it and so more predictably, the western media, which widely supports are the one's opponent, now seems to have the legitimacy of the entire election of their sites with senior european officials alleging a wide spread conspiracy to steer the public away from are the ones in buckled challenger i regret to note that the election administration's work was lacking in transparency as well as the overwhelming vice of the public media and the limitations to freedom of speech. as of the size of 2nd round a voting approaches, the potential shock result may not be the election of the west reforming candidate . but the surprise re election of 2 keys veteran liter receive tie up early to one . if so, all eyes will be on those, the proclaimed, are the ones in men at the fees. and whether they not, she would accept the mandate of the turkish people. the future of took is foreign policy is one of the main issues of contention, of course, and the election run off. and so it gets an in depth look at the future. also it

gives diplomacy. we got an exclusive interview with a smell. sofie is a member of the turkish president's council on security on foreign policy. you can watch the full version throughout the day on the channel. but here's a quick preview of the said the request of tuck it to join the european union project dates back to 1960 headink 70 years early. i took a apply to join the youth, but unfortunately this has not happened to this day. the cost is due to the dental standards and insincerity of the european countries on this matter. 152030 years ago, it was valuable. the ticket to enter the you. for a week it took you a strong, more prosperous europe, was going to be a gains if i had to the ends of the union 30 years back. but at this point in time, to be honest, a kid does not have a need to join such a union. we can say this as clearly as it can be. isn't that big demand for this in our society 8 or 10 to 20 years ago? this was a request for the tugee society, but today europe is also fading tight within itself. they have certain issues and

problems. have many problems. economically they have social problems and refugee problems. in this regard, there isn't much of europe has to offer to kia. but of course, in terms of integration and taking cooperation, much funded within the european union, we have goodwill and a welcoming outlook and stones on the mass that we want to continue these efforts. after the election, once the new ton begins, that wouldn't be much change in this regard. at least from office speculative about sites here today with all the lights. this does all for me. pizza, scope of my colleague, nick aaron, will be taking over the top of the our se, youtube, all the states, top stories evening. thanks for your company. the hello. i'm manila chan. you're tuned into modus operandi. where is a racket? smedley, butler, one of the most decorated marines and to time middle of honor recipients said in

his favor speech, it breaks and billions of dollars, hand over fist for the few. that is. but what about the economics of peace? can piece actually proved to be more profitable. besides, obviously, the more sustainable tonight we'll talk with famed economics professor richard wolf about the economics of peace. all right, let's get into the m o. the james take what jr was paid a salary package of about $18100000.20. that's par for the course in his field of employment. his salary is roughly a $164.00 times the median salary of his employees. relative to the net sales of the company that he runs, that amount, totaling $66000000000.00 in 2022. jim salary is mild and pales in comparison.

james, take what junior is the chairman, president and ceo of lockheed martin the head honcho of one of the world leading defense contractors. his company specialty is building jets and bonds and things that destroy human life. and jim is just one of a handful of defense executives who some might call the merchants of death. so we know this industry rakes and big box. but more and more people are starting to do the math on how much money piece brings piece stability, cooperation. all that come by all stuff now has some data behind it. so to help us break down all the dollars and common sense, the piece brings prosperity to all. we'll talk to a meritus professor of economics at umass amherst co founder of democracy at work.

professor richard wolf. i should also add that the professor now has a radio show program called economic update, very fitting professor wolf. good to see you. thank you so much for joining us. so, we often talk about how much money the us spends on war. the d o d gets nearly a trillion dollars annually. we know this and we'll discuss that later. but what many people don't realize is that you can amik prosperity and peace are inextricably tied. so according to a 2020 to study by the world bank and the institute for economics and piece g, d, p growth is steadily higher in more peaceful countries. iceland took home the 2022 prize for the most peaceful country. but the researchers cautioned that this trend is not causal. rather, it shows that peace and economic progress are actually inter linked. can you help

