The Duran Podcast - G20 Summit Breakdown w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Episode Date: September 12, 2023

G20 Summit Breakdown w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Okay, we are live with Alexander Mercuris and the one and only Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the Center for Sustainable Development, Columbia University. And you have an incredible blog as well where you post all of your articles. And I will have a link to all of that information in the pinned comments. It's right now in the description box. When the live stream is over, I will have Professor. Sacks, his information as a pinned comment down below. We have 30 minutes with the great Professor Jeffrey Sacks. Alexander, what are we going to talk about? I think G20 is on the agenda today.

Let's begin. Absolutely. Can I just say the G20 summit is turning out to be enormously important, in fact, historic. I am surprised. I had thought it would be otherwise, but in fact, we're seeing the movement of events accelerate and deepen and perhaps we should have listened, I should have listened more carefully to what Professor Sacks has been saying for some time because an awful lot of things have happened in

Delhi. We've had the African Union join, something which Professor Sacks said would happen and it has. And we also see how the diplomatic initiative is moving increasingly

to a one range of powers. We see also some very bitter articles, I think inappropriately bitter articles about this appearing in the media in the West and lots of emphasis about certain comments in the joint statement about Ukraine, which I think to some extent overshadow the greater story of what is actually taking place at the G7. But Professor Sachs, this is very much the sort of that you are very expert on. You follow these events. You know about these countries. You've been to India. Tell us what your immediate feelings, your thoughts about the G20 was. Well, it was actually rather remarkable. Why? Because the G20 is the G7 countries. That's the U.S. core, the European

Union on the one side, and it's the bricks on the other side, and a few additional countries, many joining the bricks now. And so all the thought was that this was going to be a confrontation over the wording of condemnation about Ukraine and so forth. And amazingly, we saw India's deft diplomacy. We saw the weight of the world. politics shifting towards the emerging economies, towards the bricks. We saw actually the United States not ready, willing, or able to break a document that Prime Minister Modi wanted, because the U.S. is so much hoping that India will somehow side with the U.S. a kind of naive idea. But in any event, we saw the voice of the emerging economies, say,

we want to have a change of the international economic order, and everybody went along with that, and nobody broke the proceedings. And I think it's also just an amazing tribute to India's deafness in this as well. I know the Sherpa quite well, and he said he was engaged in 200 hours of nonstop negotiations to make sure that there wasn't a blockade of this communique. And I believe him, I take him to the stopwatch word on that. That's a lot of effort. But it shows something really different in the world. Of course, as you mentioned, the addition of Africa to the G20,

something I've been advocating for a number of years, it's actually a pretty big deal for all the reasons that you and we have been discussing in recent weeks with the bricks and the shifting power in the world. Africa as a union is a big deal for Africa, first of all. But having Africa join the table to what will be the G21 is also a big deal. 1.4 billion people added. The voice of many of the lower income or lower middle income countries, very important for the restructuring of the world financial system, the world financial architecture, and it happened. And now what is also notable about all of this, just as a first-round thought is the discussions now move on to Brazil and Lula.

And he's going to carry all of this forward in the double capacity as president of the G20 and as a key member of the BRICS. So next year we'll have back-to-back the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, and we'll have the G20 in Brazil. And I think things are actually going to change. It's just the way of the world right now that we're watching the North Atlantic-led world, as I like to describe it, end. We're seeing the end of that. We're really seeing the rise of a multipolar world.

The U.S. is kicking and screaming. I think even more than that, the Financial Times is kicking and screaming. evening. They were the ones crying the most about all of this, which is kind of funny, but it shows British imperial nostalgia, perhaps most of all, in their editorial page. And just to wrap up how amazing, who defended this declaration as wonderful to people. Janet Yellen, telling the financial times, calm down, this is good. And Sergei Lavrov. Russia's foreign ministers say, terrific outcome. So there you have it.

Not a bad outcome for a weekend of diplomacy. By the way, on the subject of the British, we're very annoyed about the fact that our prime minister wasn't received by Prime Minister Modi in his residence. And it was done somewhere else. This is all over the media here. Oh, my God. You see.

