Alright, it looks like we are up on Youtube and I'm gonna start the webinar here. So it'll start recording. This is hello everyone. This is the final pre election, pre election day session of our election discussion group at the Salem Center at McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas Austin. We've had I think five of these already. This is six and probably will reconvene at least once after the election to talk about what happened and our impressions of it. We're in texas where there's been early voting for a few weeks now. Has everyone, not not everyone necessarily eligible to vote, but as everyone who's eligible and plans to vote, voted already or is anybody waiting for election day? I voted. No, you did. Carlos said last week he had voted, I voted my wife and I voted on monday chris also. Yeah, so um I think we've all kind of said in earlier episodes who we were intending to vote for. Um I voted for biden on monday Carlos, who said you voted for trump last week? Uh similar. I'm guessing biden given where you've been in our discussions chris do you want to share that? I forget if you said before, I don't know if I have said but I voted for biden. So let me ask you a different question about how about senators? Anyone I know it's from J. R. Yeah, I voted for corn in Greg. I spent a lot of time thinking about it and I decided I didn't have a strong enough preference between the cornyn seemed about as good as a republican as I was going to get and uh the challenger Hager was, it seemed about as good a democrat as we were going to get and um it kind of depends on who wins the presidency, who I want to have the Senate. So um so I decided to sit it out and then I didn't know enough about the other local elections and the representative to vote and it didn't seem worth the time investment to find out. Yeah, you guys living, are you guys in the 21st, 25th? The 10th? I am Williams. Uh so Julia Oliver is the is my 25th Roger Williams Julie Oliver. Okay, so it's it's quad quad is the congressional district line. So well campus, everything was Wendy Davis and Chip Roy and then Roger Williams, Julie Oliver was the 25th right. I can say that I am, I have very positive impression of Chip Roy and I have interacted with some of his legislative stuff before Roger Williams, I'm not particularly a fan of, but it was definitely a fan of julie Oliver either. And at this point is more like me hoping for divided government of anything else that my vote has been very much dictated by that. So ah I mean I'm also overall hoping for divided government. Um and yet, I mean this goes to issues of how we understand corruption and what's happening. Um I thought on the impeachment vote trump should have been impeached, and so I'm disinclined to vote for the republicans who stood with him on the other hand, um I think uh you know, if if the republicans generally good enough, I'm not inclined to vote against him in a context where I'm not keen to have a Democratic Senate and if the Democratic candidate were someone I really thought was bad, I would, you know, vote for the republican against it. So in this case it just was close enough to even I thought, um although I'm hoping, I'm hoping for the, you know, a big biden win with the republicans holding the Senate, which is not too likely, it's likely either a small win and the democrats take the Senate or a big win, and well, you know what I mean, I think, I think fivethirtyeight calls a chance of a trifecta at like 73% right now, because that's the chance of the Senate win. So if you win the Senate, they want everything, you know, and and they're going to keep the house. So Right, alright, so um a couple of issues uh we should talk about, I put online to having my one was we've never got into talking about foreign policy and I would like to talk about that a bit, the other is an issue that you can think of from the one side as a rule of law and from the other side as corruption. I mean, those go against one another insofar as, uh, insofar as people are making decisions. Um, and the government is functioning on corrupt motives of particular politician. These people bribing them or, you know, nepotistic affairs or whatever it is. Um, they're not functioning in an impartial way and therefore not following the rule of law. So, you can think of those issues as as tied. Um, there are or have been raised real concerns about this with both candidates and we can talk about how plausible each each one is. But, you know, you'll find a lot of people, uh, claiming, well, I'm voting for trump because he's exposed the deep state and the swamp and, and Biden's a swampy and his son and all this. Um, my own view is that there's a much more reason to be concerned about this with trump than with Biden though. It's not like I'm I view joe biden as a man of sterling integrity either. Um, so I just wanted to spend a little time because we have not discussed it much here talking about what are people's impressions of the two candidates with respect to this issue. And, you know, any thoughts on the particular scandals or allegations that that have come out and how they were handled. Mm hmm. I can go first, I suppose. Um, I am generally a person that doesn't, that doesn't hold politicians at a, at a high regard, in terms of, you know, it's almost part of the profession to be in the positions they are the number of it's really hard not to be cutting deals throughout your life in ways that are oftentimes kind of gross. It's an unfortunate part of the business is this sort of deal making aspect of it? Um, I have yet to meet a politician that doesn't end his life rich. So, you know, I mean, whatever you want to say about any candidate in any side, like if a lot of them had money ahead of time before joining politics, but all the ones that did not make an enormous amount of money by being in power, we thought we're getting paid a lot of money in their salary. So it's like, you know, you have so whatever. So whether you were talking about, um, I want to, I don't want a single lot of party here because that's true for for both parties, right? Um, so I think that's typical. Um, honestly, I think at least one of the things that makes me happy is that in the US there seems to be a much smaller problem than in other democracies that is true in democracies everywhere, the sort of like, you know, the amount of power that the government have and the amount of ability to cut deals and the amount of like access that provides in terms of, I mean, there's no other reason why why, you know, some people sit on boards and why Michelle Obama sits on boards and because of our expertise in business is because of her access, right? And that's something that is true all over the place uh and local governments and and and and and all over the world as well. So I think the U. S. The sort of quid pro quo aspect of it is actually lower than a lot of places. So that makes me happy. But it happened. So I kind of realistic about that. So so honestly I don't see anything in this particular election that is like egregiously bad in any other sides. I think they're both like okay not learn anything new here. Does this part of the business I wish was different. But but the the reality of the world is not that you know, it's either had to understand the transaction when hunter biden or Michelle Obama or whatever relative of a bush or uh you know I expect we'll see a lot more with the trumps in businesses. They've got nothing to do with Coming up in two when one of these people is on a board. What do you see as the transaction? Do you see it as their, you know the politicians are doing specific favors for them or um what are they being paid for? I think success is like the ability to call somebody to make a case and then the value of that is enormous right? The value of that are being able to make your case to the President's office, the Chief of staff. And and that that's that's really, really valuable. Um, and I think knowing knowing the phone number of some people, sometimes it's incredibly powerful and the ceo of twitter can then call somebody, hey, no, no, no, no. This is not a good in whatever. That's that's the, that's the way the world works that way. Yeah, that's how I understand it. Also, it's not that, you know, ah Hunter biden is invited to a board because there's a particular favor that joe biden is going to perform in exchange. But there will be an introduction. There'll be a chance to communicate and it's a similar kind of thing. I think to what people have expressed concern about uh, with MAr a Lago, it seems like having a membership to MAr a Lago these days is an opportunity to, you know, see the president of the people close to him and plead your case. And I find all of that on both sides unfortunate and gross. But it seems like that's been going on forever. And I don't, I'm not scandalized by trump's got high priced clients at MAr A Lago or Hunter was on the board he wasn't qualified to be on or any of these kinds of things. But there is a kind of corruption scandal that arises with both of, you know, that allegations have been made about in both of these