fax a provision that says if a country feels to me it's a reason national security threats they can choose to strike from the w t o principles now some countries are taking advantage of that it's the us for example sees all these regulations mainly as a national security threat. to their own birds or to. go. forward if you get a search. of it is the couch just. a little bit.

because we. could eliminate the fish you know not just because. they are the house of. god since we. don't need. the only. definition in. the news. please. please please.

keep your logo please. the. world leaders meet at the g. 20 summit in dallas seeking breakthroughs on trade tensions and political standoff . with police. leadership. with a lot seem to be working together that they gave us a great opportunity for follow up on that. via. the european union launches a new payment system called instax to help firms bypass u.s. sanctions against iran. and italy prevent a rescue vessel.