I mean, you know, how are the mighty fallen? Sick transit, Gloria Mundi, exactly. Professor Zax, would you say that this is the moment when the G20, or rather G21, has actually become the G21, as opposed to the G7 plus others. In other words, that we've actually moved away from a system where it was just the United States and other countries brought in and they were able to talk and purport to agree with what others have said. But now we actually have the G20 starting to function, or G21, actually starting to function, as it was supposed to function as a real place where things are discussed and things are decided.

I mean, is this the moment when this organization has finally come into its own? I think we'll know the answer to that at the end of 2025, actually, because what we have now is a place where a real discussion happened and perforce a communique on that discussion. But we haven't had the change of the world economic architecture. And that's going to happen in one of two ways. It is going to happen. Either it's going to happen in a world that is really divided between essentially the G7 and the bricks and the world divides. And that could happen, I would say, to the huge detriment of the U.S. and Europe, because they will be the losers in that. Or we will actually have a world that peacefully, fitfully, but still decisively moves. to a true multipolar world together. And that is what the G-21 would represent.

I don't think we're done with this story yet, obviously, because what's in the declaration is actually a lot of good, high-minded things, by the way, everyone can download it. It's the G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration. It runs to 34 pages. Unless you're in my business, It will absolutely put you to sleep around page three. It's nothing but acronyms.

It's nothing but meetings. It's nothing but bureaucracy. I can tell you it matters, though. It is actually whether poor countries get financing or don't get financing, whether they continue to be poor. It's about whether we do have an international system that is more than just a fig leaf of U.S. power, but is really multilateral institutions. Is the World Bank a U.S. institution with the name World or is it a world institution? That's absolutely undecided right now. But in the declaration, it is to be a world institution.

We shall see. It's tricky. I have to tell you, as you know, and I always find it amazing, the World Bank is at 18th in Pennsylvania Avenue. That means it's one block away from the executive office of the president of the United States, two blocks away from the White House and three blocks away from the U.S. Treasury. It was designed as a U.S. owned and operated institution, essentially, though on paper it's owned by the world. Now we're at that juncture. Either this institution becomes a

world institution or it shrivels into basically uselessness. How will it go? The next two or three years are really going to be important in this. And I think India wants to make it a world institution. I think China wants to be part of this, but not as a U.S. institution, but truly as a world institution. I can tell you inside these organizations, which can make a big difference in the world,

also the IMF, it is completely fraught along these dividing lines, right now, these institutions constantly need to replenish resources and change voting structures. And that any resemblance to reality means a voting structure in which the U.S. no longer runs the world. And that is the crossroads that were on exactly now. Because as I understand it, the Bricks at their recent summit in Johannesburg went out of their way to say that they're not seeking to overturn or destroy these institutions, the World Bank and the IMF. They want them reforms, but they're not actually going out of their way to abolish them.

And I used to take quite an interest in the World Bank. And I remember it once doing quite a lot of interesting or so it seemed to me in useful things. I don't hear about it so much anymore. But anyway. Well, but interestingly, by the way, it did. It was purged. It became an institution of the neocons in a real way. And it also dramatically was reduced in scale compared to any relevant amounts of capital flows or financing needs. And this is why the question is, is this institution just going to die away as a legacy institution of post-World War II? Or is it going to there to finance, actually a kind of world that I would really like to see where there is an end of poverty and a modernization of infrastructure around the world.

And it could play a very constructive role in that, but it needs a different governance structure and more financial heft. Can I just come back to India and India's role? Because of course, India was the host. India is now seen by many people, as the sort of informal leader of the global South countries. At least that's how it's represented here in the West. They've shown extreme great skill in handling the diplomacy around the summit, and I think there's no doubt about that.

But in one of our programs fairly recently, and I've been thinking about this more in the context of this meeting, you've been speaking, you spoke about the fact that India and China might start, finally working towards resolving their differences. And there was a meeting between Modi and Xi Jinping in Johannesburg. And of course, Xi Jinping didn't come to this summit. And people saw this as somehow him acting against Prime Minister Modi, which I don't think it was actually.

