Hello and welcome to Tiskey Sauer. Tonight we're talking about Canada's liberal darling Justin Trudeau and whether the shine has come off his premiership ahead of next Monday's general election. We'll also talk about the democratic primaries in the US and whether leftists should mind that Elizabeth Warren is currently pulling ahead of Bernie Sanders in the polls. But before all that, we are legally obliged to cover the latest developments in Brexit negotiations and in particular today's news that a concession on the part of Boris Johnson means a Brexit deal could be in sight. We obviously love an excuse to talk about Brexit on this show as everyone does in British politics. Hopefully it will all be over soon but not so soon that Boris Johnson can call it a triumph. I am joined by Luke Savage, who is over from North America. Luke is a staff writer at Jacobin based in Toronto. How's it going? Great. Thank you. How are you finding it here? How's the welcome been? It's lovely, yeah. Although like I was telling you before, I'm having trouble ordering coffee because apparently normal coffee or as I see it, it's not a thing over here or it's just becoming a thing. You sound like Owen Smith. Do you know that story of Owen Smith? Which one? Owen Smith stood against Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership and he was like, everyone talks about cappuccino. I just order a frothy coffee. Is that the correct nomenclature? Is that what I should ask for at Starbucks? You could do it. Well, if you're in his part of North Wales, especially South, wherever he is, whatever part of Wales, you probably know this. I'm also with Ellie Moe Hagen, Wales expert and regular contributor to The Guardian. You're from Wales. I am from Wales and I speak Welsh. And I can also say that- You can speak Welsh. Are you from North? Are you from North? What part of Wales are you from? I'm from North West Wales, which is not where Owen Smith is from. Pontifrid. I think he's from like- Where is Pontifrid? I don't know. It's not North Wales.  What else is over the mountains that's irrelevant? Owen Smith territory? Well, actually, you have to go out- What do you call a coffee in Wales? We call them cappuccinos. Okay. Like it's obviously- On your side of the mountains?  Anyway, I think we can leave Owen Smith behind us. We are going to start with the apparent Brexit breakthrough, or more accurately described probably a Brexit climb down by Boris Johnson. So it is understood that negotiations between the EU and the UK, the British side have conceded there will be a customs border in the Irish Sea. So this fundamentally looks a lot like a reversion from Boris Johnson to what was the original offer from the European Union to Theresa May's government, which was that there would be a Northern Ireland only backstop. So Northern Ireland would have to stay in the customs area so as to avoid any hard border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. And then Britain could, or the rest of the UK could know it is Britain, isn't it? Because that's what the geographical construct is called. The rest of the UK can float away in whatever customs or single market, well, customs or regulatory arrangement it wants. That was blocked by the DUP after which Theresa May came up with a post facto excuse for why it was always a terrible idea. She wanted this Northern Ireland backstop. They vetoed it. No Prime Minister ever could accept a border down the Irish Sea. But Boris Johnson seems to be going back to that position. In a way, if he can pass it, it makes sense. I mean, many people or many of the Brexiteers, I think, are obsessed about moving away from the regulatory orbit of the EU and potentially moving closer to the regulatory orbit of the United States.  We know, in fact, that Tory party members care much more about getting Brexit done than they do about keeping Northern Ireland as part of the UK. So this could be, if he manages to pass it through Parliament, the golden ticket for Boris Johnson. Do you think he has potentially scored a blinder here early? Can you score a blinder? Is it played a blinder? Did he play a blinder? Yeah, good. Did he? Did he do that? I wouldn't go so far as blinder, but... Yeah, you've told me... But when we were, before we came on air, I was told I wasn't allowed to be pessimistic, so... No, you can be pessimistic. Go on, go for it. Basically, I think I feel pessimistic about an election in terms of, from the left's perspective, if Boris Johnson goes into it on a wave of Brexit triumphalism, because I think we need to think about, like, what the impact psychologically on the country will be if he passes a Brexit deal. This is something that we voted on three years ago, and we've been in this state of limbo, like, rather paralysis for the last three years. It seemed like an intractable, intractable problem. And if Boris Johnson manages to ostensibly solve that problem with what I think is a bit of a piece of shit deal, at the time that won't matter, because I think it will, first of all, it will really take the wind out of the sails of the Remain movement. It will be a huge blow to them. I think a lot of Labour's base will feel, like, pretty devastated. And I think the sort of leave side will feel like, will be given a big boost by it. So to go into an election with, like, the leave side and with the Tories feeling like triumphalist and the left and the Remainers feeling deflated is not a good psychological standpoint from which to begin. And I do think that really matters. So I think that doesn't mean that all is lost. But I think that those of us on the left and people in the Labour party at all levels should be thinking about what do we do about that? What is our answer to that? How do we burst their bubble and how do we sort of create a response to this kind of triumphalism? That was, in fact, obviously I make every guest pre-agree their opinions before they come on the show in case they say something that, you know, could go could go wrong or was not strategic. So so what we agreed there was there was a there was a compromise, which is Ellie was allowed to be pessimistic. So long as she put on an addendum, which is all is not lost. So you fulfilled your obligations very well done. It was the Navarra backstop. We still don't know if the Boris Johnson did a blinder or whatever. We still don't. I mean, we probably won't do it for a while. Played a blind. You do. Oh, right. Played a. You think it's James to do it? No, the phrase is play a blinder. I was wrong. But the phrase is, did he play a blinder? But you're not saying he did play a blinder. You're just saying that would be what he would have done if he had done a good thing. Yeah. Yeah, I'm saying that is the phrase. I'm saying I'm not sure that he's I'm not sure that he's played a blinder. I think that might be overregging the puddings and what. But I think I have any metaphors. Yeah, I like that one. So a friend of friend of Navarra and friend of me, Owen Jones sent me the Red Box podcast this afternoon when I was making this case to him. And the Red Box podcast sort of argues for a variety of reasons that it isn't necessarily good for Boris Johnson to have. Got a deal through because perhaps the issue of social class, one of the reasons they argue is the issue of social class might still play a part. However, yeah, I just I just can't see how this would be bad for him. He's like achieved what a lot of people were starting to think was the impossible if he passes this deal. It still needs to go through Parliament. I mean, who knows? Yeah, I think probably odds are it still won't pass Parliament. It didn't pass Parliament under Theresa May. And if it's as similar to her deal or her first suggestion, I think you'll have a lot of you, Tory rebels this time. Yeah, potentially they're getting to the point where they're like, if we don't vote it through now, then we'll like just never have Brexit. So I think they will want to vote it through. And then they will they're probably banking on the idea that they can like renegotiate it once it's passed. I'm going to give the enthusiasm, which is ultimately, I think it will be a short term success for Boris Johnson. If he can say he's got Brexit done by the 31st, I think this will be better for him than Theresa May's original deal because the rest of the UK, other than Northern Ireland, can float freely away from the regulatory orbit of the European Union. For me, that shit, because all it means is that we can undercut the European Union on workers' rights and on regulations, health and safety regulations, for example. And also that we are in a weaker position when we're negotiating a trade deal with Donald Trump in the United States.  But considering where considering we're all focused on this process of getting Brexit done, he will have done that. And I think he'll have, you know, a little poll boost. But ultimately, there will be a general election. And if potential Labour leavers or leavers in Labour seats have no reason whatsoever now to vote for Boris Johnson's Conservative Party. And if, I think, presumably at that point, people will be thinking a little bit less about Brexit and they'll see that one party has a transformative manifesto, one party. Once Brexit is done, they just have these weird, as we talked about, or as Me and Aaron talked about yesterday on Tiskisar, these weird policies that they've picked out of a hat because some focus groups said they'd be popular. So Labour are going to be standing on a platform which is we can implement an industrial policy which is going to radically make you basically all richer. And we can attack the one percent to do it. The Tories policy is if you have buried a dead body and you haven't told the judge where you've buried it, you don't get parole early, which to me, reasonable policy, it's in the Queen's speech. But I don't think it is going to be. Did she read it out like that? Yeah, she did. If you bury your body. Exactly. I declare. I don't think that's the kind of thing that's going to massively, massively swing it in their favor. But anyway, this is going to get all a bit looking into a crystal ball, isn't it? I'm sure we'll come back to this on a Tiskisar later in the week about, you know, this precise deal and how it's going to play. But Brexit on a broader question. It's always nice to have a foreigner.  