Jeffrey Sachs: Trump’s Plan to Stop WWIII, CIA Coups, and Warning of the Next Financial Crisis
02:37:27 Share

For over fifty years, billington s legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter weather had to burlington for name, brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member. Sock up on coats, sweaters and accessory before the, so you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comparably warm up at your news, bringing location less than one mile away.

Fairlington deals brands, wow, the big tech companies, sensor are content. I hate to tell you that is still going on in twenty twenty four. But you know what, they can't sensor live events. That's why we are hitting the road on a fall tour for the entire month of september, coast to coast will be in cities across nine states, will be in bene x with russia brand or anaya california v ra swami springs with tosi gabbert.

So lake city with the gland back tosa, oklahoma with den bond geno, kansas city with Megan Kelly, which at all would surely curr no Walker with Larry elder rosenberg, texas with jessika ly, grand rapids with kid rock for SHE pencil vania with jade vance. Reading, pennsylvania with alex Jones or we're texas with rose and bar rainfall south Caroline with margey Taylor Green, sunrise 4 with john rich Jackson willford with Donald trump junior， a tickets at tucker carlson dot com. See there.

Welcome the sucker cross. And sure has become pretty cool that the mainstream media are dying. You can't die quickly enough.

There's a reason die. They lie, lied so much IT killed them. We talk across reading the most honest content, the most honest inter views we can without fear or favor. Here's the so what okay, what is happening in ukraine right now?

The coverage of the war has sort of fAllen off the front page in the night is partly because the election, I assume, but partly because they're probably developments that our media don't wanna talk about. But what is the state of IT right now? Would you say .

ukraine losing the war on the battlefield? That's the basic point. Uh, there has been A A bit of a diversion with the a an incursion of some brigades of ukraine and nato mercenaries so called into a fairly rural northern part of of russia that got a lot of attention.

But it's military meaningless. Uh, on the real battlefront, ukraine has been attract. Other words, they just don't have they don't have the people.

They don't have the weapon systems, they don't have the air defenses are and so russia is continuing. Russia has said all long, we can negotiate, we can stop, but we have issues and the west and the U. S.

And especially britain. No no, we're going to win. We're onna win. So I ukraine loses uh one to two thousand uh soldiers A A day dead and wounded a day, yeah a day. This is A A terrible, terrible on slot. Uh but nobody counts the dead in uh the key of leadership or in washington or in london or in warsaw. Uh and so this continues because no one wants to take any responsibility in the west for bringing a to a close.

So um but there is kind of a forcing action with the selection because if there is a change in administration, then presently there will be a change of course, in U S. Policy toward ukraine, I think I hope anyway, if from wins, so does that, that provides an incentive to the current administration to no, what kind of theories is that set up?

Well, there's nothing really that this a administration is going out is gonna. Do I don't think the president to probably use in any mental state to to lead anything at this point? Um so I think we're kind of on an autopilot, uh, which is very bad, a place to be in general in a dangerous world.

Ah there are no active discussions that we know of between the united states and russia, which is the a essence, so the scene a one of ending uh this war and ending IT on a responsible basis. This is a war between the united states and russia is not a war between ukraine and russia. This is the most basic point.

This is a war uh provoked by the us. With us intentions, with the U. S. Aims for nato enlargement. And IT would take a president that understands the basics of this and why this was so wrong headed uh and such a uh in absurd and the tragic idea that dates back thirty years now inside the the U. S.

Security state to bring a to a close but biden was not that person clearly biden I bought into this whole reckless approach thirty years ago already ah and it's been part of this tragic adventure uh uh that was somehow going to bring down russia but in the end is a strong ukraine. So yes, we need to we need a new president and we need a president that the honestly understands what this is all been about. And the one thing we've discussed and the one thing that absolutely true, the american people have never been told what this is all about. They've been told exactly the opposite.

And I don't think even now, there's an appreciation that nato forces, clearly U. S. Forces in some form, federal employees or federal contractors are fighting in russia, fighting russia.

Oh, this is an absolutely clear.

We are a war with, we have a hot war with russia right now.

We are in a hot war because it's not only our financing, our equipment, our aims, uh, our objectives are our strategy, our uh, advice, but it's our personnel on the ground. Uh, they are not necessarily in U. S.

uniform. Sometimes they're called mercenary. Sometimes they're just not identified, but they are calling the shots. And russia knows IT. And that by itself is is is A A big reason for alarm.

Well, especially because russia doesn't need to a lab, a need to poland, european, the united states to fight back. Russia could disable critical american infrastructure without, you know, being obvious about IT, like we're very vulnerable if fresh decides to strike at us.

Well, the horrible thing about this war from the start was that I could never conceivably have made sense for the united states to cross russia's red lines because either russia would win on the battlefield, as it's doing, all russia would lose on the battle field and then escalate. And the escalation could be in many forms like you say that could be uh attacks uh uh on uh U S.

Interest around the world uh through proxies uh or IT could be as the russians made clear, if they're losing a tactical nuclear weapons to start uh and with the uh escalation, always insight if russia was really profoundly dly threatened. So in the end, there was no path to success of a venture that started back in the clinton administration continued with bush, obama, trump and biden, which was to push nato to ukraine despite the clearest possible rightist biggest red line that russia could convey in peacetime, which is, don't do that. And russia's attitude towards nato and ukraine was exactly analogous to what our attitude would be to a russian military based on the real ground in mexico.

IT would be, don't try that yeah ah and this is obvious. It's not all IT has been expressed for more than thirty years, but now we know and more and more comes out and will come out. But clinton approved this plan in nineteen ninety four that nato would go east, including to ukraine.

A big burden ski laid out in ninety ninety seven a in an article which I always asserted was not britian s's idea, but his way of killing his colleagues. So in the civilian sector to say what was already decided, and that is that, yes, of course we will go all the way to ukraine. IT became public in two thousand eight when George w.

Was junior. I pushed at the bookers nato summit. The commitment to enlarge nato to IT became A A cause of war in february twenty fourteen when the U. S.

Conspired to overthrow a ukrainian president that was against nato enlargement, who wanted ukraine to be neutral because that president understood, if you are ukraine between eastern west, try to keep your head down and stay neutral ah and he understood that so we had overthrow him, uh, and the U. S. did.

And that's when the war started. So this was predictably a failure on every scenario. The particular scenario that is unfolding right now, for the moment, is a ironically assia, perhaps the safer one.

H, which is that russia is winning on the battle field. Yes, because of russia were losing on the battle field, we would be seeing escalation to nuclear war. And everyone in ponder tory that says, oh, don't worry about that.

That's a bluff. I profoundly resent the ignorance of those people generally. When people are ignorant, I don't resented, uh, I try to help. But I resent, yeah, I resent the ignorance when IT in dangerous my grandchildren, that and they endanger my grandchildren by saying, don't worry about nuclear war ah that's a bluff and that I don't want to hear from anybody because anyone that says that understands nothing about the reality of the people who say .

that I feel of exactly the same way. And i'm outraged by IT and but also distressed by IT because of what he says about our leadership class. But I noticed a lot of people who say that our former U.

S. Military officers working in something tank, you know, had A I, P, S, S, whatever all this they're paid to say IT, their paid to say IT. But you also wonder where the officer class otherwise. People who in the pennon has a realistic tic assessment of risk in a deep concern for the future of the united states. Where are those people?

There no doubt are some, but it's always A A close call because we've known throughout uh, the nuclear era there have been hot heads, irrational people, uh, vulture people who have called for nuclear war. We have come extraordinary close to nuclear war. And we've had people in the U. S. Military all along a who called for first strikes on various occasions against the soviet union, which uh in uh any uh a plausible scenario could well have ended the world uh and those people were in positions of authority uh the the case that i've studied the most closely in in my life is the cuban missile crisis.

I wrote a book about the aftermath of the cuban missile crisis and Kennedy es diplomacy in one hundred and sixty three to pull back from the brink but in the cuban missile crisis of almost everyone of president Kennedy's advisers said, strike uh, and there is very good reason to believe that that would have had to A A full scale nuclear reward that would have ended civilization Kennedy was, in that case, almost the soul restraint within the senior U. S. leadership.

So we came extraordinary close. And there have been other occasions where we have come extraordinary ily closed. We have I don't know if we discussed this before, but it's one of my go to a emblems for trying to help people understand the situation that the atomic scientists so who were uh dead worried about this from the beginning of the atomic gage nineteen and forty five a established this emblematic domed clock in nineteen forty seven in the bolton of atomic scientists.

And what this is is a an expert view of how close or how far we are from nuclear war. We are the closest ever to nuclear mag today during the entire period since nineteen forty seven. According to this dom day clock, the doom s day clock started a few minutes from midnight.

Midnight, meaning domesday, meaning arma again, and IT went father away from midnight or closer to midnight, depending on how the cold war was unfollowed, whether we were at the height of tensions or during a period of some, I pull back from the tensions. Well, so IT to say, uh, that at the end of the cold war one, because, and maybe IT never really ended, because the U. S.

Did never really changed its attitudes IT towards russia but h at the end of the soviet union in december ninety ninety one, in the beginning nineteen ninety two, and with the a arrival of the clink administration, the atomic scientists put the clock at seventeen minutes from midnight that's the fireplace that IT has ever been since the beginning of the the nuclear arms age. Every president since then has brought us closer to ARM again. I clinton, I bush, obama, trump, biden, everyone.

I inherit a clock that day. then. Pushed, I think, through U. S. Provocations and policies, all these wars of choice, all these invasions of the middle, is the all this nato enlargement.

All of the disdain for anything russia or china says, how dare they even express an opinion, were the only ones that can have an opinion. Uh, the disdain for iran, evil. Uh, this view has LED to an aggressiveness and hubris that has pushed us closer and closer to the brink.

Because the whole attitude of the U. S. Since nineteen ninety two was, we don't have to listen to anybody.

We don't have to listen to russia. Russia's a gas station with nuclear weapons was, of course, the very unclear phrase. But the idea was, yeah, humility and humility. Them, they only have six thousand nuclear warheads. What could possibly go wrong? Uh, of course, the way we treat china, the casual talk in washington these days about, yeah the likely war with china, you have people in service generals talking about, yeah, there could be a war with china the next two or three years are these people mad out of?

Are they out their minds? Do they have any idea what they're doing? But typically, and and the theory of our system is we have a president civilian who is responsible for keeping our country safe, not pushing us to the brink.

But of course, we don't have such a president right now. Even when he was, he wasn't keeping us from the brink. He was making declarations that for god, say that man must go speaking of the president of russia as if that's the american choice.

Well, that's not something one should say about even an adversary, but a counterpart that happens to be the the second nuclear superpower. But that's how we have acted. And by walking off soon after his meeting with the chinese president, cheering ping and then murder oring, I think I was, as usual, at some kind of donor gather or no, is a dictator.

