18 Burst results for "U.S."

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

04:54 min | 4 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"That has been foot forward obsolescence that is obsolescence means. You have to get rid of it. That is not the argument. That nile. And i are making on rwanda. If you was general declare it is impossible to conclude that it was solely the fault of the states. And not of the un. So here again. We have an interesting argument. All the credit goes to the un whenever their failures appointed those the member stakes. Well that's a dog. it doesn't it doesn't work. i really must say that I think there's so much commingling. What the un quote unquote is doing and the un quote unquote is not doing but on the other hand. The situation enough gone in afghanistan is a very dire one. And i don't see that the united nations can actually contain or whatever you wanna call word the taliban but on the other end but the un and this what i said in my opening statement but the un is doing is it's on the ground it is feeding people. It is helping report on the situation of the woman. What is actually happening in the country. Most of the embassies western embassies in particular have closed their very few embassy. Sor actually open right now. So he's going to do that. And when you look at the situation on the ground for the people look into it to basically help them with their basic needs that is actually the united nations. And that's what we are doing and to mind is part of a very effective few sit stands up to injustice. It stands up for human rights. It stands up for women's rights and those are very very important features that don't get reported in the press. It is certainly true that the un may deliver food and so onto afganistan. and so nyland. I are not saying it doesn't do anything valuable but let's be clear. What the taliban laws the un to do or not do not be decided by the un. It'll be decided by in no particular order. Russia china and pakistan. Who are the prime movers. They're the un can't do anything without that diplomacy by individual states. That's one thing. Second on climate change would it be useful to have a coordinating body that move the world forward on climate change. Yes it would be. But i submit to you that the main momentum's toward addressing climate change will be the result although very robust e you policy reduce carbon emissions and the so called more recent china thirty sixty policy. It will not be as a result of the final point let us look at the pandemic. The un had a wonderful program which i liked i supported kovacs. It would barden with the drug companies. It would get drugs cheaply the vaccines and it would distributed worldwide. What have we seen. A division absent have not wealthy countries. Vacuum up the vaccine. Look around the world and look at the global south look the vaccination rates there abysmally small. Now you can say well. That's not the. Us fault it's the member states but we come back. This familiar dodge. Everything is good is done by the un everything that's bad is by the big bad wolf. The member countries the un has got to be judged on how well it works in a world of sovereign willful states. And that is its biggest problem. It is ams time and time again. I wanna move forward on on on a to look at some of the things that i want to look at the theoretical problems but there the problems of the present day and to ask certain kinds of challenges that are that exists. Today that did not exist. Certainly seventy six years ago cyber war cyber wars because it was not even on the radar at that time. And i'll throw this question out. Generally whoever wants to take it first. But the united nations and organization that is well suited to helping the world deal with and and control the dangers of cyberwarfare the to to the key players actually in terms of of carry out nefarious acts cyberwarfare russia and china the both on the un security council the both at the heart of the the un human rights council so we expect the united nations playing a serious role in terms of of dealing with cyber warfare. Hold two of the the. Un's key a national security council members to to account namely beijing and moscow. The reality is the united nations not lift a finger. The united nations is not gonna condemn anything that russia does china does. We're seeing that in a huge way with the with the genocide at the moment there's no condemnation within the united nations of what china is doing because of course china sits on the committees of most of the powerful committees within within the united nations. So so then. You don't get to see the united nations realistically taking any kind of active role in combating cyberwarfare warfare. Because of its chief players are the key conductors of of.

un nyland taliban china rwanda afghanistan barden kovacs pakistan un human rights council russia un security council national security council Us moscow beijing
Fresh update on "u.s." discussed on Bloomberg Daybreak Europe

Bloomberg Daybreak Europe

00:00 sec | 16 min ago

Fresh update on "u.s." discussed on Bloomberg Daybreak Europe

"We drop 1.4% for European stock markets right now in the U.S. stock 600 and futures for the U.S. market open also deeply in the red This stock markets right now on the U.S. stock 600 and futures for the U.S. market open also deeply in the red This as Bond years actually ease off a couple of basis points for the U.S. one spot 7 9% This is Bloomberg I learned patience for my adoptive dad All he had to say was Hey you got this Just breathe Hey We're pretty good Yeah Wanted to start.

U.S. Bloomberg
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

07:46 min | 4 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Let's get back to our debate. So you've heard the first two opening remarks and now up on the screen with an opening statement in support of the resolution that the un is obsolete here is nile gardiner nile. The screen is yours. Joan sir thanks very much for hosting us today and this is an extremely important and very timely issue for a debate actually is the united nations also eat and view of rajon myself that the un is in fact obsolete and that's based on looking at the evidence and the facts that we have available. Everyone wants the united nations to to succeed that includes of course The us tax payer that puts in several billion dollars a year into the united nations system. the united nations. The whole of the free world wants the un to to succeed at every level. Unfortunately i think the the founding vision of of those who set up the united nations in the aftermath of world war two the greatest war in our history that founding vision i think largely evaporated and i think what we have today with the united nations is tremendous disillusionment a with the system and the united nations has failed on so many fronts and i i go to address. In particular the un's failure with regard to human rights with failures stand up acts of genocide. It's faded to stand up to the most dictatorial regimes. The world and at the heart of that failure really is the fact that the united nations contains within it so many authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. Who actually use the un as a shield to protect their own. The ferris activities and one only has to look at the the un human rights council the perfect solve that. Let's you on that council today that includes the likes of china russia. Few some of the world's worst human rights violators sit on the un human rights council. The un simply does not stand up for the values of its original united nations charter letdown. Many of the most vulnerable people in the world u n peacekeeping operations across the world. Many of them have been spectacular failures. If you look at the congo peacekeeping mission monuc there were over. One hundred and fifty instances of major human rights violations carried out by un peace keepers and u. n. officials this is a staggering failure. Where is the united nations survey standing up to china with genocide against the the weavers whereas the united nations in terms of standing to the likes of the assad regime in syria which is used chemical weapons time and time again. The united nations has failed on so many fronts at has a massive disappointment and the reality is at this time. The united nations certainly is a brooklyn institution. It has lost the faith of so many across across the free world if has become the plaything of some of the most brutal dictatorships on a this has to change and it's certainly our view that the united nations in its present form is also elite. This is an institution that we want to succeed but as it stands at the moment it just has been a massive failure on so many fronts. Thank you very much. thank you nile. And our final opening statement will be against the resolution that the un is obsolete in other words. It's an endorsement of the un. It comes from hamad mahmoud muhammadu and mohammed mahmoud the the floor and the screen is yours. Thank you very much john. We've just heard quite an indictment full of the united nations. In fact we can add to this. The united nations Is certainly not the most efficient organizations we can look at its heavy bureaucracy. We can look at its convoluted nature but that is not the issue. And i'm not here to wave the flag of an institution that needs a lot of fixing and is in need of soul. Searching the issue is whether an organization that was set up less than a hundred years ago seventy six years ago which is not a lot of time when it matters of history in governance and international organisations in the current era whether such organization is obsolete are the definition of obsolescence. Is that something is no longer needed because something better has been invented instead of it. Well that is not the case. There is no other organization inside that. Do that kind of issue that you just my colleague mentioning that has a comprehensive mission and let us forewoman set aside the cynicism that is so prevalent these days and look at the mission and the mandate the very letter of bringing peace and prosperity to all around the world. Well if we look at this in terms of those then i think too key issues are fundamental first of all in terms of how this came about in terms of the very notion of the concept of inefficiency that we heard our colleagues from well. Evidence of efficiency is not evidence of What matters as i said is the mandate the mission and there is no other organization. That could do this. If the problem is the security council as it served is then reformed as many have been trying to do for many years if the problem is the funding then. Well let's let's make study and resourceful in any of this if it's the staffing that have a proper merit system if the issue is sexism or racism then let's deal with this a seriously. Well none of this is reason enough to cancel out the one organization that has this comprehensive mission at its heart and which has not been a failed When it comes to the letter of what was designed many decades ago secondly and most importantly every time the world came out of major trauma. It ran to this very place of putting together such as tuition after the brutality of world war one. The league of nations was setup after horrors of world war two. The united nations was created after decolonization. The new young states of the middle east africa asia ran out to that very organization for their place in the world at the end of the cold war. The whole concept of human security peace building was invented the agenda for peace that whole language that we practiced today was designed doing that day. Kate win the united nations front and center certainly not doing so successfully. But that is not evidence of obsolescence after nine eleven. The conversation on security began by then in their time and again we went to that very place that wants us to develop corporations and matters of working together. Finally if you look at the wall today and see all of the ills that are around us from the pandemic to racism to injustice to poverty to poor education to systemic inequities to gender equities to youth unemployment. There is no other organization that it has in its mandate place for all included. Indeed the bad students in this world as were mention days one entity that is designed to deal with this and the united nations in that sense is absolutely not obsolete so i would say that the argument for the obsolescence of the united nations is in fact shortsighted. It doesn't do justice to the very concept that stands at the heart of this organization which remains universal and so for that reason for the reason that my colleague mentioned earlier. I invite you to vote against the motion that the united nations is obsolete for itself is not thank you very much mahmoud and that concludes our first round of this intelligence squared. Us debate where our resolution is. The un is obsolete and now we move onto round two and round two is where the debaters a conversation and address..

