_ time of margaret thatcher and ronald reagan a free market. _ reagan and others, i believe in a free market, the _ reagan and others, i believe in a free market, the fundamentals. reagan and others, i believe in a| free market, the fundamentals of capitalism. — free market, the fundamentals of capitalism. and _ free market, the fundamentals of capitalism, and individuals' - free market, the fundamentals of capitalism, and individuals' rights to make — capitalism, and individuals' rights to make their— capitalism, and individuals' rights to make their own _ capitalism, and individuals' rights to make their own way _ capitalism, and individuals' rights to make their own way in - capitalism, and individuals' rights to make their own way in life, - capitalism, and individuals' rights| to make their own way in life, and those _ to make their own way in life, and those are — to make their own way in life, and those are the _ to make their own way in life, and those are the fundamental- those are the fundamental conservative _ those ar

with politicians like ronald reagan, margaret thatcher, ronald reagan famously said the scariest words he's ever heard our firm i am from the government and i am here to help. this began a whole. in at least american culture i think for many europeans. when the state became the big anime is the enemy of economic growth. over regulated, and dis- incentivize creators of entrepreneurs and the like. the impacts -- we have to be fair about this. it was precisely this kind of neoliberalism taken to a global level that accounted for the quadrupling of global output early 1970s to the early 2003 2003created global trade systemt work the way the trade theory courses it should. if you have comparative advantage are able to trade you can expand markets very dramatically. and everybody gets rich. this is really what happened in that. the problem of course is what the trade theorists tended to under emphasize was not everybody in your society got rich as a result of this process. and in particular low skilled people living at rich societies were likely to lose jobs and opportunities to similarly sk

we society this period with politicians, ronald reagan margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, famously said, the scariest words he's ever were from the government. for many europeans culture historyy where the state became the enemy, overregulated disincentivized and the impact of this -- well, we have to be fair about this. neo liberalism taken to a global level, output between the 1970's and early 2000's that created trade system that worked that way it should. comparative advantage and you're able to trade, you can expand markets very dramatically and everybody gets rich. this is what happened in that period is what the trade theorists tended to under emphasize was not everybody in your society got rich as a result of this process. and in particular low skilled people living at rich societies were likely to lose jobs and opportunities to similarly skilled people in poor countries. in 2001. the other thing was the whole mantra about taking the state out of the economy was applied in the wrong places. particularly in the financial sector. the financial sector cannot regulate itself. market

we associate this period with politicians like ronald reagan, margaret thatcher. you know, ronald reagan famously said, you know, the scariest words he's ever heard were i'm from the government, and i'm here too help. this began a whole period in at least american culture but also a, i think, many europeans' cultural history where the state became the big enemy. the state was the enemy of economic growth. it overregulated. it disincentivized creators and entrepreneurs and the like. and i think that the impact of this kind of -- well, okay. we have to be fair about this. it was precisely this kind of neoliberalism taken to a global level that accounted for the atquadrupling of global output between, let's say, the early 1970s and the early 2000s because you created a global trade system which actually worked the way that your trade theory courses say it should, you know? if you have a paytive advantage and you're able to trade, you can expand markets very dramatically, and everybody gets rich. this is really what happened in that, in that period. the problem, of cou

the friendship between president ronald reagan and margaret thatcher has often been described as an ideologicalkindred spirit. they shared a philosophy of free markets, low taxes, limited government intervention, and strong defense. in 1982, thatcher and reagan agreed to replace the british navy's polaris missiles with american trident missiles. reagan became the second foreign leader to address both chambers parliament regan. supported the falklands war and approved the supply of the latest weapons to the british task force. thatcher later became the only western ally to retaliate by allowing american f-11 fighter jets to take off from australian air force bases to bomb libya in 1986, explaining it as a belated step to help reagan. britain plays a more important role in american strategy than any other european power. at critical moments in... at the end of the 80s, thatcher was very influential in changing reagan's ideas about trust in gorbachev, when he repeatedly declared his intention to end the cold war. before coming to geneva, i often said that we need to strengthen trust in our relatio

and not only do i admire margaret thatcher, i also admired ronald reagan in the states and winston churchillticising someone because of their nationality or race is very intellectually precarious. i have heard lots of speeches by margaret thatcher. she was brilliant. so, what's a problem? what is a problem? i'd like to move on to a different foreign policy topic now. you've positioned yourself as a very close ally to israel. do you agree with some of israel's other close allies, like the united states, that israel should show some restraint in its conflict at the moment in gaza? translation: we defend - and support israel's legitimate right to self—defence. and israel conducts its operations in keeping with international rules. so, if there are a set of international rules to act in the face of such event, and they are abiding by that, why should this be objected to? it's like if you are in a football game, and a player touches the ball with the hand — well, that's a penalty kick. would you say, "no, let's not do the penalty kick" because the team that is being given the penalty kick is very