This the idea of the arrogance and the disdain, uh, and the a silliness, but the attempt to humility， the counterparts. That's why in this doom stayed clock we are now ninety seconds timide. And from all that I see and know, I just got back from a an extended trip through asia and europe and talk to many leaders along the way.

There is worry everywhere. Uh, there is absolute worry everywhere. Every leader I spoke to when there was a number of them, what is happening with your country? Are we being pushed toward? Why do we have to choose between having trade with china, having trade with the united states, or having trade with russia, wire sanctions on russia, flying to us and breaking our economy?

I spoke to leaders all over asia about these issues, and the answer is, there is no good answer to this, and there is no way to say to them. I don't worry. Everything's under control because it's .

not most of us. Well, actually all of us go through a daily lives using all sorts of quote, free technology without paying attention to why it's, quote, free, who's paying for this and how think about IT for me. Think about your free email account, the free messenger system used to chat with your friends, the free either weather APP or game APP.

You open up and never think about. It's all free, but is IT? No, it's not free. These companies are developing expensive production is giving him due because they love you. You're doing IT because their programs take all your information.

They who for up your data, private personal data to data brokers and the government and all of those people who are not your friends are very interested in manipulating you and your personal political and financial decisions. It's scary as hell, and it's happening out in the open without anybody saying anything about IT. This is a huge problem.

And we've been talking about this problem to our friend eric prince, for a year. Someone need to fix this. And he his partners have and now wear partners with them.

And their company is called unplug. It's not a software company, is a hardware company. Actually make a phone.

The phone is called unplug. And it's more than that. The purpose of the phone is to protect you from having your life stolen. Your data stolen is designed for a privacy first perspective. It's got an Operating system that they made us called messenger or other apps that help you take charge of your personal data and prevent you from getting passed around to data brokers and government agencies that will use IT to manipulate you, unplug game minutes to its customers.

They will promise you, and the meaning that your data are not being sold or monetized or shared with anyone from basics like its custom libert s Operating system, which they wrote, which is designed from the very first state to keep your personal data on your device. IT also has believed IT on a true on off switch, the shots of the power actually disconnect your battery and ensure that your microphone and your camera are turned off completely when you want them to be so that are spying on you and say, your bedroom, which your iphone is. That's a fact.

So IT is a great way, one of the few ways to actually protect yourself from big tech and big government to reclaim your personal privacy. Without privacy, there is no freedom. The unplug, phoning get a twenty five other discount when you use the code tucker at the checked, so go to unplug dot com slash tucker to get yours today, highly recommended.

Hills dell college offers many great free online courses, including a recent one on marxism, socialism and communism. Today, marxism goes by different names to make itself seem less dangerous. Names like critical race theory, gender theory and decontamination. No matter the names this online core shows, it's the same marxism that works to destroy private, and that will lead to famines, show trials and gulags. Start learning online for free at tucker for hills dale dot com that's talker F O R hildale dot com.

On junior here guys, are you receiving letters from the IOS claiming you go back taxes as penalties and interest fees piled up? The IOS gives, you know, clear path to resolution. Don't speak to them on your own.

They are not your friends to reach a team of license tax professionals that gna help you reduce, settle and resolve your tax matters, go to T N U S. A dot com and check out, solve your tax problems today one hundred seven eight zero eight eight eight eight or visit n USA. com. That's one eight hundred, seven, eight, zero eight, eight, eight, eight at a public final IT just feels like you're standing there too long.

We used to seem like a pressure hose filling a bucket. Now it's more like a trickle. You notice a weaker flow and urge to urinate more often. Sleep is interpreted by multiple trips to the bathroom. And IT is steadily gotten worse.

You didn't think about going to a doctor for IT. They may call IT in large prostate or bp. No one talks about this, are supposed to suck IT up, right? That's what we do, but we know we need to do something, or life is gonna be different.

But what can you do about in large prostate? The good news, there is a minimally invasive procedure covered by most insurance called the year of stem men and forty five and older. Go to help B, P, H now dot com to find a year live system trained doctor near you.

Most common side of extra temporary can include include c. Inability of infection may lead to a serious outcome and may require an invention. The eolists system may be an alternative to medications or invasive surgery. Go to help B, P, H, now dot com to learn more and find a year live system train doctor near you.

And there's no, I don't think, widespread understanding of this in the united states, how quickly things around the world are changing, the extent to which the us. Government is driving these changes and the overwhelming sense from outside amErica that amErica is in decline because of these decisions, like we're hurting ourselves in addition to a lot of other people. But here IT seems like everybody in charge wants to work with iran. And I just know from experience watching the iraq invasion, which I never thought was gonna happen, watching the current or with russia, which I never thought was gona happen, that when everyone in dc starts saying, hey, let's have a war with somebody, you're probably going to have a war with that person. Are we gna have a war with iran?

Israel just wants that were so much, uh, and the israel lob is very powerful ah so we could but i've never seen such recklessness as the this israeli government to reckless, extremist, provocative, uh assassinating uh, counterparts the left and right and of course in the most provocative ways uh, assassinating the hamas political negotiator in taha on the occasion of the inauguration of a the new iranian president you know this is aiming for pulling the U. S. Into a broader war what I said or we're .

going have a world with an and you immediately said we're being pushed by another country and is there any reason for the united states acting solely in its own interest worth?

Of course not. And IT would be devastating because iran has allies, including russia. So a war with iran could easily become world war three. World war three, for everyone to understand, could easily become a nuclear war. A nuclear war, you know, whatever you're gonna say do with your children or your grandchildren say that now because the world one, uh, in a very quick moment, if we fall into that.

I should just passing, say, you read my morning over breakfast today describing describing at length the new any Jacobs son book on nuclear war. I hope you will not.

I won't do IT for everybody expect that is a remarkable book. It's chilling. Uh, I listen to IT because I go for a long walk. So I listen to IT as an audio book with the the author and Jacobs and narrow IT in a very clipped, precise way, but he describes in meticulous, rigorous technical language based on a voluminous research how the world could come to an end in a few minutes uh, and it's a very serious book and it's completely chilling.

It's called .

nuclear war nuclear war a scenario by any jake .

yeah I just ordered IT as though I don't want to read IT but myself i'm sorry to interpret I just want to throw that the author is sound important um but you don't think if the united states were acting in its own interest, that worth run would even be on the table.

If the us. Were acting in our own interest, we would not even have an argument with russia right now. We would not have an argument with china right now. We would not have an argument with iran right now. We'd actually be trading, having peaceful relations are, and by the way, not to mention saving some hundreds of billions of dollars a year so that we could fix our roads and our pot holes in our broken elevators and escalators and our departed, the a passenger rail travel in this country that I keep having to get off of trains that are broken down because i'm track breaks down all the time that seems or maybe only when i'm writing IT. But in any event, yeah, we could actually do something for our country if we were less obsessed about or less drawn into these conflicts, which are all solvable on a political level without war.

And but we don't want to do politics so we are the united states or we are the israel lobby uh or we have a plan that goes back to thousand nine hundred ninety four to expand nato, completely contrary to what we promised the soviet union and russia. Uh, back in ninety, ninety and ninety two, we cheated. We live, but we're gona do IT.

So we're in a very funny way yeah in this country, obviously a major, major chAllenges at home of just basic living conditions and frame cure and keeping up with things yeah of course, we've we've got some dazzling technology and some very rich people, but we've got a lot of people in this country that are not living that way. No, and we are not attending any of IT because the most important thing for us is picking fights or being drawn into other people's fights. And we, israel, trying to draw us into a broader war in the middle, is that is completely, totally, one hundred percent against american interest.

Now I would say that I give very little credit to this administration for anything, but I would say they give signs that they don't want to be pulled into a war with the run. And they know that israel is trying to provoke that and they're torn because the israel abby is really powerful uh and it's clear the games that israeli is playing in provoking uh iran and has belonged in northern lebanon and essentially at the core um being unwilling to talk about any political settlement that gives the past inie people of state and surprise ts as the way to end all of this conflict and instead what israel wanes so that the U. S.

Of you know protects their most extremist positions. Uh and um this is of course not in the U. S.

Interest is not in the U. S. Interest to be in a war with russia. Why should we be in a war with russia? Russia told us absolute, and by russia mean president putin. And before him, president elson and I was an advice, or the president, Ellen, the russian president told us absolutely clearly, we can CoOperate.

We can have Normal relations, but don't crowd us with your military bases on our border, something the united states leaders should understand at the exact meaning of, because we set that position two hundred one years ago in the mono dog. yes. And we have repeatedly, basically every year since, which is, don't crowd us with your military in our neighborhood.

That's all. That's all russians said. We absolutely refused to listen to this.

What did the chinese say? Something very, very simple. The chinese say, we are one. China, you, the western countries LED by britain in the nineteen century.

And then I, with the all of the imperial powers, including japan, at the end of the sixth century and in the twenty century, try to dismember us. China, you tried to pull us the pieces. You conquer territory. You invaded us many times.

In fact, to my mind, the most cynical war of modern history was britain's invasion of china in eighteen thirty nine called the first opium war, which was to force china to accept british opium and trade in the chinese new IT. I want to become opium ads. And brian said, the hell this is free trade is our opium if you know, the colombian cartel would invade us and and free trade principles so in any event, I, the chinese are saying one thing you don't don't dismantle us.

okay? We went through that. We went through one hundred fifty years of that.

So taiwan, that's part to china. You said at united states, that's the basis of our diplomatic relations. Stop provoking.

That's all. We can have perfectly Normal relations, but don't play the game of trying to break us apart. But we have forces in the U.

S. That seem compelled to make trouble IT literally, that we must provoke. We must overthrow russia. We must divide russia. We must dismember china. We must not allow other countries just to get on with things that all the other countries are saying.

When I say these things, that sounds so weird, by the way, to americans who are reading the new york times, are reading the washington post or reading the world journal, because mr. Sex, china's enemy, they're doing all these terrible things. Russia there, the imperial ba 88， because we're fed a bunch of lines that are complete nonsense.

But if you say that again, and say IT again and say that again, and the U. S. Is, you know, Better than anybody, U, S, G, trying to control the narrative, trying to control what we hear, trying to control of what social media can say, well, the the simplest truth become completely clouded.

So the point is, you ask me, does the U. S. Have an interest in war with the run?

Of course not. Does the us. Have an interest in war with russia?

Of course not. Does the U. S. Have an interest in war with china? God forbid. Is my only answer really be probably the end of the world.

And I think there's a wide read recognition of that, that we can win a work in trying. Obviously, I think most people know that, that we're not winning our current war against russia. Almost people understand that. But I think in the public mind of discussing but that iran seems very far away in primitive.

And maybe there's a country we can kind of push around and maybe we could have some sort of limited engagement with iran and kill the leadership and then the freedom fighters take over and becomes a democracy again. I think people may believe that. What would you say to them or to our policymakers who are making that case?