administrations. That concerns me a lot more. And that's cases where there are concerns that prosecutions are being targeted for political reasons or government investigations are being targeted for political reasons. And so we're seeing, um, I think trump more or less openly asking for this kind of thing when he's talking to for asking bar to open investigations into his opponents. Even if those investigations were Well predicated, I'm really concerned about public calls for it or the chants of lock her up to Hillary. Of course, Trump would defend his doing this by saying that while there were all these investigations into my campaign that were meant to harm me back in 2016 and there's what he called. Um, so how do we make sense of of all of this? Is it a pox on both their houses, both have been doing something wrong or bad here is only one side to blame is how do we, how do you guys think about, um, I can jump in here. Um, so, so 11 thing I'd like to, I guess clarify, um, I think is I think what you said was right in that, you know, neither neither party is of, you know, um, perfect integrity by any means. I think all of us can agree on that here, but I think there is a level of false equivalency. Um, I think when, you know, trump's going around saying equating his impeachment, I guess investigation or the Mueller probe. And he's equating that with what happened with the investigation into his campaign. You know, I think, um, I'm sorry, he's kind of saying that, you know, some he's trying to lead investigations into voter fraud in California, saying that, you know, I lost the popular vote because of, you know, illegal immigrants casting ballots. You know, I think that what one side, since it seems to be doing it more in this case, and it's not really the Republican Party, it's the trump wing of the Republican Party. Um, I think when people talked about the, the probes that went into trump's campaign and when you look at the details of it, it was, it was quite warranted, I think, you know, I think it was carter page and Michael Flynn and Papadopoulos, and they had foreign contacts, contacts with foreign governments as members of the campaign and these warrant advisor warrants, You know, and I think the trump campaign's accusation that this was used for political purposes. You know, that investigation wasn't made public. It never became public by any means before the election. It was, there was an active effort to make sure it wasn't political. So I kind of pushed back on the idea that, you know, both sides are doing. I think prosecutions and investigations are necessary and we shouldn't assume that they're coming through some sort of political moves, any counterpoint to that, I very much agree with, similar on this particular case, there's to me the idea that the crossfire hurricane operation was some kind of political hit job on trump. I think all of the evidence is soundly against that. Uh, it was an incredibly close election. People thought it wouldn't be as close as it would be, but it was incredibly close. There's all kinds of stuff that came out a month after the election, that if it came out a week before the election, I think would have very likely swung it the other way. And if you're going to do a political hit job investigation on somebody, um, you know, what's the point of doing it and keeping the ammo in the tank, um, uh, in particular, the, um, you know, if that's true, I love it, uh, email about the getting dirt on clinton. Uh, the fact of Papadopoulos saying beforehand that there was going to be a dump of material, uh, you know, hack material, uh, that kind of stuff could have come out beforehand if the people investigating it. You know, we're the type who wanted to leak it beforehand, and it didn't leak beforehand. And, moreover, the Steele dossier, which I don't think was as much of the predication of the investigation as people say, but was very salacious. Right. The Steele dossier people were trying to leak and it was going all over Washington beforehand, but none of the major newspapers published it beforehand. And I think if everybody were gunning for trump and had no standards, that is that we're willing to release that is if the, the investigators were just trying to talk to him. And even if the newspapers were, um, as I do think the newspapers are slanted, but if they were their mindset was will publish anything that hurts trump. If that stuff had come out right before the election, I think it would have made a difference, I certainly could have made a difference. And if they were trying to do everything, they could to get him. There was no point to hold it until after the election. So I think there's really strong evidence against the idea that these things were kind of ginned up. Um, there's a question more plausibly of whether there was, uh, more fuel than was warranted added to the fire after the election in an effort to somehow subvert his power undercut him. But even there, I don't think, uh, that's true. And I have a kind of heuristic for thinking about these things, which I found useful, which is, I try to put myself in the place of each of the people that were thinking about and think about like and what I mean by putting myself in the places, take on as many of their interests and beliefs as I think one reasonably can and whatever semi legitimate legitimate or semi legitimate values they espouse and think holding that, what things would I be prioritizing and how would I be acting. And if you try to do that with um with Comey or with Mueller or with um Rosenstein or any of the other people, And I try to see like, what would I have done? And what did they do? Often, I think they made the wrong call, but they made the wrong call in a kind of intelligible way. That sounds like this was a guy who was worried about preserving an appearance of objectivity or, or not over politicizing the process and and he stepped in it in some cases, I think Comey certainly did. Um, but you can see what their motives are, and I don't find that there's a way to do that with trump where you get a good read on it. Um, I think if you take after the election, if I were in his place, and I thought, you know, the democrats really hate me, um, a lot of people are out to get me. I've just won this very close election in an upset. There's been these allegations that have come out about uh, about Russia. I know they're false because I know I didn't do anything untoward. And maybe some people loosely affiliated with me, I don't know about that, but, and if you take what he was saying at the time, um, what would your priority have been my priority would have been? How can I make sure that there's an investigation that the whole country can rely on and how can I get together with people who are otherwise opposed to and say we have our real differences. But it's important that we're one country here. We were under attack. Why don't we get together and come up with some protocol for who the investigators will be and whatever that we can all get behind and then just shut up about it for a year until it comes out. And I don't think there was any attempt made to do that. It was it was politicized, it might have been politicized from the other side anyway, but it was politicized by the President from the start and that I found um really troubling and an example of not um really taking the responsibility seriously of the office. But that said there were still questions of, you know, and sort of given my read on his character because of that and other things. I I'm not predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt on other kinds of claims about honesty, integrity and where he's making allegations about other people. But I don't know, I'm still and yet and yet and yet the there was like, you know, a very careful and thorough investigation and everything right at the end of the day, I think we we even with him making statements that are we're we're just unusual against the particular investigation of justice system just took his course and did what needed to do and we got to the place where we got and the president got to be investigated and impeached and then voted against it. So, so, you know, all the process. So, if you think about rule of law, we will not took place. Uh and I don't I don't I don't think that there is a reason to think that this is more on one side or the other in terms of like stopping the rule of law, like the notion of Of somebody that what what what I agree with you, 100% is that he's definitely somebody that did not follow traditional norms in any way sense of the word. And and that has been has been the case for for the last four years, right? But in in not in no ways that I think has been particularly consequential, um that has led us to a very different um to any different outcome, that that I think it was was necessary in some ways. So, my sense is the the investigation reached um you know, the right conclusion insofar as it went, whether it ought to have looked into things that didn't, I don't know, but um, the conclusion was no positive evidence of the kind of coordination with Russia that would rise to the level of conspiracy, not