united nations Joan sir un human rights council hamad mahmoud muhammadu mohammed mahmoud rajon china congo syria russia brooklyn middle east africa us security council john league of nations asia Kate mahmoud Us
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

08:06 min | 4 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"The un office and anger. I'm in washington dc and regime. John as you know. I live in new york city but at the moment. I'm in a tiny village in new hampshire okay and nile john. I'm in washington dc. All right well as i say it's great That at least in this pandemic period naples us all to stay in touch them. Far-distant points of view of places that we can't be unreal stage. We can all share the screen together and make this debate happened. So let's go and do that right. Now let's move. Onto our first of three rounds round one will be opening statements. From each debater and turn. Those statements will be four minutes. Each our resolution again is the. Un is obsolete. And i up to speak in support of the motion. Here is john lennon is on the screen is all yours. Thank you john. Thank you too indulgent square ladies and gentlemen the un evokes considerable admiration so. Allow me to begin by clarifying some points. Now gardner and i are not here to argue that the un does nothing value that would be untrue and hence on grizzlies nor are we here to argue. The un should be abolished. We don't believe it should be no state would wanted. Why would take wanted abolished. Un lacks the power to get states. Do anything they don't want to do and yet states routinely use the un to for their interest lovely arrangement. I spoil that to make the time that i have twofold arguments for your consideration. I united nations no longer represents the world as it is. It has a representational problem. The world has changed. The un has not changed to match second. The un hasn't efficacy problem. That is on the major issues of the day in terms of moving the needle as been either irrelevant or peripheral. Let's begin with the representational problem. Part of the reason why. The un is in danger of becoming obsolete the security council. It has been frozen in time. Ladies and gentlemen for seventy six years except for the admission of the people's republic of china in nineteen seventy one frozen but the world. shirley hasn't been frozen in time over one hundred. New countries emerged as a result of decolonization in africa and asia japan. Germany rose from the ashes of world war two long since become economic powers of great consequence india soon to surpass china in population has been a democracy for seventy five years in as the seventh largest gdp in the world in asia long since liberated from budge. Colonialism has about two hundred and sixteen million people the largest islamic country in the world. Now look at the un no india indonesia north germany japan not a single country from latin america notwithstanding the fact that brazil has the ninth largest gdp in the world not a single african country even though africa has one point two billion people so in this sense. The un has a representational problem. It is called the parliament of humankind but it no longer represents the world that we see force. now let me be moved to the efficacy problem. And i'll be brief because nile will pick up on this and much more to say if you made a shortlist of the world's critical problems they would probably include mass atrocities arms control pandemics and climate change on these issues are point is not that the un has done nothing value. That would not be true. It is that it has either been irrelevant or peripheral or had catastrophic failures catastrophic failure or just peacekeeping for example where mass atrocities were allowed to occur as like rwanda bosnia and elsewhere. Most recently in the south sudan as for being irrelevant. If you look at pandemics and climate change i would submit to you the crime. Movers have been states. Wendy are global problems. Such as these and states are required to act in the collective interest and set their short-term interest aside. The un has not been able to orchestrate collective action. Thank you very much. And thank you for your opening statement. Our next statement will be against the resolution. It comes from anglo cain and angela. The screen is yours. Thank you very much john. And you've already mentioned that. The world has changed a lot in the seventy six years since the un was founded by just about a quarter of the member states that it has today and it has a lot of confidence. It's a totally different world that we are confronted with and i wonder can all of these solve these issues that we're confronting today. Can they actually be solved by one nation or can they be solved by. Let's say community of nations. Can they be solved by multinational corporations. The conflicts do carry passports. They do not respect borders but our challenges are all interlinked and in this only by way of working together multi-laterally that we can work together as a global foul family to actually solve our common problems and the only platform that can solve. This is actually the un because they can search they can support the search for global solutions that can monitor the implementation because it is one institution but it has a lot of funds and programmes and agencies and they can really be put all of the service of the people of this world. Politicians very often think short term. It's usually the duration of their time in office. The un however looks at the long term. Issues they sort of say. What can we do today to actually improve the lives of the people's Twenty years from now and when you think about the sustainable development goals this is a blueprint was seventeen bowls there many targets than many actions for peace and prosperity and that really does sound pretty grandiose but the goals are very simple what is good. Health education gender equality climate change justice strong institutions suggest. Just a couple of very all encompassing goals that the un and the member states not the un but the member states have set for themselves. Today they are two hundred and thirty five million people in the world humanitarian assistance and protection. And in that's when you think about it it's one in thirty three and last year the un rest over nineteen billion dollars involuntary funds to basically feed the population to help them into assist them and again. How is that going to be possible if by one member state or by a number of member states. And let's talk also about the peacekeeping operations yes. They do stay for long periods of time so do national military engagements again think of afghanistan and several years studies have for example concluded that the un peacekeeping is twice as cost effective as national engagements plus the cost sharing among member states and there's a wider international acceptance of these operations. And yes. there is a lot of function discussed. Talk about dysfunction in the security council. And that's been an important negative but this lies with individual states. It does not with the un as as a role. And i think that during the cold war. We also faced along trail of dysfunction and that was followed by a very productive session of peaceful and productive corporation. And i'm the eternal optimist. And i think this is going to continue and.

un nile john washington dc north germany asia john lennon grizzlies anglo cain japan africa china new hampshire india gardner security council new york city john shirley south sudan latin america
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

