think firm, and by the way, it's not just panama china spending tons of millions of dollars all throughout latin america. while putting on a full court press with leaders from the region as well, inviting them to beijing and then reciprocating in places like argentina and brazil . and ecuador, and countless others where those leaders go to beijing. and then the officials from beijing, sometimes including mr. g. himself, and up going to those countries. what's with all this full court press for latin america, right? or china's intentions in latin america dubious or completely on the up and up. that is a matter of the chattering class in both latin america and in the west to continue to debate and oh, they will. but here's the reality. nobody is turning down the money and the great majority of the leaders there are welcoming chinese cooperation with open arms. so what does all this signal write in latin america?

as the wall street journal has written in a series of articles, this does not bode well. busy for the united states, that's what the wall street journal wrote. why? because fair or not fair. the consensus in latin america is it. while the u. s. historically has use political and military might in latin america. a chinese are generally interested in providing economic assistance or so the story goes right. that's what poll after poll appears to show when they ask these questions of people who live in those latin american countries. there's another reality here, by the way. there's another reality here. reality that china's influence worldwide, and especially in latin america is bringing what it's bringing about is this the position of china's liter. stay with me here that all of these movements that i

just described about sending more business, creating ports, creating schools, building all these convention centers that it's doing something for the positioning of china and not just china, but china's leaders using thing as the face of china's global rise and this new found employ influence. so what to doing with this kind of fascinating she's position has elevated him to a kind of vaulted status among some where he now feels comfortable enough to confront. for example, did you see what he did recently? she confronts the canadian prime minister right to his face. this seems very not chinese, at least in terms of what we think of the chinese culture. but he came right up to the man right up to his face and kind of scolded him for disclosing to the

press. what he thought was a most private conversation here is take a look the everything was not a whole the way that they were never told, never leave in your free and open and frank dialog continues to have you continue to work together, but there will be things agree on the conditions so some with everything that we've seen and everything that we've talked about are now comparing she to, to now,

to mostly done the economists. i'll to 0 the wall street journal. the b, b, c. all are writing these articles where they talk about them, compare them and or, or just, or just some come out and say that it's actually time to maybe make the comparison . and she seemed to solidify that potential comparison and the latest congress meeting, where with his successors, out of the way, the deepened his control, even more of the world's 2nd largest economy through the be soon to be the world's top economy. by the way, if you read what many economists are saying that will happen, and just 4 or 5, maybe 6 years. so how did she get to where he is? it almost makes me want to ask maybe you to who is this guy trying to get started talking about. this is sewer group who happens to be an expert on this topic. so maybe we start there. i'm, i'm starting like the rest of the world to become really curious. who is this guy?

it's, it's a fascinating question because, you know, in the western world it's already been the answer is already laid out or she is the next small or he is this a partner and dictator totalitarian. but then, yes, her monster with 2 or somewhere between what they've already forgot to figure them out. and i'll say, you know, after this, congress actually is able to become more of an enigma. let me try to parcels a little bit as to okay. is she himself, has spoken the chinese modern chinese history. i mean post liberation, post 1949. history should not be looked at as 2 years of mol, that apart area, and centralizing political leader and dang that reformist economically minded internationalists. leader. these are, it should not be framed in that context. the 2 are intertwined. and she himself is perhaps an intertwining off the 2 from a political perspective he is the centralized like mall. although he hasn't

centralized and made it a one party dictatorship of the lines of mall, including the wall mounted, institutionally she really, she is still very much part of that larger central committee, but he has no, no doubt about many levels of control. but from an economic standpoint, his economic agenda is built exactly on that agenda which dangling down. i mean one can get trapped in some of the jargon den. talk of a principal contradiction. 981. she talked about that in 2017 dang, talked of international circulation as part of opening up. she talks of dual circulation. it's basically on that foundation that the dang lid is the next stage of reform, an opening up. it's even called a new round of free form and opening up. so for you can amik standpoint, he is very much dang successor. what i would say is that he is not, as you can nominally liberal as dang, isn't. and at the same time, he's not as politically conservative as my was, and so he is

a mix of the 2. and that's why the create, it's an ethnic magic me. here's the 60000 dollar question that i think most of the people who are watching this right now, i would probably think is he a communist? totally in his own view, in his view, he is very, very committed to the communist mark, 5th peer ethical dialectic. but that dialectic, as we've seen through that in phrases of reform, an opening up, if infinitely extensible, and cool optimal in terms of how it is from a capitalist and economic standpoint. it isn't, it's in the i'm because i have to stop you for because i'm just thinking that you just said that to me. and as you're using the word communist, i'm thinking of while way. i'm thinking about the greatest chip industry, perhaps anywhere in the world. how can those things be at the same time? are they contradictory? i think they are contradictory and i'll tell you this and i'll be very frank about