Let me start by saying that iran or pursue uh to use as a classical name, is one of the the greatest uh and ancient civilizations on the planet uh and IT is an amazing civilization and an amazing place in a highly sophisticated country, about a hundred million people and a highly technologically sophisticated place, including a military sophisticated place and we have known that and one of the concerns a about iran is that with all that technical sophistication, they felt threatened by the united states and threatened by other neighbors as well and to have have had a program to develop nuclear weapons of their own and that seems no doubt to be true and what the iranians said is if we had the right uh, geopolitical context, where you're not threatening us, where you're not trying to crush us, where you're not trying to overthrow our regime, we will end that nuclear program.

But if you're trying to overthrow us and threatening us and damming us in every possible way, I how can we deal with you? And that LED to a number of years of negotiation and the negotiations culminated uh during the obama, last years of his government in a treaty that was a called the J C P O A， the joint comprehensive uh agreement to uh in which iran would stop its nuclear arms development and we would end the sanctions are on iran and Normalize relations. Well, our new con world, and especially the israel abby could not accept that uh because iran is the um is is the pure enemy from israel's point of view and so the israeli, to my mind, in a kind of mad, self defeating, devastatingly wrong headed approach, convinced the trumpet administration uh and bolton was hair, of course, are doing his usual uh, job of messing things up, which he's done all his career.

I to break disagreement. And a, the U. S. Cap sanctions pulled out of the agreement with the run.

And where are we today? Well, where we are today is the it's commonly said and reported that iran is now either already with the nuclear weapons or with the nuclear weapons within region, days or weeks because IT has been enhancing, uh, h its uranium and IT could make a nuclear weapon, uh, if I choose us to do so. Another words, pulling out of diplomacy, solve nothing.

IT didn't end any threat. IT didn't couple any regime IT only pushed around to continue the course that IT was on and to put, uh, iron a and the us. On this collision course.

Now, uh, israel is trying to provoke an outright war on this basis. The idea that diplomacy, that Normal relations, that an agreement that actually was reached and backed by the U. N.

And back by all the major powers, including the united states and europe and russia and china and the united ation, that maybe diplomacy could solve something uh that uh of course is utterly rejected by uh, israel and the idea is real lobby. And a what B, B is trying to do, what katya, who is trying to do is to pull the U. S. Into a full fledge war to destroy a run.

But if he wants to war with run, just go have your war to run. Why do we have to be involved? What do we have to do with this? I don't understand.

If israel were to have a war with iran, iran could, uh, and would I cause grievous a damage to israel? And israel a might in the end, by the way, I use its nuclear weapons.

And why not? I mean, look, people face problems like this, not just geopolitically, on the global stage, but in their daily lives, like, I would like this, but they will restrain somewhat. I can do because of things I can. L, I, I maybe I hate my neighbors, but you have to, these are the things you do with in life, like you figure that out.

If you don't like your neighbor, you think your neighbor is a little bit dangerous to provoke him everyday and try to humility them and and do whatever you can to damage their interest, maybe invade their lawn, maybe destroy their shed. I don't think so.

Yeah and it's like I don't .

I don't think so.

That's not good for you or for anyone else. I just think is I certainly want israel or any other country to be destroyed or have award, but i'm still baffled by why we have to be in. Like what in the world do we have to do with this?

For the united states, for america? On the other side of the planet, we don't have any connection to a run. Why would we even consider fighting around? This is just nuts.

We would consider IT because iran is are important for according to the israeli lobby, uh, and according to a propaganda that of course went back to the hostage taking crisis of nineteen and seventy nine. And are these the revolution in iran? And like so many things in our world, uh, you can tell a narrative as you like, as long as you hide every bit of real history.

So iran was not an enemy of the united states in some natural and applicable way. But in nineteen and fifty three a, when a democratically elected and popular and very decent and clever leader of around thought that maybe around should get some more benefit from oil that britain was willfully extracting in imperial terms. It's, well, iranian oil.

Sorry, yes, the well a as the old joke said, how did our oil get under their sand? Uh, you know, this was, uh, this, of course, is there oil? But the vision of imperial powers was, we can go where we want, when we want, and it's really our oil.

We need oil. Thank you very much. That was the british view. The british empire was A, A, A, A nice little fair enterprise. So the british empire was A, A completely extractive empire.

Well, suffice ed IT to say, and the point I was gonna make, without diverting us so much as that in one hundred and fifty three, britain and the U. S. Teamed up to go through most of his democratic government.

We love democracy. So let's put in a play stake, which is exactly what we did. So we over through the democracy o, we put in a month which became a police state, and iranians lived under that and they didn't like IT. Uh and in nineteen and seventy nine as a the shot of an that we installed through a cool A C I A uh, M I six cool, uh, was the dying of cancer.

Uh, the iranian said, okay, we want our country back and a that, of course, was the occasion at the time for the hostage taking of our diplomats because it's log story but the Carter had taken the shot in who was the mortal enemy of a of a so many people in iran after decades of is pleased state. Well, all of these issues have history and ways to resolve them. And by the nineteen nineties or by the early two thousands head, we behaved like Normal adult people.

Uh, well, maybe not Normal, but the p seeking people. This could all have been long ago, a past history, but what did the united states do at the united states? So after the release of the hostages armed iraq to attack iran, uh, and to kill hundreds of thousands of iranians during the nineteen eighties, including with chemical weapons, that was our ally. One should recall sadam who saying our all, we executed, of course, who we later executed what we do for most. So this is a .

stressful time meal. The kids going back to school vacations over at the height of the presidential election season. There's a lot going on.

You need a good nigh sleep, but it's never been harder to get IT. So we're time of this. In the office other day and a couple people who work here were raving about a product called eat sleep. And I wanted to know more about IT IT. Turns out that temperature has a lot to do with whether or not you sleep comfortable ly and wake up feeling rested like you actually slept.

Now the makers have a sleep pot figured out that if you make a climate controlled mattress cover, you can add you are existing, but you don't have to buy a new bed, just the cover that IT changes everything. You get far a fewer problems with falling a sleep and staying and sleep until you feel rested the next a day. Sleep actually has its desired effect.

The assy pod can be used to warm up or cool off your bed, and that matters because temperatures change seasonally. We have climate change in this country. It's called winter. And so you can feel comfortable all night long and even adjust to different preferences on either side of the bed, which might be helpful in your relationships.

If you have one of those relationships where the different partners want different temperature, and those are pretty common, the IT sleep podd has been studied, has been proven to improve people sleep and health. Mark docker gs and would ean on muss on the outside. Many others use this product, including people here, so try IT go to eight sleep dog com slash talker, use the code tucker to get three hundred and fifty box off the pod for ultra recommended.

For over fifty years, billingtons legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter weather, had to burlington for name, brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member. Sock up on coat sweaters and accessories before the cold hits, so you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comfortably. Warm up at your news. Vlingo location, less than one mile away fillings, ton deals friends, wow.

Ray mental here for I guess my hundreds mid commercial. No, no.

no, no, no, no, no. Honestly, when I started this, so I only have to do like four of these. It's unlimited to premium wireless st for fifteen dollars.

How are there still people paying two or three times that much? So I shouldn't be victim blaming here. Give me a try. And mid mobile dot com slash safe whenever you're ready. Forty five dollars up from .

payment equivalent to fifteen dollars per month. New customers on first three month plan only. Taxes in these extra speeds lower about forty gives details.

Hey, chicago, say hello to small business health for maple. That's right. We're here to make starting and running your business simpler.

From helping you choose the right devices to setting them up hassle free, we can help you build your business in no time. Speak to a business expert and get the help you need. And no cost whatsoever at apple were open for your small business. Go to apple accounts like small lists, or visit an apple store to learn more.

But the point is we don't seek peace and especially, uh, after nineteen ninety one, when we got the idea that not only do we not see peace with anybody, no one can touch us, the most powerful country, we can do anything we want or the world sole superpower, or the index ensor nation. We are the greatest classis in the history of the world, including the roman empire.

Every one of those things were said by the anal, a grown ups who don't act like grown ups. But the idea is we can do anything we want. So around your enemy access of the evil, uh, we we don't have to negotiate with anybody over anything. You know. One one of the points that's very interesting about the ukraine war is a principle that we have is stated.

It's a article ten of the nato charter, uh, that we are so proud of, which is that russia has no say in any decisions we want to make about enlarging nato up to russia's borders that this is not a matter of any legitimate interest of russia. That's explicit. H that's called our open door policy, which is we don't accept, even on principal, the idea that russia has any say or any interest in whether ukraine I hosts U.

S. Military bases and U. S. Missile systems. Putin was told by blinking, according to uh, very knowledgeable sources in january twenty twenty two that the U.

S. Reserves the right to put missiles in ukraine next door putin said up but I thought president byan said the U. S.

Wanna do that and apparently I wasn't in that conversation but apparently the response of secretary blinking was, no, no, no, we reserve the right to do what we want. Those are our systems. This is not something you have to say about, uh, so this is our approach to the world, which is linked.

So you just real to be interesting. IT sounds like blinkin running the administration or its foreign policy.

Well, who knows who who who tells blinkin want to do?

Do you think, who do you think lls them? What to do?

I think that it's important. Understand this. A big machine. It's a, you know, trillion dollar plus machine.

And the military industrial system of the united states IT gets set in course, uh, in a pretty deep way. Uh, there is a strategy. The strategy is not change, changed when a new president comes to off.

They may think they have some say about that, but they have not very much say the strategy of nature. Enlargement, as I said, goes back literally to and ninety four. So this has been a thirty year program.

It's very deeply in trained. And president putin has A A, A nice line that I read recently in a forthcoming book, uh, where he talks about the fact that he's talk to U. S. president. He said that in his interview with you, which is in the morning they say one thing and then in the afternoon they explained you, well, it's the opposite because someone has has come to them to explain now what .

doesn't work .

that way shows yeah in this in in this forthcoming a wonderful book by a historian who tracks this whole period. He he quotes puta saying that, you know, the president will say something, but then the men in the dark suits and blue ties show up, and they explained to the president how IT really is. Uh, and I think that this is basically correct, which is there is a permanent state.

IT is a permanent security state. IT is a big business. Remember, we have seven hundred fifty overseas military bases. We have six thousand nuclear warheads. We have a trillion dollar a military budget on the surface, not to mention other kinds of spending that aren't a directly in that budget.

This is a big, big machine, and this machine is out explicit according to every doctor that is published also, not just private, but published, is out for what was already defined by the defense department decades ago as full spectrum dominance in every part of the world. Full spectrum dominance is an interesting term, but that means the united states will be the dominant power of every region of the world. It's a kind of crazy idea I call IT completely delusions, in fact, because as you travel and I travel, we see, we see the world, and in a little bit more cemetery way.