no evidence of coordination, but no evidence of coordination. That would rise to the level of criminal conspiracy and evidence of things that may or may not be obstruction of justice, depending on uh your judgment. And then um the probe or Mueller declining to make a call on that. And uh and bar making a call. So I think that's um that was you know, a good conclusion to that and I feel confident insofar as we can go in those findings. But I do think that the the kind of attack on the rule of law that I see is and then then we don't have much, we have the I. G. Report yet, which I found um interesting. And I do think because I know you said that there was grounds for a Fisa warrant and that's probably true. But I think we also found that what many of us have been worried about well before this that the Fisa process is pretty dicey. And um lots of Fisa warrants have problems in the applications and what would you expect with a Secret court giving out warrants for things. So I think we learned um that there's reasons to be worried about this Fisa process. But you know, we had two attorney generals, it seems like replaced because they wouldn't Buck two or rather one replaced. But another it seems like it's going to be replaced in a second term because they are not sufficiently functioning like the president's advocate. Um and I think that if that becomes a norm that that happens all the time, I think that's really undermining to the rule of law. I'm very worried about there being, yes man. And I'm very worried about the rhetoric of political prosecutions, even if they end up not happening, um, because that really undermines our ability and foreign policy to oppose regimes that are doing that. Um it really undermines our ability to um and it undermines confidence in the judicial system and in the legal system. So I think that that's a big deal and I think it's going to have a big impact on the country long term if it doesn't you wouldn't you, how do you square that with the sort of qualifications of all the people that have been appointed to the to the to be prosecutors and judges in the country. You might disagree with our philosophies, but I don't think anybody can point to trump be nominating prosecutors and judges their utmost qualification for their jobs. I mean, so, so that that would be something that if you wanna go corrupt the system, you're gonna put a bunch of bozos, you know, in charge of the attorney, the attorney's, the US Attorney's office across the country. That did not happen. It didn't happen at the I mean, so, first of all, there's the judges and there's the attorneys, right? Those are two different different things. Two sides of the island. And my point is that you had a politician as attorney general first and the second one was not a politician and that's the one that, again, is not neither of them, but the pressure that was putting in. Yeah. And then and the people that work for them all the US attorneys are again, people of of you know, qualified folks, right? So I think I I trust trust the system in a way that that, you know, even though there's pressure from the top which exists, the system is pretty independent. I think that. Yeah, so I think Carlos, I think, I think maybe the core of our our disagreement on this, maybe just I I think you believe in the institution uh system is strong enough to withstand partisan pressure. I don't feel the same way. I think the level of partisanship in this country has created an environment where in the past, Um you know, a president would be forced to do the right thing due to public pressure. But, you know, nowadays, you know, maybe 5% of voters are undecided and they feel that they don't feel that pressure. So they, you know, they nominate, appoint super partisan inspector general's super partisan attorney general's. Um and I mean, these institutions are only as good as the people that serve. But, you know, that's exactly the point that I'm making. That's exactly the point that I'm making, I'm not I'm not this one is like if institutions there's like, you know, U. S. Attorney's Office is like, I don't know, hundreds maybe at them across the country. And those people are, you know, you go look at their qualifications and their actions and the way the U. S. Attorney's Office work. It's very I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever of polarization of that of that system. I mean if anything they have over each because we give them too much power and things like that. But nothing that is partisan. It's like a lot of it is just like you know like it and it's and it's true in the courts as well. The courts have again, philosophical ways in which judges are appointed. They have but but those are respectable and accomplished individuals that just think about the world different than you. No, you or me and whomever is nominated. And you're saying the District Attorney's. Yeah I think that the attorneys and the attorneys office, U. S. Attorney's Office across the country are are respectable institutions that worked you know. Well and and so are the courts, most federal courts are respectable institutions that have not shy away from their jobs so far. We have no indication they have and if we want to concretize that, I mean, so barr who there are complaints about and I think are justified complaints that he has been more partisan in the carrying out of his job than sessions have been. And then he should have been. But he didn't you know get um some guy with a you know Magda Tote bag and that was all he did to investigate operation crossfire hurricane right? Um uh Durham is a, you know, plausible person to conduct this kind of investigation. And the investigation didn't at least so far hasn't come up with anything or at least hasn't bowed to pressure to release things ahead of time. So it's not like you've got um, a bunch of clowns, uh, just, you know, doing the master's political bidding. But there's still a question as to how like institutions collapse. And there's a, there's a lot of good in the american legal system that resists the corrosive attempts at politicizing it. But I don't think those attempts have no effect. I mean, so for example, a lot of prosecutors resigned over what happened in a number of them resigned over um, what happened in the case with roger stone. Other people are leaving. We're cycling through attorneys general and I think they're getting worse and how they're doing their job. And likewise, other people in the administration. And there's the question of how long of this kind of environment Of these kinds of pressures? Can the institution withstand granted? It can withstand some and it's done better than many feared. But can it withstand another four years like this? Can it withstand another eight years? Another 16 at some point, it will become a bunch of hacks. Uh, if there's not enough replenishing of the culture and the incentives against that. And the question is how long and, and would what we would get under a biden administration be better because if it's just another flavor of the same kind of pressure as we're gonna be getting from biden, then that's no reason to prefer one candidate to the other. I think it would be better under biden ministry or less bad, but that's, you know, that's a judgment call. Ah yeah, I love to kinda chime in here and I think one of the things I'd like to clear for is that, you know, I think college you made a good point and that a lot of these districts journeys are qualified and I guess, you know, honorable people. Um but I think one big problem that I think we're not covering is that sometimes the actions they take aren't political or politicized yet. They're perceived to be politicized because the people that those actions affect accused them of being political, even even if they're not. So when, you know, when the President of United States all of a sudden, you know, tweets things against special prosecutors, Republican special prosecutors at that, you know, even if robert Mueller had no intent whatsoever to make it a political investigation. Um even if, you know, I think that the District Attorney in the East, in southern district new york, um I'm not, I'm sorry, not District Attorney, whatever that position is escaping me right now. Um you know, if even if they had no intent to be political um if the President of United States is accusing them of being political, it's gonna be perceived that way, Oh, and I'm not, and and and as I said in the beginning, I promised that by saying that, I don't agree with his sort of antics associated with his, with his issues, the sort of like whether it was direct intervention or attempt to intervene, attempt to sort of pressure and create political rhetoric around these things, it's I I agree with an appropriate, I agree erodes institutions, I agree is something that goes in one direction, and I also agree with Greg that it's hard to translate if you look forward four years, another four years. This how but but what I what I my sort of like counterpoint to that is that while I agree that that's the case and his attitudes are inappropriate and not called for, I don't know how to