Sure, you can. Yeah. Well, it's nice to have a foreigner in here to talk about what Brexit looks like from afar. Johnny Foreigner. Johnny Foreigner. What do you think about it all? How does it look to you? I mean, yeah, I don't have anything, I think, particularly useful or informed to say on the specific question you asked, but it does seem to me that Labour's strategy for the past few years has been to try to change the channel somewhat from Brexit, because Brexit, it seems to me that the hard remain and the hard, you know, the hard leave positions are kind of cultural. They're catchalls in a culture war, in a bigger culture war, you know, and, you know, Labour, as you were saying, is trying to change the channel with a transformative manifesto. So if the election is fought, you know, as a Brexit election, that would seem to be very disadvantageous from Labour's point of view and advantageous from Johnson's point of view. But yeah, in North America, I would say the conversation around Brexit is very skewed on, you know, in kind of liberal circles. And even on a lot of the left, I think people sort of assume the default left position is a really hard remain position, which, you know, as we were as we were talking about before, Michael, it sounds like the Lexid option is not really a serious one anymore. But I think people are not really aware that it is still not a left-right issue. Yeah, even though Lexid is practically dead. I think it's a bad analysis of Brexit to say what's going on here is a battle between the left and the right. That's not what's going on. Yeah, I mean, the remain campaign has like been colonized by the centre. So that's where the left, I think, not necessarily actively hostile towards it, but isn't really like enthused by remain because for a lot of hardcore remainers, the remain project has been about turning back the clock to like 2012 when a particular set of people were in charge and where politics to this group of people felt understandable and comfortable. And for people on the left, that was when Britain was going through very extreme and a very extreme austerity programme and lots of other terrible things. And so the prospect of turning back the clock to that time is not appealing at all. And I think it's one that should be actively resisted. So that is really the schism, I would say. And it's very similar to North America, isn't it? Where liberals want to turn back the clock to the Obama years. Hillary Clinton is a lot like the remain campaign. Donald Trump, that's that's where I think the analogy breaks down because Donald Trump is very clear what he was.  Whereas Brexit, obviously, can have a much more fluid meaning than I mean, it was racist, though. I mean, the breaking point post. Oh, yeah, but that was a particular element of the campaign. Whereas Donald Trump, if if your political debate is if your political struggle is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Donald Trump is disanalogist to Brexit, whereas Hillary Clinton is remained through and through. Although I suppose the the the leave position during the during the campaign had a certain kind of as well as all the right wing native stuff, there was a certain kind of small P populism, a generic anti establishment vote. And I do think Donald Trump had a little bit of that energy as well. And he did it quite well. Yeah. But I mean, in America, certainly, I mean, I think Brexit has discussed a little less in Canada. In America, certainly, it's seen almost exclusively through the lens of of Trump and in kind of the wider kind of confused conversation around the term populism, which which annoys me quite a lot. We are going to go properly to the United States, because next year there will be a presidential election where a Democrat will be facing Donald Trump and hopefully beating him. That's an uncontroversial thing to say in the Navarro media studio. And we are going to talk today, especially about two candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The latest U Gov poll shows that Warren is basically flying ahead in the polls. She's on well, flying ahead is maybe an overstatement, but the momentum is with her. So this is the latest U Gov poll. Warren is on 28 percent. Biden is on 25 percent. And Bernie Sanders is on 14 percent. Is this a surprise to you? Because I mean, I remember at the beginning of the year, everyone was commenting on why Warren isn't being taken seriously. She was, I think, in the single digits. And it was all about Bernie versus Biden. What explains, I suppose, Warren's phenomenal rise in the polls? I mean, I think the simplest answer is that she's proven to be a good campaigner. And I think she's, you know, and she's she's running out. She's running a good campaign. I think I have a somewhat more partisan answer, which is, I think, the basic arc of the campaign up until the fall is being that, you know, the the anti-Bernie forces broadly defined have kind of cycled through a number of different formulas they've tried. And, you know, so there was the attempt to make Beto or Rourke into a national figure. I think we can say at this point, the very unsuccessful attempt. Didn't he come back a bit when he started swearing a bit more?  And then everyone's like, yeah, but maybe he's got character. Yeah, he's he's tried to pivot to making gun control is thing. And I mean, I think he's come back in terms of his visibility on Twitter, but but not in the polls, I think. And then after him, you had you had Mayor Pete, yeah, who, you know, was another figure who really, I mean, I think even more than a rock, no one had ever heard of him. And all of a sudden he was all over magazines and things like that. And he did have a brief surge. There was one point where I think he was pretty safely established as kind of the fourth, you know, fourth candidate. But that didn't last long either. Kamala Harris hasn't been doing well. And, you know, Biden has loomed over the whole thing. But I think his his his lead has kind of been slowly diminishing. There's not a lot of dynamism to his campaign and they're having to sort of keep him out of events and stuff. And actually in this last quarter, his fundraising numbers were really bad. So it does look like the debate is shaping up to be or the contest is shaping up to be one between Sanders and Warren. And I think what Warren's been able to do, and again, I'll qualify this by saying it is a somewhat partisan reading because I have pretty strong views about this. I think what warrants. OK, good. I mean, I think I think what Warren's been able to do is, you know, she's been able to embrace parts of Sanders agenda and kind of campaign on them in a way which is more politically palatable to the and more rhetorically palatable palatable to, you know, the professional managerial class constituency that I think has been, you know, dominant in the Democratic Party since the early 90s and to all of the kind of the newspapers and the sort of big outlets of liberal liberal opinion. And I think I think. So I think she's I think her success is in some ways an expression of a contradiction. There's clearly a demand for transformative change, but there's also there are a lot of people who are very hesitant about embracing, you know, a version of it that I think many people in the US left would find sufficiently radical. And so Warren has actually emerged as a kind of compromise candidate that all these other people sort of tried and failed to be. Does it show? I'll posit this to you, actually, does it does it show a victory for the left that Elizabeth Warren is the compromise candidate? I mean, because there's a sort of negative way of looking at it, which is sort of like, you know, Bernie got outflanked by someone who is much less anti-establishment than him, someone who is much less willing to take on the vested interest in the United States. But the fact that she's a compromise candidate, that's pretty. They've done all right, right? I think like I think if if Warren had been the candidate in 2016, that would have felt like a massive victory for the left. I mean, I would have been over the moon if she'd been the candidate in 2016. So, yes, I think definitely. But I mean, you know, we've just talked a bit earlier about the Brexit Trump thing, how you think, you know, these sort of you can't the things that happen in the U.S. are not necessarily analogous to here, but it does kind of remind me of Ed Miliband becoming leader in the sense that like when when Gordon Brown stepped down, there was a sense that there needed to be some sort of compromise with the left. And but the left also recognized that that they needed to be a candidate that was electable. And so you ended up with Ed Miliband, who was like a kind of neither left nor right were happy with him because he was either to left wing for some or to right wing for others. And so I think like she sort of reminds me, Warren reminds me of Ed Miliband in that respect, in the sense that it's like a candidate that neither the sort of socialist left or the center are happy with, but both will accept for the other one and both are kind of resentful about because they feel like the candidate has been imposed on them by the other faction. And I think like she's also reminiscent of Ed Miliband's leadership in the sense that like she wants to introduce progressive policies through the traditional structures of Washington, which I think have shown themselves to be, you know, through the kind of tinkering of people like Mitch McConnell have shown themselves to be insufficient for a truly like transformative politics. And I think that will be difficult for her. I think if she wins, if she wins the candidacy, that's like great for the left. And I think, thank God, it won't be Biden, who I think would be absolutely destroyed by Trump. I think she has a shot. I'm also very partisan on this and I don't think that she has as good a shot as Bernie winning the states that she needs to win. And I think, you know, her support is very college educated, sort of urban support. And I just don't I think. Those are not the people who are needed to win for the next election. She needs to present something that will actually make democratic voters get off their sofas and go to a polling station and vote. And that was what Hillary Clinton failed to do. Let's go to a clip. So obviously, you've said the debate.  