Uh, yes, the U. S. Powerful country. But it's four point one percent of the world population.

There is another ninety five point nine percent of the world population. They don't quite see themselves as being run by us in every region of the world. And for the U. S. To say we have full spectrum dominance in central asia h or on russia's border, or in A I over a other nuclear powers, or in east asia, where china hazard industrial base twice the size of the united states and a population four times the size of the united states, and hundreds of nuclear weapons and their own interest, and a civilization that is ten times longer IT live in the united states, that we dominate china. Well, that just seems like a recipe for non stop war and the nuclear age, a recipe for at some moment at whether it's ninety seconds or whenever IT is from now, trigger ing the absolutely catastrophic on image able. And because we provoke, we don't talk, we provoke and this is the most important thing that any president needs to understand .

so if um and I do think trump understands IT.

the j events understands and yes, and this is extremely important because we have not even had candidates talking this way from the major parties.

So let's say trump wins is allowed to when I you know, to be too cynical about our system, which everyone wants to believe in, you know, I be pretty tough to overcome what you've just described for anybody to overcome that. But what's say trump mp advance, when? what? What are the first things they should do to change the trajectory away from self defeating, away from the self harm that are committing against country .

and tour in .

tour a series of policies and helping the states and restore .

sanity to the world? Like, what do you need to do? You know, both trump and events are saying about ukraine is exactly right, and it's completely spot on, and it's elderly, urgent that IT be heard and understood, and that is, there is no basis for this war.

And that IT was provoked deliberately, accidentally on a bluff, whatever, by the U. S, pushing this nato business up to russia's border in a way we would never accept in our own hemisphere. Es, so they both get this exactly, and that's great.

And they understand this is a completely losing proposition. And that's correct also, because if russia wins, it's a losing proposition of russia loses its even a bigger losing proposition by the risk of nuclear war so they get that very much. And trump is absolutely right also that this war could end in a day that's not even a, that's not even a rhetorical gloss.

This war will end the moment A U. S. President picks up the phone or uses my zoom account, as far as i'm concerned, connects with president putin, says, you know that nato enlargement now was a bad idea.

I don't know how that got started. I know when i'm for thirty years, but that's the end of the war. The fighting will stop that moment there.

There will be things to resolve, but that will be the end of the war because that's the whole premise of this war. And to this moment, the current administration is saying ukraine will be part of nato, so they are guarantee that the war will go on. So ukraine, they got a nail down. What I would want to say.

How do you do that? Even if your president, you said a minute ago, presidents arrive in office with the fancy that they're in charge.

but they are not these bus. The president can be in charge. I they are. They will sit down.

And it's like we we now see I think I haven't read the the new point extra book, which was just reviewed, which dumps on and trump in and the button book, which I did read, parts of which I found revolting. Part part of what these AIDS do is, uh, they ve try to trick the president. They lie to the president.

They try to continue an aggressive agenda. So IT takes smart for president to be able to pull this off. IT, absolutely. Uh, but the president actually has the power to do IT.

But they have to be really tough and really resolute, and they have to know that they're gonna hear a lot about ship from a lot of people from dark suits in blue with black eyes. They will hear a lot bullshit because this is a deeply entrained process, yes. And so that I can be done ah it's not impossible.

And what makes IT more likely right now is that the I think we're at the end of a thirty year newton cycle because remember, this started thirty years ago. I saw the beginning of IT. I didn't understand that at the time I was adviser to president elson, I saw the U.

S. Was not being CoOperate. But I couldn't understand why here had a president that wanted democracy in russia.

He wanted Normal relations and the united states was saying there with you basically, uh, on many different things and I didn't get IT then but now I understand, of course, much Better that this was the beginning of thirty years of we will corner you, we will the future, we may dismember you, uh, but we will make sure you're a fifth rate country uh, okay. That thirty years, I believe, has now been exposed as a terrible failure. So no one could call U.

S. Foreign policy over the past thirty years as a success in any way every war we thought has been a disaster. Afghanistan, iraq, syria, libya, ukraine.

These are all wars of choice that we decided that we went in and we've spent, depending on the count, five trillion dollars, seven trillion dollars. We ran up our debt, we busted the economy. We ignored all of our infrastructure are domestic issues for this remarkably delusional idea that we would run the world.

So if trump vans come in, or wherever comes in, they have one advantage, which was no one could call the current course successful. And there are probably people in the deep state, not everybody by any means who know, my god, okay, we've done enough, no more perpetual or we Better do something different. So the president has the uh certainly the constitutional authority and if there a smart leader, the capacity to push and they're coming in at a moment where maybe the doors a bit a jar to a change of direction by no means automatic.

It's not like the washington establishment is sitting up and saying, oh, we get IT no, but they can't be sitting there are saying it's all working great. So I think that there is that recognition. But the main thing I would say to president trump and jd advanced, they win, whoever is president is that lesson that you understand about to ukraine is actually the same with china.

That's even a more hard to accept and swallow idea in washington right now. Because in washington, one idea, I think even j. Evans says IT, but I really disagree, and I want him to use the same reasoning to understand IT, is we have no intro.

C fight with china. IT ain't true. We have to compete with china economically.

We have to compete with china technologically. Of course, we have to trade with china also. We should go visit china, by the way, a wonderful place.

But we have no intrinsic fight with china. And it's the same logic that they have understood this, the ukraine and russia, we have no intrinsic fight with russia. We have no intrinsic fight with china.

So that's the main thing I want understood, which is all of these tobacco are based on the idea that we have to run everyone else's business. We have to determine who's in power. We can even change their borders if we want.

We can overthrow their governments. That whole approach has been a disaster for us, a multitrillion dollar, a millions of lives lost worldwide disaster of U. S.

Foreign policy. And we don't need for our security. Seven hundred fifty overseas military bases.

We don't need that their expensive. We need to fix our roads for god sake. H, we need to make our country work properly. Because you and I see when we go abroad, the infrastructure abroad Sparkles compared to what we live.

say. And it's not if I have travelled by her life, as I know you have. And you know, you used to thinking of the developing world .

and then coming back .

to the kind of rea pool, Kennedy, I X R, boston, logan from abroad. And the first thing you notice is that it's dirtier and more chaotic. It's less attentive to the individual, is harsher than the developing country you're flying in from.

And it's so heartbreakers aking. You can believe if people traveled more, we have a revolution in this country. If they saw that turkey is nice for the united states.

What I had a wonderful, did you feel that I had a wonderful conversation with the an italian and political leader who I was in northern italy, in bozano beautiful city in the house, and I was saying how Sparkling all the infrastructures and he he kind of side and said, yes, it's very nice, but IT isn't oslo and copenhagen there is even more but then he said, I was really surprised, but I slow copenhagen. You go to china right now. They are leaving those places behind and and that's what we see, which is absolutely true.

What's you so depressing, it's so awful. And it's what's awful about IT is that most people don't understand that they don't know how. Thirdly, they've been betrayed by their leaders and by the advisers to their leaders, you know, the bill Christal of the world, who really just don't care at all, but the adult, not even stone after, thought to them, it's all about something very different. And they've been screwed like all the money went overseas. All the energy is .

focused abroad, maybe in their little communities, wherever they live. Things are nice enough. But for the rest of america, what what are we doing? Why are we pouring unbelievable amounts of money and danger and lives into all of these conflicts? And so my main message to, you know, I because I I really think h trump p advance get IT on ukraine completely.

But what I don't want is, and you hear IT in washington, is the idea what we have to stop that so we can take on our real, which is there not a real in any way, shape or form. We have issues with them. We have competition uh, in in the markets and technology, as I said, in in many things, but they're not an enemy and there is no reason for them to be an enemy. And so it's the exactly the same logic except .

on the question of taiwan. I think there are a lot of people who maybe haven't thought IT through who feel like preserving taiwan sovereignty and has sovereignty, I guess um is a core american interest.

What's review the the issue with taiwan is the the united states policy absolutely clear, it's the basis of our diplomatic relations with china is what's called the one china policy right, which is the taiwan is part of china. As everybody knows, there was a civil war in china in nineteen forty nine. The losing side of the civil war, K.

M, T. The combing tongue fled in the remnants to taiwan, which which was part of IT. IT was actually, at for a period a japanese colony， because japan had invaded the chin dynasty, uh and taken taiwan's away.

But IT was part of china traditionally in the a chain period for centuries. But the R O C, the republic of china, which was the losing side of the civil war h, installed themselves as a military government on the island of taiwan, off the coast of the mainland. Now what's interesting is that the republic of china, that is the iwan installed government on the losing side of the severe, said, there's one china, but it's us.

And on the other side in beijing, they also said, yes, we agree there's one china, but it's us s uh and so there wasn't a disagreement of whether there's one china to china. There's one china according to the republic of china and according to the people's republic of china, people's republic of china being the mainland, the the place with the one point four billion people when the U. S.

Normalized relations with the people's republic of china, IT said, we do so on the basis of one china policy that taiwan is part of china, but the understanding was that a there are two systems, because taiwan has develop now actually for more than century, partly under the japanese imperial rule, and then later under the K M T or the coming tank period uh into a market base system. Uh, and china was not yet a market based economy at the time. So one country, two systems, and we said there should be peace across the taiwan straight, uh, so that the two sides should resolve their differences amicably, which to my mind is a perfectly sound and achievable standard.

So our policy is that there is one china, china's policy by china in the male, there is one china. And lurking in china's mind is, don't break us apart because we had enough of you, the outside world, breaking us apart from nineteen thirty nine to nineteen forty nine, uh, trying in every which way to dismember us, to invade us, which was done repeatedly, as I mentioned earlier. So china's position is, yes, there's one china.

We want a uh, an amaker relationship with taiwan. We have accepted two systems and that principle, but we don't want the united states or anyone else provoking secession, independence, a war across these narrow states, because both sides understand that there is one china, and we should not be divided. But in the U.

S, because it's part of our deep state ideology. IT is provoke, provoke. We can I create divisions? Bad mouth, the name call, uh, support insurgencies, which we do.

I hope no one shocked about that, but that is standard C I A ops. Uh uh uh so there is part of our government which spurs a secession uh, or independence movements in taiwan, which would lead toward absolutely. And I tell my taiwan, his friends and I have many taiwanese friends, don't become the next ukraine.

I don't let the U. S. Create a disaster in your neighborhood. The worst words from the united states are we have your back. That's what we told the post cool government of ukraine in twenty fourteen. That is, six hundred thousand dead caused by that kind of idea.

So I tell my taiwan is, friends, take a deep breath and don't be provoked into something extremely dangerous, because there are hot heads in the united states that want to provoke and that shouldn't be provoking, and that provoke completely against our own diplomacy. Now, in one nine hundred and eighty two, the U. S.