what is she is china, whatever socialism or chinese characteristics, i'll be blunt about it is and it is an exciting opportunity and all that works. this chinese communist is socialism with chinese commentary characteristics and in the new era, all that doesn't work. it's got nothing to do with it. he's, he's he know so, so i think what i'm hearing you say is, if it makes money for the people i, for the country for she essentially not that he's pocketing it. i'm not accusing him of doing that, although i'm sure he lives pretty large. if it works for the country, then it's good if it does it get out of here, right? yes, it isn't that the same rule that capitalists live by precisely. i think of she, when i talk about this, i think about bill clinton, you know, luke clinton all the good things happened because of me all the bad things happening because that's exactly socialism with chinese characteristics in the new

era. right. so a company like wal way makes him proud because it's the number one mobile phone manufacturer in the entire world. wow, that's a win. so it's allowed to compete with apple or whatever other big company that we can compare doing in the united states. even though it's a completely capitalistic venture, living within a communist environment. yeah. but any other company that comes along that doesn't get the sanctioning of the government. we're not even gonna let you grow. yeah, it's a rule that's that's, that's a rule. but the government itself takes a pretty broad view of what can play, who can clear and who cannot. and yes, you know, in the last 3 years there's been a lot about how is smashing down alibaba, etc, etc, etc. if one looks in retrospect, the digital media requires the anti trust regulation, he has the courage to bring the hammer down on those folks. you'd wish they'd do it

in this country a little bit more. where digital media have become so powerful that and have such great lobbying part that they're now beyond regulation. crypto tried to go that we had a problem, i thought even go to crypto. yeah. but, but that's the point about china. i mean, they have ample, think about it. he don't, she is that all he's trying to centralize the, not just politically, but also the state on enterprises. in the last 10 years, what has blossom the most digital economy? every one of those players are private players. the property sector brings so much of the tone problem in china, right? it's all private clear. that's a fascinating thing you say because it leads us into the next part of the conversation. and i was alluding this just a little while ago. what's happening in places like latin america, by the way, i, we use latin america because, well, i happen to be on tino so i understand a little bit about what's going on latin america. you say it's important for them to have some kind of dominion in the tech space, for example. and at the same time,

i was just referring to how many businesses in latin america, how many convention centers, they're opening, how many ports, they're now working. all of this is happening at the same time, while if you go to latin america, and you talked to pedro down there, or maria, or felicity, or whoever are getting savvy, as we say in latin america. guess what they take out of their pocket. a phone that is made by wall way or a phone or some other technology that is chinese based. so they're, they're really working 2 prongs. while at the same time they're introducing all these things and creating power plants, etc, etc. they're also making sure that all latin american citizens down there, their 1st time they can afford a phone 1st time they can afford a tv 1st time they can afford any kind of technology. it will be chinese technology where 50 years ago it used to be in our ca. yes, exactly, correct, exactly. or they're going in the hard infrastructure space because they've done it for such

a soul. well at home. so they know they can take it abroad and the western countries near at it so they can come to the west, even though they all the port 2 goals and all who have allowed them to move in. but so they go to africa, they go to latin america who willing open and building, and then i want to i want to g vote. i can't afford to favor. busy you know, whatever it is that the most of our friends use in the classroom and things like fintech and all which alibaba created. i mean in so many using the digital universe, a half latin america, underserved in that area. their business model for the china has perfected that the private players in china have perfected at home, which they're taking out. and yes, there's the worry that there might, this is this. the surveillance issue is, is, might be a, might be a problem. but if you ask an average african developing issue or latin american country, they will know, i mean, the united states government will get the information. it needs that it needs to

get from a private citizen in latin america. when it wants to, the chinese can get it. the russia, the united states can get who cares? one. wow. so rob, what, what a, what a fascinating conversation. i learned so much when i talk to you. thank you so much . i really appreciate it. by the way, conversations like this, i find fascinating. i have a lot. in fact, i have a podcast where i as a journalist, as a latino, as a co founder of a 1000000000 dollar company, share my stories, what i've learned, how many times i screwed up, horribly, stuff that i wasn't able to get right. and the times i've been lucky enough to succeed and grow, and that's what i'd like to help you do as well. it's called the rick sanchez podcast. i invite you to check it out. i'll see you there. but when we come back, well, lula lula, the silver winds in brazil. pho, doesn't signal and move to the left and latin america back in a minute. the