06:51 min | 5 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Is because the taliban accurately assessed That we were already on our way out the door you know. Violent attacks against security forces are at the highest level even before this recent two months have over the last two years at the highest level since two thousand one and yet not. A single american soldier had been killed. That's because afghans has been carrying the danger and the and were willing to continue doing so as long as the united states would itself as the leader of the international effort remain standing by their side and helping them do so. Seventy thousand afghan national security forces have given their lives for their country and we at paid a very high initial price but stabilizing The situation in afghanistan the last five six seven years has actually been a high price for the united states directly and i think sustaining that remained in our interests. I also think indirectly the consequences of as abandoning afghanistan are gonna be consequential. I mean if you look at the angry statements by british government figures. You know there are their defense minister. Crying at as at what is transpiring in afghanistan. Their effort to organize an international force to back fill last when we abandoned afghanistan You know that the british are so critical of the costs. We are incurring for everyone. I think should be significant. If i were an american adversary quite i would take away from. This is that the right strategy is to you know to just wait out the united states. And if i were a country. Reliant on american security guarantees i would be really worried about an american government. Unwilling to continue. Barry tiffany to continue carrying very light load of sustaining the positive progress even amidst violence in afghanistan. If the united states isn't willing to do that how can we trust them to do the really hard stop that we need all right so you you've both laid out quite nuanced explanations for the positions that you're taking on the question. I just want to ask you cory A little bit. Yes no on this. You're you you. You do seem to be saying that your main critique right now is a question of execution of the us mission. Am i correct about that. That it could have been executed in in a more productive way. Unquestionably so okay. My second question is are you saying. Then that there was a salvageable situation which okay. Secondly i want to take that back then to dan so again i want to explore the nuance that you've both raise. But i wanted to stay at the surface level right now dan. Do you think that there was a salvageable situation there to be brief. I think we miss that opportunity Years ago the situation. I wish the situation is the way that cory had laid it out that it was manageable at low levels but unfortunately it was deteriorating and the lack of attacks on us forces were principally in my mind based on the fact that the trump administration zalmay close automated deal with the taliban that they would direct their fire elsewhere so now i don't think it was sustainable at the levels. I wish i think it was probably sustainable are considerably higher levels years ago but that was not politically sustainable back here. In the states we agree on on what we mean by salvageable in other words do we agree on what. The mission was in afghanistan because president biden and secretary state. Tony blinken are saying it was a very narrow goal all the time and that was simply to get al qaeda inoperable And that that was that was achieved. But what what were the goals. What were we trying to salvage what we were trying to salvage was at creating afghan national security forces capable enough to do the fighting that the united states needed doing And did not want to do right. So it wasn't just a counterterrorism mission. It was always a mission at out training and equipping afghan security forces and buying time for the government to become stronger and more capable so that we didn't have to do the fighting that they have been doing dan. Would you agree that that's what we're talking about roughly yeah. I don't have a huge problem with that. I think one could Confined the mission even slightly more narrowly to say that what we needed was some kind of a foothold with some kind of friend. Either in the afghan government durell or otherwise that would permit us to continue a policy of hitting terrorist groups that would otherwise base themselves in afghanistan. The question for the biden administration. Now why the unfolding of this is troubling is how we will manage to attack those groups potentially as they reconstitute themselves in afghanistan going forward but we didn't have a great partner in that and the our partner was getting worse as time was going on not stabilizing or improving and that's that's where wasn't sustainable in my view. So so dan. You are essentially agreeing with president biden. When he said in his remarks recently that another year another five years another twenty years would not have made a difference. It would not have turned. This was not a situation that could be turned out. I'm not sure is as black and white as as the president is on this issue Had been in his position. I might have been tempted to to keep going. But i certainly understand the logic and has the situation unfolded so rapidly with Afghan national security forces of falling apart as quickly as they did. I think that does give some greater weight to the extent to which they were a week pillar upon which to build.

afghanistan united states Barry tiffany taliban cory dan president biden zalmay british government Tony blinken american government afghan government biden administration al qaeda
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

05:05 min | 5 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"No on that. In the arena of equipment i say no in the arena of militarize culture. I say yes Police are working in one of the most heavily armed countries in the world and they have to be able to protect themselves others. Equipment like armored personnel carriers in helicopters are critically important to rescue missions and to apprehend dangerous criminals and to rescue people. When i was sheriff in the metropolitan area we relied on our helicopter to rescue hikers to track down suspects. We absolutely needed Armored personnel carrier to manage dangerous situations involving hostages and armed people who were barricaded. We couldn't get to them to begin. Negotiating unless we had that armored personnel carrier i acquired dozens and dozens of military rifles. Not because they were more lethal they were less lethal than what was available on the loaf of gun store but what they were was free and i couldn't afford to buy enough for my officers. Police officers know in many situations. Rifles are much safer to use than handguns. The problem with military equipment is not the itself. It's the way it's used in the weights display which gets us to the culture creating Creating the image of the police engaged in war began in the seventies with the war on drugs. The war on crime. It exploded in after nine eleven with the war on terror. It's a political movement that morphed into popular culture remember the tv shows swat. I don't know if anybody else's as old as me that remembers that and that image was warmly embraced by the profession we need to work intentionally to reclaim the culture of service in protection. The problem isn't the equipment. The problem is the culture. Thank you sura. The resolution again the police have become too militarized grant ready. Are you a yes or no on that. I mean yes. I often think on this issue about a passage in the odyssey actually in this moment in the odyssey of discuses about banquet and he tells his son at the banquet. You've got to confiscate all the men's sorts son has why he says i remember this line because of the sword itself incites to violence the very act of holding way a reactive holding a weapon makes the person want to use it. Give all these police officers very frequently young men by the way all these really interesting fascinating weapons that were used in places like battling volusia. They are looking for opportunities to use those weapons. They have adopted. A kind of warrior mindset whenever they're carrying these weapons around also note by the way that is beyond being a matter of culture. It is a matter of you redmond itself. If you've got an extremely heavy gun you need both hands to hold. You can't be in a position where you're holding a gun with one hand trying to de escalate or way off the situation with the other. They're all sorts ways in which the leasing culture of leasing equipment just exhibit successive militarization. We can talk about the uniform. I don't understand why police officers are frequently wearing camouflage or no jungles in downtown houston or armenia louis. C. that sort of thing. I think we ought to be looking at ways in which we swat whether or not. That's being used to frequently. We should look at use of force training and tactics. The ersan you're going after pulls out a gun ensure the police officer probably needs a gun but if the person you're going after expel bag you need to plot a gun. What is a police department policy on. Beth least department should be reviewing all of these things because the militarization that's is a problem. Thank you we have. The police have become detroit. We have a yes or no. So far. Now to paul butler on the police have become to militarized pa. You yes or no yes with a shoutout to whoever made this question last because it perfectly combines all of the other issues that we've debated about why the police need ed funded in the sense of having some of their money reallocated to social services problem. These unions people know about this ten thirty three program where police departments got so close military equipment from the pentagon and people think that president obama. Stop the program. He didn't all he did was say that certain weapons like tanks and grenade-launchers and bayonets. Were off limit. Fast forward to the trump presidency fraternal order of police national convention attorney general. The united states goes in like a conquering warrior. And says guess what we've reinstated the program. You get your grenades. You get your tanks and you get your obeying back. The reports say that the audience of these officers stop in cheer. What the hell do police need. With a bayonet helena. Are they going to use. Only thing that i know for sure is the people who are most.

volusia redmond armenia paul butler houston louis Beth detroit pa ed pentagon president obama united states
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