So I can't really see him getting the nomination. So it does seem to be like an ideological battle between Warren and Bernie. Bernie, obviously, now has to try a little bit harder to distinguish himself from the rest of the race. It was easy to say how he was different to Hillary Clinton. Now he's got to make a slightly more nuanced argument about why people should choose him over Elizabeth Warren. He was asked that question, I think earlier in the week, so we're going to go to that clip now. So let me ask you. You and Elizabeth Warren have pretty close to identical positions on the big issues. What do you say to those who say they would pick her because she's eight years younger than you? She didn't just come through this. You didn't just have a heart attack. And look, in the positions, you're pretty much the same. Well, look, everybody, every American is going to make his or her own choice about the candidate that they want. And Elizabeth Warren has been a friend of mine for some 25 years. And I think she is a very, very good senator. But there are differences between Elizabeth and myself. Well, Elizabeth, I think, as you know, has said that she is a capitalist through her bones, I'm not. I am, I believe, the only candidate who's going to say to the ruling class of this country, the corporate elite, enough and up with your greed and with your corruption, we need real change in this country. What did you think about that answer? Do you think he's pitched it correctly? He's saying, you know, what's different? About me, Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist to her bones. I'm not. So I saw, I saw, I think Baskar, who's your publisher, saying on Twitter that this is theoretically quite a good answer. But to be honest, it's a little bit abstract. I don't think there are that many voters in the United States who say, well, I want to vote for someone who's not a capitalist. It's kind of abstract, right? So he has to explain this is what Baskar's saying. He has to explain why it's only Bernie Sanders who can give you proper Medicare and who can give you proper, I don't know, a wage increase. Is housing a big issue there, I don't know. I interviewed Joshua Green for my book, who is Steve Bannon's biographer. Oh, well, he said that Americans like I think he was quoting from another article, or he was either talking about his own reporting, but he said that Americans have gone from being angry at Wall Street to being angry at the government, to being angry at elites in general. And I think like that's something that Steve Bannon understood and felt, actually, and so was able to sort of project that. And I think that he he sort of helped Trump over the line with that. So I think you're right. I would agree with you that it's not necessarily true to say that American voters are like, I want someone who isn't a capitalist.  So I can, you know, I think that's plausible. I mean, Warren also does a version of small people populism. Right. Just how much does she talk about taking one of these? I mean, I think she definitely rhetorically embraces that language. But I think she I mean, I think she does it a bit less. And I also think that in practice, she she does it a bit less. I've actually got a Twitter thread of hers here that I think is pretty illustrative of the differences between her and Sanders. And, you know, for a lot of people, you know, who are who don't who don't agree with what I think is basically the Jacobin pro Bernie consensus around this, they look at Sanders program and then they look at Warren's program and they see that there's a lot of overlap. And I think for a lot of people, the discussion kind of stops there. They think that I mean, I don't want to put words in people's mouth, but it's my sense that a lot of people think that the distinction between someone who says I'm a capitalist and someone who says I'm a socialist when they have some policy overlap is basically a semantic one, particularly for the reasons you said, right? How many how many voters think idiomatically in those in those terms? But I do think that I do think Sanders and Warren have very different conceptions of power and they have very different political strategies. And that comes out in the versions of populism that both of them both of them embrace. So Elizabeth Warren has a piece of legislation, a plan, I should say, called the Accountable Capitalism Act, and it's got lots of good stuff in it, requires workers to elect 40 percent of the board, requires boards and executives to sell stocks, requires 75 percent of execs and shareholders approval for political expenditures. So there's a lot of good stuff in there. 40 percent one is quite big. Uh-huh. I think that's I don't think the Labour Party have even put a number on that high. Yeah. And I think I think Bernie's just put out a proposal where it's where it's a little bit higher. But but I love this arms race. It's like, we'll give them 40 percent. I'll give them 50 percent. Right. You've got to be careful with the workers on boards because I don't know about in the US where union density is very low. But in this country, like workers on boards can sometimes be used by companies to sort of elbow out the union. And so I think that's one thing I prefer to with Sanders over Warren is that he has been using his support base to gather support for like, yeah. And he also wants to repeal the I can't remember what the legislation is called. Don't want to say Taft legislation, but I might be wrong about that. I can't remember what it's called. But basically, it's like the the American anti-union legislation that doesn't allow things like solidarity strikes. So for me, that is where he's more socialistic. Sorry, I interrupted you. That's OK. Well, I mean, so they but again, they both have they both have they're both pitching plans to make it easier to join a union and things like that. But you know, Bernie is actually using his list to direct supporters to pick at lines and things like that. Elizabeth Warren, I don't think has talked as much about the strike wave that's been happening in the United States. So that's that's another distinction. But I just want to talk a bit about here about this this this Twitter thread that Warren did about accountable capitalism, because it starts off pretty good. She says, year after year, corporate profits soar for executives and shareholders, but workers wages barely budge. I'm reintroducing my accountable capitalism act to empower workers and help fix this fundamental problem with our economy. So it's not exactly Eugene Debs, but it's pretty good stuff. Now, a few more tweets down this thread. She says 181 CEOs signed a biz roundtable non-biting pledge to account for workers and consumers and their decisions. I'm urging companies.  And she says, for most of America's history, when our companies did better, our workers did better and America built a thriving middle class. The Accountable Capitalism Act will help realign our skewed market incentives so companies and workers can once do again well together. So this is a lot closer to a kind of language of liberal corporatism and one that one that's aiming for, you know, kind of generously a kind of cross class consensus. Whereas, you know, Sanders, if if he was pitching, I mean, in many, in many respects, he's pitching these same proposals, often a little more radical. But but when he talks about them, he says things like if there's going to be a class war in this country, it's time the working class started winning it. And again, a lot of commentators will look at this and they think that this is a this is a semantic distinction. And functionally, if they're if they're running on similar agendas, there's no difference. And I disagree pretty strongly with that. And I mean, the other thing we might talk about, and I think you alluded to it, Michael, is or maybe it was you, Ellie, that the bases of support that both of them have at the moment are so different. Elizabeth Warren, I think, wins in every poll with people who make over a hundred thousand dollars a year. You know, Bernie Sanders, I think it's in the single digits, the number of people who make that much who have donated to his campaign. And the top three employers by my last count of people donating to his campaign were, I think, Amazon, Walmart and Starbucks. So these