At a lecture hosted by the Economic Society of Singapore, economist Jeffrey Sachs delivered a powerful critique of Western policy toward the Ukraine war, arguing that the conflict could have been avoided through diplomacy and restraint. Sachs claims the U.S. and NATO ignored decades of warnings about eastward expansion, fueling a geopolitical confrontation with devastating human costs. Calling the war a “tragedy of arrogance,” he urged world leaders to prioritize dialogue, multipolar cooperation, and peace over provocation.
#ukraine #russia #apt
#ukraine #russia #apt
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you Professor Sachs. Well I think we have about half an hour of questions and answers.
00:06I think we have very much things to digest from Professor Sachs' insights. Basically I think
00:15there are a few things I want to recap about what Professor Sachs has said. He sets the context upon
00:22which he asked the question. He started by saying why some countries made it, why some countries
00:27don't make it. So the issue of education comes out. Then he talked about the context upon which
00:34we need when we want to have economic growth, economic development, peaceful development,
00:40we need certain things as well. So behind that context he was referring to several challenges
00:46which globally we all face, no difference from the ASEAN countries here. So things like the
00:52environmental challenge was significantly mentioned by him and various types of environmental
00:59challenges. And ASEAN countries face these challenges whether now or to the future.
01:06The role of the great powers as well and moving from the unipolar world of hegemony and moving to the
01:14multipolar world. What does it require and this is in fact a very important transitionary phase that all countries face.
01:25So the third point, the third context he talked about was technological advancement in AI
01:30and again the necessary tool for economic development. So these fundamental challenges in technology
01:38will cause much disruption and displacement. So let me just begin by asking Professor Sachs one question. While
01:45you are all preparing your questions, I already see some hands raised for it. So this year's Nobel Prize was won by
01:53Mocha, Philippi Agnon and Peter Howitt. So one important contribution that they have made is that the success and
02:02the progress of a country's economy depends very much on innovation and with it the notion of creative destruction.
02:11It suggests that the existing paradigm of countries growing economic model cannot be just a smooth trajectory
02:18based on what we we use to study in textbooks, accumulated capital, productive capacity and the given
02:24technology. Where and how that technology manifests itself often left out, taken as given and so on. So the missing link
02:30that they come up is innovation and creativity. But this seems to suggest that also the success of any economy
02:38depends very much on you know not state directed intervention and economies being free. So I would like to ask you
02:48what is then the role of the state and how can reconcile for example many countries talked about we need
02:55the state intervention to provide the catalytic for growth. So this I think will be very relevant for ASEAN countries.
03:04Excellent. Thank you very much. The Nobel Prize this year was one for a series of mathematical models that
03:17captured as you say an idea of Joseph Schumpeter who was an economist academic at Harvard in the middle of the 20th century.
03:34He said by the way famously in his life that Schumpeter said I want to achieve three things in life.
03:42I want to be the greatest economist in the world. I want to be the greatest horseman.
03:54He was of course Viennese. And I want to be the greatest lover in Vienna.
04:00And he said I've achieved two of the three but I won't tell you which.
04:04But he did achieve greatness as an economist in a book called Capitalism Socialism and Democracy written
04:15in 1942 in the middle of World War II. And he depicted capitalism as creative destruction.
04:25Meaning that it was based fundamentally on technological advance. But that advance also
04:32destroyed the previous incumbents of a particular sector. So you could think electric vehicles
04:42is an example of creative destruction. Xiaomi and BYD, maybe Tesla will survive. But whether Ford Motor
04:53Company survives is another matter. But the old industry of internal combustion engine won't survive.
05:02Now what is free about creative destruction is that the society has to allow the old to decline
05:12to make room for the new. Whereas if the political order protects the old rather than making room for
05:20the new you don't get the technological advance. And this in essence is what the Trump administration
05:28is trying to do right now to protect the U.S. market in automobiles. He has no interest in electric
05:38vehicles. So inside the U.S. he has slashed any incentives for electric vehicles. And externally he's putting
05:48on high tariffs to keep low cost, high quality Chinese electric vehicles outside of the U.S. market. In other words,
05:55he's preventing creative destruction. And what will happen? What will happen is if this continues,
06:02the U.S. auto industry will disappear. And China will dominate the world in vehicles. And ASEAN,
06:09if it's smart, will be producing a lot of Chinese electric vehicles in joint ventures in the next 15 or 20 years.