03:29 min | 5 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"You. Sandy levin motion is the constitutional right to bear arms has outlived its usefulness and here to argue against this motion david coppola. He is research director at the independence institute. Imagine professor at denver university sturm college of law and associate policy analyst at the cato institute. Ladies and gentlemen please welcome david cocoa. Why is the second amendment necessary. Today to protect people from local bigoted governments. It was necessary in the civil rights era. When civil rights workers frequently had to arm themselves in the south for protection against the domestic terrorist organization known. As the ku klux klan will local police ross and complicit with the clan. It's why the deacons defense and justice were formed in bogalusa louisiana in nineteen sixty five to successfully provide armed protection to organizations such as the congress of racial equality. It was necessary in washington. Dc were dick. Heller spent every day as an armed guard at the federal judicial center and was not allowed by the city council to use any firearm in his home ever for lawful to self defense violent home invader it was necessary in chicago. Were otis mcdonald a seventy year. Old korean war veteran received personal death threats from because of his anti-gang work and chicago said well. You can have a rifle or shotgun. He knew how to use a rightfully been in the korean war. But for his condition in the apartment he lived in with his physical strength and agility and the current status. It was the handgun. Was the right choice for him. For self defense and the bigoted city council chicago would not allow him to use that. And that's why the second amendment was necessary and it's necessary in new york city right now if you have a handgun permit in new york city. You can go on a trip. You can drive from brooklyn all the way to seattle and lawfully carry that gun in every in your car in every state across the country. And it's a good secure thing to have in case your car breaks down in the middle of the night someplace on a deserted road but the new york city police department won't let you take the handgun out of the city. There is no rational basis. For that prohibition it is purely for the oppression of gun owners to the detriment of self defense is a dangerous law and second amendment lawsuit will likely be necessary to remove that. I urge you to vote against this deadly dangerous proposition to vote for public safety based on the recognition. That today the second amendment rains vitally necessary to the security of a free state. Thank you now onto our next debate. We did this more than ten years ago but the topic was so controversial. We compelled to include it. The motion language was guns. Reduce crime have listened. Ever have one of those ideas that you just don't know how to get started on turning into a reality if you have procrastinated on this you're not alone. Experts say that not knowing how or where to start is one of the biggest causes of procrastination and not following through on ideas and projects. That is where the blink is to app comes in lincoln takes top nonfiction books pulls.

Sandy levin david coppola denver university sturm colleg david cocoa bogalusa federal judicial center independence institute otis mcdonald chicago cato institute congress of racial equality ku Heller new york city ross louisiana city council dick new york city police departmen washington
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

05:00 min | 6 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Nor vpn dot com slash intelligence. Welcome back to intelligence squared us. I'm your host john donvan. Let's return to our discussion. Thank you for that wrap up. Frank says no. You've now heard the first opening remarks. Then let's move onto the screen next arguing for the resolution of the new york. Times has lost its way among yasha screen is yours. Thanks so much. I'm really looking forward to this debate. And a couple of important things in which we agree. We all agree the new york times as one of the most important institutions in the united states. We all want the new york times to succeed. We also all agree. That new york times is not donald. Trump would put it the failing new of times. The idea that the paper is in financial trouble. Ovitz about to go bankrupt. Fed is about to fail in. That kind of way is really raw. My interest in this between need a newspaper of record. She's luffing your times It's we need an institution. Envy nited states that people from different hats of a political spectrum can look to recognize even if it is beautiful often that it represents the truth that it represents reality in a way that vein can trust and the thing. I'm worried about a central three main changes times implemented over the last year's detract from its standing as the newspaper of record. The i is a very clear narrowing opinion envy up and you didn't have to take my impression as read on that. You can take what that columnists within the new york. Times are saying when he talked Multiple figures within at world f told me over the last years that even quite uncontroversial criticisms of progressive orthodoxy chand by the editors assad things that you simply cannot same time even if ninety percent of a population in america might agree with them. One example of this is very hard within the new york times. Criticize the idea of defending the police and yet we have seen just now in the mail race in new york city that the top candidates chosen by people of color in a progressive city in the united states. Very much in disagreement with that. Slow the second thing i worry about. Is that this is not on just about your opinion pages. It is also a bad news coverage yet increasing seeing an attempt to get away from the old form of the tippety which could be devolve into two ciders abba. Climate change should get scientists who believes in climate change. One denies it. Good when visit consensus. Which would be reflected in the pages of terms the new moral clarity as journalists. Hold it often goes in the opposite direction. The news pages of coming away of managing benard of trying to make clear a which side is right even when that side is making a mistake so the question about future of new york times is not whether it will succeed financially. I'm confident that it will. It's about the role that it's likely to play in american and as has argued at the moment in your times is running after its subscriber base tries to maximize the revenue dollars from the people who most agree with the world of new york times. It is entrusted turning into an american version of guiding stokes. Piece full the most progressive voices in the country. What we need is to preserve the road of the newspaper of record that can actually be a basis of reality for automatic. That is what your time. Losing that is wi fi but is losing. Its thank you again. Our final opening statement will be against the resolution. It comes from virginia heffernan. Virginia your moment. So i started writing for the new york times almost exactly twenty years ago and i was on staff for eight of those years. i should say about the liberal elite according to pew center last year the numbers are very different from what baccio adjust represented to us thirty eight percent of the times readers earn more than seventy five thousand dollars a year but twenty five percent earn between thirty and seventy five thousand dollars and twenty six percent have a household income under thirty thousand dollars in the midst of this debate. I wanna tell you about. Just one article. The obituary of mary. Tyler moore not exactly world's historical piece in two thousand six when moore was still alive..

the new york times john donvan yasha Ovitz united states new york Trump donald Frank Fed new york city virginia heffernan pew center baccio Virginia
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

05:41 min | 7 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"That democrats until joe manchin couple of days ago. Basically said look. I'm willing to accept alternative forms of voter. I d by accept the principle of to be some voter. I d. I think the democrats argument but reid. E is untenable to the average person. When you say look we only vacation all because to do so is to basically discriminate against people who don't have conventional wars of. Id are the average person doesn't buy that or surely. The person who skeptical results don't doesn't buy that One thing i think it would tremendously. Enhanced legitimacy of the election is if we at least accepted the principle variety. And we're gonna agree that you know your your utility bill or some other of ide- can substitute for having a driver's license or something else. I think that's one example where you would diffuse a lot of attention. Because that's what people are angry on immigration. The reason people are angry as a people jumping. They jump over the line and they come You're illegally and that's what we've been arguing about for decades but most people in america are for legal immigration and it's the violating the rules part. That people look show about or worried. Short take trump on immigration. I think there are certain public policy issues. Where at least the two sides to agree. Look if we can solve this problem. A lot is anger will go away. Would be a much better place. But i cannot song the crazy stuff you know the Legitimate upper worry. Because there's no way to rebut that You're not gonna change your mind. There are some people that no matter what you do. How maturity show is using our j. shore portion. I wish i were as optimistic. Robert as you are in that there are data sets that were policy changes that would kind of alleviate a lot of magical thinking and i think it goes it shows up in different places on the political spectrum but for instance not cunanan per se but save republicans feeling like the election was a fraud. Because they're guide lost. Know i think that a lot of the times. These anxieties zaid is underlying. It expresses itself in different ways. And i think what we're really focus or what we're what we're seeing in american society. There is a major restructuring going on of the economy of the demography of america. It's very it's very similar to me of the nineteen twenties and where the economy went from being kind of rural to being industrialized and urbanized. There was a ultimately cap put on immigrants but there were You know the the popcorn population of the united states reached its its peak there is about a world that seems to be beyond control and so people you know they will latch on the move onto the next thing if you say okay well. It's not voter fraud or it's not legal versus illegal immigration. And i'm i'm part of me is not worried about that because i do see it as a triumph of an america where people are able to participate more fully in their subjective. Experience is more powerful. I mean a lot of. There's the whole remember in the eighties and nineties. When spike lee would wear t shirts saying it's a black thing and it was this primacy put on subjective experience which i will not and cannot communicate to another person but you better live as if my subjective experience matters as much as yours. Some of that is good. Some of that i think is a fulfillment of american ideal of kind of individualism and experiments and living. But i you know. I worry that we are not dealing with this. Larger question of what is the broad narrative that knits together. America's society for a while you know in the in the post war era was we were an immigrant nation Now we don't have what wesley yang-ho successor ideology that that knits us together. And so i think until we until we forge that at the highest level. It's going to be hard to really expiate. The most bizarre and potentially destructive kind of conspiracy theories however we define that term. Our hope is to able to where the two sides can you know have something productive and walk away with the solution so you know. Hopefully that's what we're striving for in this next year and through the upcoming debates that that will be mounting and look forward to nick and robert you know having both you involved we'll tell them of you listening I we've you a good sort of glimpse as i said behind the scenes in both how we had to pivot this year. And the way we think about these things in the way we are continuing to think about these things. And i really mean it. We would love to hear from you after. You've heard this conversation just to get your thoughts on some of what we've talked about. We really take a thought out outside. Suggestions and perspectives. Really really seriously. And i i'll say once again That we really value your financial support. Where our nonprofit. The end of our fiscal year is coming up. June thirtieth and we really hope you'll consider donation which by the way is tax deductible. And it's going to help us get our next year going we to do more of this. We want to bring more debates. We want to keep things going like the newsletter that we launched this year And we have our new One on one debate series where we will be talking about news in the headlines it takes money and people like you value our content and one others to have access to it as well. We have a membership program. I mentioned that where you get inside access to our events and all that's available at our website iq to us dot.