But in fact, and in practice, both in Johannesburg and here in Delhi, the Chinese and the Indians seemed to be able to work together quite well. Was that your impression? And is it more likely now that they will start working towards sorting out their differences? Because that's my impression, certainly. On the whole, I think that India and China will have normal and in many areas very good relations. But India is a world power and a civilization onto itself. China is a world power and a civilization onto itself.

Russia is a world power and a civilization onto itself. And these are distinct cultures. And though they will be friendly and supportive in some areas, they will absolutely balance each other in other areas. That's what a multipolar world is. It is not a tight alliance that we're likely to see unless some horrific global events take a place in which sides are really taken. But with India and China, there's actually every reason for a lot of cooperation on a lot of

things. And the division is lines in the high Himalayas and contest. borders. This is not at the core of the interests or security stakes of either country. So one would think that pragmatically, because those are both very pragmatic leaders and countries that have a lot of things they want to get done over the coming years, they'll find a way to really tamp that down because this is not a fundamental issue. Neither country threatens the other in any fundamental way whatsoever. But they have a lot of interest. They have a lot of interest in the international financial architecture and the global governance structures. I would like to see China champion India as a

permanent member of the Security Council, for example. This would be a good thing and a wise thing for China to do in China's interest in building a multipolar world. You could say, why would China let in a powerful peer potential competitor? And the answer is, because China doesn't want a U.S. monolithic or hegemonic world. China wants a multipolar world. And India is the single, obvious new member of the U.N. Security Council by any standard. When you make the lists by different criteria, India is the giant, 1.4 billion people, nuclear power, a fast-rising economy, very sophisticated country.

the one obvious country that's not at the front table of the UN Security Council. So I'd find it hard to believe, given my own experience with the Chinese pragmatism during the last 40 years, that China and India won't find a way to really cooperate on a lot of important things. Of course, the U.S. in its endless dreams thinks that India is going to be part of the U.S. alliance. They forget, by the way, that India was, and Britain may forget also, but it should be reminded that Britain colonized India. It was a pretty painful imperial rule, not so much appreciated or beloved in retrospect. And India is not going to fall into the U.S. camp under any

circumstances, especially if China just behaves sensibly, which it typically does, very typically does. I mean, rising great powers do not subordinate themselves to other great powers. It's not something that happens. And the whole point about the Security Council is that it's supposed to bring together the great powers. So the fact that India is one is a reason to make it a member. That's correct. Otherwise, it's not complete. Now, what about the other country that we mentioned, the fact that Brazil is coming after India. Because, again, speaking from somebody born in the 1960s, I can remember a lot of people talking then about Brazil as a rising country.

And it has never seen to quite happen. But it seems we seem to be closer to that point with Brazil than we've ever been before, perhaps, that things are beginning to come together very slowly. It's one step forward or two steps forward. one step back, but are things coming together in Brazil too? Because it's showing increasing sophistication in its diplomacy. Of course, the ultimate cliché of Brazil, the country of the future and always will be, the great joke. But the fact of the matter is Brazil is a very sophisticated

society with a very large economy. President Lula happens to be at a personal and political level, extraordinarily charming and capable and very clear-eyed about the world. I happen to love the guy. I just think he's a terrific president. And so I'm very happy that he'll be president of the G20 in the coming year. And they will host the climate conference COP 30 in the following year. And what we're seeing in Brazil during this past year is a lot of diplomatic progress, a lot of very interesting diplomatic progress. First, bringing South America, which is extremely complicated environment. It's a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, highly divided societies because of being a conquest continent of the Europeans, after all, and it left a very complicated

legacy. But Lula is bringing together South America. That's number one. Second, Brazil has a lot of technology, especially in food production, in biotech, that is what the world is going to need in the coming years. Brazil has a very clean energy grid, which is going to make it extremely attractive for lots of investment. It's going to perhaps be the first major economy in the world that is essentially all zero carbon powered. So I see Brazil having. tremendous potential and dynamism under President Lula, both on the diplomatic side and on the economic side. And I was with their economic team just the week before the G20, thinking about the G20 to come after India. And I was pretty taken with what they're up to. I think that we're going to

