Thats its really the problem because you know there are as you pointed out there are forces that want to retreat from internationalization but on the other hand to solve some of these problems it has to be international jumpier you want to do is to try to answer a great need to your question who we knew was. In a was you needed terrorism you need out there on his own you know from the United States governing everything and now we constantly and we are. Of protectionism and we are and all of the worldwide globalization now the new frame easier e generalization or does it change you know of asia you of both america and you off china of course if we we are not working together on europe and continue on in his breach between asia and the United States as west and east and you know we dont know. Because you know who are doing is a gross underwears under happiness of the population so in that case we have to give Everybody Needs of good access to the needy doods or to the groups and of course millions are on if we dont do without europe on the rush on the continent and we dont organize this new frame oriented energetic regularization of of the trade and business or of course only our friend from china we will win because you are to be on point 7 again 150 years 8 and we 1000000000 and big media europe press russia and 600000000 you ladies date so it is younger to your girl then lets go to paul paul jump into i thing in this context actually protectionism no winners everybody will lose one way or the aga judging from this slowing down in global growth. The impact on Business Investment decision and hiring as well as the volatility in the Financial Markets so we see in hong kong obviously being a founder of deputy oh we will cater for free trade multilateralism based so that there is a division of labor and a good supply chain being built up over the world so that we can leverage our respective strength and shared a foot of success it isnt really that one of the biggest problems in its highly contentious because its a political issues and ever since the end of the 2nd world war socially to to now is that the United States or the washington consensus of scholars made the rules its not a clickable it and rules dont work for their advantage and now we have a changing economic global system in all the rules hold some people back and promote others it picks winners and i think this is the thing its be its going to be a very contin a shift political debate because the rules favor some of. The expense of others david miller sure i do agree with out there in the. Economist also if economists of effort thats why i went to you have. To be expecting this pounds of us to play a role of someone who represents the usual sort of neo liberal views but in fact i would actually think that i think that you know as frank mentioned obviously that in the way back to sort of regionalization it would have been loosened in all thats that something that has been emphasized again but i think it was the issue was always the distribution consequences right not everybody believes and they would be cargo even if you do believe in that regard to the art it was always the one who came up with the idea of comparative advantage there are winners and losers within societies and i think we have Many Companies feel to pull pretty good with that which has led to the issue of massive inequality which which happened in the face of a massive decline in clovelly inequality it all we have now these particular issues in the western countries to deal with. And i think we disagree a little but the point that everybody loses its true that it reduces from a global perspective but if you look at it from a distribution of perspective within some countries there may actually be some people who gain and at least in the relative basis and the inequality is about. The perception of will being countries may have a great ability to again regulate the domestic economic systems but then. Again the taxation away from individuals back to corporates and again obviously not an interest in educating that but thats thats just possibly the way its going to its going to go all. Dimitri thanks in all my battle. Point of view because you know all ideals new paradigm which is a new paradigm we have a Global Economy during 5000 euros a goal so really all our life is kind of a little move to Global Economy. Its not possible to say that Global Economy is absolutely beautiful or protectionism its a kind of evil because it is mitigated by brutal but there is theres theres issues i mean the you know like the trump and ministration is weaponized the dollar ok i mean that affects everybody in the world the next global trade significantly you can talk about globalization in that sense him and i suppose the entire world will become is always connected but when you have one or 2 countries that can call the shots that can change the oil prices in a heartbeat not based on it and the economic rationality but because of a political decision to take issue a little bit with this idea that tree you know the slowdown in global trade growth is inherently a bad thing might just be a quite a natural phenomenon the trade doesnt grow for ever faster than income and i think a large part of the reason why trade growth is slowing is because china is becoming more developed so instead of export all of its output there are certain theres a growing domestic market you know i think that a part of this story and on the input side and what previously were imported into china china can now supply itself so theres a vertical integration