do innovation and come up with the great ideas we're going to innovate here but of course innovation happens on the factory floor and how and why did we send our factories over there what role to bill clinton do with basically fighting to have china be part of the world trade organization in 2000 he argued in front of congress in march of 2000 he said by joining the w. cio china is not simply agreeing to import more of our products it is agreeing to import one of democracy's most cherished values economic freedom of course this is the sort of lie we push on ourselves when we invade a country that we're going to go liberate the women and here it was like we're going to liberate their economy it was the the china fantasy the idea that somehow if they start to embrace capitalist forms of economic development their ultimate they going to evolve into a liberal democracy and that's turned out to be a complete delusion and fantasy in fact you can argue that even the idea that trade liberalization would ultimately work in our favor it has and there's been

a number of studies suggesting that you know our manufacturing sector has been devastated by the manufacturing as a percentage of g.d.p. is at its lowest point in 72 years so this idea that we retain the software but we all share the manufacturing that's going to be great for both sides when when it's been a win win for china and it's been a lose lose for the u.s. right i'm like i have a quote from biden here one of the candidates of course who say quote china's going to eat our lunch come on man yeah he has been doing particularly well in the polls and i think part of the reason for that is because he still uses a playbook that's about 20 years out of date politically and economically of course he was part of a government swim bill clinton that the great democrats shipped our jobs overseas and it is interesting that we've come full circle that robert light hisor who was almost the lone voice in the neo liberal american economic and political system back in the late ninety's he said in a piece in the wall. street journal now the new york times he warned that if it

made it to the w.t.f. can tell us china would become the dominant trading nation virtually no manufacturing job in the us will be safe he was right today he's now the u.s. trade negotiator against china when you're reading the chinese press what how are they looking at trump how are they looking at robert like hisor in particular and their trade position against china so trump was kind of an x. factor they didn't know how to deal with trump i mean trump is not acting like a normal politician they know how to deal with the biden family they give they give his son a $1500000000.00 so that's you know how you can deal with some politicians trump is just is acting is all a negotiation he realizes back to the point of the manufacturing space you can't continue to innovate when you don't make anything all innovations happen on the manufacturing floor and we had the solution and a lot of it comes from academia these economists that you don't need to make anything manufacturing's going away their reality is we've just had the greatest manufacturing boom in history the world it just occurred in china not the united

states and we got rid of all our jobs you can't meet have a country of 330000000 people and not be able to make anything for yourself realizes that and this is all part of the strategic kind of realignment we're going to have to happen and to be fair i think there there's been a number of economists now that say in retrospect that that whole model was wrong even paul krugman has dared to admit that he might have overestimated the or underestimated the impact and allowing china to go into the w t o and this idea that free trade would somehow be great for both sides and i'm personally a bit regarding light hoser i think he's the best thing that's happened to the us economy and the government he's probably the most qualified guy in the the cabinet granted that so i think that's not something exactly a high bar but he's an exceptionally talented trade negotiator and he the 1st guy that we've had in that position who not only has the dominant voice he. treasury

which was basically happy to offshore those jobs so long as you know the capital markets were happy but he's been doing this for over 40 years he's been doing this since the reagan years so the democrats aren't discussing this issue in particular actually during their primaries but will it become a huge issue that against them and in the race against certainly biden is the nominee will because you know he as you pointed out earlier he biden embodies the the the so-called washington consensus but there is there are signs that some of the other candidates are embracing a different approach notably elizabeth warren she came out with a paper on economic patriotism and providing that manufacturing so she seems to be hearing a bit to that playbook and i think that's a rather hopeful sign as far as the democrats are concerned well aside from the economic advantages or disadvantages and shifting jobs overseas it does appear china is making a pretty aggressive move militarily and just looking at some of the trends coming out of there they've perfected the rail gun technology that they can now put on