06:16So invite them to Indonesia, Malaysia, Laos, and so forth to produce cars in ASEAN because all the
06:26factories will not be in China by any means. So this is the interesting point. And what these modelers did
06:37this year was show you could model in a very nice way Schumpeter's point. It does raise the question,
06:47where does the innovation come from? And innovation is a tricky business. Because when you create an
06:56blueprint for a new tool, that becomes a replicable good. So it is part of the global commons, that
07:15knowledge. But if it's part of the commons, how do you reap the rewards of the innovation?
07:22And there are several answers to that. But one of them is patents, for example. You protect your
07:29intellectual property over a period of 20 years. That's one answer. It doesn't work for scientific
07:38advances, though. Einstein did not patent E equals MC squared. And he wasn't able to patent general
07:47relativity. So everyone else had to use classical Newtonian mechanics, except if they paid Einstein.
07:55Everybody got to use Einstein's discovery for free, thank you. Because we could not afford to patent
08:02basic knowledge. You're only allowed to patent utility of new tools. And though that principle is very
08:13often violated in actual patent practice. But there's another way to generate public goods,
08:21therefore, and that is government support for the scientific advances or for the early stage
08:28development. So there has never been purely a market-based mechanism for innovation, though the
08:37search for profits can lead to innovation. And then you hide the innovation as a corporate secret,
08:47as a trade secret. Or you just stay ahead of your competitors by innovating faster, even as the
08:53information flows out and you're better at it. Or you have a patent. Or the government finances the
09:00innovation that otherwise the market would not finance. And in actual practical history, we have
09:12mixed systems for high innovation. Since the end of the 19th century, innovation has come from
09:21government support. It's come from universities paid for by government. It has come from corporate
09:30monopolies like AT&T, which ran Bell Labs, which gave us the transistor in 1947. It's come from patent rights.
09:40It's come from trade secrets. It's come from stealing other people's ideas. It's come from all sorts of
09:49directions. So the idea that this is a market phenomenon is not right. It's an ecosystem, we know.
09:57Some of you are involved in financing the innovation ecosystem. And there will be a government player.
10:04There will be maybe Tomasek. There will be some other investors. There will be maybe a science
10:10foundation. Maybe the universities. Maybe a corporate startup. Maybe some private venture capital and so
10:17forth. And the success is designing that ecosystem. In the US, the rhetoric when I was trained in economics
10:29was we have a market economy. Well, nonsense. Nobody has only a market economy. And we were told we don't
10:37have industrial policy. Well, nonsense. We have pervasive industrial policies of all sorts, especially in
10:44innovation. In 1945, Franklin Roosevelt's science advisor, spurred by Roosevelt, who I repeat was our
10:58greatest president. Most of our presidents are mediocrities. A few are really ignoramuses. And a few
11:08are really great people. And Roosevelt was in the great category. But Roosevelt asked in 1944, how do we
11:16make all this boom of technology during the war available for the civilian economy? And his science
11:25advisor, Vannevar Bush, wrote a book called Science, the Endless Frontier in 1945, which said we have to
11:33commercialize this, make it open, distribute radar and other things that came from the wartime efforts.
11:39Semiconductors was a wartime advancement, computers and so forth, and make this available. And they developed
11:51the National Science Foundation, scholarships, linkages of government contracts to the private sector.
11:59Silicon Valley was made by the space program in the 1960s, which bought up so much of Silicon Valley's
12:08output by the space race in the 1960s, and so on. The Internet is a Defense Department project, of course.
12:19The genetics sequencing was a government program. And the list is endless. So it's always been partly
12:30government supported. Last year's Nobel Prize was for three people who said the U.S. will inevitably win
12:44the innovation war because it has an open system and China will lose. I doubt it. I really doubt it.
