17 Burst results for "U.S."

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

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

04:54 min | 1 year 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
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

07:46 min | 1 year 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

08:04 min | 1 year ago

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

"I probably think it's a stronger. Possibility of the mark does. But that's that's. I don't expect that that will happen in. And that's not my main concern. My main concern instead. Is that the federal reserve decides that it needs to pump the brakes on the economy. Because it knows that that that eddie actions that takes today you know take several months to really kick in and so it's tried it's trying to figure out are we gonna have inflation six months from now. Are we going to have inflation nine months from now. Is it going to be trouble. A what should we do today to to react to what we think might happen in the future An the fed decides that it wants to slow the economy but but not put it in reverse An and the fed just isn't isn't able to to micromanage the the economy with enough precision to To to execute that that outcome and so instead of slowing the economy it does end up putting the economy in in in reverse. I think i think that is a very real risk that we face right now. If you if you look at household inflation expectations they've they've risen considerably there near five percent at this point If you look at the behavior of consumer and producer prices you see worrying signs as well And that's without another three and a half trillion dollars of Of a government spending. So that i think is is is is is a very important very important distinction to make the distinction between inflation being bad because it leads the fed to accidentally caused a recession and inflation being bad because we got a repeat the nineteen sixties. Michael makes a good case in. You know economists have their views. I will point out that the collective wisdom in the financial markets is no problem. Don't worry there's no inflationary issues. I mean you can go take a look at the the interest rates tenure treasury yields for example. And you can tease out of that. What the expectations are of investors again. The global collective wisdom of investors about future inflation and. They're they're saying no problem in fact what they're saying now is inflation is exactly precisely where you would want it to be somewhere between two and two and a half percent and of course these are people who are putting their money where their mouth is or buying bonds and they're looking at ten years because these are tenure investments in their say. Hey you know. And i know there's gonna. I'm pricing in the very clear likelihood that we are going to get a big package from the president. That's embedded in these allegations. But yet don't don't worry this the and of course the bond market could be wrong to who who's know but you know the collective judgment is that You know this is just about right. It's you know right right exactly down the strike zone in terms of where we want inflation to be. Yeah i i. I agree with mark about that and i think it's important to to look at what the market is telling us. I would just. I would add that if you go back to last year. The bond market was expecting about one point six percent inflation over the next five years now. The bond market has expecting about two point four percent inflation. So that's a substantial increase in just one year and again this is. This is before another big fiscal policy package. And so the question you know i. It's a question about what's gonna happen in the future. What makes it which makes it really difficult. But the question is if congress does pass and other big big spending bill that is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two years. What does that do to to to the outlook. I'm going. I'm going to call an impasse on the question of inflation because you clearly disagree. I don't think you're going to persuade each other on that one. But i want to take a look at the matter of the timing of these proposed spending plans and i take note of the fact. michael your most. Recent book is titled. The american dream is not dead and you. Have you have an optimistic. Take on On on the economy and on the ability of people. Certainly the middle class to to to be to prosper Not without any. You're not in any way saying things are perfect by no means. But you're you're you're generally more optimistic than a lot of people. I'm i'm curious. I'm going to start with you mark on this one. A large part of this of the proposed expenditures for example on on climate. Change on On a childcare on education. They don't have anything to do with coming back from a pandemic necessarily these. These same proposals could have been put on the table and argued for two years ago five years ago and so my question is is this a situation where president biden and his party are are as the saying goes not letting crisis go to waste and enacting changes to to to to fix what they see as serious problems with the economy some of which you outlined for example income and wealth inequality The the access to the to the workplace of of Of of women and minorities the weakness of unions all sorts of things that the the democratic party or certain wings of it have stood for for a long time. Are they using this moment of crisis to to push forward in agenda that they could have pushed forward if there were even if there were not a pandemic. No i don't i don't think this has anything to the pandemic. I think the american rescue plan. That was the one point. Nine trillion package passed past march of this year. That was about. That's about the pandemic that was about getting helping the economy navigate to the other side of the pandemic as gracefully as a possibly could but this is about the future of the long term future of the economy and addressing some of those long term structural problems. And i guess i'm asking why now. Why is it simply. Because there's a democrat in the white house and there's democrats control congress. Exactly i mean this is what happened with or without dependent make i mean the this is a you rarely get a situation where you have the presidency in the congress in the hands of one party and that's an opportunity to put forward your agenda just like the trump administration did back in two thousand sixteen. They had the house in the congress and they pass those large tax cut. So i i. Don't i think this this legislation would have come would have been born regardless and by the way michael made a really good point bipartisanship and why that is more durable if you can have legislation by parson absolutely positively agree with that but i mean here's the reality of it you know after that skinny down infrastructure bill that that that. There's bipartisan support for. There is no possibility of any kind of agreement by on a bipartisan. Way and i will on the the rest of the plan. The social infrastructure part of the plan in particular and i will i would also argue that at the end of the day. Good policy survives. If it's bad policy like trump tax cuts they don't survive because the next congress say i don't like that and we're going to do something about it but if it's good policy if people like it if the american population thinks that that's the right thing to do it will survive regardless so well probably but i i i've seen michael you make the point that that's not necessarily the case that If if If these spending plans are enacted without Any sort of meaningful republican support that the next time the republicans get into the white house and controls. Congress they're just going to cut this stuff back again..