are people who are serving coffee, they're working behind counters. This is this is the working class. And I think that a transformative policy agenda has a much better chance of succeeding if it's being carried out with, you know, the agency of those people rather than as part of a something that is, you know, heavily based in the professional managerial class, which I think really needs to be that's a section of the democratic base that really needs to be antagonised if any of this stuff is ever going to have a chance of of of getting of getting through Congress. Is there a chance that the polls are misleading us? So if you think about the fact that Elizabeth Warren's I mean, we know this, that Elizabeth Warren's support base is more educated, more middle class, more, I suppose they're both urban, but different areas. There was that great map, which showed that where each of them were getting their donations from and Bernie Sanders was getting the most donations in nearly every part of America, apart from a particular part of New York, which was Warren and a particular part of Washington, which was booted, and then I think Klobuchar from whatever her state was. Minnesota. Yes, the question was if Bernie Sanders more working class support base means that there might be an electoral shock or an electoral surprise in the same way that I suppose we were talking about Brexit earlier. One reason why there was a big shock when Brexit one is because they're the type of people who are less likely to appear in opinion polls but might turn out on the day. So could we see an upset and Bernie actually wins this one? I mean, I'd like to think so. I mean, I do think that there are, you know, despite his poll numbers not having moved too much and despite Warren undeniably I think surging ahead of both him and Biden. I mean, he has received more individual donations. I mean, he's breaking. He's breaking records. And as you alluded to, there's that map that just showed he's he's strong all over the country. He's getting money from from everywhere. And I think his his strategy is premised on pretty heavily on bringing people into vote who've been really who've been disengaged with the political process. I mean, voter turnout in the United States is terrible. And when you look at the I wrote, I wrote an essay a few weeks ago about non-voters and, you know, non-voters don't really fit the kind of caricature of just apathetic people who were switched off. I mean, they do tilt much lower income. And when you pull them on why they don't vote, they do say it's because I'm not I'm not represented. There's nothing there's nothing for me to vote for. And I think Sanders strategy understands that and is very actively engaged in trying to bring lower income people and non-voters into the process. And when pollsters do these analyses, I mean, my understanding is a lot of their calculations are based on past trends, which demographics have turned up before and things like that. And so I think that Sanders may have support this not being captured in some of these polls. I'd certainly like to think so. I want to go to another clip. So this is a clip that went completely viral, I think, about a week ago. It was Elizabeth Warren in the, I think it was an LGBTQ town hall. There was actually, unfortunately, we haven't shown that clip, but there's a Joe Biden moment where he says there's people in the back houses having orgies in San Francisco. So I don't know. It's very, very strange thing for this whole. Well, Guy didn't say that. Did you remember the clip? I confess, I didn't see this. It must have happened once over here. I should have put it in the screw. I'll tweet it after the show. It's very funny. In any case, Elizabeth Warren gave this response, which was where many people in Britain sort of, I saw lots of people from the BBC sort of tweeting it, saying, God, she's good. Like, yeah, she can win. And I kind of watched it and I wasn't that sure, but I'm interested to see what you both think about it. So can we get that clip of Elizabeth Warren, please? Let's say you're on the campaign trail and you're approached. You have. And a supporter approaches you and says, Senator, I am old fashioned and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is your response? Well, I'm going to assume it's a guy who said that. And I'm going to say then just marry one woman. I'm sure you can find one. I kind of thought it was a flop. I mean, it reminded me of Hillary Clinton's deplorable comment, because it's sort of just like dismissing a vast wave of the American population, which is a kind of weird thing to do if you're running for president. Also, the fact that the questioner did that kind of accent, I thought was a little bit weird. But I do value success. And the fact that it's been viewed 12 million times on YouTube, mainly by people sharing it, you know, saying this was such a great burn has made me think maybe it was a good answer. I don't know. What do you think, Ellie? I'm scared that I'm going to get cancelled for saying this. I someone sent it to me being like, this is great. And I my first thought was she's going to lose the election. And the reason that I thought that is because it's not because I think like, I mean, obviously, I don't think that any politician anywhere ever should ever express or pander to in any way, homophobic opinions. And obviously that that's not what I think. And I also don't think that, you know, the voters that Trump won over Clinton in like rust belt states are like just de facto homophobic because they happen to be like blue collar. Like that's also not what I'm saying. I'm just like my feeling, my anxiety about it is that it just seems a little bit smarty pants. It just seems a bit kind of like, well, I mean, I'm, you know, the fact that I'm saying this is quite astonishing really, but like, it was just like the kind of inherent like manhating in it. Like, well, I'm going to assume it's a man that's got that shitty opinion.  Also, like when, when I'm like getting drunk with my female friends, like I'm kind of, I'm down. You say all sorts of things about homosexuals. Yeah.  Like, you know, when I'm getting drunk with my female friends, like obviously we will like make a lot of salty comments about men, of course. But just like, I don't know. Like I just sort of think if I was like a man living in one of those states and you have this kind of like apparently like wealthy woman sort of just being a little bit smarty pants about it. And then like just dropping in that kind of like manhating comment. Like it's also just a Harvard law professor saying if you can get a woman. Yeah. Yeah. It's just a bit like who are you appealing to? Like I feel like you're going to appeal to people who already vote for you. Like who, I mean, you know, like I'm glad that she gave an, I would prefer her to give that answer than to give an answer that was like, well, I respect your homophobic opinion. But I just, it was just the attitude of it that I, like it reminded me of Hillary Clinton, this idea that like this kind of privileged, like wealthy kind of upper middle class woman is like somehow, I don't know, like somehow kind of in some way part of the oppressed and that men are the oppressors. And that's what, like, is that what we're going to sell? Is that what like they're going to sell? And like she is going to sell to people who live in former coal countries in America? I mean, yeah, it just made me kind of nervous. Luke, what did you think about the clip? And also are you worried that Elizabeth Warren could do a Hillary Clinton campaign mark too? I mean, yeah, I have an alternate but I think equally cynical reading of it, which is comes from a fairly perhaps dubious source, which is the Washington Free Beacon. That's the best kind of source. Yeah, and the headline here is CNN failed to disclose Warren Town Hall questioner was maxed out donor. So people can, people can look that up apparently. Allegedly, Morgan Cox, the questioner has donated a lot to Elizabeth Warren. But I think for me, watching the clip again, I mean, it does, it does seem a little canned. I mean, perhaps partisanship is clouding my judgment here, but yeah, I don't think, I don't think Warren is, I mean, there are maybe people that want to compare to Hillary Clinton and I would distance myself from that in that, I mean, she's clearly, her politics are clearly significantly to the left of Hillary Clinton's. Hillary Clinton's politics, I think, were often very hard to nail down.  Which isn't that long, it's true.  