square that with the fact that the people that have been appointed to be in those offices are actually super qualified people, he did not try to staff those offices in courts with bozos, that was not something that was attempted. And so I think that's like, uh you know, I've seen that done in other where I'm from where, where there is like, you know, actionable attempts of changing the composition of the where the where the work takes place to really undermine it and and and, you know, that's that thankfully that has not taken place here, and then I would be, I would have been a lot more uh concerned about this issue that we're talking about today, if that had been the case. Um, So, because that wasn't the case, I think that's where I'm like, yes, I don't like how he handled himself. I don't like the kind of pressure that he tried to put in the attorneys general and so on. But, um, you know, here's a theory as to what, but it's not a hopeful theory as to why it hasn't been all bozos. He doesn't know enough bozos or where to find them. And so he's relying on the kind of Republican establishment, right? So, I mean, he was relying on the fed socks to give him judge candidates, which, you know, um, I don't love everything about the Fed stock, but I think they're pretty good and better than a lot of the alternatives left or right that he could have gone to. And most, you know, a lot of the judges have been appointed, I like, although I have problems with all of them also, but all the ones I know, but, and likewise, he was looking to, you know, initially rice Priebus and other kind of Republican Party operatives to suggest people to a point to various offices, but as the party and the people who are advising him become more and more yes, men and cronies, which is what I think has been happening over the last couple of years. Um, the judgments that he's outsourcing, I worry will get worse and worse and we'll see if that happens. But if it's, you know, tucker Carlson who's telling him who to appoint rather than rice Priebus, I think we're going to get different appointees. Um, and if everyone knows who to go to to get the presidency or about who to appoint, I worry it will become more and more bozo like and some of it's worth noting some of the appointees have been bozo like, so particularly the judicial appointees, there were a number who lindsey Graham pushed back against because they were by lindsey Graham's judgment unqualified and lindsey Graham certainly partisan in one direction. So, uh, and signing with the president. So, um, and there are others that people criticize Graham for not having pushed back again. So some bozo, we folks get in, but not, it's certainly not like a third world country yet in terms of Yeah, but I think that, I think the key word there is yet, right? Because I think the, the long term damage from the trump administration is that he's now normalized through his narcissism that the loyalty is to him over country, right? And if not then you will be replaced and the judges, yes, he's outsourced all of that. He's not actually choosing the judges and whatnot, right? But I think that's the real danger is that it's not there yet and how do we, how do we try and keep that from happening? And I think, I think in that sense is pretty good a biden administration can be the opposite of that, he's going to be incredibly weak presidents, so which is kind of what you want, right? That is what I want. Yeah. Anyway, but I mean I'm hoping what would be really frightening is when there becomes a bipartisan consensus on doing away with these norms. So if you get some um democrat who's not just very leftist politically or very leftist ideologically but also um views the role of the um of everybody including the judges and whatever as uh you know, their goal is to uh their purpose is to advance his political agenda. Um When you if we see that coming from the other side, that would be really frightening. And I think there are people that already comes from the other side, I think. Yeah, but that already comes from the other side. I think the other side is you know, if you if you want to talk about undermining norms, I mean the other side is just as guilty. We're talking about a party running at least in the group of people in the party openly campaigning for breaking a norm that's over 100 years old in our Supreme Court, that is a party, you know, back in the court, you have a party that is openly campaigning to finish the filibuster or something. That, again is whether you like it or not, it's a norm that's in place for a long time. So again, it's not like the we have a party that that nominates, uh, attorney general, not attorney general that tries to elect attorneys, District attorneys all over the place, including the one here in Austin, right? That is not somebody that's coming in from a member. Thinking about the justice system is a political animal that tries to, you know, suggest that our prosecution had to have equity in racial composition. That's incredibly crazy idea. But they're campaigning on that. This is a political statement that is like, you know, radical and and breaking with sort of norms of of of of equity, equitable application of justice. They openly campaigned on that and they're gonna get elected. Our Travis County Attorney general is going to be attorney, whatever this return is openly talking about that. So just think about that, what it means for a second that the number of prosecutions have to equal a certain break racial breakdown. It means that if for some reason, if you're not fooling a certain bucket, you're gonna have to go find white people to prosecute. It's unbelievably bad. Right? But that's again, I have a hard time agreeing that this undermining of these norms that are very important for our system comes disproportionately from one side. Also, if it's the specific norm of serving the will of the particular president. I think that we're seeing this unfortunately from the right right now. But what I think it would look like if it was coming from the left because they're less likely given their particular makeup to have a, you know, grand leader kind of version of it would be something like very focused on class and race interests. And so what prosecution is about is achieving racial justice understood a certain way and therefore, uh, etcetera. And what we want in a, uh, in a prosecutor is somebody who, um, ensures that when there's a case of a, a white cop shooting a black person, for example, who ensures that there is an indictment rather than who ensures that everything is investigated properly and so forth and make sure that there isn't not an indictment because of, you know, people being trusted with the police or whatever. So that would be what it would look like. The whole note, the whole notion of anti racism erosion, It doesn't matter the process. We need to actively, you know, if we need to go against the process or the norms or if we need to be segregated in the opposite direction is justifiable to achieve the, the our goals. And that's something that, to me is incredibly troublesome. And that is, you know, again, uh, it's not the majority. I don't say, of the Democratic Party, but that there's definitely a strong wing of the party that's behaving along those lines. Go ahead. Can I ask that there maybe a strong wing of the Democratic Party that believes that, do you think joe biden is part of that wing? No, I don't I don't I actually don't. I agree with you. So that's why, I mean, this is why I raised this initially. That is it's not like a fairy tale that you could get this coming from the executive, you know, the presidential candidate on the left. And I think it's it's it's not like to say it's a fortunate thing, but it's a good thing that we have an opposition candidate who is not as far as I could tell, looking to advance the leftist version of this same problem right now, and I would be in a much more difficult position deciding who to vote for if I thought that there that that that was and I don't think it's true of Biden and I don't think it's true of Harris. I think Harris is a pretty um party institutional player, who I think is kind of, you know, similar to biden, but comes from a more left wing states, and when she sticks her finger out to see which way the wind is blowing, she's you know, gone to more um left leaning votes than biden has, but seems to function in a pretty similar way politically, from what I can tell. Um so in that sense, I agree. And and I, you know, when the and the and the as I said in the beginning, right, I was primary voters for biden for exactly that reason, knowing that the republicans and I'm not particularly happy with the current candidate on the republican side. And and I would much rather have that than than the alternatives that were present in the primary for sure. And so yeah, I I I hope and pray that we get, you know, the moderate that that biden wants seems to be campaigning in pennsylvania right now. I hope that's what we get and what I'm hoping in particular is for administration that prioritizes rebuilding institutional norms and maybe formalizing some things