federal reserve congress eddie president biden treasury Michael michael democratic party white house parson
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

06:58 min | 1 year ago

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

"And if the logical extension of his argument is do everything we can to get people to be vaccinated. Do we end are penalizing. Anybody do we take a portion of their tax return. Do we send municipal finds out to somebody because that's to me is partially logical extension. If we're looking at vaccinating everyone why do we mandate in a workplace. When i would say that those individuals in the workplace who say no is a very small subset compared to those not in the workplace. I go to certain places and the bars or packs. Either before certain people weren't masking looked a certain way. Apply war mask i would say those are spreader type thing. So how do we balance. Those two and within that context for me were an individual liberties. Actually come into play. I don't think we should Contemplate any situation that is at risk and the truth is we all need to do our art and a a an workplaces are one place where people need to be safe and vaccinated universities or another place and so we look at all of the settings around the country and each does its part to try to get as many Unit is it can and therefore not just that place will be safer but our whole country will be safer. And so we we and i do not. I do agree with you michael. We do not want to be punitive and and and try to criminalize this public. Health is never served by that in fact a few about jacobson versus massachusetts case that mandate was a five dollar fine by a cambridge the city of cambridge for failing to take a smallpox vaccination five dollars in those days was a lot of money but nonetheless i do i do agree that vaccines mandate should be done in in ways that are encouraging as possible as less restrictive as we can but ultimately to protect each other lookout jabber is community. We have a couple of minutes left so now that you've put that out there. Larry i mean how do you how do you make a mandate that isn't a mandate but gets people to use less coercive ways but i though to me the word mundane course. Kind of go hand in hand. But what are your thoughts about encouraging. People to to comply with a mandate which is not quite volunteerism. But what what. What are some ways to do that. And and i'd like to hear from you. Michael because you mentioned the very beginning you think there are other ways. I'll step in real quick. I think there are some outside the box ways of looking at this. I don't recall it was just a trial balloon. From the abidin administration were keen from anheuser busch but there was something about free mir to people who ended up black in vaccinated. Some of my folks. will possibly get vaccinated if the free case of beer. So is that incentive approach van lack. Say lose your job some places that get you know. I wouldn't give beer guns or cigarettes as getting waxed my personal take on it but it would. What i would do is i would give. People paid time off from work or from childcare responsibilities to do it and i would. Most importantly lay tried to develop a a culturally and community. Sensitive campaign of education karma. Bottom up so that religious leaders. I'm civic leaders. Community leaders were up leaders in the workplace trades. Union representatives all. I'm trying to put out the message that we vaccinate to protect ourselves but also to protect our family or coworkers. Our community our neighbors. We need to re claimed the common good in the united states and not be too focused overly on what response what rights i have but rather what duties and kindness that i show to keep the people safe and secure michalak the last word on that. Because i you're larry's book closing thought did not sail. You will actually sell me. Because toward the end. Larry talked a whole heck of a lot about incentivizing and that to me. It seems that he was moving away from the mandates paradigm on this so the extent. He's changed his mind. I don't really i. I think what i would say is that there is common ground and i think there is a way to approach encourage people from whatever horse another political session. They're looking at this issue on to encourage they are getting vaccinated again off. Startled back on mandating the stick approach versus character. I think does no more harm than good in a lot of ways and i'd really appreciate attack opportunity today. Are you just accused of changing your position. But you're telling us you did not know that. I want to be clear all right. I wanna thank the both of you for for this conversation. i i learned a lot. I think our listeners have learned a lot Including the pros and cons of the arguments on both sides of this in and understanding that there is a. They're reasonable ways that people can disagree on on an actual conflict of rights In this case and that it's something that there were going to continue to sort out. But what i very much appreciate it was how the two of you continually show respect for one another respect for one another's intellectual positions and also made several references to common ground. So michael anderson. And larry thank you so much for joining us and ford for doing it the way that you did it so thanks to both of you and thanks to you giant. We appreciated it was.