here this week when the so-called high-level debate of the UN General Assembly opens actually a week from tomorrow, President Lula, as President of Brazil, by tradition, will be the first speaker at the podium at the UN General Assembly. I'd be pretty confident he's going to give an extremely strong message of leadership and of reform of the global system. And I think Brazil is in a strong position to help pull that off. One other interesting initiative, by the way, that I've been dealing with Brazil on is they have gotten together the rainforest countries of the world, because, of course, they're the steward of the world's largest rainforest, the Amazon basin. And they've gotten together with Indonesia, another very significant regional power, of course,

and with the DRC Democratic Republic of Congo to make the equatorial belt of the rainstorms. forest countries united in conservation, in sustainable development, in biotech and so forth. It's a very interesting development, something quite real and something that Brazil is taking the lead on. The other thing that was very interesting for me at the G20 is that to my best of my understanding, the global South countries acted together. I won't say that they formed a block because that was certainly. would certainly be wrong, but they made very clear that they have shared views. They may have

differences between each other, but they have shared views about global governments, about what the priorities of the world should be. They made it very clear that they wanted this particular declaration. They would not have been happy if the United States, as it sort of suggested at one time, would walk away and not agree to a declaration at all. And the fact that, the fact that, the United States, as it's sort of suggested, that they acted like that appears to have had an effect on the United States and on the other G7 states that they said, we can't risk this happening. We can't have the global South, you know, angry with us. We can't, we can't allow that to happen. And that was one of the reasons why on this one issue, which is Ukraine, which is that they were trying to take it all about Ukraine. They

eventually had to back off. Was that your impression? also. Yeah, just two quick points on that. You know, first, if you add the population of the U.S., Canada, European Union, UK, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, you get to certainly around a billion, maybe a little bit above. I was going to do the numbers before we got on, didn't have the time to do the exact sum, but 12% of the world population. So when we say, that they're afraid of the global south or whatever term one wants. I don't love that term, by the way, because geographically, it's not the South. Geographically, it's most of the world, including most of the North, most of Eurasia. But in any event, it's the vast majority of the

world population that does not play the game of the United States, UK, and Europe. And I'm afraid that the U.S. just doesn't understand this. Something's gone so haywire in our education system that even, you know, they don't get it in Washington that there's a much, much, much larger world out there than they imagine. But the second point, I think, is really notable in what you say. The diplomacy is very high quality in India, in Brazil,

in South Africa, in Indonesia, in a number of countries in China. Real diplomacy. What does diplomacy mean? It means you know your brief. It means you know the brief of your counterpart. It means you're ready to sit down on an equal basis and actually discuss issues substantively.

I can tell you I've never seen weaker diplomacy in Washington or London or Brussels, I can't even call it diplomacy, or in Berlin, it's unbelievable. What is diplomacy? It's bad-mouthing, it's foul-mouthed, it's ignorance, it's a lack of understanding of the perspective of others, and it's bullying and arrogance that they think can somehow work. And what we're clearly seeing in the world right now is, is it doesn't work. It's over. You can't just bully and bluff your way through this. And the United States better train some diplomats, not foul-mouth insulters of others, but that's what we've seen. We've

forgotten the most basic skills of diplomacy in the last 20 years because it's all been, if you don't like the other country, you don't have to talk to them, you just do regime change operation. And so that's the opposite of diplomacy. So when you say how they work together and they did work together, and by the way, the Indian Sherpa gave a long account of how they worked together, that was just not block formation, it was very skilled, very intelligent, very well trained, very experienced people talking with each other like adults. And the one thing, I'm still longing for in Washington is some adult behavior. Not, by the way, octogenarian, non-composementous behavior. Just adult behavior would be nice. Professor Sachs, we're almost at the end

about Africa quickly. Should we be optimistic about Africa? I can remember Tony Blair telling us in Glen Eagles that he was going to solve the problems of Africa. Are the Africans about to solve their own problems? Is there a likelihood of possibility of that? Now they say, seem to be getting their act together. They're in the G20, their G21. Any thoughts? The imperial powers, especially in the Congress of Berlin in 1885, divided Africa, it ended up as 55 countries. If it were one union, it would be the same population as India, the same population as China. If they unite, they will absolutely. succeed. And what we'll see is Africa achieving 7 to 10% cumulative growth year by year in the next