ah ah ah, my leave a proposal for him since coming you up with a number. let me know

what's wrong with the money. so my love, my but she listen, jane. yeah, yeah, yeah. i did it with why, why did the i've got that one. nick with this cars because you get with mad that up way it is live that i will be the was a lot for shift will not increase. you can see it was new much our does up with not mid july to the people off it. ah hey,

welcome back. i'm rick sanchez. so what are we to bake of the latest us elections? if you look at to numbers, it's pretty amazing. maybe rather than take you through all these numbers, let me just say this and maybe it is just this. polls seem to be wrong, an awful lot these days. the u. s. mid terms, which is the election held at the midpoint of the president's 4 year term, is usually a painful experience for the person in the white house. right. this mid term election was supposed to be no different after all, the president, mr biden, is not popular by any stretch of the imagination. add to that the highest prices in decades, you know that inflation thing a predicted recession coming around the corner. and what you have is the makings of a red wave, that's what they call that in america. america is about to be hit by

a red wave, meaning republicans are about to be elected in big numbers. i mean, really big numbers. and that's what everybody expected. but then something funny happened instead of republicans getting more votes than ever as predicted. instead of taking over the house of representatives as predicted, and taking back the senate, republicans barely took the house. they're supposed to win by 20, the 30 new senate seats house seats. instead. they won by a handful and they actually lost the senate. joining us now to talk about this is bernard. he's an investigative journalist, usually tell stories, well, from a more heal perspective than those that you would read on your run of the mill newspapers anywhere in the world for that matter. so, maybe been,

this is where we start this conversation. maybe we start with this because i know i have my perspective, and i know that usually if you have a democratic president in a mid term, the republicans will win the midterm. and if you have a republican president, the democrats in the mid term, but that didn't seem to happen this time, at least not the way it was supposed to. so how would you define the results for the u. s. mid term elections would, would you describe this as a victory for the democrats after they retained the senate majority? well, i'm actually not that surprised at the mid term election results. the reality is that yes, the republicans didn't do as well as some people thought with a red wave, but the democrats didn't do great either. and i think we can expect the kind of lame duck presidency. the irony is that biden has pretty much already been a lame duck president, even though he technically has a slim majority in the senate already and in the house as well. but he hasn't been

really able to pass any legislation because of the opposition of the democratic congress. people, specifically your mansion and cures and cinema. so, with democrats taking the senate and republicans taking the house, follow me here. is it safe? not to say been that americans are going to prefer what it seems like they got a divided government. this is a talking point. we often hear from, you know, ivy league political scientists who say that the people united states, one divided government. i actually think the people of united states want a government that acts on behalf of their economic interests. and the reality is that since the 1970s, the u. s. government has been dominated by neo liberal economic policies that act on behalf of wall street and the financial sector and not on, on behalf of working people in the united states. that's why we've seen since 1978 . real wages have persistently declined or stagnated. in the united states,

and we've seen that as technological, technological advances have allowed for increases in production. wages has stagnated us to say that workers now are more productive than they were in the 19 seventy's. and yet they did, their wages are actually weaker. and why is that? because we see a captive government dominated by the financial sector, large corporations and banks control the u. s. government and the political system . and the supreme court basically made bribery, legal with citizens united. it says that essentially there is no limit on corporations funding that is bribing politicians. and that's why studies show academic studies from scholars at princeton university have shown that average working people, united states don't have an impact on actual government policy. it's only large economic interests. billionaires big corporations, banks think tanks in washington that are funded by those interests and in terms of

congressional races. year after year we see that the congressional candidates who have more funding when over 90 percent of time. so i think focusing on a divided government and all of that is actually really a distraction from the real issue, which is that a lot of people, united states don't have confidence in the government. polls show that people only around 20 percent of people united states actually have confidence in white house. that's true of regardless of whether or not it's a democrat or republican and congressional approval is in the single digits. that is to say that the majority of americans are actually disillusion. they don't have confidence in the government. and yes, it's common that when a republican is president, the democrats tend to win control of congress. and when a democrat is president, the republicans tend to win control of congress. i don't think that's because americans want divided government. i think it's because they vote for

