From rabies to Zika to COVID-19, IAEA scientists have been working on the forefront of zoonotic diseases for decades. This vital work is mainly carried out through the Joint FAO IAEA Centre for Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. Following the emergence of COVID-19, the IAEA launched the Zoonotic Disease Integrated Action Project, or Zodiac. This will work to help countries better control diseases that cross from animals to humans and respond quickly to any outbreaks. Nuclear and nuclear-derived techniques are tried and tested tools for detecting and understanding zoonotic diseases. These tools are applied and developed in joint IAEA FAO Animal Health Laboratories and shared through a large international network of veterinary research facilities. Zodiac will build further on long-standing collaborations with the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Organization for Animal Health. A nuclear-derived technique called Realtime RT-PCR has been a major tool in the world's battle against COVID-19. The technique allows for rapid and accurate detection vital to limit the spread of a virus. In partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the IAEA has been at the forefront of developing this technique, which is also a powerful tool in veterinary medicine. The agency has helped over 120 countries use this technique to detect the new coronavirus by providing the necessary equipment, guidance and training. In Belize, avian influenza has been identified in poultry, impacting international trade and threatening human health. The nuclear technologies and the nuclear-derived technologies for us gives us this extra sensitivity and specificity so that we can detect the pathogens before the outbreak of the disease. Early diagnosis enables swift action to prevent diseases spreading to humans. It allows farmers to isolate and treat infected animals quickly. In the past, we had to send samples to the United States for confirmation of a disease. Now with the help of IAEA, we are able to detect the diseases in less than 36 hours. In Sierra Leone, vets are training colleagues from across Africa to monitor potential outbreaks of Ebola in bat populations. Locals set thin nets to trap the bats at night before taking them back to the laboratory for analysis. The vets learn how to safely study the bats using nuclear-derived techniques to quickly see if they carry Ebola or other viruses. Rapid detection is vital as it allows countries to take quick action to contain outbreaks. This can stop the disease from spreading to humans and causing devastating epidemics. The IAEA, through the Zoonotic Disease Integrated Action Program, Zodiac, is providing an answer so that through nuclear applications and techniques, countries can work faster in an easier and most efficient way to detect as early as possible new pathogens that can turn into zoonosis and then into pandemics.


I am going to go through some of the ways that I personally dealt with reduction-sensitive dysphoria. I gathered a larger sample size. For any of you who don't know, I went to university, I did biomedical sciences. There is a lot of statistics involved in that. I learned a lot about how scientific research was made, how facts were proven and disproven. A lot of the time, having a larger sample size of data allows you to be a lot more certain about whether something is right or not. When you don't have a large sample size in terms of people, and a lot of those experiences are quite negative, especially when you're just coming up through school, there's kind of adolescent, early 20s kind of ages, you're going to have a very large bias towards a negative. You're going to feel like there's no good people out there. You're going to feel very intense feelings of scarcity. One of the best ways to try and overcome that is to try and meet more people.


Hi everybody, Joe for Jasper's casebreaks.com coming at you with a Topps Merlin Chrome UEFA Champions League Soccer Pack where we're giving away five spots in this team random right here. That's coming up in a different video. So a $53.99 spot could help you win a $200 spot. Also, a little extra layer here, we're giving away six spots in this pack break. So we only sold 13 spots outright. So there'll be three different dice rolls here. So the first dice roll will be for the six extra spots. The second dice roll will be the pack break itself and the third dice roll will be the giveaways. All right, so let's do this first one here. This is for the six extra spots which may improve your odds on getting the main spots in the next team random. So top six after five, good luck, one, two, three, four, five. So there is the top six right here, Robert, Robert, David, Matt, David and Robert. Extra spots go on your way, slightly better odds. Gilo's asking if you gave up judges 62 which you just hit, how would you feel if you're the pitcher? Well, you don't feel good about it. You never want to give up a home run but I don't think they, yeah, at the end of the day I think Spago is right, it's just one, right, and no one remembers the pitchers that give up those hit homers anyway. Remember the pitcher who gave up Babe Ruth's homer, record setting homer, Roger Maris' record breaking homer? Most people don't know.  Six and a two, eight times for the pack rig, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. Yeah, Terry and Justin think that, paid by who, judge? Judge walks across the other side, I guess there's a lot of time in between a double header. He could have talked to Tim, Tim Meiser, Mike Towers saying. Six and a two, eight times for the teams, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. All right, nice picks man, showing off, good knowledge there. Most people won't though. All right, here it is, we got David with Leicester, Liverpool, that's just a filler, I don't need to read off all this, let's just, all right, team random coming up in the next video and then the break itself, Jude Bellingham, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All right, so nothing too, these are hobby packs, so there could have been autographs in there. All right, now the whole point of this is who's going to get into that $200 team random, let's copy all these names here, third and final dice roll, and it's going to be the top five after eight, two and a six, eight times, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and good luck, eighth and final time, top five, wow, David with three of the five, Matt is in, Robert is in, congrats to David, Matt and Robert, we'll see you in the next video for the team random, jaskiescasebreaks.com, bye.


You want my body, and you think I'm sexy? I don't. I am. He looks great. You don't. Do you like Torch TV direction idiots? I'm Corbin. I'm Rick. And you can follow us on Instagram and Twitter. Come on juicy content. It's so cheesy. Thanks for watching. Follow us on official Twitter account. Follow us on official 2.0 channel as well. Yep. There's good stuff over there. Little cuties. And today, we got a little special video, a little informational video. Yeah. This is called Why There Aren't More Sicks in the US Military. Wow. What an interesting topic to cover. This was sent to me by a Sikh. Correct. That's what they... Yeah, Sikh. Sikhs. Yeah, we had mistakenly said Sikh. Well, that's what I... We're known. Because that's how we knew it here. Somebody told me that it's Sikh in America to make sure they're not getting confused with the word Sikh. Gotcha. So I think that's what they said. Yeah, I think they called themselves Sikh. Yeah. But yeah, so this is a little informational video about... A little information. The last time I wore this shirt, Hustaji Zakhir Hussein pointed out you got a new shirt. Yep. You want to touch that? This is the shirt I was wearing when we were with him. You only have two shirts. That's true. Here we go. Since 1775, the military has broadly protected the religious liberty of its troops. But in 1981... This is American military. US military. Yeah. The military broke from that tradition when it passed a ban on all beards. The result, the near total exclusion of the world's fifth largest religion, Sikhism. I didn't even think about that. In the early days of the Sikh religion in South Asia, Sikhs suffered severe religious persecution. Defending themselves and their neighbors became a core part of their identity. Since then, Sikhs have populated armies worldwide and earned a reputation among the world's best warriors. I've had this fascination with that with the soldiers' life ever since I was a little kid.  This is Captain Simran Paul Singh. He goes by Simran. Growing up, he was an all-American high school student, just with a beard and a turban. I always had, you know, long hair. Never, never cut my hair. And I had a pretty awesome beard by my senior year of high school. For Sikhs, unshorned hair, turbans, and beards symbolize the core principles of their faith, such as equality, justice, and selfless service. After high school, Simran was endorsed by his local congressman and accepted into West Point. On his first day, he wore his beard and turban, thinking he would get an accommodation. He was wrong. Before he knew it, he was faced with a choice. Cut his beard or go home. And basically, I went inside the barbershop. You know, I had never been inside a barbershop. Sat down. Oh, man. I don't think the lady knew. She didn't know the significance. She didn't know that my entire life was being changed, right? Like, everything that I've been taught was just being shattered, you know, in five minutes. I think the way I made that decision, the way I justified it in my mind was that I'll figure out a way. Right? I'll figure out a way to come back. That was a promise that I made to myself. There are more guys like Simran out there, and a handful of them have received accommodations for their beards and turbans. And their success in the military has disproven the necessity to exclude other. That's right. Chaplain Goldstein is the longest-serving Jewish chaplain in the armed forces. I have been in some pretty tough places with a beard, my