Robert america nick June thirtieth joe manchin robert eighties two sides this year trump republicans both one example united states democrats couple of days ago next year reid. nineteen twenties decades
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

07:13 min | 7 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"The competitive juices or something that do give people an interest in debating And and we can't ignore that but the main purpose in the classroom is pedagogy goal is to have students teach each other and They all learn from that and they do a non threatening way because one of the things of us. Remember from school with the sage on the stage as we all know. The way classrooms. Were even teachers especially teachers user product. Nothing they started on kids. Your right and left. The kids are intimidated. The one the talk the most vocal. We's upfront who always waging her hand and the rest of the classic georgia were makes fun of them We know that's what school life. That's not the best way to learn the best way to learn as i be able to speak at him understand and an an and try to persuade somebody. And we're a new that you have to understand the tory sell secondly listen And you're more likely to remember things that you've talked about yourself. Plus you're more likely to learn things. I went on the if they're coming from other schools and what the function of a teacher in a classroom is doing this to make sure the kids. You're saying civil that the thinking of all the arguments they should've could've raised and the teacher becomes more of a mentor and facilitator rather than just a lecturer now not advocating do this every day. If you can do one day per unit or maybe two days pregnant it would. I think put some spice in the classroom and and help his learn and as point out of the book this technique is being used in some schools in boston and chicago with great success and i argued. It ought to be spread throughout the country. Klay i'm wondering what roberts comments make you make you think in terms of what we do where we do put a premium. We set it up. So there's a premium winning the the the audience. We have the audience. Vote Nick you you might think about giving the winners a cash prize. If you're serious legal representation. I don't know nick. Let me start with you. And then and then i would like to go to klay with a knick how important to you. I think you've won every debate. I think you're one of our few on record four. Yes yeah all right. Mike tyson mike tyson before buster douglas. That's how do you do you care. I i really wanna know. Does it matter does it. Is it the debate and the opportunity to present the ideas that matters more to or do you actually really care about the winning. You do care about the winning and the way you guys frame it you force us in our prep and whatnot to to go for the win and to you. Remind us to remind the audience that we want to win this particular vote and i think that's a helpful Kind of spur to do your best work and to present your best case. I'd i do think that the the main function of something like intelligence squared. And i take it very seriously is to model for a broader society particularly broader public intellectual society or public discourse about serious ideas. It's a model of how do you. How do you take contentious issues and come to some kind of shared understanding of either their importance or what is to be done and i think it functions in that way so i do care about winning robert. Unfortunately sent me. We'll talk you about high school and big in high school and doing extracurricular activities like my entire existence in high school. What being on a soccer team. That couldn't score a goal. An season taught me was like how to lose with grace. And so i'm happy to hear that some people participate in things like debater or high school sports and learn how win gracefully but my experience was different but it does focus. You know having it it it you know in the end more. I'm more satisfied. When i feel like i've learned a lot from the other side whether or not i've won something. You very gracious winner. I should say because you have always said at. The end of the debate congratulated the other side. And you've conceded that you learn things from them you've found things that they said persuasive and that's kind of our gold standard for being a a sort of not a sore winner a gracious. Well i if. I may just to extend your i say again you know in this might be more of a meta commentary but i think one of the profound difficulties with contemporary american culture. Is you know we have more opportunities to engage each other to convince each other to see realities that we normally ignore or don't want to consider arguments from people's experience and people's knowledge that we normally see and you know it being able to kind of stand in the glare of things that you don't understand don't agree with or don't want to watch is super important and i think you know that's part of what debates do is they force you to rethink your basic reality and know. God that's like we need more of that rather than less of that. You and i have had a lot of conversations about the the winning the win-lose aspect of the of of our program. What are you. What are you thinking about it. These days. I vacillate between you know. Do we need it to. It's crucial There there are times where i think in. And maybe i would love to hear what nicotine and robert thank. You know The construct of winning in our society right now in post trump era Where there is there are still parts of the country contesting the vote of who won the election and winning in in this kind of. I don't know when i think about winning now. I'm wondering if it's more divides if the idea that you have to win. Something is is making discourse more toxic and more divisive. And as i as. I've looked at our work. You know. We're starting to roll out some programs that aren't about winning. Actually john. you mentioned the agree to disagree program which is two perspectives. You know there's a lot of daylight between these two perspectives so that you can kind of make up your mind be informed an- and not influenced by an outcome because winning also comes with it. I think in in debate. Maybe a right or wrong. You know if your side loses it you know. Let's look at it from the perspective of the losing side. You know that is less likely to say. Share the debate with their community less likely to advocate for listening to this and engaging with it. Because you know they're they're they don't have that validation of having changed the most minds a lot you know and also the way that you know. Our fans know exactly. How do this but if you don't know how we calculate a winner for the debates. It's the side that changes the most mines is declared the winner. There's not an absolute sense. But in percentage point terms yes right right in percentage point terms but what that often means if you look at the two hundred debates we've done is there's kind of two winners way..