a naval vessel you know i've been following the rail gun technology for a number of years now this is an electromagnetic projectile e. fired into has a range of a missile what you can do with a rail gun is you can knock a satellite out of the sky which is. way out aggressive they could start knocking competitor satellites out of the sky for one thing number 2 the u.s. can build 2 submarines per year. it is retiring 3 per year or meanwhile china is able to manufacture more submarines per year so there's a military advantage there as well as militaristically is there or should that be a something to you know i would say that you've got to consider the base from which it starts i mean we still spend on defense u.s. spends on defense more than the next 10 countries combined so we spend a massive amount of money now we don't spend a particularly efficiently if you look at some of the boondoggle we have out there and the political. the engineering that comes down but i think we still have

a qualitative edge the question is whether you want to continue to surrender that qualitative edge which you will do if you're prepared to wait this offshore manufacturing to get it to china but of course china and the republican administration a trump he's he's met them head on in terms of trade the previous administration under obama said we're doing the asia pivot and we're going to confront them militarily the point max is making about the the fact that we can only build 2 submarines a year even with trump's new funds for the military because you know why because we rely on china for many of our and that's all part of the manufacturing base you have to get back all these technologies are interconnected castings fourteen's electronic embedded systems these are all if you can make the cars you can make the systems in the plants then you can use it for the defense industry and you get rid of all that in the pentagon has come up with papers on this guys we have mostly one supplier for each type of our systems and these these defensive players have become completely dependent on federal government money and completely inefficient all

right well we're going to take a break come back talk a lot more about china on front running 2020. 2 descriptions sound up or tell using even for the owners so how to choose had food industry is telling us what to feed our pets really more based on what they want to sell us and was necessarily good for the pet turns out may not be associated people believe we have animals that have you know diabetes in our stride they have auto immune disorders these allergies we are actually creating these problems. it's

a huge epidemic of toms all of them i believe can be linked to very simple problem of diet and some dog owners so heartbreaking stories about their pets less treats the 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. but if she warn you and i do the dishes at the bazemore those jeans nudist beach and you see me we need to. close and about that come up and when you guys e.q.'s will be home in the news i mean that is where that infant involves. a lot of you will see sawing during fuzzy fights about 2 kids out there both for the most school. board as in middle eastern fire check.

this out. here in cherokee folks cabinet 5 they were days doing it. in english 38th people who simply knew to manipulate in total. what is physics physics is nothing but the harmony you can create on vibrating strings that is chemistry chemistry is the melodies the melodies you can play on strings what is the universe the universe is is a symphony of strings. time after time corporations repeat the same mantra sustainability area of. transition sustainable transport sustainability stay number man a more equitable and sustainable world. they can. and the production is completely

harmless hollow does need the. number of listen it into something companies want us to feel good about buying their products while the damage is being done far away there's a 2nd eldest does he want anyone and i mean let's just get this time in and you must let me do on time eamon and i'm studying them in the best understood so going in. medical use don't leave clause leave guarded sadiq audio. when your. call doesn't that it could cause for

the look of it is too close was a thought a book a new to this a but. just its course still it's a bit silly to me yet there's. just chill. welcome back to front running 2020 with max and stacy we're talking about this. moment between the u.s. and china well the u.s. catch up can the u.s.

even catch up stacy without some kind of industrial policy exactly in order to compete on that sort of scale we need an industrial policy i would think because of course the apollo program which we introduced under j.f.k. to compete with russia it cost $600000000000.00 in current terms but we have the manufacturing capacity at that time do we need an industrial policy an order to even rise to this challenge that china presents to us well in the world yes and we used to do the industrial policy very well until the reagan came into office in the 1980 s. and said that government is the source of the problem rather than part of the solution but there's been a number of the works by people like maryanne demasi who pointed out for example that the i phone is a good example which was derived and stood on the shoulders of a considerable amount of government already and the idea that these things just