And china signed, communicate, very important. People can go online and look at up. And IT was a statement by the united states that said, we have no intention to ARM taiwan for the long term.

We are providing arms for taiwan now because historically we backed taiwan, but now we have established diplomatic relations with percy, but we have no intention of doing this for the long term. In fact, we will taper off our arms support for taiwan, and IT will come to an end. That was one thousand, nine and eighty two.

That's like so many things the united states promises and then relax on, uh, it's essentially the same as the promise that was made to gorbachev anti elson in ninety, ninety one, ninety two. The two would never enlarge. Other words, we say things, we sign documents, we make communication, but we regard them as as, uh as a opportunities moments because we want our complete freedom of action, in my view, are smart.

Diplomacy would be very straightforward. Uh, we would not have what we call strategic ambiguity, which is a term that is so wrong headed, in my view, but IT is meaning we won't say what will really do about taiwan. I and what we really feel will keep the other side the a guessing, oh, why so that we have an accidental nuclear war? What do we want them to purpose? What do we want them to guess about? exactly?

What I would like us to say very clearly is, of course, we support a one china policy. We will not ARM taiwan over the opposition of beijing, not only because it's one country and we should not ARM parts of another country over the opposition of the government that we recognize, but we understand it's incredibly provocative to do so. But on the other side, we and the world community expect china in the the government in beijing and the government in uh taik in taiwan to work amicably so that there is no military attack by china on taiwan and there is no reason in the world why they would do so if it's understood that IT is one china and it's a matter working things out.

What about the argument you often hear um that beijing once taipei, because if T S, M, C, the same conductors that the world needs, the A I will need in order to become, you know, driver of the neutral economy is set center. But that's the prize semicircles in taiwan. And we cannot allow mainland trying to have them.

Well, so many things first. um. That a supply chain will not be disrupted uh by the mainland for us and our needs as long as we don't provoke a war. So from one point of view, we have a we have A A circumstances， our country that we design advanced microchips, but we don't produce them.

Uh and that was a decision that went back to the ninety seventies where we basically decided as a matter of policy, not just at the industry level but at the political level, that we would outsource production to korea, to japan um and then uh in taiwan this came from a very clever person, a more tran, who established the taiwan some I conductor manufacturing corporation, S M C. So nothing about T S M C per a is at stake in this actually IT is the case right now that the U S. Is imposing sanctions on uh T S M C exporting advanced uh microchips to I don't support that policy at all.

Uh, I think that the idea of doing that is wrong headed and provocative and not actually in anybody's interest, is part of the U S. Misguided attempt to quote, contain a country that is larger, very clever, technologically sophisticated and will engineer around these restrictions in short order and that's my gasp with our technology, export bans were not really accomplishing anything except speeding up china's uh, ability to uh innovate around uh, any of the U S. bans.

So I don't see T S M C is really uh, in important part of this story there maybe people who do, I think they're wrong, uh, I believe and that's the point i'm trying to make. We don't provoke if we treat china as we should uh as uh another great power a as by the way, a really great civilization with lots of wisdom and lots of history and lots of beauty and lots of culture uh and lots that can be shared with us as a great manufacturing power, but not one that is so how to go conquer the rest of the world, because china is not. We will have perfectly find relations.

China will continue to develop. Interestingly, I think people should understand china is now a larger economy than the united states, but not in per capita. Ms, it's still uh around the third of the U S.

Per capable income level. So it's it's not as if for facing some uh you know impossible uh uh you know threat that is about to overtake the united states. They're just trying to catch up for a lost time.

Uh, they're trying to develop. They're doing a excEllent job of IT. They're very clever.

They're working very, very hard. They're working very long hours. They're saving and investing a lot. They're building A A modern economy and all credit to them. As far as I am concerned, they're doing IT the right way. Saving investment, education, innovation uh and and and catching up uh, which they needed to do after are really horrible hundred fifty years. Basically, we want to want .

to something big that we've been working on for months now. It's a documentary series called the art of the surge. It's all behind the scene footage shot by an ebel ded team that has never before seen footage of what it's actually like to run for president if you're donor trumpet. They were there at the Butler tennis assinniboin mpt, for example. And god put IT no one has ever seen before, and it's amazing become, remember IT tucker cross in dot com to see this series art of the surge.

So i'm everything you've said for the last know how long we've been sitting here, but last know I would have for whatever on twenty has been. I've never heard on N, B, C, C, B, S, read in your time. I mean, these are all ideas and perspectives that are just missing from big media outlets in the next states.

You've been banned for those outlets after spending a life time on them. Um so the only reason that we're able to have these conversations because we're doing IT on social media, an alternative media IT, seems to me that if you're running A A regime, a government that has really unpopular and destructive policies, you have to shut down these kinds of conversation. We just saw popular of the founder owner of telegram jailed in france. This is unbelievable, but it's is also believable.

No, but it's so crude and so disgusting and so dangerous, of course, is stupid.

IT also strikes me as like a harbor, I mean, that felt at the future to me. What do you what I mean, will there be, you know, free exchange of information twenty years from now?

It's a it's a big question. You know, I, I, I was on A A show with someone that i've light and known and, uh, you know him as well, and that I admired for decades the meti signs who's a russian american who lives so sometime in the united states so sometimes so in moscow uh he was A A Young advisor to Richard nixon who by the way had a lot of intelligent ideas about h relations with china and relations with russia that I admire more and more in retrospect um as well um but uh the meti signs so home was raided uh by the F B I, I I founded the especially a nerving because I was on a shock h by zoom。 Uh is a is a talk show, very serious discussions about how to avoid the nuclear war, the kinds of things we're talking about and they're rating his house.

And of course, we're seeing more and more of that uh, all over the united states we know you know much more about IT than I do, but we know in your phenomenal a interview with Bobby candide, uh, also explained a lot of IT how much uh is being shut down on the social media, how the government basically leans on our leans on platforms. Uh the uh are trying to get uh some Normal discussion is going on. I I don't know how much i'm supposed to say about that but um I think I can say that the one of my favorite is judge in a potan's who I uh, discuss these issues with.

I had his a youtube account the closed for a week because of something that the guest said, uh that suddenly they told him that one strike do that again. That's two strikes. If that happens, the third time you're off permanently.

This is a weird, dangerous situation we have in our country, which was founded on the principle that there is a marketplace of ideas that you discuss things that if you want to have a free country, you need to inform citizens. Ray, it's it's absolutely fundamental and IT is completely at risk right now. If you can be punished .

for criticizing regime, isn't that regime by definition, a dictor ship?

We are uh in any event, uh, IT has to be understood. The american people have only the slightest say and slightest knowledge about what our government does abroad. The american people have more knowledge to some extent about what he does at home.

But what IT does abroad has been deliberately uh made highly uh secret and confidential for decades and so some of IT is obvious and in broad daylight but all denied when IT does IT. You know I talked about the U. S.

Role in the cool in ukraine and february twenty fourteen that is a covert regime change Operation according to the the technical jargon. We do that for a living hope. This is how the U.

S. Operates. Dozens and dozens of overthrows of foreign governments. I've seen many close up because I am an economic advisor. I'm not A A military advisor. But presidents say things to me, or I see with my own eyes these occurrences, but none of IT shows up in our domestic discourse. That's why that permanent state machine runs on its own to a large extent, and why IT is the unique job of a president to stop IT. Because I regard the job of of a proper job of a president is to stop the war machine is the number one job if you have a president that's not mentally competent and and I think that's probably the situation with biden right now or not a very clever president, which may have been the situation before with biden or one who has bought into the military industrial complex. They don't even know what their most basic job is so whether it's through uh laziness or uh being pushed or uh being lied to by AIDS or being of that mindset or being of no mindset, we are awarded machine and uh and that is not known by the american you .

know the famous eyes and hour retirement speech. Yes, which I just watched .

that well address will worry. Seventeen, nineteen, sixty one.

a man. amazing.

I'm almost sure that's the amazing. I'm also sure I often .

heard referred to um but I never i've never it's on youtube I watched IT one day on the uh and I was really struck by IT it's much more intense than IT is given credit for being but he seems to suggest this began with the the war the second war. Do you think that's right?

Well IT began a with the the national security active one thousand nine and forty seven uh IT IT began with the creation of the C. I A. Uh and the empowerment of the C. I.

A to engage in a lately illegal a vogue uh, activities, of course, including assassinations of foreign leaders, overthrows of foreign governments and to do so on a completely secretive way and with an agenda, of course the agenda, which even predates uh, nineteen and forty seven IT goes back to nineteen and forty five and by some accounts, even earlier, uh, was that the C I, A was the instrument to confront the soviet union, to defeat the soviet union, to overthrow the soviet union, to dismantle the soviet union. But that IT was the IT. IT was the instrument of our, we used to call the war on communism.

But what's interesting is that after communism ended, the war on russia continued exactly in the same way. So it's not really about commission, actually is about a big a country that uh, the U. S.

Resents for being a big country. That's basically what this is about. The U. S.

Does not like peers, uh, and that was especially the idea, why should we have peers? We need full spectrum dominance. We need to run things. We need to be the indispensable country. We need to be the world's only superpower. It's quite a vision I didn't gets you into a lot of trouble because most of to the world doesn't see things the way you do. But that goes back to a especially the institutional creation of the C I. A, because the precursor, the O S S was, you know, doing things during world or two, okay, that so we we were in a world war, uh, but uh, that kind of covert Operation continued, and IT became a corner stone of american foreign policy. But IT means completely secret.

what sort of trick of the whole government.

though, by being completely secret, you can do things that are absolutely unbelievable. And you know, I think you believe, but I certainly believe that the C I A H had its role in the cool in the united states in one thousand nine and sixty three. H, which was the assassination of.

I think, I think that's confirmed I mean was confirmed .

by me by someone who saw the the implications that are so profound not only was at the uh uh a murder most follow is is bb dilling said in that incredible song that he wrote about IT but in in a way mark the end of our democratic institutions because the president after that, uh, maybe they are afraid for their lives, maybe they are uh, absolutely paralyzed.

Maybe the CIA got away with something so extraordinary, a murder in broad daylight with plenty of eyewitnesses that pointed out some there was a conspiracy y on the way, because shots were coming from different directions and they got away with the a narrative that was so absurd, uh oh uh shop down our uh our throats the nobody believe but IT didn't matter. Uh and now it's a sixty one years later. So who talks about IT? You know, it's a footnote. So maybe they learned, uh, we can get away with everything, including regime change in our own country.

Would you think the the attempt to trump.

we don't know the story ah it's absolutely shocking. We don't know the story, and whether we ever will know the story is like so many other things right now that are huge events. Uh, we talked to briefly about cove IT you I think IT came out of a lab that's one of the biggest events in history.

Oh, that's so passing. Who wants to talk about that anymore assassination attempt on trump? That that is now weeks ago.