40 years, like China did from 1980 to 2020, like India is doing from 2000 to 2040. Africa will be on the same path with a 20-year delay, I would say, 20-year starting point. But what we're going to see is a huge transformation. If the Africa, Africans do what they really look like they're doing right now, and that is uniting because as one continental economy that defends its interests and pursues its interests together in global venues and global leadership, it's going to be a very different and very positive world. Professor Sachs, I think we'll stop now because we're up to a hard stop, but cannot. I just say thank you again for coming and joining us and giving us your time on this busy day.

Thank you very much. Always a great pleasure with you guys. Thanks. Thank you very much. Take care of everybody. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. All of Professor Sacks's information is in the description box down below and I will have it

as a pin comment. Alexander, I think we can handle the questions for Professor Sacks. I think you can pinch hit as we say in, in baseball in baseball terms. But let's answer the questions because we have a lot of good questions. You up for it? Yep.

All right. Let's do it. Helena, thanks for joining the Duran community. Jeff, thanks for joining. Jeff's channel. Thanks for joining the Duran community. Death dealer says, actually, wait a minute,

death dealer, I think I have your first question here. Yes. Will the attackers be used to threaten or attack Russia or just be used on a Crimean Bridge? And then Death Deethaler says, I actually meant to put the nut. Sorry, but I think we understand the question. Yes.

Will the attackers be used to threaten or attack Russia or just be used on the Crimean Bridge? I don't know what the Ukrainians are going to do with them, but they will certainly use them against the Crimean Bridge, whether they plan to go and attack Russia itself. I doubt these things have the range for that. if we're talking about pre-Russia within its pre-2014 borders. But I would have thought the Crimean Bridge is an obvious target. And I think that is the primary purpose of what these things will be used for. Okay.

Let's see here. Lilibet, welcome to Drank Community. This one would have been a good one for Professor Sacks. But I think you can handle this one, Alexander, from Rocky Lux. Professor Sacks, when government debts continuously expand at a greater rate, than GDP growth, what are its consequences and does high inflation, fewer excessive government debt levels? If not, what can correct the US debt levels?

That's a huge question, actually. And one that it probably would require an economist. We had to do a hard stop for Professor Sachs. I know. But I will try to the best of my ability to answer. Now, I would have said as a mathematical, as a simple mathematical, point. You cannot go on increasing debt faster than your GDP indefinitely. There will come a point when that is, by definition, mathematically, if you like, unsustainable. It will also, at some point

distort, and I think we've long past that point, by the way, it will also distort your economy so that a lot of what you think is GDP is actually debt. And I think we are, we are, well past that point in the West, by the way. So I think that debt, when it gets completely out of control, to the extent that we've actually already seen in the West, it becomes dangerous and bad. It becomes like a cancer inside the economy. Now, using high inflation to cure debt,

I suppose in theory it is a cure, but I would say that it's probably a cure worse than the disease. I mean, that's my own feeling about this. It's in effect taxing the vast majority, but taxing everybody to pay debts which might be affecting the few. And I think it would be a disastrous way to actually deal with debt. And, you know, if you've lived through high inflation experiences, as I have done, you would know that it's not something you want to see as a way out.

Now, what can you do about correcting debt? Now, here I will say I'm very attracted to the thoughts of another economist, which is Michael Hudson, which is that you recognize that if some debt is becoming excessive and burdensome and impossible to pay, then you write it off. Now, that's nothing new. I mean, there are things you need to do if you write debt off. There might be, you know, you're talking about in effect a bankruptcy or default situation. But countries have done that in the past and they've survived and they've come through.

And then you bring in new management teams and you run things properly. That is what I think should have happened in Greece after the 2008 crisis. But of course, it wasn't done. I don't mean this isn't, you know, you just write it off and you leave it at that and you start all over again. You have to reform the structures. You have to change things. But unless you write the debt off, every other solution is going to result in more harm and more damage. Yeah, that's a great answer.