magically appear through the magic of the free market is just a fantasy and given how financial lives are economies you can't rely on the free market alone to get us anywhere near to the right kind of policy to catch this is one of the things in the political season i don't understand because a lot of flag waving and a lot of usa usa from the. poloi in the audience but then when asked about economic policy they hate the us it's like the usa can't do anything the government stinks it's all about private corporations that's why we should throw out everything and the government can never accomplish anything they're very negative toward their own country duplicity there and they don't understand that as you point out without the us government there would be no i phone there would be no. that there being no war when in world war 2 there would be no man on the lower right right so they don't seem to be a disconnect and if you look at things we fund we fund the wrong things right what do we publicly fund sun sports stadiums china funds chip factories so we're trying

to figure out what happened to 5 g. they just rolled out their 60 center sixty's going to be 10 x. 0 or 5 g. you know you look at electric vehicles right they pour hundreds of billions of dollars behind even battery maker who is now becoming the number one in the world control the space they have 4 percent of the penetration influx of us already which is twice the u.s. and they're going to be 50 percent within a couple years they really know each charge and stations all over the country so they have a plan they have a policy it's you know to dominate the century integrated circuits i mentioned the chip funds in the usa we used to make 25 percent the world semiconductors were going down to 5 percent because we live in a world of finance capitalism and we're getting played by china who's really plain state capitalism and we have done this before i mean in the 1980 s. there was a concern that the semiconductor chip market was going to be dominated by the japanese and the koreans and we set up something called cemetery which was the private sector consortium with the government and effectively the u.s.

was able to leapfrog and move to the next formal form of semiconductor technology was a very very successful project and it was profitable but somehow we've decided that's not a good model to follow anymore i would i would argue that that's exactly the kind of model that you can follow and you can use the military as well you don't have to pick winners and losers you can just how the military is saying you know we want a vehicle with these kind of specifications if you can build it for us we will guarantee you a market of eggs and that's the way you can actually support private industry in that regard quantum computing another example china put a lemon $1000000000.00 in a quantum computing center we needed just under a $1000000000.00 for quantum computing that's going to be the next you know the next big thing so yeah absolutely look at every technology. we need to have some type of plan around for the end to the absence of an industrial policy in america is quite apparent during this time of a trade war and has applied all these tariffs to chinese. and we've also had the

tax cuts a trillion dollars of tax cuts where does everything go into share buybacks and oh well that's it that's just it i mean 1st of all the tax reform was a joke because it was basically a means for the companies to use the result in cash flow to their stock prices because c.e.o. compensation is basically predicated on what the stock price of the company does as opposed to the underlying operations which is why i disaster like boeing even though the company getting back to the china and apollo able to get exactly the point a point is that you you have to direct these things in the right way and and the problem with trump is that you know he's he's got a handle on the the problem in the sense that he said he recognizes there is a problem but he's using the 19th century solution protectionism tariffs as a means of dealing with the problem in fact i would argue that instead of trying to

dismantle china's elaborate system of state support the u.s. should be doing more to try to replicate it and copy it as they did for example under alexander hamilton when they the big competitor was the united kingdom so i would agree and disagree on some of those points i think the tax cuts were good on the fortune 500 standpoint absolutely they're not they weren't paying the 30 percent corporate tax rate anyway they're all offshore everything in us has become warehouse and distribution and you reckon if your profits offshore small and medium sized businesses that's actually important to get the tax rate to some type of competitive level from 30 percent down to 21 percent now we match sweden for instance in the corporate tax rate so it's not we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world next to north korea that had to come down so it's i think part want to trump strategy. the strategy is you've got to keep the tariffs on because you're going to drive the manufacturing back here you've got our it has are going to drive it back here or not to vietnam or cambodia. and so a lot of processing technology to vietnam has gone to vietnam to close these types