That's so, you know, that's all news. We don't even talk about that anymore. Blowing up nord stream mode, some acaai story.

A few people in a sale boat. Oh, was ukrainians. H was this, you know, this is part, we have no attention span. We have complete lying from the government. We have secrecy and confidential.

So we never actually resolve any of these issues because it's very hard to have a systematic method al discussion where one discusses and then where there is a response is the the thing that gets me about, uh, washington is they don't feel they have to respond to anything. And you watch the spokespeople, matt Miller at the state department or curb in the White house, they smirk in right in your face to tell you, you are nothing. We can tell anything to you.

Do you understand? I mean, that's my interpretation. I agree. They smoke the contempt .

they have for the people who pay their stories, who own this country.

You say you would be like getting .

spit out by your house. This is not your fired now.

No, no, no, no. It's exactly you see IT that they know that they they have the little laugh at the end. So it's it's the carefree lie. But we're talking about absolutely essential issues, and that's what's missing in our discussion right now. And it's and and IT is closed down systematically if you try, if you, if you you just can't discuss the things, can I take IT?

I I have trouble staying on track as well. So many questions, but just expect to giraffe pop. Giraffe, yes, in jail in france right now. Is there any chance that cron government arrested him without coordination from the .

by definition ration? Probably not. I think the network that people should understand again, this is it's not exactly out there to to go read off the shelf how IT works.

But the intelligence agencies are a network in and of themselves. So whether blinken knew about this beforehand, I don't know. Did the C I A know about this? Far more likely?

It's interesting when you look, for example, at negotiations, this endless, hopeless negotiations on a ceasefire in gaza, hopeless, by the way, because of israeli absolute, the lack of interested to ceasefires, just to say that. But when you look at when the negotiations take place, who goes, you would think that might be our diplomats? No, it's the C.

I, A. And mosad, it's a little weird. Those are quote and quote intelligence agencies. They're doing the negotiations that parts not hidden because you have to say, okay, more sudden the C, I, A, and have a however.

C, I, so as if it's its own government or .

as if it's the leader of our foreign policy. exactly.

I thought C, A was by charter and intelligence gathering agency. By charter.

IT is two things, by the way, literally, by charter. IT is an intelligence, an agency, and IT is any other mission. That is exactly how IT became the covert Operations enterprise.

And one more thing, I think that is worth pointing out, by the way, about C. I A because we should take note of IT. There has been one and only one congressional review of the C.

I A. And that was forty nine years ago. And next year will be the fifty of anniversary of the church committee uh maybe president trump in and vice president advance of their own power. Maybe they would .

call for another body this past friday um when when Kennedy a endorsed him said that he would like a commission to look into the C S. Involvement or look into the Kennedy assassination you know.

it's interesting IT IT IT was a very strange confluence that allowed that one time for the CIA to be looked into because nicks on had resigned. Ford was president but had come directly from congress. And so ford had the sense in one hundred seventy five that he wasn't, you know, a directly elected president, and he respected congress because he really came from congress.

So he actually told his chief of staff who was dict. ini. Let this happen, you know, because Cheney was trying to close down church and probably could have closed down the church commission.

But there was this odd confluence that enable this tiny moment when the C. I, A. Operations could be reviewed when they lifted the cover.

IT was her after her, after her, because when church started, I didn't know that he was gonna uncover a plaster a of assassinations and assassination attempts uh and mass surveilLance of of the U. S. Public and uh regime change Operations and many other things.

Well that cover was put back down uh as uh as a bobbi said in your interview with him, those uh committees in congress, uh, that are quote and quote overseeing the C. I, A are the protectors to make sure that no ones looks right now. But IT spent fifty years, a half a century since we've had an account of what has really gone on.

Well, I see things. I don't like what I see and I I don't see them because, you know, uh, because somehow it's my area of knowledge responsibility. I see them on the side.

Like when the president of hate told me one day, jeff, you're gonna there. They're gonna kill me. There are going to they're gonna take me away and I said, no, no, no I I thought he was being figurative and um uh metaphor and I said, no, everything's gonna alright.

I'm gonna you get this loan of course, the upshot of IT was, as usual, I was not even, and the day a took her out to an unmarked C I, A plain one day president of haiti, and flew him to the central african republican, depose him and depose him, literally in broad daylight. I mean, he was middle of the day and the U. S.

Ambassador walked him out to this unmarked plane. But the interesting story for me was that I called, since I was an economic advisor a little bit in a friend, uh, and don't like presidents getting taken out to C I, A. On mark planes and flown to center of africa, I call the the reporter on the beat of the new york times and I said they were, could you cover this story? There's just been a cool SHE, said me, my editor is not interested.

That's my editor is not interested. That's a literal quote because I was, my jaw dropped. So stone, even the phrasing of IT.

But the new york would not cover a cool in broad daylight by the C. I, A. In hate when that occurred.

And why do you think that is? Because so these are a organizations that serve the american power structure, and they are both suborn by them because they get their information from the C. I.

A. They probably have, you know, literal people on staff that are part of the U. S.

G. In one way. A, and they, their sources and everything else. And they view IT is patriotic also when the government is not a good thing to handle. So they don't view themselves as the uh as the defenders of democracy. They view themselves as the defenders of of of the prominent state and they absolutely do.

And so you think that the intel agencies play a role in shaping news coverage?

Well, I think that there's no question at all. Some places are just literal mouthpieces of the C. I M. I don't think anyone doubts that the washington post is just just the place where you, the C.

I, A, issues its statements sometimes, by the way, helpful because sometimes the intelligence community wants the public to understand something. So it's not all wrong or all, of course, that is the place to go to to hear what the C. I, A says.

And the the, yeah, it's not subtle. It's it's not even close. What's amazing now is that any counter narrative, there's no room for that in any of these papers.

So then you have the C I R, the whole agencies, but acting not simply as sources but really as masters like they're controlling .

the coverage. The idea is, yes, you know that I think the the most important class ed world is the narrative. There needs to be a story.

They control the narrative. It's like our well told us, who controls the past controls the present. Who controls the present controls the future. They have to shape the past. They have to to find everything they need, their narrative.

And that's what these mainstream outlets do, is have their narrative their they have completely, completely lost the idea of even one time saying, well, there's this argument and then there's the argument on the other side uh and perhaps having competing columns or are trying to understand this. Uh, I think we talked the last time I tried to get seven hundred words in the new york times. Uh, I got up to the point where they actually edited my piece before they killed him.

But they would not run a seven hundred word story from someone who knows. I think about as much of the about the ukraine, uh, crisis going back for more than thirty years. I would i'd say most of the people that right for them and uh, they want they're not interested in any other side.

There's a narrative. And so that is how IT works. The narrative does not have to be believable.

By the way, most of the time, it's not believed the warm russia blew up the north pipeline. The warm commission was not believed by the american people. Are the are most americans believe that there was a label that caused the pandemic.

Most americans, I would suppose, believe that that the us. Blew up nord streamer. You know, certainly he had IT so had its role in IT. So these narratives are not believe, but they they buy enough time that the attention goes away and you get on to something else. It's just a way to, uh to make sure that there is no need to answer anything, no accountability.

That's what this is about, not convincing people of outlandishly weird stories uh, the lone gunman who killed president Kennedy when everyone's pointing in another direction and, uh the count of the board says something else and blab a no, you don't have to believe IT, but you need to be able to say something for long enough that something else comes up and that you stop talking about the previous thing. And it's extremely dangerous because what that means is that beneath that, it's not to convince people. It's to have the ability to do what you want to do and know that you won't be held accountable for IT.

I do think though, a wrinkle in the program, a huge problem for the people who been conducting, uh, their fairs this way is alternative media. So which went from being really needed kind of far out and not .

credible to being .

exactly so just a one, for example. Yes, really sweet man. I work to lost his last job, never said that in public, but I I know I thought so much to lost his last job for having views on reign policy that were not consistent with what you were supposed to say. He got fired for IT, and so he winds up doing his own little tiny thing on youtube and always said, that becomes a real thing.

Yeah, because you talk your reason. Actually, he looks at evidence, and you can find that in use.

The rogan, like some sort of M, M, A fighter, comedian, sit comm actor, to starts doing the little program on a called the podcast, comes the biggest thing in the world. So that is just a massive that's too bigger threat, elon mosque making rockets than bias twitter and then opens IT up. These are, these are the biggest threats they face, so and they can't allow that to continue, can they?

Well, this is a sort of a they just arrested, uh, you know, elan is is a force of nature, of course, uh, and may be able to face down the the, the U. S. G.

But we know and you know elan has really been very clear, very brave and doing the right things, but we know that the other platforms are already so heavily least and with U. S. Engagement and know we heard about IT agent from from bob Kennedy and uh but we know IT also when we thought with the with judging polton's also.

H you know here's the threat. You you D V A even a guest. D V hates from our narrative.

You got the two times, but the third time you're off are who who is the guest but the guest was a peppy s bar uh who was uh A A reporter journalist the provocative a and H I don't even know the details, but um this is the threat and I see IT, you know many youtube channels there uh certain words uh you you know must not say even if you needed to define something uh specifically because you'll boot you off ah and this is already clear now that we're seemingly getting to the next stage of rsc king houses and other kinds of threats sits IT IT IT. Could be that uh as all of these foreign policy strategies. This so hedda onic strategy doesn't work and is unravelling on many fronts.

Maybe the proponents of that, the are doing their own kind of escalators to keep things in train. The interesting thing is I think there are three main points that we're seeing right now. One is the foreign policies of failure.

So IT doesn't deliver, whether it's fair, unfair, right, wrong, lied, IT just doesn't work. It's scotland, the united states, into trillions of dollars of failed wars. Everyone can see this.

The american people do not back our foreign policy at all. So that so I I think the a one a point. Second, we're seeing politicians that are starting to say, no, we've got to to do something a different ways. So that's extremely important. And third, we we have the truth coming out in the in in these kinds of conversations h that uh, even if the the so called mainstream media won't do IT, people are tuning in and they're tuning out of the the boring pabon narratives that they don't believe of the mainstream and and that's consequential too.

Actually invited to come to talk with the economy since you are an economic adviser um but I couldn't resist asking about the state of world, the state of our economy, many parts of IT. But i'm really fixated on credit card debt and how high is, is that I was see something to worry about for the people who hold IT. But how big a factor is IT in healthy economy? What do you make of that? Why is that so high? Highest ever.

Well, I think that the main thing understand about our economies that for the last forty years or so we've had two economies. We've had an economy of college show grads uh and professionals who have done quite well and we've had an economy of uh, high school clads and working class that have really had a hard time and they have a lot of that and they have a lot of difficulties.

And we've had basically two worlds in in in our one nation that don't communicate very clearly with each other. And that's our our basic economic reality. And so so that means that you know things like we we know that in many surveys fed data, which collects this kind of information.