that have been um that have been, you know, only something like what happened after Nixon where you got um more oversight and transparency measures put in place, but we will see what we get on this. Let's shift to foreign policy now, because we've always said we were going to talk about it and we haven't, what are people's views on both of these candidates with respect to foreign policy? Yes, I'll jump in. Um So uh as with many other areas, I don't know that the trump campaign or presidency really has kind of a general stance on foreign policy other than ah um they're very big on Israel. Um I think primarily because it it speaks to a certain part of their base, I don't know that that's necessarily because it's a priority for them. Um And I think the flip side is they their general kind of approach to it thus far has been to ah beat down some of our allies on certain things. Right? So there was the was it the U. N. Or or um not the U. N. Um But where you know other countries weren't kind of parent paying their fair share of it. Yeah NATO. Um And whatnot. And maybe I think there is like a little bit of credibility to that but I think that they have pushed us more towards where were starting to become kind of less of a world superpower and becoming more of like a the an outlier. And I think that's troublesome. Not to mention I think trump is kind of cuddled up to uh certain world leaders that we don't necessarily want to. Um uh And I candidly I don't know much about the biden campaign's kind of stance on foreign policy but I am I can say with the utmost confidence that it will probably be better other takes. Um So my form again I agree with the sense that that that there's not a very clear foreign policy strategy or or like idea ideological sort of take coming in the last four years. I think there's very like specific transactions right that the that the okay in this situation what do you do in that situation what do you do? And there are some real real positive things. I think that the the latest the latest Middle East sort of like agreements have been somewhat useful for the future and that's something to be to be celebrated. Um um there's all sorts of issues with NATO and the way the way you know it costs us uh too much to to to be the police of the world and but also generates benefits. So again it's a it's a trade off there and um I am, one side of me is very happy about the way for example Germany and the and France in particular have been have been better contributors in nature NATO lately. But on the other hand I would prefer that to have been done in a much more less adversarial and like whatever the statement and again right the statements are always real bad and you know creates all sorts of like bad bad um relationship. I'm very disappointed very disappointed both Obama and trump on how they dealt with with with England and Brexit. I think that that's something that it's not, our business is a matter of sovereignty on their own but we had a responsibility and an obligation to be accepting their choices and opening our arms to their decisions as a sovereign nation. Like okay you guys decided to be now not be part of this thing will be you know helping you in that transition if you decide to go back will help you are our longest ally easier. So um we are hand by hand hand in hand in this and again the missed opportunity to be aggressive on on on open trade agreements with both the european union and the U. K. And the situation try to lead in that I think is something that was very very disappointed in my view. Uh But I think you know I would like to, it's hard for me to judge. I don't know specifics about the situation in Afghanistan for example in Iraq. You know what where are we right now? What are the decisions that could have been made that led us to a better position and what it is that we need to do moving forward? It seems that there's like a bit of a stalemate in those directions that what is the plan right now? Should we draw everything from everywhere? Should we have more? You know, it's just I don't know, I can't really evaluate neither what what his foreign policy generally was versus what's coming ahead of us. North Korea. Another problem that nobody seems to be able to handle appropriately and you know what what what's the what did joe biden's plan on that? I don't know is any different than than it's just gonna be different rhetoric. I agree with that. But like does anybody have a plan on dealing with North Korea? Does anybody have a plan on dealing with china? Like a clear strategic laid down plan. Okay, here's our principal is any of those two people are going to defend Taiwan if china china does what I think eventually would do and I don't I don't know. Um Yeah, Carlos, can I say, can I say something a little bit here? So I would say I agree with you on the on the most part is that there's not a clear differentiation between either either. Canada on some foreign policy issues. I think the reason for that is that past administrations have turned what would be solvable foreign policy issues and to just complete quagmires. I would argue that that's the case in Iraq, that's the case in Afghanistan. I would even argue going back to um I guess the Eisenhower Truman days that that's the case in Iran, you know. Um and so I I think a lot of this is the fault of of past administrations. I think the important thing is I think so on a larger scale of some of these issues, some of these stances are gonna be very similar. I think I can pinpoint maybe a handful that are that are different. The first one is Iran in the Iran nuclear deal. Um So I believe Iran since trump revoked, I believe it's called j it starts with a J I don't know, but the Iran deal um I believe he's revoked that and since then it's Iran's basically developed the capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon much faster than they did in the Obama years, uh you know, once those sanctions were put back in place. So personally, I believe that a destabilized Middle East is a um unsafe for world and you know, if if Iran has the means to obtain a nuclear weapon and they can do it faster, it leads to an unsafe for world. So, I think that that's one issue where, I mean, I'd love to hear your thoughts on on that deal. I I agree with you that that in a world with Iran's nuclear weapons, a world that's unsafe is a world that Israel is not going to accept. And they said so openly and and they will take actions, right? And here's a situation where I kind of trust Israel judgment on it because their lives at stake, not ours uh in that situation, and Israel has was very clear from the beginning that the the Iran deal was unacceptable. Was was something that, again, and I don't know, I don't know details, I don't know exactly the specifics here, but I sort of trust the judgment from from from Israel um Israel was very unhappy with the radio and that that I think made them put them on a path of of of you know, danger that they openly said, well, we have to take action ourselves. And so that that got walked back, right. So somehow they think that this even though you say that they are closer to capability. Somehow the Israelis are happy happier. So, you know, I don't know, I'm a little confused just because, you know, I think, you know, Israel has, it may have its own motives at play here, you know, for their own in terms of just, you know, I guess political power and economic power within the region. I think one of the, I mean, a key aspect of the deal was that in exchange for, you know, Iran not developing a nuclear weapon, the United States and all these other countries were removed sanctions. So, you know, is is this really about keeping uh keeping Israel safe? Um you know, I think Iran is actually on a faster track to nuclear weapon. The reason that Iran was so against Israel was so against the deal was because that it removed those sanctions and in in essence Israel was losing economic power within the region. Do you think that played that may have played a role? I don't see any in any way. I think, honestly, I would say that if a richer Iran is good for Israel region to be honest. But also, I I wish, I wish we had a uh our world, I mean, and again, i i it's it's really unfortunate because Iran is a is a big country, a country with a lot of potential, a lot of interesting people and culture and so on. And I think that that the Ayatollahs and the system is is against the victory of minority that takes over that, that the whole country and um there's a lot of unhappiness internally right, and I think we don't we don't lead in any way that has helped the minority, that the sort of majority take control of their country. And I don't know how, I don't know whether that deal originally was a deal that maybe they had their hopes of like by removing sanctions by letting them grow somehow. It's almost like the sort of like a notion that, you know, naturally yeah, empower the citizens to somehow move forward. I just don't know the specifics and I think there's really consideration, I think is very much a consideration on strategic uh safety stuff and and very hard to see how Iran