explain that for us? a sure it's a truism among economists who have studied economic history that the number the g d p, the economic output of goods and services per year. and an economy added to growth over time on not by themselves, all that significant in terms of how a society evolves. many, many other things come into play, other than the sheer size of output. and so it isn't surprising at all that it might be that if you have an economy that's very large like united states, but that it has a disproportionate impact or commitment if you like to producing military goods and service is a big defense budget, as you quite likely put it that this may take away from innovation in lots of

industries. it may mean that you keep producing a narrow band of goods, airplanes, guns, bullets, and all of that. rather than that, attending to all kinds of other issues that kind of get less investment or less energy or less research and development focus. so in the end, you might regret that you spend as heavily as the united states does a military activity because you neglected others that had a bigger impact on the eventual rate of growth itself that has happened before in history. and that is happening now to and we could go through if you like, the mechanisms by which there's a norm is impact of spending on military can have very negative effect on your rate of growth and the development of your whole society. yeah,

sure. why don't you give us one example so us non economists can better understand . okay, so let me give you a stock example. here's a statistic to think about. the more people in the united states died during the cold and 19 pandemic of the last 3 or 4 years. then died in world war 12, and 3, in terms of american casualties in those wars. in other words, where we had to have had foresight, we did, and of course, but where we have 4 side, we could have spent a very small amount of the money we spent on military in all those wars. to develop a really 1st rate medical system in this country that could have

right away responded with a ventilator the masks and the gloves. i'm all of a well known app or rather as of a well developed a medical system for the mass of people. we didn't do that, but it would have been a small reduction in our defense, as we call it, for a much better benefit in terms of saving lives, saving illnesses, saving the long coven outlays that we're going to be having for years to come, that are all holding back our economic development, not pushing it forward. and that's the kind of where you're looking at the quality of the outlays of a society. if you put all that much in defense as people have along understood, that's where the old game that it's bought or, or guns that you invest in. well,

it could also be guns versus medical care, having a comprehensive health system everywhere in this country. we still don't have it, it's a travesty. we couldn't had it as small cut in the defense blaze. what is made that possible? and there are many other examples quite like that. according to the global piece index 2022 report. countries tend to deteriorate much faster than they improve. the report also revealed that the global average a piece dropped by point 03 percent in 2022. all right, that may sound tiny, just a fraction of a percent. but that actually marked the 11th drops in 14 years. is that reflected in what appears to be the state of the world economy right now, which you've explained to me just a few months ago that we are now beyond the inflation phase. and we're now instead

inflation, well here's how i would put it. i think i, i want to say yes, but i want to be clear about what i'm saying. yes to here. we are now in a situation where the most arresting statistic about how the world has developed over the last, let's say 20 years just to pick a round number that's statistic. the most impressive one for many of us is the level of any quality. in other words, to put it bluntly, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have not. and the gap between the rich, let's call it the top 5, present the top 10 present if you want and everybody else has gotten why they're. so we didn't have to do it that way, but that's the way global capitalism has evolved. both here in the united states

and pretty much everywhere else in the world. some more extreme than others. but the trend towards greater in quality seems to be built in to the capital a system. there's a famous french for economist named thomas to get a written, a very important books over the last few years. and he works it all out how that in a quality tendency is built into the system. why do i stress that? because if we know anything about the history of the world, the more on the equal societies are 2 things happen. the mass of people who get poor become upset, angry. they're about what's happening to them. at the other half of the other side, the rich by the very distance between themselves and the mass of people become more

anxious about their security. more aware that the majority of people don't have what they have and are looking enviously in their direction. so they want more police protection. they want more military protection. yeah, more suspicious. anxious, worried. well, this is a tender box. it just then takes a little match thrown by whoever might be inclined to do so, and these situations explode. and when they do, you have civil wars, you have bitterest drive, you have social divisions, you know what you have. you have what you see in the united states more each week, whether it's individual allies in shootings or it's more social is a political dial dogs, which seems to be a dialogue of the depths. and you have a tensions exploding around the world. i would argue that we are having less and