I has looked at how many people in this country could not manage sudden four hundred dollar emergency, you know whether it's dental or some medical prescription or socks, tires and and it's and it's A A huge proportion of the country. And if you know in in my neck of the woods, it's it's not even known in in a sense because you know, I I live in a world of people who are running good incomes and I I where things look completely different. I mean, i'm aware of because i've written about IT for decades uh and said, you know this is our chAllenge and our our real problem and we don't face up to IT, but that's that's the reality.

So the credit card dead is not the the professional class. H I would not big dangers is a people trying to make ends meet uh and can't necessarily put food on the table for the family, can't face medical emergency, of which we have a rising a number of part of our population of that is experiencing that and and that's our real situation. We don't deal with IT.

We don't talk about a very clearly, clearly our politics uh in in A A more more clear way. You organized along these lines and and the irony, republican party became the party of the working class and the a professionals became, uh the democratic party became the the party of the professionals and that was a kind of flip over time. But the reason is that um reasons are complicated.

But uh the the basic point is that when these divisions started back in the nineteen seventies and then really evolved after that, nothing happened in this country. And so working class voters who were voting for the democrats in the Frankl roseveldt era through Kennedy and Johnson, felt more and more wealth. This party doesn't do anything for us.

And trump, obviously, you know what great political savi saw his hunter into that in twenty sixteen, understood that reality uh and took uh the working class out of the democratic party basically. Um but the underlying economics of that is a country that I just spread apart. I it's got many different aspects of IT, but the biggest divide in our country is education, educational attainment because basically that's the that's the underlying organizing principle for almost the whole economy, which is university graduate and up you're doing well, your incomes are going up, you are enjoying life.

High school h and less, you're struggling. And the IT shows up in so many places. IT shows up in housing, IT shows up in credit card debt. But IT actually shows up in life expectancy, which is unbelievable.

There's an eight year gap of life expectancy between high school grads who have a life expectancy around seventy five and college grads who have a life expectancy around eighty three. Can you imagine this is two different societies? And to the point of how long you live, how you live, whether you're healthy or not. And this has been going on for decades now, and completely, almost on on, understood and unaddressed, and the political system more or less incapable of solving anything. Unfortunately.

it's interesting. Know how little anyone cares that. I mean, I think these are complicated problems, very complicated problems. You suggested not exactly sure how to solve IT, but I know that the first step is acknowledging IT and caring about IT discussing discussing and you've been in at least undergraduate harvard in one world, do I have two you um and so I can verify and know you can as well if there's like no conversation about this that everyone in the world that I grew up up and blames the people who are dying earlier hates them for IT hates them for their weakness and they're suffering and that just strikes me as such an ugly, vicious impulse I don't understand IT.

Yeah, it's a great observation. You know, you really can close the gates, literally engage communities. But even if the communities not gated were we are segregated by residential area, by cities, by live, by rent, by a cost of housing and so on and so you can go on like this without uh any you know real attention uh and and certainly I think it's right to say that um you know the the lucky part of our society is more or less insulated not only by how they live and where they live and you know they get the nice services from people who are working extraordinary hard for extraordinary low incomes, but the political system is paralyzed but in the .

service so we grew in a country you're a bit older than I am, but we group in rough with the same country. There wasn't acknowledged that there were people who were not as well off as you, and that was sad. Now, among iphone people, I see only race guilt.

I see no economic kills at all. And I think there you can believe in capitals in our system, wherever system is, and still feel like g no, I feel sorry for people who are deeping credit card. I don't see any no.

no, this is I think, exactly right. It's another part that isn't in our our discussion, our discourse. And I think it's right to say that basically, you know the political system doesn't really want to address any of this because it's complicated.

You have to pay for solutions one way or another. No one wants to pay for anything. We just run up dead anyway.

We, me, we run up. If it's not credit or dead, it's our national that, yes. And anyway, as we've been talking about, we are much more interested in blowing up places and overthrowing other governments. We are in addressing any of these decision. What would happen if .

people stop ping there, if a lot of people stop paying that?

Well, as you you know, the the way that our system works is that, uh, IT more or less goes along and deep trends, whether technology or other trends, until there are some kind of crisis. We had a crisis in two thousand eight that was a very particular kind of crisis where A A not very clever move by, I think, an apple clever, a treasury secretary.

Uh, at the time I decided he would bankrupt the, uh, a company he didn't like you know was hang paul son know who came from government sax, not my part of sax family, I need to explain. So just want to be clear different branches suppose uh, and he didn't like lemon brothers, so he decided literally one weekend, rather than try to sell off lemon brothers going to close IT down and is a kind of land brain Operation. And he created one of the greatest financial crisis .

of modern hist. Yes, you think paul lin created the AA melt down because is a graduate inst?

yeah. Basically he wanted to teach the molester. He thought they were lazy, terrible form, which they may well have been, by the way. But he decided in two thousand and eight, you had there was a housing bubble.

Housing bubble was breaking, and a lot of the investment banks were on the edge because they had invested in crappy, uh, uh, crappy uh, mortgage and that they were trying to securities. So he was a fragile situation. We would have had a Normal downturn for sure.

We would have had a recession. But paul son decided in september two thousand eight, rather than do another rescue where you take a weak bank and you may add some public money, and then you you will sell IT off to a buyer. And there was a potential buyer for lemon brothers who was bark a british bank and the U.

S. G. Government could have put a bit of money uh or taken some of the bad stuff off the baLance sheet and given the rest to uh, bark. But paul son, uh, wanted to do two things.

He wanted to teach lemon brothers a lesson I believe uh you know can prove this stuff but lemon was kind of A A uh arrival of of golden uh and I think there was that personal bid from what I know um but also paulson thought, um well we should show the markets we can be tough and firm and let the markets determine the outcome so uh, he said we're not gonna any, uh any uh, catch up to get the lemon into somebody else his hands. We're gna just let IT close, let IT go bankrupt. And that was a september fourteen, two thousand and eight. And when the markets open the next day, he had triggered one of the greatest financial crisis of history. Actually, uh.

within why have I .

never heard the story? Uh, maybe they don't want to advertise how unbelievably incompetent they were, but this was complete incompetence. And by the way, I was incompetence of the whole economic team and included the fed in new york fed, washington, uh, the treasury. This was a crisis that absolutely was not only human made, but you can pinpoint the hour and the day and the event because .

the the point I .

was me .

a question about .

credit or debt and no, I was making .

a digressing again. But is that is this widely known?

It's not very well understood. Uh, it's not a secret, but I can explain why it's not understood. But uh, in in a moment.

But the point is a financial panic is a specific kind of event. Uh, IT is the same event as when people are trapped running out of a stadium. yes. okay. So that happens.

So once every I don't know how many hundred football games something happens, somebody is there's a fight, people start running and then tramping and then lots of people get crushed. So that's a specific event, is a panic in finance. The same thing can happen and financial panics happen a on uh occasion throughout history, and you can identify them.

And usually there is a cause, uh that is a trigger of IT, but with a panic like a stampede out of a stadium, the cause is completely incommensurate IT with the outcome. And otherwise the cause may be that someone. Someone punched someone else, and that started commotion, and that started, and a thousand people got trapped in the end.

So the cause was some stupid little thing, but then IT LED to a caste of disaster. That's exactly what a financial panic is or a bank run. I don't know anybody ever remembers my favorite movie, and for my youth and for my children, mary poppins.

But mary pop s the children story, of course, that has a bank run in IT a where the Young boy wants to get his two pants out of the bank and there is resistance and he starts screaming, you want to give me my money back and then everyone runs to the bank to take their money out in the bank fails, uh, and it's a panic. So hang paulson made a panic in september uh, fourteen, two thousand eight, and he made IT deliberately. The action was deliberate.

The outcome was not delivered. He had no idea what he was about, do h, which was to create, uh, this rush for the exits by all banks on all loans all over the world within three days. And that's what he created and created the biggest economic downturn uh, since the great depression itself uh and so and that's a by the way, in interesting, very interesting uh story also because just like a panic can create something that's completely incommensurate with any fundamental reason but IT leads to a total disaster.

The opposite can sometimes happen also, which I was reminded because the great depression, which was this kilometers event in the days up to Frankland roseveldt auguries, which was march fourth, one thousand nine hundred and thirty three, there was a bank panic in the united states. And by the time the rose velo became president on march fourth nineteen thirty three, the whole U. S.

Banking system had closed down because everyone had rushed to the banks to withdraw their money, just like IT marry poppins. But IT was all over the U. S.

So the whole U. S. Banking system was closed when Frank on rose vell became president on march for nineteen thirty three.

And with a smile and a tilted his head, he said, and I firmly believe that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And with those words, people stopped panache and they went, I can put their money in the bank. And within a few days, the U.

S. Banking system reopened. And IT was Franklin roosevelt personal and his spirit and his cult of the head, and his smile and his phrase, that it's only fear that we have to fear, that undid the panic.

After that, many reforms were made, uh like the federal deposit insurance corporation and and the S C C. And public reporting and many things were done, but the banks actually opened on a matter of words. So you ask me a question, why did I make this big digression? Because financial markets are capable of creating all sorts of disasters.

And the first rule that you learn is be careful. Don't let liquidity mess you up. Don't let panics destroy things. Hank paulsen currently didn't know any of that uh and he walked the world into a ten or twenty trillion dollar disaster loss buy a deliberate action because there were Better way he never .

got its a absolutely remarkable story, remarkable because that happened in front of all of us. Yes, I was paying under a thirty percent attention. Mean, actually to saw my house that you're so have been affected me in a lot of a lot of people, me less than most, but still IT affected everybody. And he was treasure secretary .

in a famous guy. And he's still kind of .

a famous guy. I never, I do doubt that I don't know, trying to let my big trees affect my view, but why does he not Carry the stain of that with him?

The reason is, strAngely enough, people don't understand what I just described. In general, though, there is a group. I'm a finance economist, so I studied this throughout history and i've studied these events and i've i've watched them actually close up because i've often been called into crisis situation.

So i'm very I attend to them and another example, and then i'll give you an answer. I was in the summer of nineteen ninety seven when asia experienced the full fledge financial crisis that you may remember, call IT. If we know that as the asian financial crisis, what happened? What happened was thailand devalued the thibet.

Well, so, you know, you want to put your thum how to such a dom. What difference could that possibly make? IT triggering a panic.

And the I M F addressed the international monitors and addressed in completely the wrong way, because both the two thousand eight and the nineteen ninety seven or ninety thirty three story that I told you about Frank and rose, well, if you're in a stampede or a panic and you say, you see your moral, you created this disaster. We are living in sin. This is why our banking system is failed.

You will do nothing but crush what you have left standing. But if you say, oh my god, h we just had a panic. You don't have to panic.

Fundamentals are fine. We've got this under control. The only thing we have to fear, fear itself. You can calm down the situation.