helmet, and the mission was never degraded or challenged a threat. Major Kamal Kallsi was also accommodated after petitions from the Sikh community. His medical background during a shortage of military doctors tipped the scales in his favor. I can tell you with a hundred percent assurance that none of my fellow soldiers, or patients could care less that I was wearing a turban or a beard while I was treating their wounds. The Pentagon has claimed that a bearded soldier cannot properly wear a beard, but its own soldiers, including Kallsi, Bulls, those who wear beards for medical reasons, even the Special Forces, who wear beards for tactical advantage. I was going to just talk about seals. Disproven the Pentagon's claim. I was going to talk about the seals. The past those combat readiness training exercises, it was validated that the fact that they look a little different and their appearance does not impact their combat readiness on the battlefield. Yet the policy remained. This picture is of my entire platoon in Afghanistan. I'm in the middle. Simmer served for 10 years, was trained as an Army Ranger, and received a Bronze Star Medal for his service. Dang. When it comes to soldier service, Major Kallsi and Chapman Goldstein, he requested an accommodation of his own. Soldiers that we were with together from 562 overwhelmingly have been in support of what he's doing, which I think is a huge testament to his leadership and his character and how much he strives to be an asset to the Army. But the Army stalled for six months and tried subjecting him to discriminatory testing that far exceeded the requirements for other soldiers. So in 2016, the Beka Fund, the C Coalition, and the Kermit Will & Emery helped Simmer pursue the United States military. Simmer's secret weapon was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RIFRA, which requires federal entities, including the military, to accommodate beliefs absent the compelling government interests. We are American. Without laws like RIFRA on the books that protect religious liberty, it's very difficult to bring these claims forward. It's really difficult to advocate for people's individual rights, and that has also made a very big difference in our ongoing discussions with the military. In 2016, a court ruled that the Army's treatment of Captain Singh was discriminatory, and told the Army to reconsider its regulations. The Army ultimately agreed, and in early 2017, they formally revised the 30-year-old ban to let Sikh serve. I realized that I didn't have to live in two worlds, right? I would go home and put on my turban when I was on leave, and then I'd come to work and not be wearing a turban, so that I didn't have to live that life anymore. I can be one person. My hope is that no 18-year-old kid has to make the miserable decision that I had to make to choose between their faith and their country, and that parents can tell their young kids that you can be anything that you want in the United States, and that includes military service, and still practice your faith fully. Sir, if you are watching or somebody please find them, I want to talk to you. I want you to come on the channel, because that was awesome. That was awesome.   I can't imagine the pain he felt, it makes me emotional to have to cut that. His family? My goodness. It just gets me emotional, and I understand, this is one of the things I was going to point out. The first thing that came to my mind, and I didn't want to talk over the video, and I was hoping they'd get to it, and they did. First thing I was thinking about was gas masks, and the seal that happens on a gas mask. But then I also was understanding, and this is true, especially in basic, one of the most critical things of military training is the eradication of individuality, because if you maintain individuality, you become a detriment to the core of the whole. It's one of the key elements of every facet of military training, whether it's seal training, which is the upper echelons, or you're just becoming a basic recruit in any of the branches of the military.  That I understand. I also understand that somebody can still serve and be committed to the core without having to have their identity destroyed. There's a difference between eradicating the idea of self versus crushing somebody's core identity. And this guy, as a Sikh, already understands the principles, the very things he wears, are the very essences of what are the core attributes of the military. Selfless service, respect, and here's the contradiction. After basic, after bud's training, most Navy SEALs have beards, man. Virtually every Navy SEAL you see, the minute bud, it's like a standard thing for a SEAL to have a beard. Yeah, I have absolutely nothing but respect for all military. It doesn't mean I have respect for the government as a whole. Oh, no! They're completely separate. Very separate. You can be very proud of the people in the military and also despise who is in charge of them. Yep. It's in no less of a patriotic. But there's a lot of issues with the military members, but the military organization as a whole, and a lot of times they're stuck in their ways. Right.  That's cool. But once again, this is America. You have the, you can't, just like they don't make women shape their heads. Right. Even though they make men shape their heads. Right. They don't make women shape their heads because that's part of their identity. So like, this is America, so you have religious freedom. Right. People work everywhere in this country and throughout the world with looking different. Yeah. So you can make exceptions. I get why you're doing it.   Yeah. His sacrifice. Which is why I'm saying he's a true soldier. He really is. Because, again, if you are seeing this, sir, you're doing what the majority of people would understandably say, I will never do that, put you in a position where you could change it, like you said at the end, where no one else would ever have to do that. And sadly, that's typically what it takes to see some dramatic change in a culture where people have been locked in their ways for no other reason than this is just the way that we've always done it. Like I love that one gentleman who said studies were done and showed this makes no difference and it really doesn't. I understand that the outset of training, but the ultimate end result of what you produce and the quality of a soldier, it has nothing to do with any of that. Nothing to do with any of that. I get why they do it. I think they could not do it and they would still have the same effect. You can break people down without, like, because you're living with break people down. Very much the same reason as to why the military wasn't allowing women to serve in the military. There were all the things behind it about why they said you can't do that, there's too many this, there's too many that, and they realized once they let women in, oh, we were wrong, that's not an issue. And again, this too, it may be an issue in basic at the very beginning, but I think the long-term goal, why in the world would you turn away a sick from being one of your soldiers, man? It shows right there. Why the heck would you do that? That's like turning away a seven-foot-tall, really coordinated guy that can shoot threes and slam and post and say, well, because you wear your hair this way, we're not letting you play in the NBA. Yeah. I think the military has bunched it up because of that exact thing about they want everybody to look the same. Uniform. They don't let people, like, I couldn't get in some ranges of the military if I wanted to because I have tattoos. Right. So, not at all. I understand if you don't pass the physical exams. Oh, yeah. That makes sense. Some branches still, if you have tattoos that are visible, you are not. Because it's identifying. Yeah. You are not allowed in. Like I said, it's, I think it's a dated thing. It is. But, whatever, I get why they're trying to do it, I don't agree with it. And I agree because here's the deal, based on what I know about basic training, especially bud's training, whatever you think you can't get out of the person in terms of crushing their identity, that's not the core issue. The core issue is, are you going to give up when you think you're going to die? Trust me. When you're in Hell Week in bud's training, the thought of your identity is the last thing on your mind. What you're thinking at that point is, will I die or lose my mind? And you want to know if someone can push through that. Yeah. And if they can, sense of identity isn't an issue. And sex? Any more than you've got an Italian, an Irishman, and a Jew, and they're all together in the military. And I promise you in bud's, none of them are thinking about that. No. Oh, once again. Yeah. I'm glad it changed. 2017 is way too late. Way too long. Or late. Yeah. I didn't even know this was an issue, because I didn't think about the six in the US military. For some reason, I just never came to my mind. But yeah, that's an issue. It is. And here's the thing that's important, is that it changed. It needs to stay this way because as you know, you can put elected officials in who can then change laws and reverse things that have been done in the military. Yeah. Where once certain people were allowed to serve and then new administrations come in and new people are put into office and they say, no, we're going to go back to the way it was. So it could happen again and go back to that. But that was great. Hopefully not. That was great. Any more information? I'd love to actually learn more about the sick people. That's sick. I want to make sure I'm saying it correctly. Yeah, the sick. Sick people. Yup. As a whole, because we're still learning, but that made me so upset when he had to go. Yeah, the cutting and shaving of his, I just can't imagine what that was like for him. That was awful. Yeah. We salute you, sir. Thank you, sir, for your service. We salute you. Thank you all to the six throughout the world. Yeah. Who are serving in the military. It's a beautiful combination of what we salute you and Jai Hind at the same time. Absolutely. Yeah.