cambridge abidin administration anheuser busch jacobson smallpox Larry massachusetts michael Michael larry united states michael anderson ford
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

08:15 min | 1 year ago

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

"And so i don't think civil liberties long legal view does have the right to expose others to an infectious disease. And that's exactly what you'd be doing. If you walked into a crowded workplace or a crowded a classroom is well you know. A methodist hospitals is a long tradition of some hospitals requiring influenza vaccines which are actually less effective. Covert nineteen taxis. Health workers have a special obligation to keep their patients safe. But i think what i think. Larry that michael is saying. Is that those vaccines have much more of a track record and you know it's just the case that we have we don't have three or five or ten years of experience to know long-term the impact of these vaccines. That's that's just a fact and it seems to me. It's a very powerful part of his argument that we don't know long-term effects or or do we. Am i wrong about that. Is it predictable or something like that. Yes it's extraordinarily good question than i've i've just done been talking to a the former head of cici's immunization program about that i asked that specific question because of course you're ride knows we've we've had you know two and a half billion doses these vaccines administered globally which is more than most vaccines ever get and they've been very very safe. The truth is is that we don't have long term data but it's biologically implausible that we would have along term safety risk and also historically with vaccines if you're gonna have a safety signal. They tend to emerge within days or weeks. It's extraordinarily unlikely that you're gonna want one day a year from now wake up and say await. This has been a catastrophic safety problem. We just don't have any experience that in terms of vaccines and so all. The scientific community is speaking. I think in single voice in saying that these vaccines are very safe. They're safe now and they're safe in the medium and long-term and we'd have to fly in the face of in risk a very very bad pandemic if we didn't get an extraordinarily high immunization coverage in the united states. Globally so michael towns is hilarious to some degree asking the public to trust to trust the science and for the reassurance to come from that direction from that impulse with does that would that persuade for example. Your clients and i want to talk a little bit about the case. That you're you're carrying on in wisconsin. Yes i made it. There is the broader public health argument. And i think a lot of people would agree that we should be moving this direction but sometimes a good message gets lost in the way it is being presented in this to me is what's happening with these mandates. I believe there is a way to incentivize individuals to be vaccinated still think. It's the wrong approach to penalize them. My clients are working class. People working class county in wisconsin and some of them had to make a tough decision to get vaccinated even though they are opposed to it and then possibly lose their housing and not being able to feed their children do they. Can i break in. Your michael can i. Can i break in just for for me to take thirty seconds to lay out your cases. I know it because we haven't actually told people the story. So it's It's nursing home. I believe in jasper wisconsin Where And it's controlled by the county government. So it's not a private business and the management required of vaccination you. You're you represented a group of people. Who didn't do this yet. they. I don't think they said never. But they said not yet and they were told that they would be dismissed and they would lose their jobs and you brought suit and ultimately the The county board backed down to my correct about that. The the mandate has been lifted the mandate has been lifted. I don't wanna get down in the weeds about all the legal procedural stuff as happened. I haven't filed suit. I have set the table to file. Suit if i need to. But it's janesville wisconsin not jesper about since about an hour south madison and this is a county run assisted living facility but the only county employees that were required to accident where the employees at the facility. Interestingly enough correctional officers at the county jail were required to be vaccinated and from a percentage standpoint. The number of correctional officers and inmates data jail that's got coded was substantially higher in than and those residents at the facility where my clients are words. I can't speak to greatly about it. But i am educated tax. That will be able to resolve this case without filing