12:52Nobel Prizes are not awarded for accuracy, by the way. They're awarded for interesting things,
13:02but not for their accuracy. In my mind, China has an incredibly dynamic innovation system. It is a mixed
13:10system. When you ask, where did electric vehicles come from? First, it started with a Chinese government
13:19intention to support this sector, declared, for example, in the Made in China 2025 program. Very
13:28successful program. But then it came from 400 private, entrepreneurial, heavily competitive electric
13:38vehicle producers, many of them phone companies and others that are getting into the car business for
13:44the first time and completely out-competing Ford, GM, Mercedes, doing things that they shouldn't be
13:52doing because the incumbents are protecting their defunct technologies rather than competing in the new
14:03technologies. So I'm very bullish on Chinese innovative capacity. It's the number one region of the world,
14:13the number one cluster geographically, as measured this year in the report of the World Intellectual
14:21Property Organization, is Shenzhen, Guangdong, and Guangzhou, and Hong Kong. So that innovation cluster is
14:33ranked number one. Silicon Valley is fourth on the list right now. And I think that that's actually
14:40correct. One thing that China has that the United States doesn't have is that China not only innovates,
14:47but it actually produces, whereas the United States innovates and it outsources to this region.
14:55That's not so effective, actually, because there's also a feedback from the production back to the
15:01innovation. And China has a production innovation system that the United States does not have.
15:07So China is driving down costs in a way that the United States could only dream of doing.
15:14And that is partly because of the direct feedback from innovation to manufacturing cycle,
15:20back to innovation. And that has been lost in the US, in the US context.
15:25Okay, that's a very thorough answer. And now I think I will open to the floor. I see two hands,
15:36three hands. So I think Mr. Anthony Teo will go first, wait, and then we will collect three questions,
15:42how about that, in one go? Please make your questions brief and to the point.
15:49Jeffrey Sykes. I went to my 55th reunion. And they told me that you got to watch out for this radical
16:01economist called Jeffrey Sykes. And I'm so happy to hear you, because you are more than radical.
16:08I have a question. But if I could just get on to your 30 years ago. And about that time,
16:19Gore was running for president. And he had a debate on with the third party from Texas. And he was
16:28recalling the smooth Hawley proposition, why we must have free trade. And he lost the election.
16:36He lost the election. But Bush came in. And now, 25 years later, we have moved all the way to the
16:48other way, where it's anti-smooth Hawley. It is a tariff war. And we believe in all the free trade. And we
16:58are the most promiscuous free trader. We have about 70 to 90 free trade agreements.
17:04And at the end of it, you say, the number one proposition. The number one proposition is worse,
17:12because Trump has commercialized the presidency, never done before. And how do you put that angle
17:21into your number one proposition? Because if the Constitution itself is at risk, then we depend on
17:30people like you to go on YouTube, bully pulpit, to speak on our behalf. Because we are only one voice.
17:38And when our DPM went to Washington DC, he did not get too much of high level attention. Thank you.
17:49Great. Thank you.
17:50Okay. We have the second one, Dr. K. K. Pua.
17:57Greetings from the class of 76 from Harvard and to Mrs. Sonia.
18:04Okay. My question is, you have portrayed a convergence theory and a bit of a diffusion theory.
18:14So how do you explain the China phenomenon, you know? With the Pax Britannica, wouldn't it be the same as
18:23Pax Americana or Pax Britannia in the past? And that's what we in this region fear, you know? And so you have to let us
18:32assure us that it will not be the same story. It will be played all over again, you know?
18:39I'm sorry.
18:40What the price is happening?
18:42So...
18:42Pax Britannica.
18:44Yes.
18:44Pax Britannica.
18:45Pax Britannica, sorry. Yeah, I didn't hear that. Okay, got it. Pax Britannica. Got it. Perfect.
18:49Okay.
18:50All right. Thank you, Mr. Louis.
18:52Thanks. Louis de Kiong, public policy, Asia advisor, lead consultant, and also former ASEAN policymaker.
19:02Prof, you have compellingly described to us our era as a retreat from the rules-based order back into
19:10a 19th century style of big powers imperialism. So we have spears of influence and military might
19:17are again dominating statecraft. So my question really is about the tragic inertia of the war in
19:24Ukraine. If we accept this paradigm that we are now in a period defined by contested spheres,
19:34does this grim diagnosis also contain the seed of a pragmatic, if unsatisfying solution?
19:43Rather than pursuing a maximalist victory for either side, it seems to carry existential risk.
19:52Could the only viable off-ramp be a negotiated settlement that explicitly, if reluctantly,
19:59acknowledges this renewed spheres of influence? And what would be the role of neutral economic powers,
20:07perhaps from the global south, in mediating such a fundamentally political agreement that the
20:16current belligerents seems politically unable to reach on their own? Thank you.
20:20Prof, would you like to take these three first? Thank you. Let me say a few more words about the U.S.