go green. What's up my name is Mr. V here. Welcome to another video guys. So in this video we are going to talk about Ticket Symbol, PDAC, Periodad Acquisition. This is a spark that is actually in the process of taking Licycle Public. So Licycle is a company based in Canada that actually involved with recycling of lithium from lithium ion batteries. So if you take any lithium ion batteries that you can find out there, this company has developed a technology that is able to extract that lithium and get the lithium ready to be reused in making a lithium battery. So that's what I want to talk about into this video. But before we get started guys, if you're new to the channel, we talk about how to earn money, how to save money, how to invest and build wealth. So if that's something that interests you, go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell so you don't miss out on new content. So I've actually talked a lot about the life cycle of an electric vehicle here on the channel, the different players that are involved in that space. And so again, this one is towards the end of it. So a company, I guess you're not going to see a ton of growth immediately, but down the road, that's when you're going to start seeing growth. So if you think about it, five, 10 years from today, when we start running short of lithium, you're going to see companies that recycle lithium come up big and they're going to take so much market space. So if you're getting early at this stage, I'm not saying you should take your entire capital and put it in there, but if you can pick up some shares of companies that are in the business of recycling, I personally think they're going to be huge five, 10 years from today when electric vehicles become mainstream. So that's why I like covering these companies. Again, I've talked to you guys about from the start to the end. So companies that are involved in mining lithium, companies that are actually involved in using that lithium to build lithium batteries, companies that are involved in building electric vehicles that use that lithium battery, and then companies that help charge those lithium battery once they are in the cars. And then the final phase is when those batteries get to end of life cycle, companies can recycle the lithium and all the other metals in that battery so that the process can start all over again. But in this case, they are environmentally friendly because they're not going to mine those minerals again directly from the earth. So that's why I like talking about these companies in life cycle is claiming that they are the largest lithium recycling company in North America. And the reason they use North America is because this company is actually based in Toronto, Canada. So that's why and they claim they have the technology that allows them to extract lithium at least at 95% purity that they can reuse in batteries. So I mean, to me, if they can prove that, I think it's a great opportunity for them. So again, you can go through the company here, check some of the claims that they make on their website just so you are actually informed about the company. So if you see here, this is just the news that they go in public through period that. So the ticket symbol right now is PDAC, but after the merger, the ticket symbol is going to switch to LICY. So that's going to be the new ticket symbol. And now the combined company after the merger, they're going to value that whole deal at about $1.7 billion. So I mean, the valuation is not terrible compared to some of the other companies that we've seen here, being valued at $30 billion when they don't even have anything to show for. So if we looked at this, a period that was currently trading right now at $11.33 and I was doing this, and this is from a pool back. So if we can just go back a month here, you can see a high of about $14.50 before that pulling back. So in my personal opinion, I think for a long term, this could be a great pickup that you can put in your portfolio. So you're already ahead of the game. My goal is to give you value that can help you today, can help you tomorrow, can help you five years from now. That is my goal. So when I'm spending time researching these stocks, I'm looking at where is the potential five years from now, so we can start looking at that. And I'll give you stocks that have a potential to run easily, but these ones, I'm really preparing your mind to think down the road. So that's why I bring up stuff like this. So again, this company is making some really crazy claims. And I mean, I don't see any reason why because I mean, if you're talking about just recycling, it's okay. So they right now are not really a profitable company, but you anticipate that for a new company like this. So down the road profitability, they're looking at maybe 2024, 2025, before they can start showing some real profitability. But again, that's why I say this is a five year program for you. If you put some money in here, don't anticipate seeing any 10x or 15x. You might see one or two x here because this thing might move from let's say $11 now to say 20. That's still not even two x yet. But if you hold on to this, when we get to the point where you can start recycling, this might be a potential stock. And maybe another company might just jump in and scoop this company and acquire them.  Because I mentioned this in another video that I did here on the channel. If you look at this company called Redwood Materials, this is another company that is actually in the process of recycling used batteries based here in the United States. And this one is pretty interesting because the guy that studied this company came from Tesla. So he worked at Tesla for over a decade before leaving and studying Redwood Materials. And so recently they were in the news justice class. We designed a new recycling deal with Envision, as you can see right there. So what that tells me is that all these companies are starting to see that it's going to be a need for recycling of lithium and all the minerals that are involved in making lithium batteries. So Redwood Materials, again, is not a publicly traded company. My whole idea is that this company is going to go public pretty soon. They're probably going to go public through a spark. If not, they might get bought up by a company like Tesla. So you can see that they have an opportunity there too. So again, I just want to bring that just alongside because they fall in line with life cycle here, what life cycle is doing or trying to do. That's exactly what Redwood Materials plans on doing. And the fact that Redwood Materials has some connections with Tesla because again, the founder of Redwood Materials was an exec at Tesla. You might see Tesla buy Redwood Materials or go into a partnership with them so they can be the company that recycles their Materials. Why would you want to do it and keep that in-house with somebody that you already know and you've done business with? So again, that's just my personal take. I was going to do a separate video on Redwood Materials, but since Redwood Materials is not trading publicly just yet, I wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of it because if you hear anything that this thing is good, this particular company is going public, jump on it. So let's get back to what we were supposed to be talking about today, which is life cycle. Again, guys, I think that life cycle has a potential here. This is a long-term play. This is not an immediate play. So if you're looking for something to kind of flip in the next, I don't know, three, four months, this might not be the best one. You can buy the dip, but it might go up maybe five or six dollars and you can sell and get out. But if you're looking long-term, you can just buy this one and put it somewhere and don't touch it and just let it grow because when we get to the point where recycling Lithium is going to be a thing, again, you want to get into the game before it starts. If you get into the game when it's already going on, you're not going to understand what's happening. But if you get in before it starts, you know exactly who the players are. So in this case, we have talked about mining Lithium. There's companies out there that are established and they're doing it. We've talked about companies that are building batteries. There's companies out there that have established and they're doing it. And new companies like QuantumScape coming along, we've talked about companies that are building electric vehicles. So you talk to your Tesla, your NIO, your Lucid, and just name it. And now we're talking about companies that are charging those batteries. We've talked about blink charging, charge point, EV go, EV box. And then now we're talking about companies that are going to recycle the old batteries. So we're talking about redwood material. We're talking about life cycle here that is in the process of going public. So that's what I wanted to cover in this video. Again, my price projection here is that in 10, in 5 to 10 years, this thing could be over $100. But for now, if you just want to swing through this, you can buy the dip. Again, this news came out when we were having this pullback. So you can buy this dip and then write it up to 15, 20 bucks and sell it and get out. So but long term, I'm definitely planning on this. Right now, my backup would be redwood material for recycling. I'm going to get life cycle, get some shares and hold it. And then if I see redwood material comes out and say they go in public, I'm going to buy some of that. And then at that point, I'm going to wait and see which one has a good market cap. And then I'm going to go with that one and then let the other one go. But at least I want to be in this space. So that's my strategy. Let me know in the comment section what you think about it. Do you currently have life cycle in your portfolio? If not, do you plan on buying it? Again, let me know in the comment section. If you're new to the channel, we talk about how to earn money, how to save money, how to invest and build wealth. So that's something that interests you. Go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell so you don't miss out on new content. Also, guys, we both still have their promotion where if you sign up and deposit $100, you get some free stocks. It does help me continue to make content here on the channel. And as always, guys, do your due diligence.  Stay motivated.