suit. But i can't promise that. I so i i wanted to bring up because i wanted to to understand the case that you making a minute ago that you feel that the way that these people were presented with the choice that they had to make was part of the problem here and and that it was in. I think you're arguing in a sense. It was coerced of So i just want you to pick up from that thought now that our listeners have more of a clue of what the background story is i think it was absolutely coercive. My clients were given the option of taking vaccine that they have significant doubts around or lose their income and potentially be closed on not be able to feed their children and to the credit of many my clients. They stood up for what they believed. In and the day that they refuse to be vaccinated they were asked to turn their identification cards in the keys and they were escorted off the premises Some of them have gone back. They are now being encouraged to vaccinated and some of them may take based on the encouragement But it has been. Maybe some of this is just looking at a narrow window of how the courts will address this when we are in the e. a. you setting larry's mentioned something earlier What happens one day attain full. Fda approval out shakes out. But i would agree with larry that we are on a different playing field at that point in time but my job is to look at the law as it stands when my clients Approach to me. And i feel strongly in the arguments. We have the the county violated by a client's ranks both constitutional and per federal statue to improve. Flippable wisconsin statutes. Larry do you feel that. There is a case of rights being violated their well. I it gives me no joy to cease working class. Person who is Is dismissed from their employment. Because of this the to last thing that i want to see in the united states in america and and we try to be sensitive in kind as we possibly can but we also saw remember there are rights on both.

wisconsin michael towns cici michael influenza south madison Larry jesper jasper janesville america larry Fda
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

03:15 min | 1 year ago

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

"Interesting i mean. Larry comes at it from a professorial standpoint than i appreciate that maybe sunday. I'll be doing that. I'm coming at it for war of lawyers standpoint. So larry says red herring. He suggests that these vaccines may sooner rather than later who knows get full. Fda approval the fact of the matter is right now they don't. I am standing in pretty comfortable. Ground that good place with With my clients in this current lawsuit. But one thing that larry brought ben is interesting discussion. I think there's a as long as the united states has been here. There's been a tension between individual liberties and the greater public good. This goes back going on two hundred fifty years and instill present here. This i think is one of the more recent iterations of so. I think we can recognize that. There is a greater good public as a whole to vaccinate but if we lose sight of individual liberties which our nation is built upon man. I'm sworn to uphold the us constitution by states constitutional statutes enacted in all common law. I have to look very closely at individual liberties and so we can talk about public policy but we also have to talk about law as well and how this is going to shake out in administrative for regulatory setting or in the courts or through additional legislation in wisconsin. Right now there is legislation that has passed the state assembly state senate that would prohibit employers from mandating it. We have a democratic governor. That's most likely will lead till it's but this again goes to that tension and how do we resolve Navy this education but still think back to the earlier point that mandate against hammering someone over the head with a stick is going to do more harm than good. I absolutely respect michael's point of view about the Importance of individual liberties. I was actually the head of the british civil liberties union in arizona executive committee and board of directors of the. Aclu here in the us. So i do understand the importance of individual liberty and i respect that an enormously but we have a long tradition both legally and ethically in the united states. But you do have individual rights yourself. But you don't have the right to expose another person dangerous infectious disease. And you know you might say that other people can protect themselves but people get vaccinated so they can protect themselves but also protect auburn's and there are many vulnerable people who can be vaccinated but they can't mountain yoon response because they are immuno-compromised or are known people others that are unable to get the vaccine..