Mike tyson boston mike tyson two days chicago Nick one day nick two hundred debates john buster douglas trump nicotine robert two winners Klay two perspectives one roberts unit
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

03:26 min | 8 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Trading you a camel for your gold coin. How do i trusted you. Debase the coin or not the guy who has monopoly on violence in an area crates. Put his face on the coins. As if you debase this kill you. That's a business model way to monetize monopoly on violence that enables us to engage in our trade so for six thousand years. That's the way we've been going about solving things. We create these central institutions that since we can't trust each other we just trust them for the first time in six thousand years. We can have consensual exchange among strangers. Humans have done by creating these institutions and those institutions. Have accumulated like barnacles on the hull of civilization. Some of them are private corporations. Some of them are functions of government but remember they didn't come out of a burning bush. We created them so we can go about achieving our ends. It's now possible to achieve those functions without those institutions. It's much bigger than the internet. The internet disrupted publishing. I've been in a silicon valley company. One hundred sixty institutions on the wall. Everything from notary publics to wall street to many of the functions of lawyers and judges can all be reduced a smart contracts and such so we will not have to rely on those central institutions. Nearly as much going forward some of the old timers here may remember the soviet union and there was this country that tried to run itself setting prices. Twenty three million prices sent by some bureaucrat in moscow in a big ledger book and we think that's ridiculous how silly these people were to try to run a society with them setting prices on twenty three million things. What's the single most important price. Any society faces. It's the price at which we discount. The future against the president which is to say interest rates and currently that price is being sent and a central department of central planning call. The united states federal reserve my worthy opponent ever opposing her believes that we need government to manage to address the money supply to manage the economy. People like this when you hear that. Remember the dilbert strip the pointy hair manager in the corner. Who is he knows. What's best what could possibly go wrong every day. He's got a different solution to something. And that is the mentality of the people who think that we need government to do all these things i. They need to manage our money supply for us. We have to communicate with each other information about value and scarcity. That's what a prices. It's a packet of information about value and scarcity. We want a form of money. We can communicate that information to each other without having to go through through some field that any government mandarin controls. Then we can really communicate the truth to each other. The mandarin's want to have their hands on the dial to be able to just that field and distort that signal to serve their own private political. And that's why they're against bitcoin. They don't wanna form money. That mandarins can't control. We have seen in the last financial crisis. The allah guards bought themselves some senators. They bought themselves congressman. They bought themselves the esteemed regulators. One thing that they can't buy the mathematics that underlies cryptography which is why we should rebuild our social institutions on crypto and in particular bitcoin. Thank.

Twenty three million twenty three million six thousand years first time single One hundred sixty institutions dilbert One thing soviet union each bitcoin mandarin united states
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

01:31 min | 8 months ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Tim. Welcome to intelligence squared. Us venture capitalist. You're the founder of draper associates and d. f. j. and draper university. You were an early investor in companies. Some people may have heard of tesla hotmail skype. How does bitcoin compare. Oh this is bigger than all of those combined. This is bigger than the iron age. The renaissance it's bigger than the industrial revolution. This affects the entire world. And it's going to be affected in a faster and more prevalent way than you ever imagine. I wish we knew what you really thoughts. Thank you tim. Draper and again the team arguing for the motion and with the motion. Bitcoin is more than a bubble in here to stay. We have two great debaters arguing against please. I welcome eric. posner eric. Urine intelligence squared veteran. Welcome back you're a professor at the university of chicago. You are one of the most significant legal scholars in the united states author of a lot of books including radical markets up rooting capitalism and democracy for adjusts -iety in a sentence what is a radical market radical market is a market that is designed so as to promote both welfare equality and many of our markets need to be improved and this book suggests various ways that that can be done with the punctuation. You use that actually was one sentence. Well thank you. Eric hosmer and.

Eric hosmer Tim tim one sentence draper university united states one eric. posner eric both d. f. j. draper associates university of chicago Draper skype two great debaters tesla intelligence squared hotmail
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

04:51 min | 1 year ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"America's working class has been cheated is an assertion that has been getting a lot of currency lately are last presidential election went deep on that claim in both parties by the way and the culprit most often blamed for that. . It's that monstrous five syllable word globalization, , the philosophy and the practice of free trade which has been great for companies and for shareholders but has had a devastating impact. . It is argued on the American working woman and. Man . Well Economist do agree that in the past four decades the American working class, , which we're defining tonight as people who lack a four year college degree. . They have seen flat wages and a steady disappearance of good jobs. . But is globalization a main reason that that's happening to those workers and for those workers is globalization entirely bad. . Well, , we think this has the makings of a debate. . So let's have it. . Yes or no to this statement globalization. . has undermined. . America's working. . Class I'm John Donavan, , and I stand between two teams of experts in this topic who argue for and against this resolution globalization has undermined America's working class as always. Our . debate will go in three rounds and then our live audience here at the Saint Regis Hotel and Aspen Colorado where we are appearing in partnership with the Aspen Ideas Festival will choose the winner and as always if all goes well civil discourse, , we'll. . Also win a resolution once again, globalization , has undermined America's Working Class Jared Bernstein you have debated with us before. . So welcome back you're a senior fellow at the center on Budget and policy priorities. . You were Vice President Joe. Biden's . chief economist. . The last time you debated with US interestingly Jason Furman who is your opponent at the other table tonight was your debate partner as a team you were formidable formidable I, , almost want to use the French pronunciation. . Formula, , so are you planning to use your insiders knowledge of Jason's debate battles against him to very much am the way to do that with Jason is to make a lot of sports analogies because they repealing confusing. . All right. . Thank you and I see you detail to Aspen. . You were a to aspen well I. . Think the guy with the tie is the guy you want to listen to, but , I'll let you decide. . All right. . Thanks very much. Jared . Bernstein and can tell us who your partner is. . This someone I've known for twenty five years she's a dear friend of mine and I consider her my mentor in this topic feely gentlemen feeling. . Theo welcome to intelligence squared your president of the Economic Policy Institute. . You've spent two decades as an economist for the AFL CIO, , which is America's largest federation of unions. It . represents some twelve point, five, , , million working women and men. . You've spent twenty five years working on trade policy. . So what got you interested in trade? ? Well, , when I came to Washington in the early nineties I got drawn. . INTO THE NAFTA debate the North American Free Trade. Agreement. . . And I realized pretty early on that. This . was not some kind of a dry text book discussion about tariffs but it was a transnational battle over democracy good jobs, , workers, , rights, , and regulation. . So I was hooked because a lots at stake a lot is at stake. . Okay. Thanks . very much thelia once again, , team arguing for the motion. . And motion again, , globalization has undermined America's working class. . We have to debaters arguing against it, , I Jason Firm. . Welcome back to intelligence squared Jason you're a professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School you're a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, , you were Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama tonight. . As we said, , you're going to be debating your former colleague Jared Bernstein on the impact of globalization. . So is this the first time you to have debated the globalization issue with each other jared and I agree on I'd say about ninety five percent of economic issues and my goal tonight is to bring to one hundred percent. . Thanks very much Jason and can you tell us who your partner is someone I've only known for a few years and every single thing. . He's ever told me I have believed James Manica Legitimate James Manyika. . Welcome the first time telling squared you're a senior partner at McKinsey, , and company you're the chairman of their economics research arm, , the McKinsey Global Institute, , your first time debating with us. . But not your first debate you debated at Oxford I did you studied robotics and computers earlier in your career you were visiting scientist at NASA. . So how do you go from very eclectic from robotics and space to thinking about trade policy? ? In American. . Workers I've always been fascinated by the kinds of technologies that drive innovation and growth, , but also affects what will people in the real world actually do. . So when you put that together with the economy, , these issues around trade and workforce become very, , very important. . Those are the issues that motive a great perspective to bring here and then once again, , thank you. . Thank you again to the team arguing against them. .