is getting richer would harm Israel in any way other than than having more money to contribute to people who want to kill Israelis. Um and a lot of money comes from Iran to funding terrorism. It's not like Iran is in some business that's competing with these realities in the oil business and it's competing with Saudi Arabia and with all these other um the Emirates and so forth. But it's not like, you know, big into biotech or any of the things that are big um does anybody know why in particular, they oppose Israel opposed the deal. I mean, I guess by their judgment is closer to a nuclear weapon, but why do they think that, I think the deal relax a lot of the a lot of the by not having the sanctions, there was no and over the way the oversight was set up for the deal, I think there was a lot of folks, there were more the more hawkish foreign policy people thought that the deal was too dovish on the Iranian. So a lot letting them off the hook too much. I mean, I'm opposed to the deal and I can tell you why I am, I don't know if this is if you know and the all the hawks were against the deal, right? So Israelis are not one person. So there's going to be differences of opinion of course within Israel, just as there is here. But I should say first, I think we shouldn't have been in that deal in the first place. I don't think it follows from that, that trump's decisions with respect to it are necessarily the right ones. My senses, most of the damage of the deal was done already and withdrawing from it. I'm not sure that we got anything back that would have helped us. So I don't know that I I don't have an opinion as to whether that was the right move on his part. But my general view is the same. We shouldn't have gotten into the Iran deal for the same reason that trump shouldn't have negotiated with kim jong un kim jong il in the first place and tried to make a deal with North Korea when you have people who are dictatorial regimes that are funding attacks against you or your allies in the case of Iran, there's you can't trust them to do their part of the deal. And I think there's just deals with those kinds of regimes are not worth the paper they're written on. We have North Korea has atomic weapons now because of decades and decades of making these kind of deals and so forth and kicking the can down the road, there was a deal that clinton signed and um this kind of but it's not just I mean the republicans do it's just this is how we deal with these countries. You can't make agreements with people who are your enemies. And I think we have to uh in light of Iran's history with respect to the U. S. And its allies regarded essentially as an enemy nation and deals with enemy nations, I don't think can be trusted unless their plan to surrender deal. So I think we should just be on a footing of we don't trust Iran, we don't trade with Iran, we have embargoes against Iran and uh and just treat them that way until there's regime change. We don't have to go in and force the regime change necessarily. But just I think they need to be written off by the free world until there's significant change there. Um So that's my take on it. But that's you know, what would you say that's true Also for the soviet union back in the day. Yeah we dealt with dealt with them like continuously. We made it very successful deals with them. That led to a lot of stabilization of the world. Right. Well did it? I mean so we dealt with that stopped the testing on the on the of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere with, dealt with like you know nonproliferation agreements that were then are we talking about from, right, so we had after World War Two in dealing with them, we let half the world fall into soviet tyranny. It's not clear that that would have happened if we handled post World War Two foreign policy differently. Um So uh now when you're into 1974 or something and should we have had a glass enough um you know in 1980 you know we've already made a lot of wrong terms. I think with the U. S. S. R. I mean I'm a real I don't think we should have been in the U. N. I think the idea of forming a U. N. With Stalin on the security committee is a travesty to. So um I think it was basically a gift to the Soviets for you know decades. Uh So yeah I I hold the policy with with all of these places but what we should have done, you know having made that mistake already with uh with Russia is a harder question and I think it's um harder question with um with with with Iran and North Korea. But I think the the bit of it that I don't think it's hard is that we should have, we should see real signs of change away from nuclear ambition or territorial and or you know, whatever kinds of ambitions were concerned about with these countries before we yield to talks. And I think that's um I don't think we had enough of that with Iran and we certainly didn't have any of it with North Korea. We got nothing except we've got some remains of soldiers back and a few other things that are nice but basically symbolic um, from the North Korea. I think that's that's the issue that I have with all of this. I think if you were to lay down a principle and say I don't talk to this regime's period maybe then then you would say Nixon don't go to china. Ah and you know, I think the kind of factor of that is incredibly expensive right for for for like a billion people. And and so I have a different take on it where where my sort of prefer way to do this. Like I wouldn't put economic sanctions on anybody. I would I would always open my my borders for trade and say listen, I'll buy your stuff by my stuff. I don't care but listen, do something wrong. I will bleed the radio. That's the thing that's sort of like credible commitment of like a strong country that lived by the principles of liberty and say, don't break those principles. If you do, I'll act on it. But we're not committed, were not committed to those principles in a way that's clear. And, and you know, we make those mistakes all the time by making a deal with the chinese for, for trades, but then try to put sanctions on there. And it's like, well, what the hell are these guys are not particularly good either. Right. So it becomes out of hock and that's the problem. You need to have talks to open trade right now trade with china and not having to go there. And I don't think that we should have had a trade embargo against china. I don't think china was a military threat in the way the USSR was. Um, as to whether Nixon's trip to china help, I mean, it's a hard counterfactual because now also died shortly thereafter. So is the turnaround in china the result opening things up or is it the result of, of um, don't tell me, what's the, how do you think your name, the successor to now being better than now? Um, so you know, that's a real question, but I don't think we should have had an embargo against china in the way we, I think we should have against the USSR, um, other performers. I mean, I agree with that. There's no coherent foreign policy from trump or from biden. But I don't think there's been a really coherent foreign policy since at least World War two. I think we've been a mass and this is Carlos, I think the same point you're making. So is there a real change with trump? I think there are some changes with trump. Um ah a small one that seems to me for the better and the big one that seems to me for the worst. I think he's been ready to be bolder with respect to the alliance with Israel which I regard as a good thing the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem. Um I think some of his moves there have had some effect on these new recognition deals that have been struck between Israel and some of the countries in the area. Although I think the primary reason for those deals is that we failed at containing Iran and so as Iran gets more powerful, other countries look to you know need alliances with Israel. So I think it's it's the fault of both Obama and trump not succeeding on her hand that um that that bad things have happened that have led to this good thing as a kind of silver money. Um But the bigger change I think with trump is having a more mercantilist IQ and anti trade dominating view of foreign policy. If you think about the NATO issue, it's not clear to me that we should even be in NATO, but the reason that we shouldn't be in NATO, if we shouldn't be in NATO, if we should change it isn't about dollars and cents. Either we have a security interest in helping to defend Western europe, or we don't have a security interest in helping to defend Western europe. And if we do we should be there and then we can negotiate the dollars and cents of it. And and is it worth if Germany pays less or should they pay more? Um But that's a fairly minor issue relative to like, do we have a security interest in containing Russia or not? And if we do, we should be there and we shouldn't be begrudging having to pay for it because it's in our own interest to do it. And, you know, we should encourage Germany to pay more to maybe. But making the relationship contingent primarily making it about money primarily about who's paying for what it's unprincipled