I wanted to take a quick look at Trump Jr.'s Instagram account. I've seen a couple of memes on Twitter that they've shared from his Instagram account. And I've got to say, like, my man is pushing a lot of boomer memes. I haven't, like, checked all of these. He does a lot of simping for Elon Musk. Whatever. But let's see this one. A lie doesn't become truth. Wrong doesn't become right. And evil doesn't become good just because it's accepted by a majority. He's saying this when his dad is Donald Trump. Dude, your dad broke the record for lies any president has ever told. And we've had presidents like George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. You can't share this when your dad is Donald Trump.  And I love this meme right here.  We were against Big Pharma in 2012, but in 2022 we're all masking NPCs who are triple-vaxxed with a QR code, I guess. Now we were also very anti-war, but all of a sudden we're pro-war. Okay, I guess that if you think that Russia invading a country that didn't attack it is bad, then you're pro-war, according to him.  But, you know, in 2012, the left were against corporate greed, and now all of a sudden we're NPCs who simp for these large corporations. The reason why he had to make this into a meme was because there's no examples of this actually, right?  Like, the left was collectively ripping Netflix just a couple of months ago over the Dave Chappelle special, right?  So why can't you just provide us with the examples they can't? So instead they've got to come up with these boomer memes. And really, I love how they make it seem as if, oh, well, lefties, they don't think for themselves. It's a sort of hive mind.  You all simp for Fox News. You get, you know, all of your talking points and your whole ideology from Fox News. Like, you can replace any of this with some meme for conservatives, but see, he posts this and then his boomer audience is like, oh shit, you're crushing it. You're really killing it right here. They're owned.  The entire ethos of the GOP is to just trigger the libs. That's all that this is about. So he's not trying to post this because there's any truth in it. He's posting this because he thinks that we're going to be offended. But I'm not offended. Does anyone in chat offended by this? I'm not offended at all. I don't care about this.  It makes you look like you're uninformed. So let's see here. This one, I mean, he's kind of saying the quiet part loud here. It's astonishing that he would post this. So book, movie, video game, Netflix adaptation. So he's, I guess, mad that Netflix does more diversity. So I mean, the question is why would you be mad? Like we're in a situation now where there are more black people in this country, more Hispanic people, more Asian people, more queer people. And so these companies, they aren't going to continue to make money off of us if they only appeal to white people. So of course, as the country becomes more diverse, you know, these corporations are going to adapt so they can make money off of us. But I don't even know if this is true. I'm not sure if this is quantifiable. But even in posting this, like you're kind of telling on yourself, are you not? You're telling on yourself. You're saying, I think that diversity is bad. Why would you think that diversity is bad, Trump Jr.? Well, the only thing that I could logically deduce is that if someone thinks that diversity is bad, it's because they don't want to be around people who don't look like them. Perhaps it's because they are, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, racist. So he posts this thinking like he's crushing it and he just tells on himself. He says, I think that this is bad.  But I mean, the same thing is true for queer people or disabled people. I mean, we live in a capitalist society. So this is what happens, right?  It's not like diversity in and of itself is a substitute for real legal, social, and cultural equality. But it still is important to see someone like you on television is super important for a young queer kid to see themselves on Netflix, for a young black girl to see herself as a Disney princess. I think that that does matter. It matters for confidence. It matters to normalize diversity, to normalize different types of people existing. So for him to post this, he's essentially telling on himself. He's essentially saying, yeah, I don't like diversity because I don't want to be around black people. That's what he's saying. He'll deny it, but it's true. And, you know, he posts these memes about trying to trigger the lips. Aren't you triggered? You seem pretty triggered by diversity.  Like, understand how last year, the whole narrative from the right was cancel culture, right? You know, I'm tired of these politically correct snowflakes being overly offended, being too hypersensitive. And now in 2022, they've done a complete 180. All of a sudden, cancel culture, good. What being offended is okay. You can share that you're offended by things like diversity.   Everything happens for a reason.  I feel like all of these posts are just projection. Now, I came across this video from his rumble because, of course, he has a rumble. Not getting a lot of engagement, only 2,900 rumbles, which I'm assuming that's a like on rumble. Not the best engagement for being the former fail son of a president or a fail son of a former president, I should say. But what in the world are they teaching our kids? Now, notice how his mannerisms are completely the same as Donald Trump. It's creepy. It's like he's trying to mimic his father and adopt the same cadence and way of speaking as his father. And it's so cringe-worthy, but, you know, because his father is popular, at least in certain circles, you know, he thinks, well, maybe I could be loved and adored like my father. But no, nobody respects you. You are unhinged.  But let's go ahead and watch.   So I love this whole response from conservatives.  It proves that they haven't read the bill.  So if you don't want it to be called don't say gay, I don't know what to tell you. We're not going to call it by what you want us to call it. We're not going to go by your Orwellian framing of this bill.  That's effectively what it is. So cry me a river snowflake. They do very sexually explicit detail with toddlers and people in kindergarten and all of these things. Nobody wants to share explicit details with toddlers. Nobody wants to teach toddlers about sexual things, right? He's making this up. He's making this up. This isn't an issue. The don't say gay bill is the GOP trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The goal ultimately is to erase LGBTQ plus people from public life. That's what he wants to do. So apparently he found this like really shocking TikTok. He probably found this from Libs of TikTok by the way. And apparently this is supposed to be like incredibly incriminating, but really just shows what a snowflake this guy is. To the point where it's come to the conclusion like I can't think of them as anything other than groomers, but check out this video. You can't think of people who are against don't say gays anything other than groomers.  Like for me, I feel like if my father was Donald Trump, if my daddy's name was on Epstein's flight logs, I would never speak about this.  Because I mean, if you care so much about this, wouldn't you confront your own father about this? About him praying on multiple women sexually harassing how many people? Like it's more than two dozen, is it not? So it's insane that he would talk about this as if everyone else is the groomers. Like his whole thing is like projection. Everything that he boasts is all projection. Watch this video and we'll come back and talk about it, but this is a teacher. Do you think that this person is teaching your kids something that they should need to know? You know, this is one video, but just think how many videos there are that are out there like this. Imagine how many people that feel exactly the same way and maybe even more radicalized than this individual are actually out there but are maybe smart enough to not video themselves. Hi, I'm a queer teacher. Again, projection. And I 1000% do not support this bill. And yes, I do know what's in it. Bill in itself is just another way to stigmatize the LGBTQ plus community. Kids as young as three and four are actually aware of their gender identity even if they don't have the language for it. True. So very aware of who they like and who they don't like. True. Heterosexuality is pushing our kids on a daily basis at a very young age. Idiot through books. The first Disney movie that you saw. All of this is absolutely true. This is not controversial, but this is like his example of how incriminating these LGBTQ plus teachers are. You know, look at how bad this is. What in the world are they teaching our kids? This is all factually correct. It's factually correct. I probably knew I was gay by the age of like five. Like I remember a conversation with my mom where she said something to the effect of, Oh, well, one day when you're old enough and you have a girlfriend, then you'll do X. And I was like, I don't want a girlfriend. I want a boyfriend. I don't. I never want a girlfriend. I like boys.  Boys have girlfriends and girls have boyfriends.  I was a young debate bro back then. And I'm like, no, mom, I don't want a girlfriend. So I'm going to have a boyfriend.  I couldn't tell you it's because I'm a homosexual, but I was just doing what came naturally to me. And a lot of trans people, they start to show, you know, express their own gender in their own way at a very young age. Right? Not everyone is the same. But everything she's saying here is a thousand percent correct. I should say everything that they're saying is a thousand percent correct because I'm not sure what their pronouns are. But there's no lies here. Say that pre-k through third grade are not ready for such topics is actually internalized homophobia and transphobia. True. They're very much ready for these topics. And you can have age appropriate conversations about these things. It's almost unavoidable. Right?    Like you can have age appropriate conversations. It's not like we're expecting you to be like, OK, well, let me explain everything to you about the fundamentals of homosexuality. First, we'll talk about fisting. That's not and that's not a fundamental homosexuality, by the way. But I mean, like that's what the conservatives want people to think is happening. But really, you can have age appropriate conversations. You know, some people love, you know, people of the same gender. Some people, you know, don't have the same gender as you that they're ascribed at birth. Some people don't even have a gender at all. Some people are non-binary. So it's like this is not controversial. Way more accepting than adults when it comes to discussing these topics. We can talk about gender, gender assumptions, pronouns, all the things. And it is child development appropriate and age appropriate. It's literally created as just another means to other queer people. Basically say that us existing is not normal. OK, so what about that was controversial? What about that was controversial? Is this not an instance of cancel culture? Is this not an instance of him being offended by what a teacher says and him trying to get them canceled? I feel like to actually watch that innocent thing that this teacher said and be offended by that.  It's insane. It's insane. But let's see what he says. Why this is outrageous? We have to start giving our pre-k and k-12 education dollars directly to parents because this has to be- Notice that some hand gestures.   Have your own personality.   We need to give that money directly to parents so that they can choose where to send their kids to school. I'm blessed. So this is exactly what I was telling you all. This is him giving away the game. All of this hysteria, this parental rights and education was all a ploy to push for privatization. That's exactly what this was.  That's what the CRT thing was about.  They want you to not put your kids in public school. They want to get rid of public schools. In fact, we have a segment after this where Fox News admits it. Yeah, we shouldn't have public education. It shouldn't be free. Yeah, they want school vouchers. Yeah. They want school to afford private school. A lot of people are blessed to be able to home school. Maybe they have a parent that stays at home to do this. But we need to get rid of the public school monopoly that's out there. State legislators need to take control. State legislators. Curriculums and end this. Imagine swagger jacking your own father. How embarrassing is that? Literally copying the mannerisms of your father. Is there a bigger fraud than that?   This is nothing more of nonsense. This is nothing more to me than an indoctrination camp. Until we do something about it. Indoctrination camp, unlike religion, which is bigly. Motherfucker, you guys are trying to brainwash kids out of the open. Like Ben Shapiro just announced some daily wire kids show program. So you want to indoctrinate kids.  But when anyone else indoctrinates them with just, you know, by indoctrinate we mean getting them to support gay and trans people to be respectful. You screech. You think that's indoctrination.  Shamelessly so. And that's okay.    That's not what indoctrination is. Indoctrination is what you all do. Give parents the ability to do something about it. It's over for our kids, for their future, for their education, okay? There is no need to get into this level of detail of sexuality with young kids. There's probably not a need to get into this level. What level of sexuality did they talk about? It's the same thing that is already being talked about with regard to heterosexuality. When you talk to a kid about their mommy and daddy, that's the same as talking to them about, you know, how some kids have mommy and mommies.  Do these dipshits honestly believe that? It's good. You're not sexualizing the kid. You're showing them that you have a healthy relationship.   With much older kids who can actually understand it, again, if you're so desperate that you need to do this, you gotta think there's a reason behind it. And honestly, the only reason I can think of is that you're literally trying to indoctrinate and groom these children. Who's hiring these people? Indoctrinate and groom these children by teaching kids that some people are different. The reason why people want to have these conversations is because kids are intelligent enough to understand that some people are different and diversity is something to be celebrated, right? Teaching kids to be respectful of people who are marginalized or disadvantaged is not a bad thing. That's not indoctrination.  Do you think it's indoctrination or grooming to teach your kid that racism is bad? I don't want to know the answer from him because we already know how he feels about diversity. He thinks it's bad, unironically. So, you know, who knows? He's reading from a script.  He's got to copy his dad when it comes to style. He's got to write all of this down because it's coked out mind, couldn't process what this teacher is saying.  I guess at least they're easy to pick out and spot for the most part, but you never know. Some may go under a camouflage and not have blue, green, purple hair. But this stuff is insane. This is not a lesson plan. But if you're this passionate about it and you're putting it on videos, even if it's not in the lesson plan, you know there's a solid chance that they'll be teaching all these kids. Again, at least you can find them and see for yourself. But we need to do whatever we can to give parents the ability to pull their kids away from this nonsense. Okay, let kids be kids. Oh, except for trans kids in Texas. Right, they talk about parental rights. But in Texas, if you are supportive of your trans kid and you seek out gender from in care, they are going to treat you like a criminal in that state. And, you know, the Child Protective Services might actually show up at your house. What about parental rights there? What about letting these kids be kids in that instance?   But if, you know, in the event some age-appropriate conversation is necessary, I think that that's incumbent on educators to educate these students. You know, if they ask, why does this kid have two mommies? That's fine for this teacher to explain that, you know, some kids have mommies. Some kids have two daddies. Some kids have a mommy and a daddy. That's okay. But kids have their innocence. Don't jam this stuff down impressionable minds because you know- Let kids have their innocence. He says, but doesn't ever talk about his daddy on Epstein's Flight Logs. What did your dad do on Epstein's Pedophile Island, motherfucker? Are you friends with Matt Gaetz still?  I mean, these Republicans, every single thing that they say about the left or liberals, it's always projection, always.