But perhaps that was a little below the belt. But again, a caveat, usual caveats about partisanship clouding my judgment. But I mean, I think there is a sense in which a clip like this does have a kind of Hillary Clinton campaign energy to it, to me, or not the clip itself, but the sort of viral quality of it and how it was received. I think that I'm obviously a lot more comfortable with the program that Warren's running on than the one Clinton was running on, which was, I think, pretty openly contemptuous, not just of the socialist left, but of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I mean, I think it was very much a center-right kind of campaign. But I think, given how kind of professional and managerial a lot of Warren's most enthusiastic support is, things like this, the good things Warren is running on a side, things like this do have a slight vibe of the birth of another sort of middle-class personality cult, right? Getting excited about someone who, because of their credentials, this is a, I do think there are a lot of liberals who think, we get a Harvard lawyer in here with the white papers and the plans, and that's how we can fix things kind of by fear and by strength of kind of raw intelligence. And I think that, to say the least, is not a good analysis of how change has worked historically or how it could possibly work in America in 2019. I think she's got substance and that differentiates her from Clinton. There was some data that showed that Clinton spoke more about herself and less about policy than any other candidate for which those records exist. And I think like- Wow, that's amazing. Because it was all about, I'm the most qualified woman ever to be United States president, but she didn't have any policies. Whereas Warren's got a plan for everything, which Hillary Clinton did. There's a paper that I will send you the link to if you want to tweet along on the YouTube with the show, but that's what it said and the other thing that it mentioned as well actually as you were saying earlier that Bernie's donations from small donors is actually like unprecedented in 2016. So I think like, you know, Clinton's whole, like apparently one of the slogans they were thinking of coming up, they were thinking of using for Clinton before they settled on, I'm with her was hashtag it's her turn. So the Clinton's whole campaign was like, coronate me. That was her message to America. I deserve this, coronate me. Whereas Warren has substance, she's making arguments, she has policies, she has ideas. And I think that gives her a better shot than Biden against Trump and it certainly gives her a much better shot against Clinton. But as you say, it is this kind of like middle class personality cult that makes me really anxious because there are a lot of Americans who feel very excluded by that who need to vote for this person who didn't vote for Clinton, Democratic voters who didn't vote for Clinton and they need to feel like it's worth them going and voting for this person. And so, yeah, that does worry me. And I'm not sure that Trump has done a significantly disastrous job for those particular Americans for them to feel that like a second term is actually bad enough for them to actually try and go out and... I don't know, as I mentioned earlier, I am just a pessimist and so I always tend towards the most pessimistic reading of things so that is something that you should take. We should have got you another G&T before you came on, although maybe that makes you more pessimistic, I don't know. How do you respond to alcohol? I don't know what you mean, I am as sober as a judge. We're gonna move from one middle class personality cult to another and go across the border to Canada and just in Trudeau. But first of all, you're watching Navarra Media, you're watching Tiskey Sour. As you know, this show is only possible because of your kind donations. So if you are already a subscriber, thank you very much. If not, please donate the equivalent of one hour's wage a month. We'll be in our new studio, I think next week, thanks to your brilliant participation in our fundraiser then, but we wanna keep getting those subs up so we can have some full-time staff because that'd be kinda cool and we could make loads more content and it'll be super professional. Let's go to Canada. Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015 as leader of the Liberal Party after a decade of conservative rule. He won world fame basically for being attractive fundamentally in a boxer, but also for his brand of modern liberalism. He's a feminist, pro-migrant and says the right things about the environment. Luke, can you, as our resident Canadian, can you introduce our audience to Justin Trudeau? What was he about and what of his four years in government looked like? I think the simplest way into understanding the Trudeau phenomenon from abroad is that in kind of the period spanning, I don't know how far back to go, but 20, let's say 2014 to 2016 when the US presidential election happened, liberalism everywhere was in crisis and it was struggling to find a formula that could work against an increasingly electorally viable right. And Canada was the one place where kind of the old liberalism managed to hack the secret code in order to do this. And Emmanuel Macron a few years later was able to do the same thing. And what it was was, I mean Trudeau was a tremendously effective political vehicle because he had an aura of youthfulness to him, but the Trudeau name in Canada is really associated for members of Generation X and baby boomers with 1968, which was the original Trudeau mania when Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau's father. And so in many ways, he was actually a vehicle for nostalgia, which is something that you wouldn't know kind of to look at him. And I think what he was able to do was express, he was able to not threaten the elite consensus too much in Canada really at all, but was able to express a version of what people really wanted to hear. And so he talked a good game about the environment. He talked a lot about, yeah, the migrant crisis. He embraced a version of kind of Keynesian economics and deficit spending, which was considered very heterodox in Canada and gave his campaign, I think I'm missing a couple of slides to perhaps endure. And so when he was elected, it was very much received in the...


A warm welcome to this discussion where as the instructor I would like to respond to some of the discussion that has been taking place on the forum which I am very happy to see actually. I am first very keen to convey to all of you that having this discussion on the forum is really the purpose of a course like this because it allows you to learn things from one another in addition to what you learn from all of us I mean me as the instructor and all of the teaching associates that are associated with this course. I would actually urge a little more response also from the persons other than those making the first post. So, you will notice that my teaching associates are answering your questions quite keenly but at the same time they are waiting for a while because they would like to hear responses from many of you before coming to a point where they respond on their own. So, you know it is very important I mean I do not feel comfortable when I see just one person having posted a discussion item and no one else from among the students has responded. It is alright you know the teaching associates respond at times but we have responded wherever we think it is immediately important but at times we have been waiting to actually encourage discussion amongst all of you before we respond immediately. So, please in future it is very important that when one person makes a post we would be very happy if other people also responded to that post and since there are thousands of people really involved in this whole course do not feel awkward about responding it does not harm if you say something which is incorrect because if you write something and somebody else responds to it both of you learn in the process the discussion is after all not an evaluation at all. So, it is very important that you participate this is the first message that I wanted to convey to you after looking at the discussion forum. Now, let me go through some of the questions of the discussion forum. So, you will notice that one of the questions that has come repeatedly in this discussion forum is this whole idea of the shifting property or you know the idea of selection that is taking place in the. So, let me now draw essentially the unit impulse located at a point T naught again and there was you know there was a very interesting discussion which has now been pinned up about this whole business of the unit impulse and so on. So, you have this very narrow pulse with the width of capital delta and a height of 1 by delta centered at T 0 on the time axis and you have a continuous function which I am sketching in red and calling x of t. So, this is the unit impulse well it is not really unit impulse it is a unit pulse I should call it and you can see that if I call this unit pulse well delta sub capital delta of t well since it is shifted so you know delta sub capital delta of t would look like this it would be the same thing, but located at 0 and therefore, it goes from minus capital delta by 2 to capital delta by 2. Let us first sketch small delta sub capital delta t which is a unit pulse around 0 going from minus capital delta by 2 to plus capital delta by 2 and with a height of 1 by delta. Why is it called a unit pulse unit because the unit area is involved here there is a unit area 1 by delta into delta which is 1. Now, what we have here is the unit pulse at t 0 so to speak and that is written as delta capital delta t minus t 0. Now, you will agree with me that the way I have drawn delta capital delta t here delta capital delta t is equal to delta capital delta minus t and therefore, you could switch and write delta sub capital delta t 0 minus t here both of them have an interpretation. Now, what you also understand and this is what a lot of people I think have been discussing on the forum is that if I multiply if I fix the t 0 with fixed t 0 the product x t times delta sub capital delta t minus t 0 dt integrated over all t essentially gives you this you know the value here you are extracting this part of the function so to speak and you are multiplying it by 1 by delta and so on. So, you know you are essentially looking at this area multiplied by 1 by delta but remember you know when this becomes smaller and smaller this area also becomes smaller and smaller there is a confusion about that this green area would tend to 0 if you did not have this height scaling up to 1 by delta. So, ultimately what is going to happen is that essentially when you would make this capital