and it detaches it from the real security interests of America in a world in which Russia is less dominant or not. And if you think about it with china, I think it's been a catastrophe with china. So there are this fiction that where it's some trade disadvantage from china and we have a trade deficit and that's a horror and so forth. So we have to stop trading with them. Um I don't think there's a real issue there, I don't think there's any problem with trade for them except insofar as there are I. P. Or military issues but just trade deficits not I don't think it's a real issue. Um And that is what dominates trump's thinking about it in the meantime. What ought to dominate our thinking about china is human rights and national security issues. So what's going on between china and Taiwan? Um And what are we encouraging? Uh And what kinds of behavior are we, what's going on between china and and Hong kong especially what's the safety of the people? And if you have someone who's generally pro trade or agnostic on trade they'll maybe see trade sanctions as a way to um as you know, we want to have free trade but china is doing something terrible to to the fingers and they're they're doing something terrible to Hong kong. So as a cudgel to try to stop that will try to use trade but trump I think is the opposite. He doesn't care at all what happens to Hong kong or the guards or to Taiwan or any of that. He doesn't show any actionable interest in it. In fact, according to bolton, he cheered them on with respect to what they were doing to the regards and there's no reason I think he would be opposed to um given his own leanings that he has any issues with what they're doing in Hong kong. Uh It seems to me he uses those issues and humanitarian concerns about those issues and rights based concerns about those issues solely as a cudgel to get better trade deals or would he regard his better trade deals, which aren't actually, I think in our interests so insofar as what he all of the people are going to compromise on security stuff with china because they want the trade but trump I think has the hierarchy of this inverted, that is uh he doesn't want there to be trade and he's willing, he doesn't want them to be selling us stuff. Uh and so he's willing to um and he's willing to deal with to say mean things about what they're about their human rights violations if he thinks that will help him build up a coalition or whatever or have an excuse to have harsher trade policies, which is I think exactly the reverse of what we want, we want a world in which we have open trade with china uh and we're doing whatever we can in that context to stop uh persecution of the guards to protect, uh which might be boycott something to protect Taiwan and Hong kong and I think that inversion um that kind of mercantilist thinking is really troubling and I think we see that in other areas too, so that flip of priority uh um and and flip of the kind of the hierarchy of values there, I think is it's not like it's never been there, but it's it's new and more extreme with trump and I worry about that particularly with respect to china. And I, I suspect that I don't know any way to prove this, that um, a trump presidency has made china more aggressive on these kinds of issues than they would have been without one. But I don't know there's not a counterfeit, we're not, we can't run the tape back and have the other world where we can see that. So I have a question, I agree. Whatever you say about china about trump policy to china, but do you think biden will flick that cultivation back to normal? Not too normal, flip it back. I don't think, I think there's a chance and so I don't think biden has, has taken on a lot of this America first trade rhetoric from trump, which I think is bad, but I think he's me tooling trump. But I think if it was popular to be pro free trade like it was 20 years ago and when he was more pro free trade, he would have been more pro free trade. So I don't think this issue matters to him, the trade issue. Um, whereas I think it is the one issue that really matters to Trump. It's the one thing if you look at him, what he was saying back in the 80s when he thought Japan was screwing us and then you know what he's always been, is about uh worried that other people were screwing us on trade. So that's the one issue that I think is kind of central to trump's foreign policy thinking it's an issue on which biden has come over more to the trump side unfortunately. But I don't think it's what drives the guy. Um and I don't think so uh and I do think he's more concerned. I mean I can't imagine a story coming out where biden in a private conversation is cheering uh jeon about uh you know constructing concentration camps. Whereas you know that allegedly happened according to bolton and is what you would expect to happen from trump given the kind of things he says publicly actually all my friends from Taiwan and Hong kong, they're celebrating Hunter Hunter biden scandal. They suddenly my facebook was flooded with with a killer known conspiracy only in chinese. And everybody, my friends in Hong kong and Taiwan, they're super super liberal. The sport L. G. B. T. Q. They're doing everything that a California would do in Taiwan and in Hong kong but they're all trump supporters because they think donald trump is the only one who can contain china and even through war I think they all believe that donald trump is the only person who can protect Hong kong and Taiwan from china. It's really interesting because what I read on my facebook every day is hunted, biden's new updates and no one is talking about it here. That is very interesting. I mean I don't buy it about trump containing china. I think they've been more aggressive under him than they've been under any of his predecessors. And I think trump if trump could get china to commit to buy twice as many soybeans from some state. They've got a lot of soybeans. I think he'd be happy to have them murder everything. Yeah, the problem, the problem if joe biden can make china to buy as twice as the soybeans will joe biden will continue to contain china as donald trump is doing now. Because because I think democrats don't really have a good record of containing china. Democrats try to try to make friends with china and right now they just make china even stronger. I mean no one has a good record with china unfortunately and record is one of um really wanting the market and capitulating. Um can I, can I say something here? And I think we don't always, I guess talk about these policies are these issues through this lens uh in these groups. But you know what what motivates those are these candidates. I think Greg, you said that biden has become more on this anti trade message. What motivates them as electoral politics. You know, you, I follow the elections um side of things a lot very closely. You know michigan Ohio pennsylvania. Yeah. Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa you know these are the swing states in these elections and these are the areas where where trade is disproportionately the I guess the negatives of trade have disproportionately been located here. So I mean it's Pretty much, I think 80% electoral politics, that's why it matters to them. Yeah, so they're going they're just gonna do what whatever is popular. Yeah. At the moment, yes. So yeah, so that's my, my my what my what I'm really worried about is what if it's not popular one day that that that that it's like the fate of Taiwan and Hong kong right now is at the swing states of America and the hands of the swing states. No, and so my question is will joe biden will uphold like the the flag of human rights will continue to contain china on wiggles on the issue of wiggles in Hong kong and Taiwan? Because because people are thinking that there's one rhetoric is very, very popular right now in across Hong kong and Taiwan is that if joe biden win and people assume that joe biden will go easy on china and the the few months before joe biden's inauguration, the Republican, the Eagle Eagle republicans will go even harder on china and what china will force china to react and everybody right now in Taiwan is talking about war because Because right now in China, everything is going crazy. It's like going back to the Cultural Revolution, but only in the digital 1984 version. So a war is really very much likely right now from what's happening in china and in Taiwan and donald trump is continuing selling weapons to Taiwan and and the Taiwan president of Taiwan is getting harder on china. So everybody's talking about the war before the inauguration. So do you think that will affect the election or do you think that now if the world doesn't happen or does happen? Do you think that will change after joe biden or donald trump get elected? Oh my God that's like that's I mean I'm not, I haven't had nightmares lately but boy that would be a nightmare scenario. Can you imagine china invades Taiwan like after I didn't get to like that's what a ship show that would be really bad people have been talking about for a year. I I understand the chinese fears but like oh my God I cannot draw