Hopefully, Professor Sacks, if he's watching the rest of this video later on, hopefully he'll address this question. is a good question. Elza says in Joe Biden's plan for the G20 to fill a hole left by Putin and Xi and to get others to align with him, the weakest link was Joe Biden himself. Yes, absolutely. And I think this is completely correct because Professor Sachs was talking about diplomacy. Do you associate diplomacy with the name Joe Biden? Because I certainly don't.

Look how rude he is above people. I mean, you know, that's not how you conduct diplomacy. And of course, you're absolutely, Elsie, you're absolutely right. He was the weakest link in the chair. Not that the others were any stronger. I mean, you know, we've got a foreign minister like Annalina Behrbog there. She's not going to impress anybody. But at least she's not the president of the United States.

He is the president of the United States. And he's hopeless at diplomacy. He doesn't understand it. He doesn't like doing it. And he puts everybody off. very unlikable guy Zaryel says Ask Professor Sacks about Bill Browder

and the stolen IMF funds for Russia along with Asianov and who killed Edmunds Saffra Lots of very interesting questions there I'm going to declare an interest here Andrena Krasov

who made the film about the Magnitsky affair and who deals a lot with Bill Browder is a close personal friend of mine just just saying so I mean I know you very very very well And obviously that means that I have a certain perspective on Bill Browder that derives to some extent from this. This is a huge topic and a very interesting topic. I think the best advice I can give, and this is separate from Professor Sacks' opinions about this matter, which I don't know.

But the best advice I can give is to go to the internet, find that film about the Magnitsky affair, which was made by Negrassev and see it for yourself and form your own views. Mine are clearly made up, but, you know, search it out and find it, and you'll come to your own views. Jerry says, thank you for your hard work and brilliant guests. Jonas O says, off topic, answer if you like. Has your work affected you in a negative way in some way, canceled or something like that? I would say absolutely the opposite in my case. It's given me a certain, far from being counted.

I'm almost embarrassed, actually, by the amount of attention that I've received. And I have to say that overall, I feel the enormous support of the community, the Duran community, and I am really grateful for it. Yeah. O'Cock says, thanks for having Professor Sachs on again. Rado Alfonso, thank you for that. Orlando says, you guys do great work, good brother per share, in a state. room, World Bank and IMF perpetuate poverty. And in their present form, absolutely.

I remember once upon a time, the World Bank used to churn out all kinds of reports. For my sins, I used to read them. And some of them I found very interesting and very, very informative. And slowly you saw that all ever way. And I haven't had anything interesting from the World Bank from a long time. I'm not going to even start talking about the IMF, which, well, I haven't. We know it very well in Greece, but lots of other places they know it too. Now, I'm going to start about the IMF.

But certainly, as these institutions exist today, you are absolutely right. I think the IMF is a lost cause. The World Bank, well, I'd like to think you can bring it back. I wonder whether you can really. And why would they want to? Why would the other countries in the world outside the West want to bring it back? But anyway, we'll see. Claudia says so appreciative for all your insights on informative channel.

Claudia, life of Brian says, given the fiasco of the governor of New Mexico regarding guns, do you anticipate to the admin state overextending and hence losing its battles in domestic policy, as it has lately in foreign policy? But I'm not going to want. I think this is actually an answer question you can answer, better than me, Alex, because you're probably following this more closely, and you may be... I've seen the interview. I don't know if you've seen the interview, the statement from the...

I think she's the governor of New Mexico. New Mexico. I believe I... Yeah. I've not really gone deep into this story. I don't know. Well, I mean, this is, again, a perfect Robert Barnes topic, if I may say so. And he's perhaps the best person to discuss all of these.

I think he covered this. Right. I think he covered this in the live stream with Viva Frye that they did yesterday. I'm not sure, but I think they covered this. But he's, this is, this is for Robert, for sure. But can I just say about the risk of them losing their, one risk, I would say the hope they will overextend and lose their domestic battles. I think ultimately that is exactly what will happen.