delta go to 0 you would have an area of 1 by delta times the value of x at the point t 0 times delta. So, you know delta goes to 0 but 1 by delta tends to infinity. So, it lifts the value of x at the point t 0 and this is meaningful if x is continuous at the point t 0 if it is not continuous then one cannot apply this principle at these isolated points of discontinuity that should be kept in mind. Now, all this is alright I think you know and in fact you also understood that you could switch. So, you could write delta sub capital delta t minus I mean t 0 minus t and then you know you also had a situation where you could interpret the integral the other way. So, you could write x t delta t 0 minus t dt integrated over all t is essentially x at t 0 and here what I was emphasizing is that there is an important different interpretation that you need to give it that is that now this holds for all t 0 where x is continuous. Now, how do you visualize this you know you should visualize it like this think of an impulse a very narrow pulse with an capturing an area of 1 located at t 0 and visualize t 0 moving. So, what you are saying is every time you take a particular position of this impulse multiply the function x and integrate out you pick up a particular value of x and as you keep doing this for different t 0 you can reconstruct x at every point while both these equations are really the same equation per say when you write it like this when you write it in this form the second interpretation becomes important namely that you can actually move t 0 around the reason why I have written it like this is that later we are going to actually look at this expression you know here you will recognize this as a convolution between x t and delta t notionally you know it is a convolution between x t and delta t you will understand this later even if you do not understand now and that is very important you know because that will also lead us to a very basic principle that governs linear shift invariant systems. So, you know it is the same equation written in different ways can help you do different things now that is all fine I just clarified what all this means, but you know I do realize that understanding this in continuous time is a little more difficult than understanding it in discrete time. So, what I would like to do before I you know conclude this discussion session is to actually talk about the discrete time version of this which will make it much easier for you to understand. So, let us now take the discrete version of this. So, firstly what do you mean by a discrete sequence or a discrete signal a discrete signal I am kind of anticipating I am going a little ahead perhaps a discrete signal is a mapping from the integers to the complex numbers. And we denote it by writing script z mapped to script c. So, this is you know you can look at the analog you know just as a continuous signal maps the real access to the set of complex numbers. So, in a discrete signal we often use the independent variable n and we talk about x of n square bracket you know the square bracket is often used to denote the discrete nature of the signal and we call it a sequence. Now, let me take a very simple sequence let me take a sequence x of n which is 3 respectively 3, 4 minus 2 and 6 at the points n equal to 1, n equal to 0, n equal to minus 1 and n equal to minus 2. Now, let us define a very simple sequence which we call the impulse sequence. Now, this is very easy to define this does not require any peculiarities like infinite values and so on. The impulse sequence is denoted by delta n and that is equal to 1 for n equal to 0 and 0 else very simple. So, you know in discrete time it is very easy to define the impulse sequence. Now, you can very easily see that x of n can be written as 3 times delta n minus 1 plus 4 times delta n minus 2 times delta n plus 1 plus 6 delta n plus 2. Now, like in this or bring out the analogy see the similarity with integral minus infinity to plus infinity you can take k going from minus 2 to plus 1. So, you know you could in fact put down that here you know you could write k equal to 1 here k equal to 0 here and so on and you could say that x of n is a summation on x of k times delta n minus k summed over the integers k that is what you are saying here. Now, this will put things in perspective it is easier I think to understand this by starting with the discrete time interpretation which is very clean and neat and then moving to continuous time. Now, I would encourage you I am not giving the full explanation I have just sort of triggered a discussion from this discussion of mine or this response of mine and I would like some of you to talk about this actually I have written this answer also partly on one of the discussions, but I would like many of you to take this discussion further and try and link the two ideas together bring out their commonalities and differences. There is a lot of other discussion that is taken place one observation that I would like to make is that you know you need to also develop the skill of deciding what kind of tools to understand what concept sometimes some things are better understood graphically some things are better understood by writing down the algebra. One must learn to use both tools both strategies depending on the context. We will talk more as we go along, but I would once again encourage you to participate actively in the discussion. The other message that I had for all of you is please do not get scared from slightly difficult questions some of the quizzes. I have also conveyed this to all of you on the email we are trying to make some of the questions challenging because we want to challenge you we want to challenge you to think deeply, but we do not want to make the course so difficult that you cannot grasp it. So, please give us your feedback I have asked for feedback my teaching associates are keenly listening to your feedback and we will moderate and modulate the questions as we see your feedback our aim is to give you as good the material that we can give as we can, but at the same time we do not want to make it too difficult to grasp. So, you know we do need to challenge you a little bit and of course, you know you can always I think you have a chance of dropping some of the quizzes and still being considered for you know for the total and so on. Getting an A grade of course should be difficult, but we think those who are diligent with the course those are put in the required effort should have no difficulty in completing the course successfully that is what we feel and we will definitely moderate the remaining quizzes in accordance with that and we would all the time want you to engage with us to make this happen well we will meet again wish you all the best again. Thank you.


We have strict instruction that we have to finish this session by three o'clock But let that not stop you from asking questions. We are friendly and small enough So I will try my best to give everyone a chance So when you do get a chance, please be brief if you have more than one question I will try my best to come back to you in the second round So in the first round, I'll try to take three questions and then give the panel a chance And then we will do as many rounds as necessary and possible. Okay So I have two hands three hands here. So first three is three questions. Yeah, please. Hi I'm from University of Gothenburg. I've seen this overall performance Improved in health, but I my question is how much this performance is Only into changing in health behavior because changing her behavior for me is more sustainable Than just external forces to the people. That's my question Hello, I'm from University of Copenhagen and I think my question is mostly for Michael I was just wondering if you had given any thought to The business proposal. So if it's possible to drive investments in health through Making a business proposal for factories, for example That the productivity gain may be large enough for it to actually be a sustainable business investment And if so, how it would be possible to promote this and which fields you think Would this would be particularly interesting in Okay, my name is Dick Durval from University of Gothenburg. My question is really to Yuko You mentioned all the mechanisms that leads from health to wealth and you said took by behavior behavior change And it's obvious that if somebody gets cancer or death sentence that they will not invest in education some but do you have any strong evidence that Improved health actually affects behavior in general maybe among those that just have small risk again getting ill The panelists come back with questions. The others may think about further questions to ask. So Okay So starting from the last question You mentioned that you were asking about the channels from health to wealth and I think There are several channels and you were specifically asking about the investment or Yes, there is there's very rich rich evidence on that and So for each of the channels that I explained the demographic and the investment in education and And each of them they have they are backed by both micro and macro data So for example microeconomic evidence is that are as I mentioned RCTs. So if you give if you take all the Indonesian, I think the Duncan Thomas study was RCT in 700,000 Indonesian productive women and men and they did a randomized Control trial and they gave three iron supplements to one group and nothing to the other Possible to the other and they did find that people who got iron supplements were more productive compared to those who weren't and also there is Evidence there are Micro both micro and economic evidence Education