larry united states Larry Fda ben british civil liberties union wisconsin senate assembly Aclu michael arizona infectious disease auburn
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

06:51 min | 1 year 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 | 1 year 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

07:45 min | 1 year ago

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

"The most brilliant journalists of color from dot that same class and so there's no ideological diversity and they don't even reflect the minority communities. They come from. This is my point right when you when you you say that this kind of like. Whoa kness is the result of having a diverse workforce. It is not because they are not reflecting the communities that they come from eighty one percent of black people oppose defunding police right but you will not see that opposition in the new york times owner. Bring in your show josh go. Why does this matter by the way you might be able to find the police. That's fine why is it important About in the new york times because y- of the new york times lose touch with reality when the done seat represented ghost of appoint about diversity that yesterday times is a diverse staff of people from different if misty's who went to harvard university since that he's a knocked representative off. The valley does us city in. Which is not kate. I think i was one of the voices of resistance. I am very proud to have warned about the dangers of donald trump and a four-time populism ron world earlier than most but in use paper needs to hold on facts. The new york times. It was the only news outlet to take seriously the sexual abuse charges the sexual assault rape charges levelled by one terror against joe biden You know the biden campaign was appalled. They walked through every part of these charges which turned out to be false now. A lot of writers on the left had already said they seemed false on their face and certainly they could be away would have been an obstacle to buy the presidency. But the new york times did not primarily she did not dismiss them out of and they instead investigated them and found those charges wanting. I think we can all agree that the charges were quick to rest by the new york. Times all right. So your point made in. Virginia ticket to baccio bochu. Virginia's pushing back against your partners argument that the paper is showing a A pro-democratic bias in the way that it is covering the news not just on the bed page but you can jump into this conversation. We're be like now in terms of trump and biden. I just don't believe that the two of you think biden is getting the same treatment from the near times. That trump did. I just don't believe that you actually think that. I don't think anybody who can read could possibly think that and have a little. Let me just clarify. Do think that trump and biden journalistically merit the same coverage or the same kind of coverage. I think that question is a partisan question. I mean that that is exactly the What we're getting at here so so so so. Donald trump of course was outrageous but that outrageousness was in a very symbiotic relationship with the news media. That was covering him was getting rich off of covering his outrageousness. Now the new york times in twenty seventeen printed trump's name ninety thousand times which means that it appeared the equivalent of every two hundred fifty words. Okay that's like four times per article and you can compare how many times president obama's name appeared. Maybe are thinking. Oh well that's just normal for president. We know how many times president obama's name appeared in his second year in office and it was forty thousand times. Okay so i don't understand your argument. Is that the omnipresence of trump's name and coverage of trump was the paper feeding its audience. Negative coverage of trump wanted. To hear is for financial reasons is out what your argument is doing. Exactly what i said about the new dna of the times where does is success measure. It is measured in terms of engagement and there is nothing that gets the heartbeat of liberal elites going like the word trump bucket. If i man. I think it's very important to recognize. John got to this in his question. Donald trump was not just another president. He came to washington intending to be a disruptor. He was an anti 'institutionalised. He attacked not just as a political rivals but his political allies. If they didn't toe the line much of what he was doing and we have seen this in very thoughtful writing from people who are inside the administration working for him was a challenge to democracy itself. Let us just say to. John's question covering donald trump was not like covering any other president. He was unlike any president. We have had in this country's yasha your jonathan excellent question which is weather. Joe biden maritza seem kind of coverage on slump. What would say is that. They should be covered by the same standards. And if you play the same standards to july donald trump and in my opinion will come up with many more critical stories about donald trump and joe biden and that is absolutely fine. Bad is what journalism is the problem in. The last years has become that the media including the new york times has reflexively stocked to anything. Donald trump who has allies said even in cases where it might be that they turned out to be light. One of those times spent the toll misinformation. Disinformation which your times though thinks of itself as combating has been used was when a few people suggested visit possibility that kodak nineteen escaped a lab in china. This was labeled by the new times in fact checks and other newspapers as conspiracy. Few it was put beyond the balance of respectable At nobel prize winners in virology banda facebook youtube for discussing those few weeks for fourteen fifteen minutes. The only mentions of his furious in new york. Times was as obvious lewis. Well today i don't know what the truth is you know yet today at the white house is taking this very seriously and finally osama mainstream media is taking it seriously as well but there plenty of times. Ufo's were considered far and wide to be a preoccupation of crazy people. Now they're taken seriously by the guards so these things evolve in the new york times ever since you know people on the center left center right. Started to say oh. We've decided that the loudly rapidly hypothesis is ban. So that's the whole reason that we have to talk about it and use it as an opportunity to worry that liberals band speech people have talked about the lab theory to death. And as far as i know it's being investigated on the investigation into being closely watched by the new york giants. You jump in. Frank showed the the observation. You made Also carry something that goes way beyond the new york times but unfortunately so many of things that the former president donald trump said route the coveted crisis. It's ho- sore it's Gonna mirror miraculously disappear or hydroxy. Chloroquine will cure or whatever it is proved to be fundamentally incorrect if not outright fabrications the president's credibility sunk to a level that we've not seen before and whether it's the new york times or any place else they had to take that into consideration in reporting whatever he said the lab league theory which i don't think was banned but was viewed skeptically and covered in ways that the by all news organizations most anyway very carefully and reflected that credibility problem and it reflected the flood of disinformation that we now confront so. I think it's wrong to say that the new york times by itself and some egregious degree banned the.