of things keep in mind. doesn't have the population or the manufacturing base to absorb all that change i mean but you have lived in china for 20 years you did the china money report when the chinese government meets in the party me and they do a 5 year plan a 10 year plan what sort of policies like what are they looking at what do they say are they telling you know many families in michigan they are quickly to build this stuff yeah they do i've met with i don't know how many chinese government officials and they're all impressive most some are engineers and if you look at the poll every put it comes from an engineering or science background they spend decades within the c.c.p. system you know start noting the provinces learn how to build economies learn how to support social systems and buy at the end of the end of the decades of a career when you know when they're in their sixty's then they only get up to the top we have politicians whose last job was the bartender so that's where we're getting schooled they have but i see is a fantastic leader she's charismatic she's articulate she comes up with good ideas

they if i were a leader is our older people that you say are great they're the ones that have failed us in the boomer generation has totally failed generation we have a generation of milan eels and generation z. who are have their waitresses simply because the previous generation sent our manufacturing jobs to china how do you answer that the whole model is wrong you can't keep you know the argument is you've got all shore manufacturing because you've got to compete against the you know the sweatshop labor in asia and therefore you pay your workers accordingly and that's the soft option and ultimately it's a race to the bottom and in fact there's another school thought either there was a prominent political economist seymour mehlman in the 1960 s. true to the 1980 s. . who pointed out that if you didn't offshore your labor and but labor was a constant you know rising costs that forced you to invest and move up the technological and gold for the higher boat value added type type of products and

that for example is what's happened in japan and germany you know they clearly believe in the importance of an industrial ecosystem and i think we have to get back to that sort of thinking as opposed to saying well we're going to all short all to low cost jurisdictions because ultimately that's just not going to get you to a position where you can compete in a viable way with china can u.s. get off the decks to short termism so yes i pay $500.00 matter what company it is they go to the cash desk and they are going to financialization and they typically manipulate. well you don't want to look at beyond the next quarter part of that is the problem the introduction of the f.c.c. rule 10 b. which reagan introduced in the early 1980 s. before that share buybacks were considered a form of said let us go to the regulation across the board out let it already airs what they're going to say if you don't banning the glass steagall writing a list right you have to read you have to deep financial eyes the economy but one

of the ways in which you do that is by eliminating the incentives to. share prices and that has to be a necessary 1st step ok now we are of course in a trade war and there is that emerges start a cold war with china 1st of all can maybe this a cold war do for american manufacturing and innovation what the cold war the last cold war dead but also this notion of china holding so many u.s. treasuries is that really an issue or if they are does that give them any power over us and anyway you don't know or know what that is if the chinese want to 1st will they be cutting their nose to spite their face to sell their huge stock of treasury and in the 2nd instance the reality is the federal reserve simply debits it from the savings account into the so-called checking account. reserve account and boom the money is shifted back and they can do whatever they want but they seem to be doing an end run around that by buying gold along with well short of it but they certainly don't have the i just refuse to believe that they played us for

suckers on this whole you know with that they can build on board treasury and that we have this they have this nuclear option thing about nuclear options is when you start to use the nukes you know everything gets blown to pieces but i don't actually believe it's a real problem and i want to move on to the fact that if we're in a cold war of course you need propaganda and who owns hollywood is it the u.s. or is it because they're that's the biggest market yeah i mean you know the 2nd largest theater chain is cheney's own use they own a lot of the studios known specially minority ownership sell them 1020 percent some higher there is a lot of pushback now on that that you know the lot of the censorship is actually moved from over there to over here because of this financial ownership and a lot of revisionism right so we send over these i don't think we want to send that suddenly it's just the ending is different now. looking desperate and they are censoring and editing but we don't need the chinese to help us with self-censorship in the way when you have a high degree of corporate concentration as we do in the u.s.