there's it's very rich. So it's almost undisputed that better education leads to better wealth in the economics So Because you expected Oh, so like the investment and yes at the macro level there is data. That's right. There is a huge if I think in the recent years This behavior economics how that plays role in developing economics has really changed and And they think even experimental data. There is evidence on that So it is there is scientific evidence and then the first question I guess the question to Michael. I'm sure that You follow but I think that like there's a lot of evidence in like HIV High prevalence countries like the for example mining countries mining companies. They've really invested in the House of Workers and then therefore improve the the The productivity of the company because I mean if HIV affected 23% of the the productive population There's no way that you don't do anything about that and it makes an economical sense and then the first question on the What how much of it is the behavior? I'm not sure if all that Behavior is what's driven because I mean taking pneumonia and diarrhea the Most of the children under five still die are dying from pneumonia and diarrhea and That and the there's ways to prevent it and there's ways to treat it and it's very cost-effective But still children are dying so I mean How do you explain that? Yeah, I mean go back to that first thing I mean if you immunize a child then you don't get a disease so I think for communicable diseases I think it's a critical issue for non communicable diseases and for HIV AIDS, but So I think it really just depends which disease you're talking about I don't think you can make blanket statements like that And I think that one of the advantages of health is that we do have these technologies like like immunization that are Highly accessible and highly cost-effective. I mean in terms of investment cases I mean, so first of all, that's the new term that everyone is using, you know, so For the new global financing facility for MCH people are developing investment cases for MCH UN AIDS has the investment case for HIV AIDS so that Terminology has now permeated And as you said as Yoko said I think that there has been a lot of interest for large companies say for example for HIV AIDS And also for malaria and for other diseases what I would say that one of the I think broader issues for human development Is that most of the focus is on children? But if you think about it from a human capital standpoint What we should be particularly interested in as adults and that I think that's one of things that came out from the HIV AIDS Epidemic and why some of the South African big companies did invest because they were using losing their labor but I think that we tend to under invest in Adult diseases like for example chronic diseases like diabetes and heart attacks in in Africa and in low-income countries Because that's not part of the Millennium Development Goal hadn't historically been part of the Millennium Development Goals And yet those are critical I think for for economic investments in the country and then just to go back to your question I mean there was a I mean first of all just I mean about ten years ago There was a huge review you know from the macroeconomic commission on health that actually did both the both Reviewed both the macro and micro studies that you were talking about and actually saw I mean causation in both ways But obviously it makes sense that that there would be I mean if you think about malaria for example I mean one of the reasons that you have relatively low agricultural productivity is because a lot of the workers actually are suffering from malaria And actually you see significant improvements in agricultural productivity once you start decreasing malaria Sorry, I'm not talking about productivity That's obvious what I'm asking about is change the change in behavior due to better More expectations of better health, you know you change your investment future investments I mean those studies they show that if you get a you find out that you really not well I mean you might not study as much but other strong effects Yeah, I mean there's strong studies of that already from just the AIDS epidemic in Africa You know with the introduction of treatment. There's been dramatic changes in household behavior, you know because people work Yeah, if you if you get a medicine, but I'm talking in general I mean it's got it that doesn't have a very strong impact on the economy in general I mean the many studies on the impact of health on Growth but economy in general and they don't find a very strong effect I think the main point is that we should not assume that there is a causal relationship in one way or the other and the fact that a certain level of Achievement has taken place might influence the behavioral assumptions I think that is the point, but I'm going to stop there We can continue further discussion during the coffee break. I'm going to invite curry to thank you I think at this only this first question is is my area of expertise about the role of behavior in in diseases and especially in or at least in chronic diseases, of course, health behavior is most important It may be misleading sometimes to give this irritability estimation because somebody may think that It's it's kind of excluding the role of behavior, but this is not the case For example, if you look at these clonkended chains of Obesity, they are all expressed mainly in hypatalamus and it is very likely that actually the mechanism how these chains affect obesity is that they some way modify human eating behavior and that's why they increase the probability to develop obesity. We have actually pretty interesting results about this field just accept it for publication. Other issue is that if you look at the chronic diseases it is also it is maybe it can be misleading to talk too much about this title of nutrition because it's also that is modified by adult behavior. We know that we have epidemiological evidence just so that suggesting that childhood malnutrition is is associated with the higher prevalence of coronary heart disease. However, this is not the situation in all populations. For example, this applies very well in many western populations, but for if you look at for example, Japan, we don't we don't see this kind of association because also Japan was very poor country before the second world war and and we could expect that because of this very rapid economy development in Japanese population, there would be a massive increase in coronary heart disease. This is however not the case. There is coronary heart disease rates at a very low level in the Japanese population and so are also all metabolic diseases. Only exception is a stroke because of the high short consumption in Japanese population and so this is not a deterministic process, but by health behavior it's surely possible to prevent these kind of diseases and health behavior in the population is very strongly modifies both genetic and this childhood environment or risk factors of coronary diseases. We can have another round of questions. Two, three and four. Yeah. Hello, my name is Helis Samuelsen. I'm from University of Copenhagen. I'm not an epidemiologist, not an economist, but I have a question to the last presentation on the BMI and the difference between western countries and Japan. I don't know if you have data on Africa. If you have, what does, would they show or if you don't have, what would you predict? What would the differences in BMI and the different groups of professionals show? Thank you. Thank you all presenters for your interesting presentations. I'm Sato Ulicida from University of Helsinki. I just wanted to find out what your thoughts were in terms of human resources for health and the kind of graphs that you showed for the age in Africa and the kind of very, you know, rapid demographic growth. I mean, how do you see this playing out in the coming decades? Thank you. My name is Abruna E from McLeod University Uganda. My concern has to do with the progress so far made. Yes, we made progress, but I think we would have made more progress if we need more money for health years, but I think we should also look at more health out of the resources we have. I think that can only be realized if we mainstream health in all the policies of the various ministries and not leave it to the Minister of Finance and Minister of Health. It's not a question, just an addition. Thank you. Maybe we'll take responses from the panel and then I'll come back for a final set of questions. So this idea of multi-sectorality I think is critically important. I think it's particularly important for non-communicable diseases like obesity. I would say, going back to more health for the money, I mean, did you say you're from Ghana? Uganda? I think that if you look at the health facilities themselves, they're not particularly efficient. And if you, I mean, for example, there's a study in Uganda showing huge variations in the performance of health facilities. You have a national health service system you pay by input-based budgeting. So I would say that is a critical challenge about improving the efficiency of health service production in Uganda. And I mean, so, although I agree more generally on the broader issue of multi-sectorality, and I have to say Finland is one of the countries that leads sort of international work on this kind of the commission on social determinants and doing, working across ministries. But in the particular case of Uganda, I would say there's real need to change the performance of the health service, not just actually working multi-sectoral, but that there's a critical