a worst case scenario coming up. It was pretty bad. He was bad. Can you imagine have a transition in the middle like a confrontation with china boy. Yeah it's bad and that's why it's good for china. It's bad for America. So it's going to be china one of the best choices decisions china can make right if if donald trump keep pushing china in the last few months office office and administration he lost the election. He had a few months left. God knows what's he gonna do. I mean the I think this whole idea of hard on china is what I ran called a package deal that is putting things together that don't belong together, um, that don't have anything in common, uh, putting tariffs on chinese goods in case in the hopes that they'll lower tariffs on your goods is a very different thing than selling, uh, you know, jet planes to Taiwan. Those don't belong together. They're not the same sort of thing being hard on them militarily with security issues, uh, in an attempt to uh, achieve a a self defense or defense of allies goal is a very different thing than driving a hard bargain in a trade negotiation. And I think one of the things that's become really problematic is these things have gotten lumped together and the security considerations have been um, like the the dog that's being dragged by the tail of the trade considerations where it should be exactly the other way around. We should be concerned primarily about the security issues with them. We should be trying to have as free trade as possible. And we should be, in my view restricting trade only in if it's necessary for security reasons. And then it should be by embargoes and things not by you make steel to sense more expensive or whatever, which is not really a security measure. It's a kind of attempt to central plan the world economy. So I think that this has gone flipped in a really dangerous way. I don't think it will flip back under trump, Will it flip back under biden? Probably not, but I, I think there's more chance of more prioritizing of the security concerns and less of um misguided economic concerns I think under biden um because I think the misguided economic concerns are kind of court of who trump is whereas their political opportunism providing, I don't know what do you guys think? I think china doesn't really care about the security about americans being hard on china in terms of security. They only care about the trade. I care about whether we defend Taiwan if they invaded it I assume and they care about things like that. Yeah they do what I'm trying. So let me ask you a question. Do you think the American trade with China previously in the past 10 years or 20 years is free trade I'm very close to but if american company but but any foreign company in china if they want to grow business there are a lot of restrictions you have to you have to give to the chinese. Sure but you need to give your your skills, your patents and everything too. Chinese and people can use american website and in in china people can use american software and use american app in china but in America we can use everything from china. So I wouldn't call it like fair, I agree with you. It's not fair for sure. I mean we are we're slots software on them than they are on us on a lot of restrictions but but but it's not a trade that's full of, I mean that's that's a kind of a tariff here, right? But it's not, you know, it's not the the there's a regulatory terrorist, right? So we have generally a pretty which we have in some other dimension as well here for like agricultural products for example and so on. Um but it's a pretty open trade I think generally I think the our ability to build factories to make things in china american companies a lot of them and you have like giant, you know, producing facilities in china and so on and move those goods freely around the world. And it's been pretty open. Not as free as a bird life but definitely pretty open. Yeah, but I think that caused china to use trade with America as a weapon to contain America because America has a lot of leverage on china. But china doesn't have a lot of american market is not that open to china. Actually, no. Yeah. The other way around. So what I mean is that china can hold americans interest in china to threaten America. Right? That's what they've been doing in the past, maybe 10 years in the past five years, especially on Hong kong and Taiwan and certainly have been doing it with respect to particular corporations. If you think about the NBA being afraid to have people speak out against uh what the chinese government is doing and so forth? Yeah. So so I'm thinking maybe do you think that will change when maybe biden becomes president? They have to force china for example to open up to to use google. Right. So do you think that will change if it's because you mentioned motivation? So if your motivation is to have like a completely nearly absolute free trade or fair trade, do you think china should open up to american as well? So do do you think americans should force china to do that at least? Well, what would force them mean? I mean, I think every country ought to open up to every other country and every country would be better off doing it even if the other ones don't reciprocate uh taxing your own people when they buy things from china doesn't hurt china so much as it hurts your own people. And likewise if china taxes people when they buy things from author doesn't let them buy things from us. So I think, you know, it's in each country's interest to uh free up its imports and exports and encourage other countries to do the same, but to do it, even if the other countries don't. But when you say force what would mean for us like we're going to bomb them unless they drop tariffs or we're gonna tax our own people if they want to buy things from china unless china starts stops taxing their people if they want to buy things from us. I don't think either of those two things we should do but you know by force I mean that if china wants to do business in America they have to open up the market wilder wider than it was before. I don't have to they have to reform their like a financial system. Have to reform the information on the internet, the information system. Uh huh. I don't I don't I'm I'm with Greg and this one generally it's just like you guys do what you want in china. I mean I'll buy your stuff. I don't care. I mean I'm not gonna you know that's the problem of the people of china to solve how they want to have their financial system, how they want to have their information that if they want to have beating restrictions on the probably probably products and goods they can have from from the U. S. And so on. Um it's it's not on us to to enforce it. I think on us is just to to to to to lay down some clear markers on like for example don't mess with Taiwan. And now the problem is that the credible commitment might be difficult to enforce their ah so yeah I think that's because china is using the trade as a weapon to threaten America that you when you draw a clear line that don't mess with Taiwan china has all the interest from american companies even american government that the line is not that clear. So I think I think that's not the motivation of donald trump, but what I think is donald trump is using trade as a weapon to go against china. It does work, it hurts china like military threat or that clear line china doesn't care about that china. The government of china only care about like interest, they only care about money, they only care as long as they can do trade, even if it's not fair as a weapon about them to get is he using trade as a weapon against them too? If you want to call it using as a weapon against them to to get secure. You know, some some actual security related measure passed or is he using it to change the trade terms. I think he's only interested in the trade terms and so um you know, that's that, I don't see it as helping. Um But I mean there's there's just so much so unfortunately we're well over time when we said we stopped, we said we'd stopped 15 minutes ago. Okay, so I think we're all agreed the situation with China is ominous and worrying and we're not too optimistic about it under either of these guys, some of us think trump's worst, some of us think they're the same and maybe something biden's were. Um and I certainly apparently people in Taiwan think biden will be worse. So that's uh an interesting thing to learn. Um Okay, well we will reconvene at some point after the election and uh we'll see what happens we're doing like immediately after or wait a couple weeks. I don't know I mean you know it might be there's rioting in the streets and we're all unsafe right after the election. I hope only only if trump wins the riots not gonna riot. Don't worry there's riots is because is because trump walmart pulled all their guns and ammunition so we don't have to worry about that. Right? Oh well then we're fine. Um Or else we haven't stocked up soon enough depending. Um But yeah I can't do this time next friday I don't think. But um let's email around about one will do it. I hope soon after. Just to reflect. Okay everybody. Thank you.