smiling said little bit, but now they have, they have come to know that the energy suffices for the whole were so we, i think we can do it in, but in the afternoon future. yeah, the main i go from our there is that rusher is going to be helping sterling, co building atomic energy facilities. in fact, rusher is the leading builder of atomic energy facilities all around the world. thanks for joining us here. we're not see union o'neill at his desk in half an hour's time. i do hope you can join him as he takes you into saturday night live from us with ah, rich sanchez. i've been doing news for 30 years and 2 languages around the world. and here in the united states, i've interviewed for president co founded

a $1000000000.00 business. and you know what? i believe new should be honest. it should been direct and it should be impactful, and this direct impact the news. so let's begin with china. china is investing in panama and investing big panel. does you bring government just completed a convention center there? and they're now officially running this massive port operation in the port of balboa. all of it run by a chinese linked firm. and by the way, it's not just panama, china is 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. busy 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 leader. stay with me here that all of these movements that i just described about sending more business, creating port, 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 ping as the face of china is global rise in this new

found employ influence. so what to doing 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, writing 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

all the way they were. there is whole narrative in your free and open and frank dialog continues to have to work together, but there will be able to 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 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 in 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 do. who is this guy? 20 he started talking about this is through rob, good, who happens to be an expert on this topic? so maybe we start there. i'm starting like the rest of the world to become really curious. who is this guy? 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. he is the partner and dictator. totalitarian. yeah. but then yes or monster or somewhere between right. but they've already forgot to figure them out. and i'll say, you know, after this, congress actually,

he's maybe become more of an enigma. let me try to parse with 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 arion, 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 what the, what mall did institutionally. she really, she is still very much part of that larger central committee, but he has no doubt were many leaders with control. but from an economic standpoint, his economic agenda is built exactly on that agenda which dangling down. i mean,

one can get trapped and some of the jargon didn't talk of a principal contradiction. 1981. she talked about that in 2017. then 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 and opening up. it's even called a new round of reform and opening up. so from an economic standpoint, he's very much dang successor. what i would say is that he is not as economically liberal as dang isn't. and at the same time, he's not as politically conservative as mom was. and so he is a mix of the 2. and that's why that creates, it's an attic magic me. here's the 60000 dollar question that i think most of the people who are watching this right now would probably think is he a communist? totally in his own view, in his view, he is very,

very committed to the communist mark swift here are 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 end 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 why 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 the contradictory, and i'll tell you this, 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 exercise and opportunism all that works. this chinese communist is socialism with chinese common characteristics and in the

new era, all that doesn't work. it's got nothing to do with it. he's, he's, you 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 and 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 caught, i think of she, when i talk about this, i think about bill clinton, you know, lou quinton, all the good things happen 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 way it 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. yes. 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 a rule. but the government itself takes a pretty broad view of what can play, who can clear who cannot. and yes, you know, in the last 3 years there's been a lot about how he's smashing down alibaba etc, etc, etc. if one looks in retrospect, the digital media requires 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 with the problem i thought even go to crypt. yeah. but, but that's the point about china. i mean, they have to think about it, they don't, she is always 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, private players, the property sector brings so much of the following problem in china, right? it's all private players. 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, and by the way i, we use latin america because while i happen to be on t, no, 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. well, if you go to latin america and you talk 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 infrastructure so well at home. so they know they can take it abroad. and the western countries sneer at it so they can come to the west, even though they all the fort 2 goals and all who have allowed them to mean. but so they go to africa, they go to latin america, hello, 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 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, latin america, underserved in that area, their business model for that 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 develop, a sion 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. and the chinese can get it, the russia, the united states can get it. 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've 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, vo doesn't signal a move to the left and latin america. back in a minute. the ah, a francisco new york with

what? with somebody to love me curious machine you happy with. why did we got going to have that up with the when read that up way? anything that i will be the was a lot for shift left in things you can see it was much our does up with a lot in the july to the office, but i mean

what happens with digital games with actual physical sport, something like digital. yeah, there's yes, because on is preparing to host the 1st ever gains of the future a cyber context with a physical dimension. one of the innovators, eager to study at all, is on the verge of redefining sports and gaming. he tells us what's behind this synergy and if it's the future ah, hey, welcome back. i'm rick sanchez shop. what are we to make of the latest us elections? if you look at the 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 on awful lot these days. the u. s. mid terms, which is the election hell that the midpoint of the presidents, 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 happen 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 tells 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 will win 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 their read wave. but the democrats didn't do great either. and i think we can expect to 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 really been really able to pass any legislation because of the opposition of the democratic congress. people specifically jo, 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 to say that the people's united states, one divided government. i think the people, the united states want a government that acts on behalf of their economic interests. and the reality is that since the 1970, the u. s. government has been dominated by neil 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 978. 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. that's the say that workers now are more productive than they were in the 1900 seventy's. and yet they, 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, the united states don't have an impact on actual government policy. it's only large economic interests, billionaires big corporations, banks, think tanks and 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 the 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 pose, show that people only around 20 percent of people the 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 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 a 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, 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, et cetera, et cetera. 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 in power 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 bite and 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. their public and democrats support war, they support and neal 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, with the war in ukraine. yes, there are some voices, and the republican party were criticizing the by did 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 unkind. 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 bipartisan and us politics. and if the congress is divided, or even if they're public and 7 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, let me do this. i want to share my mission with you. it's simple really. i want to de silo the world, and that's why we do this disgust. we've got to stop living in these little boxes

where we live right now. troops don't live in boxes, tutors, everywhere, mac sanchez. i'll be looking for you again right here where i hope to provide you with a direct impact the ah, a

ah, ah oh that's, pete is a youngster as of today because there's a lot of that censorship on many topics in school. it's not just a migration topic to my impression, it went on this, the climate change, gone back, it went on them and how you see it. i mean, there was no, there was no real debate. it was either or, but never as and now it's about russia and it's about yes, we have to fight to russia. russia has to be taken off the map with

ah, ah, got paul's mommy depleted if that degrading rational forces. they are increasing all security. it was the when this war you will be held to account bombastic messages against moscow. continue to emerge from countries who claim they are not directly involved in the grade. that follows is about the war protestors rally side were those remarks were heard the munich security hoping also ahead on the program this our pilots are award.