the new york times donald trump biden us city ron world baccio bochu joe biden trump Virginia harvard university misty Joe biden maritza josh obama kate new york John jonathan
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

05:00 min | 1 year 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

04:09 min | 1 year ago

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

"Because of that we can't have mandated use again. We can have incentive the incentives for it but mandating. It's on. I don't believe it's appropriate at also adding into that. If an employer takes the blanket arguments. That's everyone being vaccinated is required. There are holes that are shot all over that because there are exemptions for religious use for instance a person might object in fact in some of these drugs came through stem cell research. There's exemptions for pregnancy so we do have people in the workplace that are not vaccinated so that does shoot a bit of a whole argument that everyone there is or must be vaccinated. Okay i wanna come back to the whole in the argument part but for the moment i want to stay on the issue of whether these This vaccine as you argued is is somewhat under tested under examined Under trialled And i want to bring that to larry and one other thing i just want to break the fourth wall Right now i'm kind of directing the conversation. But i would be delighted if the two of you wanna sort of just keep going back and forth with each other without my intervention if you feel motivated to to respond to break in just please go for it. Don't wait for me to To to invite you into the conversation. But in one case. Larry so larry. What about michael's point that That this thing from the perspective of the public win a lot faster than vaccine development and that that's a cause for concern on the part of a lot of people out there. Okay well first of all let's just Deal with emergency use authorization because that's if if indeed. That was the crux of the argument. It's gonna just completely melt away because within weeks The fda is likely to give a full licensor to at least the two messenger. Rna's certainly by the end of the summer When our universities are back. And so. I think we've Those would be pfizer. Madonna just to those who are in modern are the criminal singer r. a. vaccines and johnson and johnson will follow suit. You know the this is a an extraordinarily well-tested vaccine much more than the public realizes yes. It was developed very quickly because we had new technologies that was a miracle of science. But we didn't skimp at all on the clinical trials under a tens of thousands of people in the clinical trials. There have been over two and a half billion doses globally of covert vaccines given. This is one of the most safe one most effective vaccines on that we've ever had. And the public should not be under no illusion that somehow we skipped corners. It's a really really good of vaccine's and the risks of getting covered nineteen irrespective of your medical conditioner. Your age or much much greater are having adverse result than these vaccines so these are highly safe highly effective vaccines and the regulatory agency actually regulates the workplaces specifically said that employers can do it under an emergencies authorization. So i think that is a red herring and we've never seen an emergency use authorization in the way we have here because this is not. This is a globally population wide rollout. It's not an emergency. Rollout is a roll out based upon the entire population. They're great vaccines. And i encourage everyone to jet one. It safer for you and.