The best of the youngest in Europe continues live on Sports Max. The UEFA Youth League returns February on U-Home of Champions. Stay connected. Get the Sports Max app today.


Taken by the tide of a year with endless depths, washed away by ocean spray and captured waves, we wrestle currents smooth, gentle, jealous and reckless. For the sail on our horizon, the shore of our ocean, the calm to our storm.


Sailors from Fleet Activity's Saasibo are preparing to contain water as it rushes into a ship's spaces. The flooding is thankfully in a controlled environment under the supervision of instructors from Service Warfare Officer School learning site Yacowska. The instructors are leading students through courses that allow for hands-on training in emergency situations. They did an outstanding job today from the point of just coming in to where the investigators were at and then coming down and actually getting the gear down in the space. Great job erecting all the different types of shoring and a lot of motivation behind them. You know on the ship I might not always be the one to take care of everything, I have to count on other people. So I get the satisfaction of being able to teach them and watching them actually perform what we have taught them. Petty Officer Jeremy Graham, Fleet Activity's Saasibo, Japan.


And we have Mr. Timothy Stratford, who is a managing partner at Covington and Burling, and a former US trade negotiator with China. And I, by the way, am Robert Guest. I'm the foreign editor at The Economist magazine. So let's jump straight into it with Tim. There appears to be a trade war brewing. How worried should we be? Well, I think we should be very concerned. I think it's serious. I think that we've come to the point now that both governments recognize that the real issues have to do with deep systemic differences between the economic systems of the two countries. If you want to get the clearest idea of the US concerns, you can read the report that was issued by the US Trade Representative's office back in March. And it talks about technology flows and things like that. And I think what's very significant is that at the end of the report, after describing the injury that the USGR thinks US is suffering, it lists three remedies. One is to impose tariffs in order to bring China to the negotiating table. Another is to impose some investment restrictions. And the third one is to bring a WTO case. But the WTO case is only about a very, very narrow technical issue. And it scarcely begins to address the underlying concerns that are put in the report. So what that means is it's basically saying that the WTO system, as it exists, is not adequate to deal with the nature of the dispute between the two countries. And therefore, the US is acting more unilaterally in imposing tariffs and doing these sorts of things. So what you'll find is that if you talk to the EU or you talk to Japan, those governments tend to agree with the US's assessment of what the problems are. But they are much more hesitant to go outside of the WTO system to try to address it. But where we are is you have two governments, US and China, that have very different positions. There's a big gap between the positions. And I think now we're going to be in for a rather long period of deadlock where each side is sort of assessing how much are the tariffs hurting me, how much are they hurting the other side, how flexible is the other side going to be to negotiate. And I think it's going to take some time before we figure out what a solution to this problem really looks like. I'm going to move to TAC. I mean, you're from Japan. You've come from a country that has experienced similar things with America in the past, except possibly on a smaller scale. What would be your historical perspective on this? Yes, we struggled this trade war for as long as a 2D case. So between the US and China, just to start it, so 20 years, going back to the 70s, 80s, we had problems of the semi-conductors and then automobiles. The first one with the semi-conductors, there was no foundation like WTO to govern the rules of the world trade. So we were completely defeated. And we accepted that 20% of the import from the US. By the way, we dumped almost all the semi-conductors to the Tokyo Bay. And that ruined the industry of the semi-conductors eventually. But at the time of the second challenge from the United States to automobiles, we went to the WTO because the WTO was founded. And eventually, we shifted our car production to the United States. That alleviated the tensions with the United States. So we got the learnings. One, we just shifted the production to the United States to create jobs in the US. Second, I think international rulemaking is a prerequisite to resolve the issues between countries. So at that time, WTO is weak now. But what about the RCEP, for example? And we tried to create a TPP with Wendy when she was in charge. And that was a great job. Thank you for that. But now, it's gone. It's gone, sorry. That's not your responsibility. But we need a regional trade pact, like Chinese Premier Li mentioned in his speech. That is incredibly right. We have to create something like international rulemaking. Like RCEP. And I think at this time, Japan and China should promote RCEP to be materialized. So that's our learning. But a huge difference from then and now is the data flow and IP, which is a landscape of the current business and the current economy to drive the world. So what to do with the high standard? What to do with the data flow? What to do with IP? That's a huge difference from our experience of the 70s and 80s. I mean, you mentioned the idea of Japanese car companies in response to pressure deciding to build more cars in America. Do you think that's going to happen this time round with China? I don't think so. Because Japan had a certain level of the technology at the time. And Toyota and those Honda, they were so popular in states.  I'm not sure about the case with China. One thing is clear. Let me talk a little bit. The current president, the president is predictable in a sense. Particularly in China, that is. Right, because goods and technology. That's the pull for the session, isn't it? So it's an intricate path. But it's really predictable in a short term. Because he just repeats what happened in the 70s and 80s. Well, he does seem to think that we are living in the 70s and 80s, doesn't he? So Wendy, I'll bring you in here. Now, you have been working on trade issues since 1988, which suggests you started while you were still in nursery school. A lot of people have changed their minds about trade over that period. I have a quote here from Peter Navarro, who, as I'm sure many of you know, is Donald Trump's biggest advisor on trade. And this is what he said in 1984. He said, as history has painfully taught us, once protectionist wars begin, the likely result is a deadly and well-nigh unstoppable downward spiral by the entire world economy. He seems to have changed his tone a bit since then. Wendy, what has driven this move, which we see, it seems global towards greater protectionism and the belief, as Donald Trump put it, that you can win trade wars. What's going on? Well, I think a number of things are going on. First, I think there's just a growing segment of the US population, but also in Europe and I believe will spread elsewhere. Folks who believe that they have not benefited from these trade agreements and from international trade and globalization more broadly. And so these parts of our society have become very vocal. And as a result, I think a lot of people in the United States, and we really saw that in our recent presidential election, where both parties are really questioning trade. And I would argue that TPP almost became the poster child of everything that was wrong with trade. And as a result, the president on the third day in office withdrew the United States from that agreement, which I believe was a mistake. I also believe that just picking up on something that Tim said, there is a real serious view that the administration shares, but also other people share, and I share this as well, is that the WTO rules really haven't kept up to date with the types of trade practices and the types of countries that have integrated themselves into the trading system. And if you think about the WTO, the last time really the rules were updated and what we call a big multilateral trading round was over 25 years ago. The internet was barely around then. A lot of the major trading countries really weren't, China wasn't even a part of the WTO then. And so as a result, we see the WTO today really becoming increasingly on the sidelines of what's going on. And frankly, if it doesn't deal with the need to really update the rules and figure out a way to become relevant, it really may even slip into the background more. And that's dangerous because that means that countries, and this includes the United States now, decides that it will take the rules into its own hands and do what it needs to do to achieve its national objectives. But this is the big difficulty, isn't it? The rules-based order was based on the idea that everyone follows WTO rules most of the time. There's a dispute mechanism for resolving that.  