20:30scene right now. As you know, President Trump rules by decree. Almost everything that has been done,
20:43and almost every controversial action that has been taken has been by his decision alone. There has been the
20:53fewest numbers of legislative acts of any modern presidency in the first part of this second term.
21:04And there has been the most executive orders. And if you go on the website of the White House and look at the
21:17executive orders, they all pretty much start the same way. By the powers invested in me as President of
21:24the United States and under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, I declare an emergency.
21:34And the emergency could be fentanyl. The emergency could be a trade deficit.
21:40It's mind-boggling how flagrantly illegal all of this is, and how flagrantly dangerous all of this is.
21:50From my point of view, everything that Trump has done about international trade is a gross violation of
21:57the Constitution. Because Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution declares that all duties are the
22:05responsibility of the Congress. Trump does not have the authority to remake the trade system. And if he
22:12tried to do what he's doing right now, it would not pass Congress. Because there would be such competing
22:19interests and outcry in the public among consumers that this would not pass. The two lower courts in
22:31the United States have ruled what Trump has done illegal. We had a case in the International Trade Court,
22:38which is the unique court for taking on trade disputes, and they said Trump exceeded his authority.
22:46That went to the Circuit Court of Washington DC, the Court of Appeals, and they said by a two-to-one vote,
22:56that exceeded his authority. The dissenting opinion in that vote is the case that many on the Supreme Court
23:09will adopt. The dissenting vote said we should defer to the Commander-in-Chief. Because this is a matter of
23:18national security, the President tells us. This is an emergency, and who are we as the courts to second
23:25vote? We can't guess that. So the minority opinion defines what many on the Supreme Court will decide.
23:36The court is probably among the nine votes right now, four against Trump, or Trump's powers, four in
23:46favor, and the Chief Justice being the swing vote. Now for Sonia and me, the interesting point is the
23:55Chief Justice is our classmate. So we're waiting to see what he learned in college. Did he learn that we have
24:04a democracy and a rule of law? Or did he learn that you just better follow authority? And I don't know what
24:14this is going to be. But if the Supreme Court rules with Trump, it's pretty much the end of our democratic system,
24:21which is already way down the line of disappearing. Why is it disappearing? Because the U.S. is an empire.
24:34It's very hard to run an empire on democratic terms. Our countries run on secrecy. Foreign policy is
24:42completely in the hands of secrecy, not public debate or discussion. The Americans have no role
24:50to say about the Ukraine war, or the war in Gaza, or an attack on Venezuela. No one asks, cares at all
25:00of those who are making the decisions. And since that's so much part of the work of empire, it is
25:06what the Americans became. The system also became profoundly corrupted. The campaign contributions
25:15are about 16 billion dollars per cycle, election cycle now. And that means it's not a lot of money
25:23to buy the U.S., by the way, because you buy a multi-trillion dollar government and you buy the levers on a 30
25:31trillion dollar economy, so it's very cheap. And Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and others figured out,
25:37this is cheap. This is, you know, Elon can do that by himself. And he did. And he stood up there and he
25:43told the voters, I give one of you a million dollars every day. This is rounding error for him, but it's
25:51a compelling democratic politics, if you will, or populist politics, I should say. So the system is wrecked
25:58in this way, and we don't know whether it will return. The Roman Republic was weakened in the first
26:10century B.C. by traditional historical accounts. It ended in 27 B.C. when Augustus declared himself,
26:19or Octavian declared himself, Augustus' princeps, and it became the Roman Empire. And it never returned.
26:28To the Roman Republic. So I don't know whether we'll ever return to true democratic governance.
26:35It's not automatic at all that we will. It's not a good way to run the country.
26:43On Pax Sinica, just very quickly, I'm an optimist about Pax Sinica. You all know your neighborhood well,
26:54but from my reading of history, China never wanted overseas empires. It never bothered this region,
27:04really, for thousands of years. China was the all-powerful hegemon of Asia for at least the last
27:15millennium up until the 19th century. And amazingly, and I'll take it from the end of the Yuan dynasty,
27:27the Mongols, from 1368 up until 1839 when the British invaded China. From 1368 to 1869,
27:39China never tried to invade an overseas territory. And China did invade Vietnam once in 1410 A.D.
27:52and there was a 16-year war, 1410 to 1426. That's all. In Europe, everybody fought everyone else every year.