larry johnson Larry pfizer Madonna fda michael
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

06:25 min | 1 year ago

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

"Business. Ray delio thanks. So much for joining us on intelligence squared. I'm looking forward to it. So ray in in forty five seconds or less. What are you going to persuade us of in this conversation. That knowing how to deal with what you know is more important than anything you know. That's a very very tight sentence. And i think we're going to go a long way with that thought. I want to introduce people who don't know who you are To them by telling us a little bit about your life story. You are the founder of bridgewater associates. Which is one of the world's largest and most successful hedge funds you've been in the business for oh back in since the sixties i believe and you have reached the point in life where you're starting to dispense wisdom written books on on the principles of that you've applied at derived from your work that you have applied To your business running the hedge fund. And i i wanna i wanna ask you to tell us how your life story dovetails with this notion of changing your minds and the thing that you were just talking about being able to know that there are things that you don't know well. I think it's very practical. And learned through the realities of being an investor in being wrong a fair amount that I just wanna be right. It doesn't have to come from me. And how stupid is it to not be flexible. It just so dumb and it but it's that people form conclusions and there were attached to the conclusions rather than working themselves to the right answer after all. If there's a disagreement how do you know that the wrong person isn't you rather than the other person and so the art of thoughtful disagreement to be able to consider the other side of course is essential step toward getting to right answer so it's dumb. It's dumb on the address neuro-scientists about it. I've asked educators about it. It's part neuroscience. I understand and it's part our environment. There is something in our brains that has to do with The middle part of the brain that interprets disagreement as or a challenge as something like an aggressive act in which. There's a fighter flight. So if you disagree are you attacking me. No i mean you're not attacking me. I'm just curious. I just disagree. But that's part of it and part of it is the education system that is brought up with old great. You're smart you got the right answer. That doesn't teach the benefit of learning from being wrong because almost all learning comes from being wrong. Because if you're right what is there to learn. And if you're bit if you're wrong that's your opportunity but it's not taught so you're a highly highly honed. Mistake admit her and long experience of making mistakes as well but was this always you. Were you always comfortable with knowing that you were wrong to do even know that you were open to the possibility that you were really wrong about something. Well i remember one case where i got beat over the head by my realities that really made a come through to me I could tell you that story if you want your But Okay so it's nineteen seventy nine eighty eighty one and i had calculated that american banks had lent more money to foreign countries than those countries. Going to be able to pay back and that this was going to produce a big debt crisis and with it an economic collapse and it was very very controversial point of view and let me interrupt for an and how much standing did you have publicly at this all. Hardly hardly anything But it got a lot of attention in the media and so on and then and then on august nineteen eighty to mexico defaulted on its debt and a number of countries followed. And then i'm given a lot more attention. I was asked to testify to congress. I was on a tv show at the time called wall street week which was a big deal tv. Show okay because it was right. And i thought that we're going to have an economic collapse and i could not have been more wrong. August nineteen eighty. Two was the exact bottom in the stock market and we went on to move that. I lost money for myself. I lost money for my clients. I got so broke that i had to borrow four thousand dollars for my dad. Tell to pay a family bills and In and it was a really humiliating experience And it was one of the best experiences most transformative experiences of my life because it was painful. Because then i started to think. How do i know. If i'm wrong like i don't wanna go through this again and so i started to try to find the smartest people who would disagree with me to understand their reasoning. And then i would go back in history and find out different periods of history of now against happening and and it really taught me Both a fear for being long wrong about being wrong at but without losing my adaptability in other words i wanna do continue to have all the upside of making the bats but i didn't want to have the downside of those types of painful experience and that taught me how to deal with not with us ability. I'm being wrong which is mostly thoughtful disagreement and also knowing how to diversify debts better and and so that changed everything so i built my company. That's.