issue from both the ministries of health and finance to work together to change the way the NHS works in Uganda. The human resource question, do you want to come back? Well, I think generally, I mean, what we would hope for Africa is that they will have this demographic dividend, you know, that you're going to see like the epidemiological transition, you're going to see like, so they currently have a lot of, you know, they have a relatively high population growth rate, it will start to decline, and then they'll have this demographic dividend, you know, that like China, for example, and a lot of other countries have had actually. And so I hope that's what will happen in Africa. I think it obviously, you know, Africa's a very large continent. So, I mean, the countries that were, there's a group of countries with generalized AIDS epidemics where that demographic dividend is more complicated, actually, and they have a critical challenge of how to actually, you know, solve the AIDS epidemic when you have like, you know, 20% of the adult population with AIDS, and that's a very specific case, actually, say, for example, for South Africa. You could do want to add anything on those two questions before I pass on to Kariya. Yes, more health for money, I agree. And also, but I think with all the money that's going into AIDS, I also question, are the AIDS being used going into the right area and supporting the right things? And just looking into this simple analysis that I'm doing with DHS, it's really the basic fundamental public health interventions that's cost-effective that is really associated with reduction in child health. But of course, all the money is going into more sort of flashier, easy to see results, sort of interventions. And we don't really see the benefit of that. So like, I mean, if we don't really have the evidence that these interventions are affecting the under five mortality rates, I mean, where do we go from that? And sectors like water and sanitation, that's like multi-sectorial and hard to see civil registration and vital statistics, for example, that would benefit the population. Like, how do you finance that? And also like breastfeeding practices, like literally no donor has supported that. And it was almost to the contrary, because of this HIV epidemic and HIV experts and their sort of strong advocates. That's probably why the breastfeeding coverage rate has gone down instead of up in the Sub-Saharan Africa countries. So these are questions that I have for the health and development in the next years. And then on the human resources and demographics, I agree with Michael and like just the population and age structure is so drastically different. And I think there's just so many elements that's different about Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and Latin America that what I do reflect from this conference is that economists, they do really focus on GDP per capita and like this monetary way of measuring things. And when there are just really many fundamental factors that affect the economy and productivity and welfare of the populations like health. And also when we look into historical development, there are many puzzles. I think the development in Latin America and Asia, it's sort of following the U.S. and North America and Europe model where kind of the overall infrastructure and economic development and health are sort of gradually developing, going in the better direction whereas Sub-Saharan Africa, some things have really gone better like the immunization coverage and in reducing child mortality. But then if that wasn't followed up with better nutrition, like what does that imply for the this generation of children? They're surviving, but they're not healthier, they're not stronger. So what is the implication of the productivity of this generation? I have a couple of points to say, but I will see if I get a chance towards the end, I will say that, but I would request Kali to respond to the BMI question and also the others. Yeah, actually unfortunately very little is known about chronic diseases and obesity in African population, but I would expect that this is actually inverse gradient in African population. And there is a slight evidence that for example cardiovascular diseases are more prevalent in upper socioeconomic groups, at least in Kenya, I think there's one study about that. And it is very expected results because these chronic diseases, they're driven by westernized lifestyle, like sedentary behavior and westernized diet. And it's quite likely that this is more typical in upper socioeconomic classes in poor countries. On the other hand, it is not only a question about the affluence, but it's we have some speculated that this may be also because of this volunteer health behavior, because how we explain these results from Japan is that maybe working class persons, they are more conservative in their behavior. And so in Finland, they used to have poor health habits because traditional Finnish diet is not very healthy. But in Japan, working class Japanese men, they follow this healthy Japanese nutrition. And that's why they don't develop obesity. And there is no gradient in these chronic diseases. And the same can seem similar results can be also found in Mediterranean countries where there is no any socioeconomic gradient in cardiovascular diseases. So maybe lower level people in Mediterranean countries, they follow this very healthy Mediterranean diet. And so I would expect that partly because of the poverty, but maybe partly also because volunteer health behavior in lower socioeconomic classes, we can see the inverse gradient in African countries, but surely would be very, very interesting topic for future research. I have a couple of points to say, but I will give preference to you. Okay, one and two. Could you kindly be very brief? We are very short of time. Absolutely. I'm James Thirle from IFPRI. And I was just thinking about this issue of trying to mainstream or to try and speak more directly to the Ministry of Finance. And I think one of the real challenges we have is to do some of these translations of say health interventions or nutrition outcomes into effects on GDP. I don't think we can run away from GDP. That's the language of the Ministry of Finance. And so we have to meet them where they are. And so I know in the climate change literature or in energy, we go to great lengths to try and take the tools that the Ministry uses and augment them and see what does energy investment mean for GDP and poverty. And I think at IFPRI we're trying to get nutrition mainstreamed in those tools that the Ministry uses. The challenge is on the health people to do that rather than to wait for the Ministry of Finance to come to you. Can you please be very brief? Okay. The question is short. Isn't there a better measure than BMI on obesity? I'm just under overweight. I'm tall and slim. But the taller you are, the more biased I think the BMI measures. Another problem is that people are getting stronger. And I'm sure that if you look at manual worker in Sweden, it's much more muscular than a manager. So I think there are two biases. Isn't there a better measure that could correct for this? I think we are almost at the end of time unless my panelists desperately want to respond. Can I summarize? Yeah. I'm sure these are, one is a comment and the other one I think is a question for the research. There are just a couple of points I wanted to add. I think when we are thinking about health in broader human development terms, I think it underpins in terms of freedom to live a long and healthy life. And that is kind of the starting point for human development. So when you mentioned human resource question, I think there is a human resource question related to that is a human capital question. I think much broader is the human development question in terms of health as underpinning human development. And related to that also, Yoko mentioned about the demographic transition associated with that. We also have the so-called epidemiological transition. So as people become more urbanized and more educated in developing countries, you have also non-communicable. There is a group of population where non-communicable diseases are the number one priority. And there is another group of population who are probably in the rural backward areas and who are not benefiting from the development for them still the communicable and infectious diseases are the priority. And then if you have a political economy where health resources are allocated based on power, etc., then there is always a pressure that maybe the urbanization, you know, urban sectors get much more. So you will have a lot more of the health budget going to non-communicable diseases which benefit the urban richer middle classes. And related to that is I think number of people and especially our colleague from Uganda raised, I think it is absolutely correct that in developing countries, the share of GDP going to health is still very small. Of course, within that the private sector share is much bigger. And there is no doubt that overall amount of resources going to health has to increase. Where will those additional resources come from is one question. And then that doesn't mean then we don't address the inefficiencies that are there in existing use of resources. A lot of amount of wastage and wasteful allocation is there. So I think both of those and improving in general the accountability of health expenditures. I think these are big challenges which I am sure Yoko and our fellow researchers will address in the coming decades. So let us express our appreciation to all three of our panelists and we close this session.