This is not a matter of math. This is human psychology.

This is understanding what's going on and then responding to IT in an appropriate way. Now IT happens, and now we're getting really into the weeds of economics. My field is macroeconomics.

So I look at an economy as a whole, and I study business cycles or crisis or option downs of the economy. So to go back to two thousand eight, we were gonna have a recession. A recession means that, uh, the people stop buying houses and there's unemployment.

And the unemployment may go, you know, from four percent to seven percent. And economic growth, the major negative for two or three quarters. And there's a lot of pain and people can make ends made and so forth.

But then the economy recovers in maybe eighteen months or so. That's not what happened in two thousand and eight. What happened in two thousand and eight was a prolong ged in deep crisis, with soaring unemployment, with bankrupts, with mega bailouts, with the whole world economy suffering. There was no reason for that bigger outcome. The Normal thing would have been a recession. Why a recession? Because there was a too much liquidity that, uh, and deregulation of the more mortgage markets and there was a bubble and the bubble burst and housing, uh went into recession and we had another business cycle OK that would have been in the Normal, but we had hangers and on september fourteen, two thousand and eight, pulling the plug.

E on on investment bank that triggered a panic among all banks so that by monday morning when the markets opened first there were legal problems in britain because, uh, lemon had a branch in britain that uh, under british rules created lots of problems but then the investment banks started to call in their loans because they said, oh hell, all hell, breaking loose. The stampede started that LED to the mega downturn. So then you ask, well, how was this interpreted afterwards? Because that's your question.

Why isn't this standard? Well, the answer is that IT was all explained as the downturn from the housing bubbles, not the panic caused by the bankrupcy of lemon. So in other words, what would have been a Normal downturn became the narrative for what was the calamitous crisis.

In other words, who was missing plained? And that's how they d like to explain IT, because hang paulson did not want to a stand up the next day and say, oh, shit, I really did that wrong. That was, that was a stupid thing to do.

I didn't understand how financial markets work, even though I had been the lead of government sex. I really mess these things up then berni at the fed did not want to say, my god, that weekend we really should have put this up to get IT out to, uh and he said afterwards I could not have sold that anyway. I didn't have the legal authority and then, uh, a scholar at john hopkins wrote a long book explaining very carefully, yes, then you could have done IT differently.

We could have avoided this crisis that could have been sold to bark as you at all the authority in the world to do IT and so on. So the narrative that i'm giving is the the explanation that i'm giving was hidden from view partly because of confusion, uh partly because when a crisis happens, you want to blame IT on fundamental things. So was easy to say o that mortgage market was uh a lot of cheating and and there was a lot of cheating and all the securities ation made masses and so forth.

So you want to say so if there is a downturn or if there is a uh, a panic, it's because you're signers. And so that's a Normal narrative and no one wants to take responsibility. God, I really mess up but it's important .

to know why things go wrong so you can take steps to prevent them from going wrong again in the same way.

Well, it's also it's you know again, this is not really getting into the weeds of my profession ah but um as a macro o economist they'll just if anyone's are interested but this is really getting technical we have a standard theory that we teach at university level about why downturns happen uh and it's a theory that attributed to john main or cains who was a really great, brilliant british economist that i've learned a whole career from in in his writings.

But john mayer cains wrote famously about the great depression and he said the cause of the great depression is this particular phenomenon. We called the decline of aggregate demand that people stop buying uh and that leads to a downturn. So maybe they stop buying houses, so that leads to a downturn. So that's called a an aggregate demand shortfall.

And the problem is that all subsequent pa cycles after john main or canes, then became interpreted through that lens that he had establish because he was such a wonderful personality and such a fascinating writer and thinker, that his interpretation of the great depression became the standard way to interpret any event that followed afterwards. And my experience, because I happen to have the experience of working in very acute crisis. I like hyperinflation or debt crisis or financial panics, which became my thing for a while in my career.

I saw, oh, those are really quite different from how kins describe the great depression. These are, these are phenomena of their own right. They are very particular.

A banking panic is not just a decline of demand is a panic. We need to understand the panic. I'm not the first to observe that by any means.

There's a whole theory and history about this, but it's kind of I made a comparison point some years ago that because i'm jealous of my wife, she's of medical doctor and a extraordinary excEllent medical doctor and he would see a patient and do a diagnosis and save the kid because she's a big nutrition and I thought, oh god, a follow in the contest could actually saves up, you know. But SHE did what he was trained to do called a differential diagnosis, which means you see a fever. It's not one thing.

You have to figure out what's the cause, right? So I came to understand, you see an economic crisis. You Better understand the cause of IT, not just the standard narrative. And so for me, i'm very much attuned to what really caused bad event. Well, thank you.

Cause that of in this case on september fourteen, two thousand and eight am sorry to say that don't want to make IT the uh you know personal but you really made a mess at that point. This was not just world markets having their thing. This was something that we made a mistake. You should understand that.

So given everything you know about the current economy and the current um no guardians of the stewards of IT, what do you think the next traces will look like?

First, we're in an ongoing crisis, but it's a slow moving crisis. So a crisis doesn't have to be an immediate event. A crisis can be a set of unsolved problems that persistent are difficult and that I think it's been true for a long time.

Our economy does not work for half our country. Yes, that, to my minds of crisis, agree. And it's not news.

It's not something that started this year or under the by administration or under any recent administration. IT spent decades. Why did IT happen? IT happened because I think actually this is another long digression.

But technology changed and jobs that people use to do, uh, good working class, high school grade jobs, no longer existed. The assembly line ended, except robots. And and i've toward robotic factories for, you know, thirty years, this isn't something new.

Already thirty years ago was I I went to a total to plant probably yeah probably thirty years ago, there were no people in the whole building. Was japanese plant probably in the nineteen nineties, you know, because he was all incredibly sophisticated robots. What I found fascinating about IT, by the way, was that every car that was coming off the line was custom, uh, you know, a specification.

So a truck followed by a sudan, followed by, you know, two ear and so on. The robots were just program. They could put together any different thing in the right parts would come in and and IT wasn't, uh, you know, super standardized.

IT was a very sophisticated plant. But IT meant that the odds kers can have jobs. So those jobs had already gone away.

Uh, jobs in agriculture went away seventy five years ago. You know, we have one percent of our workforce provides the food for the whole country. Yes, it's.

And for a lot of the world, one percent because agriculture became so mechanism, so profession and so on. When I spoke to a farmer a few years ago, he said, yeah, I still like to write the tractor. Of course, I read a book when I do, because the tractor drives itself that puts the fertilizer on the field exactly in the right places.

Everything is geographically specified and so on. But the point is that the fundamental technology of our world changed already fifty years ago, not just with the ChatGPT. This is a long ongoing story and IT meant actually high school wasn't gonna cut IT for demand for workers because what was more than twenty percent of the workforce, which was manufacturing back in uh one thousand and eighty or so, is now less than ten percent of the workforce.

And that's not, by the way, because of china, because of mexico, that's because of robots. That's because of automatic, that's because of digital technologies. That's because of the sophisticated economy.

So this trend has been deep, has been widening for decades. IT has LED to two societies are the professionals are mainly in cities and they're mainly in the democratic party and they are mainly doing rather well. Thank you.

Uh and the the people uh that are in working class, well there are in rural areas or some my rural areas or suburban areas in many places and and uh uh not doing very well. And that's been going on for a long time. And uh I call that crisis.

Uh, it's a crisis of our country. What do we do in response? Well, we go to war. We overthrew governments. We do all starts the things we call ourselves the greatest country in the world, and we let our infrastructure go to hell.

Uh, and we didn't address these issues and we didn't face up to the question of, you know how to share Better how to address these chAllenges in a more effective way or what are we are going to do about IT? What are the underline trends? And now we're going to face a new wave is with the are even more remarkable artificial intelligence, so which is actually gonna wipe out lots, lots more jobs, uh, and that's gonna a very, very big deal in this time, a lot of professional jobs, by the way, because you know Frankly, uh uh if I need to find sources or to a look at the uh you know what's been written about a topic, uh, what used to take me and I was hired to do IT days or weeks to what, you know, go through journals and literature and books I can do in one minute now.

Uh uh uh you know, just asking a question to to my favorite chat program. Uh and so this is gonna cause even more disruptions. IT also means in interestingly, of course, that a few people who own these platforms and systems are you know, getting a well that is simply beyond any imagining and any prior experiencing the history, the world.

I looked up, but as as I was arriving, uh, today's networks of the top uh ten uh networks, people of the united states. Uh, so with the elan number one, uh, you know what are not of the united states of the world? Because I think a one, uh is foreign.

I think uh, maybe of of the top ten, you know the ten richest people, ten people just tend what their network is today. One point seven trillion dollars, ten people. This is a funny world. Uh, you got the tens of millions of people who can pay the bills, can't to fill a dental uh, appointment, can to fill a drug prescription.

You have ten people, many of them really creative, by the way but even if you're really creative, uh, elan, I think today and I I love you one for lots of things uh and know him and admire his genius uh but he got two hundred billion something bucks it's interesting, you know this is the economy is changing in fundamental ways and its by forcing may not even be the right word. In other words, dividing in two IT may be dividing and even more fractured ways. And we need to figure out what we're going to do about that as a society.

And we're not figuring that out. And also because of the way our political system works, uh, we don't want to do anything that would cost anything because government doesn't accept war. Government doesn't want to raise any revenues, even on people can use their wealth in a million lifetimes. Uh, so were a little bit stuck.

And all of this, the reason I mentioned all of this is that Normal economics, the way we discuss this issue, is as bad as the way we discuss the wars and everything else is at an extremely superficial level that is all about will growth be three point one percent next quarter or two point nine percent? Or is the economy, uh, in a, uh, slow patch? Or will you pick up where the deepest changes of our lives are underway, where technology is transforming everybody's jobs, everybody's lives, where, uh, if you don't have the right kind of job, you're living aid or ten years less than your neighbor that has the right kind of job, that that's the kind of society we have right now. And those are issues that are really important.

But where do you discuss them? Uh, you're gonna hear about that on the campaign. You're not gna hear about that in almost all of the financial journalism, because financial journalism is mainly about what will the markets do, will the fed raise interest strates, lower interest strates.

Those are not completely uninteresting, but I find them completely boring. So even though that was what I went into to to begin with, but I thought how much fun that would be, turn dials and make economists go up and down. But IT turns out to be the least interesting part of the whole story.

just for sex.

I I do think at some .

point you should sit down and figure out ten stories over the past thirty years that have been made told, or missier said in the in in the public public view of them and just do four hours each as a university lecture and put them online and just make ee education as a talker.

Great idea.

Thank you. Have thanks.

Appreciate you. Thanks for listen .

to ck across some show. If you enjoy IT, you can go to ck across and that com to see everything that we have made the complete library after croson dc.