Jared Bernstein America Jason Furman partner Aspen Saint Regis Hotel chief economist John Donavan feely Vice President senior fellow Colorado Biden
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

03:16 min | 3 years ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Neil cuss Gari, and our final speaker making his closing statement against the resolution here is Kenneth Rogoff economist and professor at Harvard. There is a wonderful book by not at Maadi at Stanford and Martin Hellwig called the bankers new clothes, and they basically make the argument that you should have banks have much more of their own skin in the game and in response to well there's twice as much equity as there used to be a knots response is twice. Nothing is still nothing. There's very little and another analogy, she uses is okay. We used to have trucks loaded with stuff driving at one hundred miles per hour. Now, there's trucks loaded with more stuff and they're only driving at ninety five miles an hour. But it's not a very safe system. I wish I could tell you that you should sleep better at night. I'm afraid we live and this very uncertain world. And I have to come back to the Trump argument. Simply we don't have a safe pair of hands. I wouldn't feel good in any kind of crisis. Thank you can real go. And that concludes closing statements for this Hilton squared US debate. I know have the results of your vote. Our resolution is this ten years after the global financial crisis. The system is safer. Remember, it's the difference between the first and the second vote determines who is our winner on the first twenty nine percent of you agreed with this resolution. Forty nine percent disagreed and twenty two percent undecided. On the second vote the team arguing for the resolution. Their first vote was twenty nine percent. Their second vote was thirty five percent. They picked up six percentage points. That's the number to beat team arguing against the resolution. Their first vote was forty nine percent. The second vote was fifty seven percent. They pulled up eight percentage points. They just nicked out victory on that team arguing against the resolution. Our congratulations to them. Thank you for me. John donvan and intelligence squared US. We'll see next time. As the results were being counted? We kept chatting on stage. And I asked Neil Kush. Cari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Why last year he voted four times against raising interest rates or the big surprise? We've had is we kept thinking where at maximum employment. Everybody who wants to work are they able to find a job, but then month after month all these Americans are coming off the sidelines. I wanna see evidence that we're actually their wage growth picks up. We've really know that okay. We're finally at maximum placement. And then that leads to inflation. So I'm not opposed to rate hikes ever. But I wanna see evidence at the US economy is finally hitting on all cylinders. Everybody's able to find a job who wants to find a job when that happens. It'll be time for me to then go ahead and raise rates. This intelligence squared US. Debate was recorded live at the Cape playhouse theatre in New York City. Robert Rosencrantz is our chairman Liam Matthau is chief content officer Amy craft is director of operations and production shale merit as manager of at a total operations Aaron Dalton and rob Christians and other radio producers Damon Whitmore's, the audio engineer,.

Neil Kush US Kenneth Rogoff Martin Hellwig Harvard Stanford Cape playhouse theatre John donvan Gari professor Liam Matthau New York City Robert Rosencrantz Federal Reserve Bank chief content officer Cari director of operations Minneapolis
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

03:16 min | 3 years ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Are banking system has always been at the center of crises, but our banking systems been tracking. And that's one of the reasons the US came out faster. It's less important to our system. Can we weren't even looking before? No, one was looking at Leeman Fannie, and Freddie could borrow as much as they want. Now, we're looking at them, we may not see everything and Fannie, and Freddie can't borrow all they want see one of the challenges. I have with your argument is that you're basically saying this is an unsolvable problem because the next crisis is going to come from somewhere different. So there's nothing you can do about it. We've taken the smart rational actions looking at the history of the world economy where crises have come from in the past made Putin measures. But to just say, well, we don't know an asteroid might hit us. Well, what are we supposed to do with that? As policymakers we have to make decisions based on data and analysis in history and we've made smart decisions based on that. And the system is clearly safer just saying we haven't defended against an asteroid isn't very. Helpful. But Rosengren that's a fair characterization to make the system safer. You need to have banks that stand on their own two feet with the failure of one big institution. But you already conceded that Capitol Hill was capital helps right apple helps. But once an institution fails, it is absolutely as likely that it's going to drag the system down with it as it was ten years ago. I think the main thing that could make the system safer is if you eliminated two ribs over the counter, derivatives simply ban them of responsiveness in there. If you're worried that a Bank will take the whole system down twice as much capital as they used to have. We had no bankruptcy regime for Leman. Also there's rules. If just you're sort of playing vanilla industrial company goes bankrupt does rules if a small Bank goes bankrupt. We had no way at all of handling Leeman. We have one on paper now goes by the name resolution authority written. Out a living will all of them. What they do again. Do. I think it's going to be perfect. Am I sure it's gonna work exactly in a crisis? No. But boy, do I feel better knowing that we have those rules now to handle the bankruptcy of a large complex financial. Do we think they're going to allow a large Bank to go bankrupt? Because they've also made it hard for the fed to do. The more creative things that it did in order to avoid that. I think the market doesn't believe that they'd be allowed to go under. I think the fed just needs to be a little bit more creative than it did last time. And if it does that it can do everything, and I think the markets more realistic about the banks. Now, Ken Rogoff made an argument that he doesn't think that we're in safe hands these days. He didn't mention anybody by name. Our alliances are frayed. Brexit also a mess, which is serious partner last time. If a crisis were to come today, they're arguing that we don't have the cool heads that would be able to handle it no-cash car. You take that argument on people may forget in the middle of the financial crisis. We had a presidential election in two thousand eight Senator McCain, and then Senator Obama that was hardly political 'harmonious time. I mean, I was sitting in the gallery above the house of representatives. When the house voted down tarp the first time members of congress telling us their phones ringing off the hook ninety nine to one saying don't you dare vote for this. Then the Dow Jones industrial average on seven hundred seventy seven points that afternoon and two days later, they voted for it..

Leeman Fannie fed US Ken Rogoff Freddie Senator McCain Putin Senator Obama Rosengren Leman congress apple Brexit
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

03:55 min | 3 years ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"They say it's not just about the banking system. It's one of the most important arguments that there are several other financial markets. Those markets are getting bigger they are essentially black boxes as they have always been computers running the system that lack of human hand on the. Throttle big banks, which are now forbidden from trading for their own accounts. They say that banks are so intertwined that. If one of them goes the rest of them are right for falling down like dominoes. Do you trust those in charge these days, they ask? And finally, they look at China, and they say the China is a much bigger player and is not such a cooperative partner. What if it starts what if that fire starts, do we have the tools to respond to a global financial crisis? So to the team arguing for the resolution because you lead so strongly with the notion that the banking system is safer. Well, they can see that that that's not the whole story. It's much bigger than that. Neil. You spoke first. So if you could take that on if you look at many elements of the financial system outside of the banks, it's also safer derivatives, many derivatives now go through a house where it's not just in the shadows one Bank to another Bank. But they're centrally located. There's a lot of transparency securitization is way down money markets are much safer than they were fifteen years ago. So you're right, there are still risks out there. But if you look at the whole. Financial system outside of the banking sector on most dimensions. It is substantially safer than it was ten or fifteen years ago. Now, we're not arguing that nothing can go wrong on almost every dimension. It is safer Barbara's and Cranston respond. I think what are opponents are addressing is the last war. Well, if the same crisis unfolded again today, we'd be better equipped to deal with it generals are great at fighting the last war. Nobody predicted the financial crisis last time. And I don't think anybody's predicting or can predict what might trigger next time. It could be a political event that could be something in Iran could be something in China. I don't find very satisfying the argument that we're better at fighting the last war still the failure of one big Bank can bring the system down. We haven't really addressed the interdependence of financial institution. Okay. Let me let Jason Furman jump in on that. So would Bob rose. And Chris I'm hearing him saying no matter where the next crisis comes from the tools that were developed at the last time may not be relevant. Yeah. I mean, we've fought hundreds of wars, and this isn't some random little footnote that's been the source of a lot of the financial crises throughout history, and whatever goes wrong anywhere in the system, far banking system has a lot more resources than it had. I feel better about it. No matter what the problem, your your response to their point that the banking system is now a small part of the overall sector is actually no it's still pretty central its central to the financial system, the banks borrow money, very short term, and they lend it long term and that mismatch can create a problem because you got the it's a wonderful life type Bank run. We've reduced the risk of that in the banking system. But you had that throughout the financial system with lots of institutions, borrowing and things like overnight repo Tri party repo they were putting up. Securities that were terrible and junk, and then that all of that collapsed. All of those parts of the financial systems the way we manufacture derivatives all of that. We've changed quite a lot. We don't know where it's coming next. That's why we're looking in a lot more places now than we were decade ago. Ken Rogoff, another example in addition to what Bob setup the next were cyber war. Cybersecurity is just we just don't know what happens as you put constraints on the banking system the stuff flows. Elsewhere interest rates are very low people are looking for rest. Former Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen commented on this recently coming in.