28:05I don't think there was a quiet year in Europe. They were at war nonstop, the British and the French,
28:13for hundreds of years. And this is a very big difference. China did something unimaginable
28:21in 1434. It had the biggest naval fleet in the whole world. It commanded the Indian Ocean. It could
28:30reach East Africa. It could have discovered the Americas. It could have circled the Cape of Good
28:36Hope. It could have crossed the Pacific. It could have done all those things. Instead, the Mandarin
28:42court of the Ming dynasty ended it, said, what do we need ships for? We have everything here.
28:49And our big problem is coming from the north, coming from the steppe region. So we better defend
28:55against the steppe region. And even China's expansion in the 18th century during Qianlong's rule as emperor
29:06was not really Chinese. It was Manchu victories over the Mongols, over Xinjiang and over Tibet. But that
29:17was a fight within the steppe region. Countries, not peoples, not Han Chinese invasion abroad.
29:29I think the history of the Chinese tributary system is China wanted respect, always. If you bow down to
29:36the emperor as the celestial ruler, that was enough. China didn't really ask for material tribute, unequal trade,
29:47extraction of resources, colonies, land, conquests. Never. Now, does that prove that China would not?
30:00Almost, in my view. China's got enough things to do with its 1.4 billion population. And it's boxed in on
30:11three sides, pretty much making it very difficult to do anything else. So I'm not very worried. My own
30:21view, I don't mean to be flip about it, but the militarization of the South China Sea, to my mind,
30:29is a defensive reaction to the US Navy, not a provocation by China. The US flaunts the idea of
30:38choke points on China's sea lanes. It flaunts them. It's in our textbooks. The first island chain is an
30:48invention of John Foster Dulles in the early 1950s. How would America like if China declared that the
30:56US can't reach the Caribbean because there's a first island chain to prevent the US from reaching the
31:03Atlantic Ocean? Are you kidding? But that's American formal policy. This is really not right thinking
31:14in this world. So when China responds, I understand why China responds. And I think we should stay out of
31:24the way. Of course, China does not then have freedom to abuse the rest, but frankly, why would China? They
31:35don't need colonies, land. They do need trading partners and places for investment, and that's good. That's a
31:45win-win proposition. So I personally believe in a peaceful region here that is not dependent on US
31:56policing. I think the US makes the noise, but I don't think it helps the peace personally. This is my own
32:03view. And similarly with the Ukraine war, there would not have been a Ukraine war if the United States
32:12had not pushed NATO enlargement after 1992. And the story there very, very briefly is quite simple.
32:24After World War II, there was no treaty to end World War II. What the Soviet Union said after World War II
32:34was that Germany should be demilitarized and neutral. And that made perfect sense because the Soviet
32:42Soviet Union lost 27 million people to Hitler's armies in World War II. And so the Soviet Union wisely said,
32:52demilitarize and neutralize this country. The United States said no. To the contrary, the US said, we now arm
33:02we will rearm Germany because we want to defend against communism. And so an ideological approach
33:12rather than a pragmatic, realist approach was taken. And the United States said we will rearm Germany,
33:20create NATO, and get ready for a war with the Soviet Union, which was not what the Soviet Union wanted.
33:27What the Soviet Union wanted was security against another invasion coming from the West. But the US
33:36said no. What the Soviet Union wants is expansionism, and we will have a divided Germany. In 1990,
33:46because of Mikhail Gorbachev, who was a man of peace and, in my view, the greatest statesman of our age,
33:52actually, and somebody I admired tremendously, not liked in his country, because they were,
33:59he's remembered for the collapse of the Soviet Union and for high inflation, but he was the greatest
34:04statesman of the time, except that he trusted the US. He said, I want to end the Cold War. And so he ended
34:13the Soviet military alliance unilaterally, the Warsaw Pact. And when Helmut Kohl said, we want to reunify
34:21Germany in 1990. The Western countries told Gorbachev, we will not take advantage. If Germany reunifies,
34:33we need a treaty, because we never had a treaty to end World War II. So we need what was called the
34:394-plus-2 Treaty, which was to end the war and reunify Germany. And in that context, on February 7, 1990,
34:52the German Foreign Minister, Hans Dietrich Denscher, and the US Secretary of State, James Baker III,
34:59told Gorbachev the same thing. NATO will not enlarge one inch to the east.
