so where is all this going let's get more from having i get us from do to lose that is mr esko welcome have you all we now in a trade war or is this just the run up to it definitely just the run up to it phil nobody wants a trade war it will dollars from says it's a good thing but certainly europe doesn't but we are in trade war rhetoric and that is extremely dangerous you just saw the reaction from their europe on the one hand doesn't want any type of counter measures actually because they know that tariffs are a bad thing and that's not the agenda that they actually are trying to push forward but they on the other hand cannot just let this happen without reacting so it will depend on what other countries do and on how the u.s. response to these countermeasures i would like to think that a person who can afford a harley davidson can also afford to pay a little bit more so these terrorists that you will impose should not be rather that significant for the economy but more symbolic but again this could escalate very quickly and it could lead to a trade war in the end ok so we're still i

esko it would be a strike south koreanon strategy. is even a bloody nose strike a big operation and it is an act of war. it is taking action not u.n.stent with the charter. and for the u.s. to be the first actor in this? have different conventional capability. rockets in south korea and japan, they could kill hundreds of thousands of people, including many americans who live in both of those countries. the retaliation would be terrible and there would be terrible long-term retaliation for that. the: if you go back to point that since harry truman, no president has met with the north korean leader, the other side of the coin could be, why not? why haven't we talked to kim jong-un? here ishat we have seen notthat the present -- is that the north koreans have taken positive steps to release tension on the pill into a other than opening up a channel to the south koreans. holds out the possibility of the talks over and over again and the world rushes in and they get something. food, aid or fuel which benefits them and then they returned to

details clinton was extremely in weighted in mckinsey's favor you know so all the risk was actually with esko other scum executives had their doubts as to why the huge public utility needed mckinsey's advice at all at certain of our executive committee meetings the other colleagues. really convinced that mckinsey did head in the venue because it was the standard of additional work that they were doing. in parliament mckinsey stood by its billion rand feet david fine a senior partner based in london flew to south africa to give evidence to the corruption inquiry and i'm comfortable with the size of the fee that eskom could have actually absorb this much change but i have got comfort from my colleagues at least what they've shown me and has been independently audited and that was of value but the all of a wyman report commissioned by eskom found that the contract unusual fees structure resulted in the charging more than double market rates and mckinsey itself in its internal presentation to eskom flagged exorbitant fees being leaked to media as another risk. had the contract not been cancelled

esko it would be a strike south koreanon strategy.s even a bloody nose strike a big operation and it is an act of war. it is taking action not u.n.stent with the charter. and for the u.s. to be the first actor in this? have different conventional capability. rockets in south korea and japan, they could kill hundreds of thousands of people, including many americans who live in both of those countries. the retaliation would be terrible and there would be terrible long-term retaliation for that. the: if you go back to point that since harry truman, no president has met with the north korean leader, the other side of the coin could be, why not? why haven't we talked to kim jong-un? here ishat we have seen notthat the present -- is that the north koreans have taken positive steps to release tension on the pill into a other than opening up a channel to the south koreans. holds out the possibility of the talks over and over again and the world rushes in and they get something. food, aid or fuel which benefits them and then they returned to t