China Bob rose Ken Rogoff Federal Reserve Jason Furman Janet Yellen Neil partner Iran Chris I Barbara Cranston fifteen years
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

04:22 min | 3 years ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Are nonfinancial system is safer. Our international system is safer monetary and fiscal policy have just about as much room as they had before the crisis. So overall the system as a whole is safer. Thank you. Thank you. And that motion again, ten years after the global financial crisis. The system is safer and here making his opening statement against the motion Kenneth Rogoff economist and professor at Harvard. Kenneth rogoff. When you have financial crises, the next wars usually pretty different than the last were they don't always come from the same place. It's certainly important to prepare for what happened last time. But I think a really critical element of the system is the leadership is when we had the financial crisis most famously Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke key. Tim guidance are a very strong team, and they had support President Bush, even though he was a conservative and wanted to have tight budgets. Well, except when he cut taxes he said, he wanted tight budgets, but he got up and said, we're going to something like a four hundred fifty billion dollar stimulus Obama later increase that that was very painful, but the point is they had his support we have excellent central banks now, but you need more than that. When you have a financial crisis. You need the support of the president you needed the support of congress tarp which was. Very important part of dealing with natural crisis. That was really something. Congress struggled through. Mario Draghi's the central Bank was famous. You may have heard this in Europe. We will do whatever it takes. And believe me it will be enough. When he said those words, it was considered absolutely watershed in the European financial crisis. I simply don't think that we have a safe pair of hands at the moment, not just at the highest level. But the team I'm sorry to appeal to this. But it's the world that we actually live in even if we had competent technocrats, I'm not sure they'd be lesson to if you go across the pond, the UK's the other big financial system there like committing suicide right now in the UK, and they're not even facing a real problem. I think it's I think it's clear that you know, in general the problems deeper than just the person's it's something having to do with populism. Our ability to do fiscal policy is limited fiscal policy. He's actually not the sterile thing in a textbook, not just whether you cut taxes, do you raise government spending whose taxes what do you spend on? I don't have the impression even in the United States much less than other countries. We're going to do this in a very nuanced way. That's going to work well as far as monetary policy. Goes the tools are very limited. And we have learned something we have learned that a lot of these creative tools. Don't really work. Very well. I do concede that the banking system narrowly defined is safer, but the financial system is not necessarily safer financial system is a hold. It gets gotten bigger. The IMF reports two hundred trillion dollars in debt and using Bob's analogy of a car on a hill. Your brakes may have gotten better, but you're in a much higher hill than you were in terms of our financial system. Interest rates are very low. But what if they're not what if global interest rates? Went up. We are not tuned to deal with that. At the moment. There's so many things that would blow up if you feel safer about anything right now. You're dreaming. Thank you, Ken Rogoff, and that includes around one of this intelligence graduates debate. Now, we move onto round two and round two is where the debaters address one another directly, and they also take questions from me. And from you our live audience here in New York City. Our resolution is ten years after the global financial crisis. The system is safer. We have heard Neil crush Ghauri and Jason Furman. Make the argument that the biggest banks are safer their capital requirements are higher and encouraging and rational that we have learned things as a result of what happened in two thousand eight in the aftermath how to use tools, then they look overseas and they look at Europe. And they say Europe has learned a lot that we have partners who we can work with you know, what they're doing the team arguing against the motion, Robert Rosencrantz and Ken Rogoff..

Kenneth rogoff Europe Mario Draghi President Bush New York City UK Hank Paulson president Congress IMF Harvard United States Obama Ben Bernanke Tim
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

04:46 min | 3 years ago

"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

"Income no job. No asset you get a mortgage. Right. No more. You can't do that anymore. So if you look outside of the banking sector the rest of the financial system is also safer than it was ten years ago. One we do if a crisis actually happened. So I'm gonna. Talk monetary policy. So I'm president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis. I've one of the policymakers who set monetary policy for the nation if there's a recession or if there's a crisis typically with the Federal Reserve will do is it will cut interest rates to try to stimulate the economy interest rates are lower today than they were ten years ago that around two and a half percent for the federal funds rate. People will say, well that means the Federal Reserve has less room to cut than it did ten years ago, and that's true. But we have other tools to also stimulate the economy quantitative easing where the Federal Reserve will go out and buy long-term bonds to try to drive down long term interest rates. If there's a recession we wanna make it cheaper for you to go get a mortgage or for a business to go, get alone. One of the things that the fed has now that we didn't have ten years ago. We have a lot more experience using some of these other tools. The fed did it in the crisis. But they weren't sure if it was going to work ten years later, we have a lot more experience on how to use these other tool so overall on monetary policy where. About even overall. The system is safer thinking he'll coach curry the resolution again ten years after the global financial crisis. The system is safer here to make his opening statement against the motion, Robert Rosencrantz, chairman of Delphi capital management, and the intelligence squared US foundation. The system is extremely opaque and very interdependent to riveted 's over the counter derivatives. There are some ten trillion dollars of over the counter derivatives outstanding the total capital the banking system is about one point two trillion. Banks Mark them, according to models, the models that are inconsistent subject to error. The other thing that creates potential for crisis is when everybody in the market wants to act in the same way at the same time. Things have gotten worse in that dimension spread of algorithm trading. There's so much money computer algorithms that have no human intervention another thing that exotic. Bates. This is the role of rating agencies about forty five percent of investment grade. Bond market is now rated triple b one downgrade, and it's junk and all those holders are forced to sell in unison. If you imagine that the financial system is a car at the crest of a hill. It's gotten out of control a lot of accelerators of trouble are at least as much as they were ten years ago, if not more so let's talk about the brakes the potential for reduced interest rates at a two and a half percent level is not very far to cut another potential break fiscal stimulation will we running about a five percent deficit at the peak of economic expansion far less room for fiscal stimulation now than there was a decade ago. Last time the financial crisis featured a very high degree of cooperation internationally, the central banks of the world. And the regulators really did get their act together coordinated a global response. Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that ability to create global coordination as much much lower. Now, China's a much more important factor in the global equation are relationships, they're broken Europe, and the UK or going their separate ways in a chaotic fashion potential for international cooperation is far less than it was the shock absorber. And the system is liquidity the ability of somebody to come into markets where everybody is going in the opposite direction. Banks used to have that role all the regulation that they're so proud of has actually regulated to a very diminished role as market makers, which means that if there's any event that triggers a wave of selling the shock absorbers in the system the liquidity in the. System has been seriously seriously compromised and any event that triggers coordinated action by market participants is more up now than it was then to create a major crisis. The system is not safer. Thank you. Is the global financial system safer than it was ten years ago. More opening statements coming up on intelligence, squared US. Since nineteen twenty two the magazine foreign affairs has been the leading publication for serious.

Federal Reserve Federal Reserve Bank president Minneapolis Bates China Europe Delphi US foundation Robert Rosencrantz chairman UK ten years ten trillion dollars