The little ones around and the little ones feel that it's in their interest to be in the system. But that system, that multilateral system, has not produced a big new trade agreement for practically a generation. So as you say, something was broken. Now, the question is, I mean, there's a short-term and a long-term question. We've got the short-term question of, is there going to be, is the short-term conflict between America and China going to be headed off with brinkmanship, or is it going to have ripples that will be felt all around the world? Are we going to be able to avoid disaster of the sort that Peter Navarro once predicted in the short-term? And then there's the question of, will we be able to use this as an opportunity to reform the system? Perhaps Tim would like to answer that. If you look at the rule system, you talked about part of the assumption being that people would follow the rules and go to WTO for dispute settlement. And I've already described how the US hasn't seen that that would be effective in case of the current dispute. Going beyond that, other assumptions underlying the WTO are, number one, there's an assumption that countries would believe that a market economy is more efficient than a planned economy. And there's an understanding that countries will sometimes deviate that from that, but they'll do it more as an anomaly rather than as a general characteristic of their economy. And that's being challenged now. And those of us who look at the Chinese system believe that China has decided that state intervention in a whole range of important technologies is the way they're trying to move ahead. And they may decide that that's in their best interest, but if they do, that's not what we assume when the rules were made. And it's not just an anomaly. It's a fundamental characteristic of a major economy. That's the first issue. The second issue, the leaders of China have decided that they should be self-sufficient in certain technologies. Semiconductors is the most recent example. We look at the ZTE case. And Chinese leaders are saying, we can't be vulnerable to other countries to supply this key technology to us. But if you decide that, then you're throwing the principle of comparative advantage out the window. And maybe that's a legitimate decision. But then you have to go back and look at the trade rules that were based on a different assumption. And to the extent that China is doing that for a number of sectors, then those sectors and every sector impacted by them becomes a place where maybe the WTO rules don't work as intended. And then the third big concern has to do with national security. Countries always need to be able to make decisions for their own national security. But now we have a couple of things. We have the fact that geopolitical tensions between China and the United States and some other countries are rising. So national security becomes a more important consideration. But at the same time, we have more technologies that are developed by the private sector and instead of by the military-industrial complex. They're developed in the private sector, but they have profound national security, national defense implications, big data, AI, semiconductors, and so on. And so if those technologies are pervasive across the entire economy, we use them in our smartphones. We use them when we buy things and so on. Then how do you separate out the national security component from the civilian component of these technologies? So these are three areas where there are changes in what's going on now that really cause us maybe to shrink the space where comparative advantage and market economies are still applicable principles. Which is difficult because it is in a country's national security advantage to be richer. And if you think that your national security is best served by shutting yourself off from the outside world, you're going to end up with worse technology, higher prices, and a poorer country. Well, that's true. But then you have to figure out, OK, we want to achieve both objectives. How do we find the right balance? And the analogy that I use is that we go to a football game on one side of the field is the winner of the American Super Bowl. On the other side is the winner of the World Cup. They're both there to play football, but they have very different concepts of what this game is supposed to be like. And if the rules are broad enough so that both teams can play according to their own ideas of football, there are going to be a lot of problems that are going to rise. And I think that we have a comparable situation in terms of the way the US and the Chinese are playing the economic development game. So, Tak, I'll bring you in here. How is this, how has it so far affected what's going on in the private sector? How has it affected your company? How has it affected other companies around you in Japan? And how worried are you about where it goes from here? As of the immediate threat, and already it's happening, some of people know that we have the huge investment to the United States. And we produce, for example, bourbon. And that's exported to EU countries. And we've got already sanctioned from Europe. And immediate issues is already going on to hurt our bottom line. And for example, we are exporting some products from the United States to China. So the global supply chain is getting hard by the US aggressive actions about the trade wars. And in Japan, I don't think it's immediate, but because the Section 232 didn't hurt our bottom line because we just passed on to the business partners in the United States to export our steel because it's a specialized steel. So we can pick up the pricing easily. But that hurts eventually consumers of the United States. And plus, if the US will additionally impose the tariffs on automobiles, that would be a big threat. And if that happened, we would impose countermeasures to the United States. And that would ruin, that might ruin the longstanding relation, trust, which was built over 70 years. So that is a huge issue because automobiles is the staple. It seems that the current administration in the White House has done something which no previous administration has done, which is that they've taken the economic issues, the trade issues, which have always been contentious. And they've put them in the same pot. They've conflated them with security issues, with things like the fact that the American military forces are stationed in Japan and defending it and the US security treatment and what's going on with protecting from North Korea. Now that's really raising the stakes. How is that seen in Japan? Considering national interest, doesn't Japan is ready to make certain concessions, such as agriculture? As long as it's within the scale of the TPP agreement we had, remember, we just decided to go for it. As long as it's within the scale, we are ready to discuss with the Light Heist, for example. But it's because of the national interest implication. Definitely, we are under the strong support of the military from the United States. By far, they have the strong power. So the security issue is very important. But in case of automobile, I would say we have to do something because we have domestic constituencies who might not be able to understand the national interest and security interests so well. For example, Okinawa, it's a huge issue. Okinawa people have the long history. Okinawa being an island with a very large military base on it. Yes, it's very hard to convince constituencies like farmers. Once they were convinced by TPP rules, which means we just opened the country for US such a livestock, it's decided. But if furthermore, we call the food security interest of Japan itself. So what is the border? And the US is approaching the border of whether we should take countermeasures or retaliation or not. I think initially, under the Trump administration, that tariffs were threatened under the Section 232 case on steel and aluminum, I think the expectation was that that would be really useful negotiating leverage the other country would come to the table and we'd be able to reach a negotiated solution and the US would be able to get a better deal by withdrawing that threat of sanctions. But what happened, I think, was unexpected and that was a number of countries around the world. They just refused to negotiate and to make concessions with that threat hanging over them. Some countries chose to counter retaliate against the United States like the European Union and Canada and Mexico. Japan chose not to, but I think what it demonstrated was that once these tariffs go into effect, they're really hard to take away, to remove and those tariffs remain in effect and so does that counter retaliation. And that's what really worries me about this US-China trade war as it escalates and more and more tariffs are put into place because I think it's gonna become more and more difficult to remove these tariffs. And I think that the expectation for the agreement, any negotiated agreement that is reached, let's say between US and China at some point and hopefully there will be a negotiated agreement that the expectation will be, well you took us to the brink of a trade war, what did you get for it? And so it puts a lot, it raises expectations of how comprehensive and meaningful that agreement needs to be. So I agree with what, how Tim started out. This is a really concerning situation in the international trading system and it's not just a war between the US and China, it's spilling over to other countries. It's a really interconnected world and I thought you, there must be another Navarra quote saying how bad global supply chains are somewhere but in reality we have a world with global supply chains and so the effect of all these tariffs, they're not just limited to the two countries that are counter-retaliating against each other. Yeah, two points. Such as the deal between the United States and Korea and the deal with Mexico. That show, both the deals show US won and they were defeated. So that's a huge threat to us. So US might impose automobile tariffs on our export. Despite the fact that we invested to the United States and the US investment from Japan created already surplus. Despite the fact that we have the huge surplus to the United States but investment from Japan to US generates cash more than their deficits from Japan. So I appealed to the US government about that but they don't listen to it so we might have reduced investment to the United States and instead we just like China, we just wanna keep our country to be invested by ourselves because it's not the praise of all. Second thing is having said that I think we definitely don't want to escalate this trade war with the United States and the IFR, fair, free, fair, reciprocal trade deal will start between US and Japan anyway. It is, I mean it would be my prediction that at some point President Trump is going to declare victory. He's gonna say, I won, they lost because I'm a better negotiator than anybody in the world. The question is, what kind of a deal would it need to be, do you think, to get to that point? How difficult would it be, Wendy? Between the US and China. Yeah, that's the starting point. I mean, I know the US is declaring trade war on pretty much everybody and trying to fight a war on many fronts which has worked out badly for people in the past. I don't think Napoleon had much fun with that. Sorry. So my view is eventually, and I'm not, I don't know what the timeframe is, but there will be a negotiated solution between the US and China. I think you will need to have several different, what I would call buckets, with some short term confidence building measures, maybe in the market access side of the relationship, but then longer term outcomes on how to deal with industrial policies, with subsidies, with over capacity, with other types of financial assistance. And I believe that the way you can deal with those issues, it's gonna require both sides to show flexibility, meaning the United States can't insist that China just dismantles industrial policy. That's just not gonna happen. But I don't think China can deny that its industrial policies have effects on its trading partners and harm the trading system and harm its trading partners. So I think