The question again is how much damage are they doing in, the meantime. We've already done programmes about the way in which they've gone past the law. They've gone past the constitution itself. More and more people are saying it. And it looks like they're doing this again and that they're losing sight of due process and due process arguments and constitutional safeguards and those kind of things. And I suspect that this New Mexico affair with the guns is, I mean, it seems to me that it's all connected with all of that. Sparky says was skeptical of Lula because I thought he was captured by U.S. globalists,

but I've been pleased with him so far. Me too. Well, said Sparky. Stan says, AGW is a scam. Does it matter? Clean tech is here. That's Neil M. Thank you for joining the Duran community.

Mobia Zero says, is war with China simply fate, destiny at this point? Is the U.S. and China going to end up killing, nuking each other after all? I saw a really disturbing piece by, I think it was Larry Johnson. He had a meeting with one of his friends. I can't remember who it was, that he had a meeting with, no, it was Professor Syracuse, actually, with one of his contacts in Washington. And they were talking about apparently a conflict with China,

the Hawks, as he puts it, the neocons, as we would say, in Washington. For them, it's absolutely the priority. they're decided on it. That's what they're heading towards. I don't think it's fate and I don't think it's destiny. I think it is entirely human action. What human beings decide to do, other human beings can stop.

Whether we will stop it, whether it will be stopped in the United States. I don't know, but I hope it will be because that would be a calamity beyond all others. Yeah, Sparky says the only way Russia should. trust any peace deal with the West is if it's guaranteed by two of these three countries, India, China, Brazil. France and Germany won't cut it anymore. Well, I think you're right. I don't think they will trust the West. And I do think the West will accept for the moment any peace agreement guaranteed by India, China, and Brazil. I mean, it's as simple as that. So that already puts it in an enormously problematic territory,

because the West will never, ever accept a situation where it's put on the same level as these other countries, powerful though they are. Yeah. John says it will take Russia and China leaving the UN to get India and Brazil added to the Security Council. No, I don't agree. I mean, Russia supports India joining the Security Council. China has at times shown some doubt about this. The big opponent, if you must know, to India joining the Security Council is,

you guess it's Britain. British aren't key. It's not surprising because of course if India joins the Security Council, well, Britain's position starts to be overshadowed by its former economy. So the British is not really pleased about it. Mobyazira says when war comes to East Asia,

will China and North Korea turn Japan and South Korea into failed states which they will have to invade to keep from becoming terrorist puppets? I mean, these are the, nightmare scenarios, the apocalyptic scenarios, which one day we might face, but let's hope we never do. And I really don't want to speculate about them. It's clear that there are now dividing lines in the North East Pacific. The United States is trying to create this alliance between Japan and South Korea

and the United States itself to confront China. We see Russia and North Korea being drawn in on the other side. I hope it doesn't come to the kind of outcomes that you say, but we can see that the battle lines are already being drawn. Control demolition says, thank you, Jeffrey Sachs and the Duran. HWW says, what does Professor Sachs and Alexander think of the India, Middle East Europe corridor? Is it really going to happen? That's a good question. I'm interested about that as well. Do you think this is really going to happen?

I can't speak for Professor Sacks. So let's let me make this very good. If this happens, well, why object to it? Why say, first of all, that it would be a bad thing if it happens? It's another trade corridor. More trade corridors that there are, the better they are. But, of course, the point about this is it's really another attempt to try and create an alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. And there's been many of those.

I mean, I don't know whether people remember just one or two or three G7 summits ago. I think it was the first one, actually, that Biden presided over. There was going to be this big alternative. The G7 came up with this big alternative plan for an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative and all kinds of money were put together and all kinds of things happened. We never heard of it again. And does anybody really believe this is going to happen? the United States, which is the sponsor of this project, has problems with its own infrastructure.

Oh, that's going to say. I mean, is it really going to create infrastructure in these places? It should invest in its own infrastructure first, absolutely. Mobius Zero says, I'm literally starting to wonder whether China and Japan are going to kill each other. War with China seems to be destiny, and Japan seems to be quite happy to die for the U.S. Is China going to have to go Hitler genocide? Now, again, I hope that we don't get to these points. And I should say that if the country to worry about here is Japan,

and I think that Japan once more needs to start pursuing an independent foreign policy more based upon its own interests. And I think this is a very pressing and important topic, which we might very well be discussed. with Professor Sacks again. Can I just say that? But I hope we don't get to this because the outcome would be a disaster.