a president thinking the president might change something. things never change because that president is funded by a bunch of big corporations and banks. so 2 years later that people decide they want to have another change and we see this constant flip flop going back and forth and back and forth. and the reality is that people have very little confidence. finally, another very important point to keep in mind is that the participation, the voter turnout in u. s. elections is consistently low. not only in presidential elections where it's usually around half of the population, but especially in mid terms, we consistently see that the voter turnout is around 20 or 30 percent, which is extremely low, sometimes even lower than that, that that reflects the fact that the majority of people in united states don't have confidence in the system. so the problem is not that people want a divided government. the problem is that they want a government the represents them. and that doesn't happen because of all the big money in politics. let me ask you this, would you say that even with the republicans taking the house that we can

expect? that very little will change in terms of big issues, whether it's inflation, ukraine, relationship for china, etc, etc. that really on those issues things won't change that much from a political standpoint. well, the situation of nothing happening pretty much is the status quo. the biden administration has not passed any serious legislation and it's been empowered for 2 years. let's not forget that it was joe biden himself, who said, during the presidential campaign, he told wealthy donors in new york, he said, if i'm president, nothing will fundamentally change. and nothing indeed has fundamentally changed. and a lot of that is because even though the democrats had a very slim control of both chambers of congress in the democratic party itself could not pass any legislation because of the opposition of jo mansion and here in cinema. that is to say that by didn't claims that maybe he wanted to have,

you know, an ambitious infrastructure bill and for spending to try to reinvigorate the economy and his own party, oppose those policies. so by didn't never really had ambitious promises. he never clearly wanted to implement any ambitious change. he told his donors that and he hasn't made any significant change. and now that the congress is probably going to be even further divided, especially if republicans have a slim majority in the house. i don't expect any serious legislation to be passed. the reality is that the united states, the internal politics, united states, is completely paralyzed by this insane partisan battle between 2 parties who honestly agree on 90 percent of economic issues and foreign policy. they're probably going to democrats support war. they support a new liberal economic policies of supporting big corporations and banks. the real differences they have on cultural issues, which is why we constantly see this,

this obsession with culture war, focusing on abortion, and attacking l, g b, t, people, and racism. and all of that. i'm not saying those issues aren't important. they are important. but what we actually see is the, all the other issues, the economic situation, foreign policy, all that is ignored basically. and now we see, you know, what the warren ukraine. yes, there are. some voices in the republican party were criticising the bite administration for giving tens of billions of dollars to fuel this war. this brutal proxy war instead of pushing for peace, instead of pushing for a diplomatic solution. but the reality is that still, the majority of the republican party is on board with this nato proxy war. and that not only do they support the needle proxy war, they want war on china. so even some of the republicans who say that they're against the native proxy war in ukraine, that's because they instead want to focus on waging war on china. so the reality is that unfortunately,

war mongering is completely bi partisan and us politics. and if the congress is divided, or even if the republicans have a majority, i still don't expect any real change to happen. thanks so much man. we really appreciate that. so by the way, before we go, ah, let me do this. i want to share my mission with you. it's simple really. i want to d, silo the world and that's why we do this discussion. we've got to stop living in these little boxes where we live right now. truce don't live in boxes. tooth as everywhere. i'm retention, i'll be looking for you again, right here for i hope to provide you with a direct impact. ah ah

ah, at the end of the 18th century, britain began the illegal opium trade in china. this har, drug causing addiction and literally destroying the human body, became a gold mine for business men from the foggy albion. however, the ruling chinese jing dynasty tried to resist and to stop the illegal trade, which provoked the wrath of the london business community. in 1840 without a declaration of war, the english fleet began to seize and plunder chinese coastal boards. the barley armed and morally trained chinese army, was unable to provide adequate resistance. the ging empire was forced to hand hong

kong over to england and open its boards for trading the lethal goods in 1856, france and the united states joined in the robbery of china. the anglo french troops defeated the chinese occupied beijing and committed an unprecedented robbery . destroyed and blundered, the wealth of the un mean you and palace, the defeat of the jing dynasty and the do opium wars lead to the transformation of the celestial empire into a semi colony of european states and started it's age of humiliation and the sale of opium took on colossal proportions and lead to the horrible deaths of millions of ordinary chinese. ah, ah

mm . i look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order is a conflict with the 1st law show your identification, we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to great trust i rather than fear a very job with artificial intelligence, real, somebody with

obama protective foam existence with ah, there is no trust in you. you are incompetent in stage u. s. you created nazi's. narrow borders then stood up the situation and take say, what western lead is undermining the 2015 piece. the dream saying that this because they have caused directly to lead the way in conflict with washington is involved all the major you training held city of og, him off in the public by p e. but it's a, he's a library and authorities pool of bonds. finland to stop on the government activists at hughes.