going on in china and because its so large it affects global trade flows so eventually you probably reach some equilibrium way down the road where where trade and income i. E. G. D. P. Kind of grow at the same levels in terms of the Income Distribution argument which we treat here a lot of winners and losers i think one you know lets think about it this way you think about Income Distribution within countries and think about Income Distribution between countries its hard to argue the fact that global trade the growth of global trade has improved Income Distribution between countries so we have fewer very poor countries so National Income levels rise i think thats been demonstrated china again is probably the best. Ample of that but within countries we can clearly see that Income Distribution is getting worse so thats not an issue for for the governments to coordinate with each other its governments need to address these issues on the rome there is a very strong correlation between economies that are open with the exception of hong kong and singapore because there are very small but more open economies tend to have a larger governments because those governments recognise that there is a redistribution role for governments and im thinking about really western European Countries the nordic countries in particular so there is a redistribution role for government when trade is a large share of g. D. P. Because yes there are winners and losers but if you think trade is advantageous then thats an appropriate role for government to have we if you look historically if you look at the major conflicts almost every single major conflict in history has a economic trade component to it. And im wondering if with this paradigm shift alone that were. Do we see a potential conflict built into it because you know we have the cities trap thats what were really essentially talking about here in this paradigm shift you know when one country is ascending the major power that is the status quo power has options either you allow the rising power to continue their rise even to surpass you you negotiate your decline in the relative rising of your opponent and then of course theres the 3rd variant and it is called conflict ok and in modern history have seen many many of them ok we can look at the the the competition between Great Britain and germany prior to the 1st world war we can look at the sanctions with United States applied on japan prior to the attack on pearl harbor i mean all of these were about trade. Yes easy knew the little we are not to forget seems to tuition to put 0 because our little would be gone from the after the 2nd world war i have math you are central to world bank one central bank you are all these big institutions but. Today sort of globalization and now is a re read a generalization it is globalization and the back of the projects in ism i am not sure we have to involve more went to court but should be done to surpass the countries with these exactly todays emerging countries sometimes eggrolls is our more powerful is that the that in europe you know and then that would desist notion of greeks you know where russia is emerging countries is a joke saw these economies view is a little out they did no Global Institution us to be modernized to welcome the newcomers and to give everybody has a right to grow it easy global world if not just protectionism these projects an ism now pushed by our friend from United States is very negative and if we dont move at the same time zone rules of the game we are big problem like you say its always before big conflicts into context you seizes sanctions we have to stop dissension because now we are sanction you know russia. Against russia from United States and europe now we are here and you have jumped on you know in this context of sanction to everybody where do we go we have to stop the city get. Join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and ill be speaking to guests of the world of politics sports business im show business ill see you then. Most people think just stand out in this business you need to be the 1st one on top of the story or the person with the loudest voice of the biggest raid in truth to stand down the booze business you just need to ask the right questions and demand the right answer. Questions. That are owed to the birds or head the ball behind or to feel good. About our good. Every day is that you. Just should be the good mother should it. Be so much im going to move. On im going to make you feel as you know not just the from home in these emotional for me to. Be of a articles from the. God since way. To be a mother i need. To mean dont hate. This kid who want to. Think of. Any. Kind of a system different to mean. Innocent and run them shithead. If you look at the trade negotiations between china and the United States. Just over the last few weeks i mean there was the western media really gave a very odd skewed interpretation of what happened because essentially what the United States is doing is demanding. Regular tory changes the way china does business i mean outside power dictating the terms and conditions of how you run your economy and of course the chinese said no the thing is what what does sovereignty mean in all of this paradigm shift i think thats the big question right here because we started out you know no one said the word yet but ill say it brags it ok we have the european parliamentary elections that showed the the the center is collapsing and a lot of it gets down to understanding how this paradigm shift is moving forward and remain