And I can't conceive that anybody in China, for example, would want to resort to those kind of methods. I think Mobia Zero is worried. Yeah, he is worried. And I think we are worried. And there's every good reason to be worried. But let's work to try and prevent these terrible things taking place. Yeah.

Michael, thank you for. for that super sticker. Toby says, free esoteric PDF book The World Teacher for All Humanity by Benjamin Crem. Profound insight in simple terms. Seek truth, find understanding and hope.

Okay, good. I'm not familiar with the book, but thanks for letting us know. Small town voice says, it is wonderful to have you guys sorting things for us in this very interesting time. Thank you.

Well, there's a kind word. I know about sorting out, But anyway, we tried to discuss things. Ricardo says if they use Obama, math, then everything will be okay. Of course. He was the great mathematician. He got everything. He was able to find everything out exactly right.

Bobby Asira says again, I wonder if Chinese would love to kill Japanese. No, they would not. Here I can actually speak. I mean, there is major, major tensions between China and Japan. I can't speak with Japan. I used to have lots of contacts with people from Japan, Japanese business people. But that was a long time ago. In those days, all the Japanese I knew had a horror of war.

Many of them had lived through the Second World War and did not want to go there. Again, I can't speak for today's Japan. But in China, which I have visited, well, six years ago, absolutely people do not want war. Certainly not with Japan. That was my clear understanding of it. Tensions exist, yes, but they're not looking for war with Japan. Tom, somebody says, expand the U.S. Security Council to seven, remove UK, France. They are Western redundant with U.S. Russia, China, add India, Brazil, African Union, Indonesia,

or Middle East Nation for a Muslim representation. Well, I've actually seen it suggested that for the Arab world, the Muslim world, bring in the Arab League. I mean, you know, African Union, the Arab League as well. I'm going to say something. I think that there might just be a case for leaving France on the Security Council. It has had an independent foreign policy before. Perhaps it might again.

I think in Britain's case, I'm going to say this, if Britain lost its seat on the Security Council, it would be a good thing for Britain. It would put aside once and for all, this illusion that we're still a great power, and that is an illusion we need to do away with so that we can focus on our pressing domestic problems. Sophisticated caveman says, will we ever see the Greeks or other South European countries serve Bulgars? Join the bricks seems to be some cultural similarities. In Serbia, it's been floated. It's been suggested, yes.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Sleep Ukraine says, will an intervention in Mexico as a crackdown on the drug trade, will it be an easier target for the MIC after Ukraine failure? I think it would be a terrible mistake. That's my impersonal view. And Spacecake says, good evening. I think as long as we won't be able to leave this neoliberal capitalism, we get less democratically elected governments in the West, to your opinion.

I think we all agree. Yeah, I'll agree with that. And Emil 913 from locals, thank you for that. Super chat. And Chi Pumaki says, why would Sachs even mention carbon as if anything

other than a political Charlottenton scam? Well, I mean, he's talking about the Brazil's policies. I don't think he sees it in those terms. Okay. Alexander, that was a great live stream with the one and only Professor Sacks. Let me see if we got all the questions. I think we did.

Final thoughts and we'll wrap this one up. Well, a very optimistic and hopeful livestream. I just wanted to say also that I'm astonished by the outcome of the G20. I thought it was going to end in the division and that it was about to end and it was losing its relevance and it turns out it hasn't. And once again, we see how effective Indian diplomacy is. Yeah, very effective. All right. Thank you, everybody, for joining us on this Monday live stream. Thank you to our amazing moderators.

As always, a big thank you to everyone that's helping us out on the chat. Thank you to everyone that watched us on Rockfin, Odyssey, Rumble. Locals and YouTube. And maybe Twitter. Does Twitter have live streaming? I don't think so. Maybe one day Twitter as well. We'll see.

All right. Alexander, let's call it an evening. We'll call it an evening. Take care, everybody. Bye.