What this materials more means for the rest of the world. The consensus is that will be damaging not fatal for the United States. The reason china dominate the market is not because it is the only place where gallium and germanium exists, but because it is by far the cheapest place you can get them from. You dontjust dig them up from the ground, they are derived from a more complicated Reduction Process and china has that capability. So governments and businesses will have to rely on cheaper substitutes and alternative sources. It means prices will go up, it means some products might be less effective and some production right be delayed. 50 some production right be delayed some production right be dela ed. , delayed. So this sort of poses a bit of an delayed. So this sort of poses a bit of an existential delayed. So this sort of poses a bit of an existential thread i a bit of an existential thread for western industry. Finding a place for western industry. Finding a place for for west
globalisation, the idea that international markets will be able to deliver what you need when you need it at the price that you need. derisking is what western governors like to call it, being less plan on china, but this escalating to for tap between the world s superpowers, that has got people worried about the weapon eyes and a materials that you hold, the technologies that you have. a lot of people that think that is would have global consequences also for the help of the planet and that is because a lot of crucial green technologies rely on these so called critical materials weaponizing materials. this so-called critical materials weaponizing materials. this is not a national weaponizing materials. this is not a national problem, - weaponizing materials. this is not a national problem, this i weaponizing materials. this isi not a national problem, this is a human not a national problem, this is a human race problem, and hopefully policymakers can come to the hopefully po
hard-pressed states like california and new york. they re cutting. we re seeing significant cuts in programs and jobs. over the past year state and local government payrolls declined by a couple hundred thousands. they re doing both, raising taxes, cutting spending but having a hard time closing the hole. the problem is taxes are racessed on the wealthy but that alone is not enough. there s back end taxes as well. do you think, mark, ultimately we re going to have to have higher taxes, state and federal, on the middle class? i think everyone has to share in the burden and higher tax rates on middle income households is probably likely. hopefully policymakers focus on the spending and try to reign in the growth. that makes more sense. at the end of the day the budget holes are so large the problem is it s hard to cut spending. pensions are contractually