35:05And then Helmut Kohl was told that, Helmut Kohl told Gorbachev that on February 10, 1990. That was the
35:17basis of German reunification. Then the Soviet Union ended in December 1991. I was in the Kremlin that day,
35:32by the way. It was, in fact, with President Yeltsin. And he told us the Soviet Union is ending.
35:41And the United States immediately decided it wasn't bound by any agreements. We're now the sole
35:49superpower. We can do what we want. So already in 1992, they began to plan for NATO enlargement,
35:56a complete and reckless cheat. And President Clinton, in 1994, January, announced it.
36:06He was a very inconsequential leader. Not very deep, not very strategic, not very knowledgeable,
36:15not very responsible. And so he began NATO enlargement. And NATO enlarged first to Hungary,
36:22Poland and the Czech Republic in 1999. And then in 2004, to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria,
36:31Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, seven countries. And the Russian leadership said, stop this.
36:39You told us none. And now it's already 10. And the United States said in 2008, we're not done.
36:47And you have no say about it. And we never promised you anything, which is a blatant lie.
36:56And so the United States in 2008 said, we're going to go to Ukraine and to Georgia
37:02at the Bucharest NATO summit. That's why we have this war. Because Russia said no. But what was added to
37:12this was in 2002, the United States unilaterally abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty,
37:20which was a great destabilizer. Because the ABM treaty was for mutual deterrence of the nuclear
37:28forces. And the U.S. started putting in anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and in Romania,
37:35the Aegis missile systems. And the Russians said, wait a minute, you're destabilizing the nuclear
37:42framework and you're expanding NATO. One more thing brought us the war. And that is, the Ukrainians
37:52elected a president that wanted neutrality, because Ukraine is in between the West and the East,
37:58or in between Russia and the West, I should say. And so they elected a president that wanted neutrality.
38:06And the United States does not like neutrality, as you know. This is a problem for here, too.
38:14The U.S. doesn't like neutrality. That's an imperial idea. We don't like neutrality. You're either with us
38:20or you're against us. So the U.S. helped to overthrow that president on February 22, 2014.
38:30It was a coup. And the U.S. was an active part of the coup. That's what caused the Ukraine war.
38:37By the way, the media say, everything I said is propaganda. And I can tell you, everything I just
38:43said is absolutely true. But we live also in a world of government spin. And I told you who owns the
38:53media. And it's a symbiotic relationship between the media and the security apparatus. And so what we
39:01hear in the West is simply not true. So this was a war that was provoked, absolutely, by U.S.
39:09unilateral actions. I tried for three years to get in 700 words to this effect to the New York Times.
39:23And I said, it doesn't even have to be in print. Just put it online once. They wouldn't publish even
39:29700 words by me to retell this story, because it's not interesting, apparently.
39:37So this is where we have problems. If we don't behave, we're going to end up blowing each other up.
39:45And this is where we need prudence of the major powers. And we need honesty and maturity.
39:54And it's not about Russia's attitude to Ukraine. It's about the United States' attitude to Russia
39:59that's at stake here. And the U.S. completely miscalculated. And I know it because I heard it
40:06from senior U.S. officials for 20 years. They said, Russia's a pushover. We can do what we want.
40:13Who's going to stop us? And the answer was the Russian government. And that's what they got wrong.
40:22And so we need to be careful. And I can say to the diplomats here, it's important to help educate
40:30the Americans. Please. It's important for the world. We need some truth telling, because that way we'll stay
40:39safe. And I can say as an American, maybe I'll end here, and I know I go on way too long.
40:44America is the safest place in the whole world. Nobody could conceivably invade the United States.
40:54No one can threaten the U.S. with an invasion. There's no threat at all to the United States,
41:01except two things. One, internal collapse. And second, nuclear war. And we should be able to avoid
41:12both of them. So it's unbelievable that we're in a country of fear, where we have the least to fear
41:21of any place in the world. If you're the U.S. and your two neighbors are Canada and Mexico,
41:29you're pretty damn safe.
41:30Okay, I'm mindful for time. Join me again to thank Professor Sachs for his very, very candid comments
41:46on everything. And I think the most important thing that we hear is that we need a peaceful world
41:51in order to ensure economic prosperity. I mean, that's very important. We don't have that,
41:58we are not going to achieve economic prosperity. The second thing is cooperation. Talk, right?
42:03So thank you, Professor Sachs.
42:28...
42:33...
42:35...
42:40...
42:41...
Recommended
1:21
5:08
Be the first to comment