the negotiated solution will need to be centered around how to ensure that these industrial policies don't harm China's trading partners. So that may mean having rules about the types of subsidies, the magnitude of subsidies that can be used, the need to provide non-discriminatory access to these subsidies, measures to prevent over capacity in the world, which as we've seen with steel and solar panels has had a huge impact on those sectors. And so I just think that's where I see the negotiated solution, if one's going to be reached. Both sides need to show flexibility and both sides will need to really have a serious discussion on how to shape those rules in a way that allows China to keep its industrial policies, but to make sure that they don't distort the international trading system and don't cause harm on China's trading partners. If I could just add, if you think... Before you do that, can I prepare the audience for the fact that as soon as you've finished, we're going to invite questions from the audience. So if you can think about what you want to say and raise your hands quickly when I ask, you'll get in first, sorry. If you think about the technical difficulty with what Wendy's described, you have to do this across a whole range of industries, so you have to figure out what the right compromise is. If you're a trade negotiator from your country, you have to consult with your industry, you have to consult with Congress, you have to get interagency approval for the positions you make, and then you have to do this across a wide range of industry sectors. So that simply takes a lot of time and a lot of bandwidth to do that, and so that's one of the things we have to keep in mind. Another thing we have to keep in mind is how difficult is to write rules that would actually be effective. China, for example, has not regularly reported its subsidies to the WTO the way it's required to do, and so even if you have a commitment that says you're only supposed to do certain types of subsidies and not be on a certain limit, frankly, China hasn't really been very good at reporting what it's actually done. There is a tremendous amount of administrative discretion in the way the Chinese economy operates, and so what happens is administrators can make decisions that go against the spirit of what a bilateral or a multilateral agreement would have said. You don't have hard evidence to show the basis of the decision, and you also, frankly, have companies that feel intimidated and don't dare complain because then the next time discretion is exercised, it will be very much to their disadvantage, and so these are some elements of the Chinese system that have made some of the WTO rules not really work. Well, it's also very easy to disguise subsidies, right? I mean, if you have a big pot of money that explicitly says the government is giving you this, then it's obviously a subsidy, but if it's just that the government implicitly stands behind a state-owned bank which therefore can borrow lots of money and which then maybe channels it to slightly favored companies, that's much harder to put your finger on. So if the government of China really believes that a more market-oriented approach is in its best interest, then these things won't happen, but if they're forced to the table and forced to sign things that they really don't believe are in their own best interest, then one could worry that it actually might not turn out as well as one would have. Well, that's what we learned with Japan. Right, right, just the last thing. Just the last thing. Really quick one? Right. Okay, and then... My concern about the business itself and it's been affected by the district wars and the plus because of the capital flights from emerging economies, that promoted to worsened the other economy in terms of its landscape to be. So I urge the Chinese leaders to open the country more just like Premier Li mentioned today and the solution is open the country furthermore. That is an excellent idea. Can we have a microphone down? There was a gentleman behind there and then, lady there. Hello, thank you for the presentation. I'm Gerald Tamura, professor at Kaio University in Japan. Thank you, I really enjoyed the talk. Just to make the question simple, trade imbalance is, of course, it happens because it's one sided and the healthy balance would be to have exports and imports. So as Gerald mentioned, China is doing an industrial policy and there's a systemic difference. So to solve this kind of problem, instead of just going through this tariff war, I think like Tim has mentioned, the systemic difference, we have to really get into the systemic difference. I think we did that in Japan, as Nina Misano just mentioned, that Japan went through this 20, 30 years ago. We were called the industrial policy country and we started to change to a competition-oriented country. Now, my question is, maybe to all of you or maybe Tim, first, is will China be willing, as like Nina Misano said, open the country, different football rules, more converged to a similar rule because I believe that trade and competition should be harmonized, converged, and that will really make the world really more free and fair. Okay, great. That would be the most straightforward solution, but when I talk with Chinese officials, it seems that the preponderant view right now is that the sort of industrial policies found in Made in China 2025 are in China's own best interest. Now, there are certainly dissenting voices, but right now it seems that those dissenting voices are a little bit quiet, and I think the more hostility arises in the bilateral relationship, the more those voices will think that they need to remain quiet as well. So I think that's part of the challenge of creating the right sort of context so that you can have open discussions about what really is in China's best interest. So you think that actually by threatening and saying you've got to do these things, it makes it less likely they're going to happen? Well, what it means is that we're not yet at the negotiation phase where we can have that conversation. I think that there are some views of how negotiation should take place that say you should go through a period where everybody's angry at each other and then you calm down and then you're able to approach the negotiation in a different place than you were at the beginning. And I think we're seeing some of that philosophy. Okay, let's have the lady in the front row there and then one in the back if we could get a microphone over there as well. Okay, please. Thank you, wonderful discussion. I'm Christina Lampion Road, CEO and founder of Cadenza Innovation, a tech pioneer and really interested in your perspective in how we fight climate change. Climate change doesn't have a passport and make it to very tactical and specific. My company has invented a technology with energy storage that is cheaper, safer and more compact than what we know today. It's ready for commercialization. We've decided from the United States to license globally. What's your advice when all countries are basically closing their borders where we have a very skilled team behind a technology that can be deployed? How would you consider what advice to operate? Who would you like to put that to? I would say the panel in general. Who wants to answer? Yeah, well, we have the same issue. However, we just work on a lot of the European leaders. As a matter of fact, they listen to us. And WEF is one of the institution for us to promote how to resolve the issues of the global warming. Such as in September, Chairman and CEOs of the World Economic Forum gathered how to resolve those issues. But first of all, it's not business at first. But definitely it should make sense, economic sense, as long as it's sustainable. So all business leaders get together to work on how to resolve the issues together crossing the borders. That is happening at welfare events. And I think we have to leverage and we have to go to the UN and so forth. And we're working on it. So I definitely believe this kind of function, this kind of event helps to cross the borders. Maybe I could comment. Amcham China, Amcham Shanghai just did a survey about how the tariffs and the threat of additional tariffs is affecting business decisions. One of the things people are doing are re-assessing their sourcing decisions, re-assessing which markets to focus on, and they're delaying some investment decisions if they can. But one of the things that they're doing if they have to make decisions right now are putting manufacturing in a third country that isn't subject to tariffs either on the Chinese side or on the US side, because that way they're sort of in a neutral location and they can feed into both markets. So that's one strategy that people are thinking. I mean, it depends on whether you're looking at licensing arrangements or setting up manufacturing facilities or something. And what they're not doing is deciding to build plants in America the way Japanese companies did with cars in the 80s. Well, if you build in the United States, you're not sure that you'll be able to export back to your home market in China if you're a Chinese company. So it's complicating the investment decisions of companies right now. I want to ask a question about what is the real intention strategy? Can you introduce yourself, please? This is, you know, I'm coming from US-based investment company, Invesco. Okay, I want to ask a question about what's the real intention behind for this trade war?  