maintaining your sovereignty and no one has been able to really figure out how to square that circle when you look at how trying to respond to it has been very measured. Oh of self defense and going back to your you know your earlier question about a possible conflict it has always been stated that it is not the ambition of china to claim well number one ought to become a supreme power if you look at the batman role initiating what just being emphasis is working too bad for Mutual Benefits openness in course if innes and not being a crony. So the mentality i will fall off of china is from a different when compared to that of the United States let me come back to the brics its a very good point we are starting from. A loser and the interests between nations but the raw losers and winners inside the countries and that is so much bigger problems that its a clear signal that the. More rich and more satisfied from of the go the globalization solves. Long them. There is an awful finland which is absolutely dissatisfied the last 20 years. Of political system in the us its the same story the senate story so maybe this is an even bigger problem sure and i dont rule political consequences so for. Windows and losers inside the countries i just want to say that in the past 30 years up until recently their Global Economy has been living a dream and many new developing countries were integrated into the system they learn to enjoy the fruits of the system of the architecture of financial trade legal that was actually created by the western world and now that their roles in their economic power and they basically compete for the same share of the fight with those who created this architecture and. This is a more. This is a. Conflict because the paradigm that was created during those 30 years is based upon the supply chain system so the western countries. Used the local markets in the developing world they use their labor costs lower labor costs they shifted their production overseas to maximize their profits and those countries. From those supply chains integrations and now that they moved to higher levels of value. They basically compete with those who created the supply chain and so the question of the title of the session is where this is a paradigm shift the answer to this question is very tricky because a lot depends on how this conflict in substance is not a trade conflict but its purely economic financial existential how this conflict is managed so that if they do if the software and everybody will be fine if they do the hard. Created supply chains and there will be a shift. Of interest. So. Everybody. Knew. The new rules of the game. For currency for. Everything. Completely chance. Of i. M. F. And exit corporately i would they did always go by the same europa weezer agreement of the United States when you just up if you but now we are. Happy if you we have an economy of everybody so what we have to emphasis is the spirit of working together for share benefit Mutual Benefit when you go to our 1st row here since you have a new one of them can. Thank you peter has been a fascinating discussion. Which covered many topics ive noticed actually peter youll have been trying to bring the discussion in somehow to the dominance of United States and reluctance for the us to to to. Keep. The dominance so maybe on that i would like to make some comments and 1st comment is about chinas growth being looted by your panelist i think right now china needs to grow slower not faster thats a very different theme from this conference if china can grow at 4 percent. Actually i would be very happy so to some hans most economists know who. He was born researched years years because a current of growth rate is clearly not sustainable i think everyone knows that in china we cannot increase leverage and we cannot. Have more conflict with the Major Trading partners i think thats very important secondly i think its too early to say this is a paradigm shift cost by trade tensions or trade war because i mean as a financial secretary of on kong has said reactions from china so far have been quite measured i think thats a correct policy response in fact i would i do or kate to think for china one to even get on higher moral ground and to reduce tariffs to help consumers i think this trade war is also a stress test just like Financial Institutions they need a stress test i think trade war itself clearly tallying us Financial Sector reform in china is a seriously liking imagine imagine if we do not have hong kong do you think you have all this in the background i mean kind of Economic Growth would have been less impressive because were being all sourcing Capital Market function 200 imposter 30 years so i think this is a stress test is a wake up call i think i think kind of should really really open up even further to more yeah i just want to say on the remaking the world. Takes lot of courage and a lot of from those who are already in control thats why they have to think about the future. And make these institutions reflect the economic reality that has changed since since the world war 2 you know and whether this is something they can compromise at their question we dont know that yet and one point on the Financial Sector the Financial Sector is very important but it doesnt exist in the void its primary object is to finance the real sector operations and thats where the trade in goods and Services Come into play and thats where you get all this competition lets take a look at this. Way i mean its all about competition its all about financing the best terms financially and