right now and in media it will end in that would have played circumscribe the range of views that you see but if we're going to take on china in a race in this cold war era we need better propaganda like we had world war 2 hollywood was a star mantilla coming up with great propaganda films and if our propagandists are going to be working for the chinese is going to be. there is the problem i mean there's a certain degree of hypocrisy i mean google probably trumpets the fact for example that they won't work with the u.s. plan to go on but they are perfectly happy to help china with that with artificial intelligence which of course is being about as a factor heading into more contentious i mean i'm not a favor in favor of cold cold wars in principle but one of the nice things one of the good things about cold wars. or even haunt was is that they do engender a broader set of patriotism and they they also do tend to override the launch computer or free trade and globalization you can start thinking about. activities

that are consistent with with with broader public purpose in your own country and the problem when you have you know the irony is that when you have a very very peaceful in environment and no external threat is that you know the the billionaire class and the able to ask like a bunch of sociopathic monsters and there's no there's no constraint because there's no external threat so that's the one thing you hope that if we do have a cold war 2.0 that somehow there will be a renewed sense of embracing country to some broader public purpose ok flashed around well this this but that china america moment they resolved peacefully or more warlike then hopefully it's not too late to disengage from a cold war we also the issues of those 2 cities trap right it's the rising power versus the declining power we need to take a step back we need to reach industrialize here we get a focused policy and engage peacefully around the world hopefully that happens and it doesn't get out of control marshall the cold war one did not lead to a global conflict with the union so i see no reason why the embrace of cold war 2

even if it does happen will invariably lead to a military conflict with china there will be competition but it certainly is not negative for the u.s. if they do exactly as. well that's going to do it for this edition of front running 2020 obviously the future is nothing but sunshine and chinese lollipops well stay tuned for our next episode will continue to dig deep into the issues and policies leading up to election until then. thousands of american men and we. when she was just sort of in a country's military decision little sheltered lives every thing came to a complete. the day that i was right to be instructed you know told to shut up what

they'd kill me and i see how it destroyed my life any screamed at me and he made me come in and he grabbed my arm and he write me with his birthing area if you take into account that women don't report because of the extreme retaliation and it's probably somewhere near about half a 1000000 women have now been sexually assaulted in the us military rape is a very very traumatizing tappan but i've never seen trauma like i've seen women who are veterans who have suffered military sexual trauma reporting rape is more likely to get the victim punished don't be offended and almost 10 year career or chose very invested in and i gave a sex offender who was not even put to justice or put on the registry this is simply an hour in violence male sexual predators for the large part of target whoever is there to prey upon whether that's a man or woman. is you'll be via reflection of reality.

in a world transformed. what will make you feel safe. isolation fulcrum unity. are you going the right way or are you being led so. direct. what is true what is faith. in the world corrupted you need to descend. to join us in the depths. or i'm a bit of a shallow. but if she warned you and i do believe. that there was more good genes new species she

me you. present about it when you guys e.q.'s. in the news i mean that is without infringing ball. a lot of people through following your infos if i had to go through throughout the both. as you did with b.j. . if you put out by. ear in cheek you got caught at 5 days doing it. and. people who simply knew. here's a thought experiment and a bit of a prediction for 2020 going back to saudi aramco around town as it went public just

recently at a market valuation and access $1.00 trillion dollars i think at one point was worth 2 trillion dollars i think that we're going to see them make a hostile buy of a company maybe facebook for example and it could be the 1st trillion dollar hostile raid in history because they've got the balance sheet if you've got a 2 trillion dollars balance sheet that means you've got you know the ability to borrow another trillion so you've got a 3 trillion dollar war chest if you go after an apple or even a berkshire hathaway 5 or $600000000000.00 why wouldn't saudi aramco buy berkshire hathaway just as a hostile right and then they own us huge portion of the whole global market the american market why not they've got the balance sheet now they want to. versified away from oil and gas and i think we're going to see a move like that the next 6 to 9 months.

washington expresses its disappointment as iraqi lawmakers pass a resolution calling for the removal of foreign troops from the country including the u.s. led coalition. for both allows america's assassination of iran's most powerful general in an airstrike on baghdad international airport on friday. hundreds of thousands have lined the streets as the body of general mommy is returned home. and in the stories that shaped the week with the leaks founder julian assange is claims he is slowly dying in a u.k. prison saying. he is being given a set of data and the subjected to do.