I want to ask your perspective, what's the real reason behind? I want to give two perspective first. The first one is about, if you pay attention to the news that US asked for like 100 different processes, you know, changes for the trade relationship with China. China said, you know, 20 of them are non-negotiable. That means 80% of them can be negotiated, right? And China sent their deputy prime minister to the US right now for the negotiation. So if trade imbalance is real, a issue, should you at least discuss and negotiate first and then come back, well, you are not satisfying my needs, you are not fulfilling the requirement, so you need to give me some more. Instead of, you know, before the deputy prime minister make it to the US and you make this, you know. Okay, Wendy, you want to take that? Yeah, so, you know, what's behind the trade war? One issue I think we just need to keep in mind is that our trade problems with China didn't start with the Trump administration. That these issues were building up for a long period of time. And I worked at USTR for many different USTRs as these problems were mounting. Under the Obama administration and under the Bush administrations, we followed an approach of having these dialogues at very senior levels, the senior economic dialogue, the strategic economic dialogue, the JCCT, and under the Obama administration, we aggressively took cases to the WTO. Well, when President Trump came into office, his view was that these approaches just didn't work and we needed to do something different. We needed to get China's attention. And if you look at Ambassador Lighthizer's background, when he was at USTR in the late 80s, he negotiated a lot of these so-called voluntary restraint agreements with Japan, with Korea, where he threatened tariffs and then as a result, a negotiated solution was reached. So that's what we're seeing. We're seeing a pattern of, once again, threatening tariffs with the hope then that a negotiated solution would be found, as I mentioned earlier, that didn't happen with steel and aluminum. And now it seems that the president really is an appetite for continuing to escalate if the other side doesn't do what he wants to do, feeling that these tariffs will give the United States more leverage in a trade negotiation. Can I add one more point? Because I think what the US motivation is is a very important element. And more and more of my Chinese friends are concluding that this is done because of an overall hostility of the United States towards China, that the United States is jealous or fearful of China's rise and therefore that it's part of a containment strategy. Now I can tell you that when I was responsible for US trade policy for China from 2005 to 2010, never once was this idea ever a part of our discussion. It was all focused on what is the appropriate economic policy to promote growth in all of our countries. I'm quite convinced that today in our economic agencies in the US government, USTR, Treasury and so on, that there still is a focus on economic policy and not an overall drive to contain China. Now there may be some voices in the United States that are talking in more hostile terms, but I don't believe that that's what's driving these economic discussions. I think it's very important for the Chinese side to understand that. I think I had a great chance for China to attract other countries like Japan. For example, good, I mean goods, how to reduce the tariff in terms of the border adjustment. And I think now is the time for China to appeal to ASEAN countries, other countries. We will lower the tariff as your premier mentioned today. I think that should happen. Then we can talk to China and China will lead the free trade, even though it's not a high standard, low standard, but I think China will take a lead for that. I think now is the right time for China to do it. Great, let's have a question at the back there. So technology and IP were mentioned as well as Dataflow. Can you tell us who you are, please? My name is Pranayanaarang. I'm on the faculty at Harvard. I'm a scientist and here as a part of the young scientist community. So I was wondering how agreements in future will handle emerging technologies, in particular quantum technologies, quantum computing that have a very clear national security component, but are also technologies that both China and the U.S. are investing heavily in. I think the National Quantum Initiative was just passed by the House. So just wondering how will agreements in future make sure that we are not behind again in terms of what we do with new technologies? Thank you. Everyone on the panel I guess. Yeah, so I mean you put your finger on a really tough issue in trade and that is that trade negotiations take time and given how quickly technology is changing, it's so hard for trade agreements to keep up with this technology. If you think the TPP took five years to negotiate and it will come into effect probably early next year, this is about eight years later, without the United States, but among the remaining 11 countries. And then you think about the chapter on digital trade which was negotiated about seven years ago was really on the cutting edge of dealing with really important dynamic issues. And now frankly that chapter's getting older and we'll see that in NAFTA because the NAFTA negotiations have updated the digital chapter from TPP. And then when you start talking about these, going beyond digital to the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution, we're gonna have a lot of challenges in the trading world dealing with as you mentioned, how to deal with the whole issue of national security which has always been viewed as an issue that the WTO just does not want to adjudicate on. Second, you have the issue of what is a good and what is a service?  Well, what do you do with 3D printing? What do you do with additive manufacturing? Is that a good or is that a service and which rules would apply? And then you have, in addition, the whole issue I mentioned in the beginning, just the fast-paced dynamism of these technologies and the slow pace of trade negotiations. So I think these all produce challenges in a paper I produced for this web forum. What I suggested is that the WTO assigned like a group of really senior kind of trade experts to really look at these issues and offer their recommendations on how these issues can be dealt with or else the WTO is gonna find itself really at a loss as these new technologies comprise more and more of the global trading, of global trade between countries. Thank you. If we're gonna finish on time, I think we've got time for two more questions but I can ask them to be put, simultaneously, well, one after the other and then answers and I want them to be short, please. So if we could have one here and one there, please. So get two microphones, one down there, please. Thank you. Question about US politics. So there's already enormous pressure being brought to bear in the president from states like Ohio where a million jobs depend on trade with Canada and the other 35 or something states for whom Canada is the number one trading partner against walking away from NAFTA and increasing tariffs. Given all of this pressure, increasing pressure that's going to come from industry and consumers and then the possibility of a wave election in November. If all of that comes together, do you think that could have a moderating effect on the president's policies? Great question, final question there. Is there any specific from US point of view? Is there any specific area of industry US want to just really hang on or gain some ground or some certain industry you'll find to yield? Do you have any sense? Okay, possibly the first question, the midterms, the wave, who wants to take that? I mean, let me, I can take it quickly. I think it's possible that these tariff wars and the people hurting from it up until now it's been largely US companies and their workers, but soon with this $200 billion worth of tariffs you're gonna see more and more consumers hurt. So I think that will lead to many unhappy people in the United States and we'll have to see how they vote in the midterms and it may have a moderating influence on the administration. However, the president has been pretty clear when companies come and complain or consumers complain that in his view he thinks he's doing the right thing and he thinks that maybe short-term pain is worth it if we're gonna get these issues right in the longer term. With respect to NAFTA, we're really coming up against the wire if the negotiations are gonna be concluded by the end of the month. We have a bilateral agreement in principle with Mexico negotiating intensively with Canada. I believe that Canada will find a way to bring Canada into the fold by the end of the month. That's what I'm saying, Tim. On the second question, I think the US doesn't have clear industrial policy priorities the way China has with policies like Made in China 2025. One place where you can get some clues and it's a little bit of an answer to the other question about national security. The US has just enhanced its inbound investment review process that's called the CFIUS process. They've just enhanced it and they've said that they will have special scrutiny of particularly sensitive or strategic industries and so as we see how the CFIUS Committee interprets that, we'll get a sense of which technologies they think are particularly sensitive and therefore they wanna watch who's buying the technology and taking it out of the country. The other thing that the US has done- If they think that steel is a big national security issue, it suggests they're gonna interpret it quite brightly. Look, the CFIUS process is an interagency process that's focused on national security and it really has been focused on national security and I think the reputation of the Committee for those who've been working closely with it is pretty strong and they've tried to have a narrow definition of national security. Commerce Department in having these 232 actions and saying that importing cars from our treaty allies is a threat to US national security, that's a completely different game and I think trade policy experts are groaning about that because when I came to China, I tried to persuade China to have very narrow definitions of national security in terms of our trade relationship and I'd hate to come back now and try to make the same case when they've said, well, you think importing cars from your treaty ally. The other thing I wanted to say is that the US has also just passed Export Control Enhancement Act and the Commerce Department's gonna be coming out with draft regulations as soon as next week that's going to identify some particularly sensitive technologies and the US is gonna be looking a lot more at licensing agreements and other ways that those technologies go out. I'm gonna give the last word to Tak. Right, as for CFIUS, Japan is pressured by the United States and we are studying how to deal with the CFIUS things because we are allied nations but we got to think about the high technology like things that we are talking about the CFIUS and going back to the technology, national security, what kind of national security you were talking about but kind of fused ripple effect from the United States is going to the allied nations as well. Second thing is I think as for the Trump who remembers so much about the 60s, the 70s, the trade wars with the United States, I mean between the United States and Japan, he might not just, you know, drop out of the sticking to this trade war by the threat, I mean, tariff threat even after the midterm election and even after he would be elected. So he's, I think, nurtured by the trade wars. That's my perspective. I'm afraid that's all we have time for on this topic that everyone seems to find terribly fascinating. So I hope you can join me in thanking our distinguished panelist, Wendy Cutler, Takninami and Timothy Stratt. But thank you very much indeed. Thank you.