less peace and more and more violence and conflict because we are basing our sales on an economic system that produces the in the quality to live that leads to those unhappy outcomes coming up next for many outside of the united states, america is the land of peace and opportunity. but according to the latest piece index research, where the old usa rakes might actually shock you, we'll discuss it when we return with professor richard will sit tight. m o will be right back the, the russian states never as one of the most sense community best most i'll

send, send up the polls . question about this, even though we will then in the european union, the kremlin mission, the state on the russians cruising and supports the r t supposed neg, keeping our video agency roughly all the band on youtube tv services even closer to the welcome back to the m o, i am manila chant hollywood movies, paint the us as the land of milk and honey. and while it retains its 1st world

status, the level of peace, its citizens actually experience tells a different story. the professor richard wolf is back with us to discuss the image of the us versus the reality on the ground. so professor, be global piece, index ranked the us at number 129 on their list. we're darn near the bottom. only a few places like yemen and syria rank below the us on the piece index. now, this may not make a lot of sense to some of the international viewers who may think of the us as it's depicted in these movies. while we may not have bombs, you know, falling out of the sky, the us is an extremely violent society, which has a direct impact on our domestic economy. and if you look at where our tax dollars are going, $858000000000.00 just this year to the pentagon. that is up

a $100000000000.00 more than last year's budget. according to our national priorities dot org, they say the individual average american tax payer paid $929.00 towards pentagon contractors in 2021, which funds them for a whopping 18 days. but only a $171.00. dollars of our taxes went to pay through $12.00 education, then $62.00 going towards nukes, but only $7.00 towards anti homelessness programs. how do you read our economic investment so far? well, you know, the distribution of our tax dollars, like the distribution of the income, all of us get as human beings living here is affected by all kinds of issues. a series about the future worries a savings, put your kids through college, be able to afford a better home,

a better car. the way we spend on money is shaped by many, many things. and every capitalist enterprise has long ago understood this and realized that if it's going to succeed, it has to create a solid basis in the population of people who want to buy whatever the particular company is, what it's selling. and that's why, for example, we have an enormous industry called advertising, where a company pays to have its logo, its picture, its products stuck in our faces, wherever we turn all day every day to keep us connected to them. well, the defense industries are no different from the industry that makes ice cream or software programs. the people who produce guns and ships and tanks and planes,

and missiles, they need to keep it up by your, of what they sell glue to them. well, doesn't make much sense to put the missile out there on the tv screen. most people wouldn't know what to do and it's not part of their daily lives. and the buyer remembers the government. nobody else is allowed to even own most of those things. level owned by them. so the government has to be willing to let itself be approached by the defense contractors to promote their wares. but that looks a little dicey too. so long ago the defense producers understood they have to go behind the politician. they have to go to the mass of people to give them the feeling that you'd better support the government buying all the guns and missiles

and keeping all those troops in all those bases. in all those countries, you have to maintain a sense and there's no way of a beating around the bush year. you have to create a sense of being at risk of being in danger. for most of the 20th century, we were all told that the danger is socialism. when the soviet union collapsed in 1989, we had to find a new one. and we did terrorism and terrorist and we declared and then gloves, war on terrorism, with the same language that we had early you use to declare and blows war against socialism. and when terrorism faded away, well then we had this, the food and then russia, coming back for a 2nd run. and we have is using pain in china and the china thread. this is

a country that has felt the need to produce in itself a notion of at risk getting this from violent external forces. because whatever else you think about it, it is a wonderful way to keep the people willing to spend the money just as you laid it out on defense in a way that almost no other country does. let me remind everyone of a famous fit testing that's been true for at least half a century. the united states as a nation, spends more on military defense, then the 9 other countries that are in the top 10 combined. let me say it again as we, as a nation, spend more on the military then the next 9, the 2nd, the 3rd,