the best products and fortunately if we dont come up with the rules with a rules based system this will go on forever why we have to do that if we come back to this question of will. System i mean its not an Immediate Reaction to the 2nd world war its a reaction to the prelude to the 2nd world war which which is certainly originated also. Lets say to the trade conflict and the Great Depression which was there no i would say you need so that leaves 3 from these institutions so that they are able to give an answer to the new developments of the new challenges which are there but he tricked you mentioned this before you have to compromise and everybody has to compromise here and if lets say to the major force which also has safeguarded to functioning of these institutions is perhaps no broking these institutions or really wanting to compromise on this they certainly would bring us into trouble at the moment i would avoid the war over the world over trade war its a trade conflict because if you look into the prehistory of the 2nd world there was a really trade war. Thats a much more shop than we have it now but certainly we own a very its a difficult danger. Worst possible moment and here i think that political rationale team has to prevail ideally im sorry of course album american under Russian Parliament i think its very difficult to predict what will happen in the world to quantum and world trade and yes because you know not now the meatiness on pictures book and sun futures book at the moment for him and i remember very well and probably. Through all sort of remember what. Were discussing here with our american colleagues 10 years ago 20 years ago. I think in the ninetys and in the beginning on. This. 10 year as americans convinced to join w tool and actually. They positioned this self like a main guarantor the liberal economy although that world and. This is a paradox but not think. The United States look like a main threat to this liberal economy how theyre built and. Theyre using all the. Instruments all the world trade and dollar as as a rope and as in the comic up on against russia china and not even against mexico so that this is a quite new sedition nobody can predict this 10 years ago so i think. This trade was sanctions gone through sanctions. And the this is a lose lose situation for everybody and. I think theyre all all the u. S. Dollar and if you talk about that theyre a current if you look at the russian currency reserves is change their might to carry and that. Percentage of the us dollar wasnt on the sun you know from from a to probe a bit of percent. For his love and he is a little down to 35. 00 so this is a dramatical situation and i think if in the future the United States will use dollar as a verb that theyre all of dora will decrease will because their might to quicken isnt a global currency its all about its not its value its value is trust and if you compromise sort of trust then its value is compromised thats and im getting out of sort of it is not a political weapon that is all the time we have i hope you have enjoyed our Panel Discussion we could have gone on and on but i think weve got we got to the main points and i appreciate it thank you thank you thank you thank you. Im. In a world of big partisan movies. And conspiracy its time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that Mainstream Media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the back and shouting past each other its time for Critical Thinking its time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now were watching closely watching the hawks. Color. Is hard to take so from somebody if you know have someone replacing. We want to do this interview today at our dues market open that they take me. There and. There are. So occupied so you start selling drugs it will hire someone to put the money in it back. Then just me all the way into life its almost invasively mccullers peaceful for. The us whats a good many Security Systems of the. Day were jacked me again. You see people get all their cars and ill see you coming in the herd and it seems like theyll hurry about running to the house like they dont want to they dont want to talk see or get your mail or anything like that. Just try reading. Their notes and some give me. Good food descriptions sound up to tell using even for the owners so how to choose just had Food Industry is telling us what to feed our pets is really more based on what they want to sell us than was necessarily good for the patent turns out that food may not be as healthy as people believe we have animals that have you know diabetes and arthritis and they have auto immune disorders allergies we are actually creating these problems its a huge epidemic of problems all of them i believe can be linked. Very simple problem of diet and some dog owners so heartbreaking stories about their pets last treats the larger corporations are not very interested in proving or disproving the value of their food because theyre already making it a 1000000000 dollars on it and theres no reason to do that research. Leisurely legal little. Question about russia interfering in the 2020 us president ial elections he discussed all his control and volatility in the middle east and ukraine with Vladimir Putin behind closed doors at the g 20 gathering in japan. We have not seen the students to see can all who have been working together they give us a great opportunity to follow up. One of britains largest Waste Management firms is convicted for attempting to send tonnes of household rubbish to china wrongly labelled as a paper