the 4th, all the way down, the 10th country in terms of the total outlay. and let me be clear, those countries added up, have many more people to defend. then there are american citizens, china alone, which is one of those 9 countries. indeed, china and russia are in the 9 below us. all the rest of those countries are allies of the united states. so the over whelming military dominance of the united states was offset the less that make americans say, well let's take it easy we, we have more than the other 9 combined. what are we so worried? oh no, no. we keep up the sense of endangerment all the time in a way no other society does. and we verified fund and keep going. the military enterprises of the country round university as costa for project

highlights how these work contractors in the us manage to keep their backing from lawmakers big contractors like lockheed martin raytheon based systems and a lot of others. they've read their sub contracting and supply chains all over the country, which they then out as creating jobs in that state. but as the brown university researchers discovered of the 20 states with economies most dependent on pentagon contracts or military manufacturing, 14 of the 20 states experienced poverty rates at on par with, or in many cases, even higher rates than the national average. so what does that do to the argument that war is actually good for the economy? it's a challenge to that argument. and as all of many other challenges to that argue that, let me expand a little bit on it. we know from studying the military expenditure,

that over the last 50 years, a very remarkable reality. every dollar spent on the military producers less in the way of new jobs then it did 5 years ago, even less than 10 years ago. in other words, the labor component of out blaise on defense has been shrinking and nobody should be much surprised. that's mainly because our military is more and more mechanized, more and more computerized more and more robust dies, so that you don't generate the kinds of job numbers. you did, baby in the 1950s, sixties, or seventies. you don't do that any more, which helps explain why on employment and so on, on. now more and more present in the high military spending. but there's a deeper problem here which is very easy, illogical, and comes down almost to

a question of economic literacy. if you ask the question of a worker or a vote or, or somebody being polled in the street, and you say, are you concerned that if the military budget is reduced, less money will come flowing into this area and they'll be fewer jot. yeah, of course the answer is yes. if, if the only thing that happens is that we cut the military budget, then yes, we will reduce the flow of money into an area, and that's not going to be good for its economy. but no one in their right mind has ever suggested that you cut the military budget and don't do anything else. the whole point of saving money on the military, spending less on military activity is to spend that money on

something else more valuable to the people of the country. it. what does that be in improving our schools? improving our hospitals, improving our fill in the blanks, dealing with our lax infrastructure as were slowly trying to do, perhaps relieving the young people of the, the debts that they have that hobble the future. the whole point would be to compare how many jobs would be lost if the military cut back versus how many jobs would be created with fee alternative investments that could be made with the money not spent on the military. that will be the only honest way to talk about this. unfortunately, the military corporations, the employers of the capital as well,

makes the guns that turn the plains, the missiles, they don't want this to happen. they don't want to lose the money flowing into their profits. in order to build up schools, hospitals, other things that will be money made by others, they are not interested in that. so they have been very interested in keeping the question absurdly narrow. do you want defense, department money coming into your district or not? and everybody else has added the predictable way, but you can't use that as a basis for arguing that the people want it. it's because you've posed the question in an unfair biased way to get the answer you're looking for. professor richard wall. thank you so much. always a pleasure to speak with you and you can hear more from the professor at democracy at work dot info. okay, there you have it,

but i think you already knew we don't need a ph. d. and anything to know that with piece comes prosperity. but corporate greed from the merchants of death are willing to give up their profits without a fight. so the question becomes how to fight for peace? peacefully. i'll let you ponder that one that's going to do it for this episode. and modus operandi of the show that dig deep into foreign policy. i'm your host window a chance. thank you for tuning it. we'll see you again next week to figure out the m. o the

the fee for us to use it. those are the initial setup with i'm not going to be on the meals. we do mama. dora slash pursuing the flash. yeah, because i moved enough. i just wonder you just because the symbol which is good for those who will need to be moved on to something you wanna put through this rule,

would you do by of the 7 civilians including 2 children, a wounded, this ukrainian voltage show residential areas in russia's so on, yes, we're public most go on demands to find a deal to deployed non strategic russian nuclear arms to better bruce to combat the growing flags from nice 100 south africa. presidents underlines the confidence software in p. i'm position of known as no. i met with the west is that because celebrates is historical success and fine and colonialism upon the.