Ray delio congress bridgewater forty five seconds august nineteen eighty August nineteen eighty four thousand dollars Both one case mexico wall street week sixties one seventy nine eighty eighty nineteen Two american
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

01:53 min | 1 year ago

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

"Our society. You're gonna find nothing else that has value because things will anchor to it and it's here to stay and we should be grateful for that. Thank you betcha. Burn and our final speaker. We'll be speaking against the motion. Jillian bestselling author and us managing editor of the financial times when paul volcker said that the atm wasn't amazing innovation he said it was an amazing innovation. Because you could go to that hole in the wall and pull out dollars and on the dollar there is a face and a promise by the government and you might say you know what that promise has been severely compromised and undermined by. What the government's done but the question is really about relative faith. At least you can pick up a dollar and you can see a face and you know what stands behind it. Which is the us government if you take a bitcoin. You're betting on computers. You'll betting on the idea that somehow in this period of technological change the first mover. It's going to always be there. Unlike every single other of technological change we've seen think of my life base but you're also betting something else who created. Bitcoin satoshi nakamoto. Well who is he or she or they. Could you put them onto a dollar bill. Would you rather bet on volka. Would you rather bet on sunday. You can hold. Would you rather bet on the us government with all its flaws. Would you rather bet on the competition of governments if you do not the. Us government go by swiss currency instead. Or would you rather find this autocracy and bet on them to me. It's about relative trust. Thank you jillian. Tech and that concludes brown three of our intelligence. Where.

paul volcker Jillian jillian first mover satoshi nakamoto sunday swiss Burn betcha bitcoin single volka
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

05:56 min | 1 year ago

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

"Is it better for individuals to be entirely responsible for the security of transactions. Patrick i'm as milton friedman. We say small l. libertarian. You have to admit some degrees of paternalism and in that case now you have to have. I think there have to be companies with wall. It's perform the customer service so when grandma forgets their password. It cannot just be pure. You're on your own system. So there have there have to be a ring of companies that build up that attached the system and provide that extra layer of service and trust if bitcoin ends up dominating currency. When you walk down the street in a small town and you look at the biggest buildings in the street we're going to be owned by these big companies that the banks of the futures which will act as intermediaries in. They'll skim off. The profit will be little storefronts. That let you come in. And that's all they need to charge bank. Well we can. I happen to have just been with regulators in washington the other day and time talking about what we're doing with wall street. You can eliminate the role of exchanges. You have decentralized exchanges. That's not a healthy first step. I think that we ought to take an incremental approach. We want to replace the system. Incrementally question is my name's nonni. I'm from mit sloan. Let's say we played a long-term game. Bitcoin has significant. What does the financial crisis look like at that point in time. What are the fail safes. We have in place for regulating the environment at that point in time on the first one the austrian answer is you don't get the financial crises us interest rates. No longer get set by pointy haired dilbert guy in the corner and the federal reserve. Who thinks he can find tune the. Us business cycle interests become a way that the crowd can coordinate our preferences about time and interest. And what's the real value of money and such with each other and you have stable steady growth and the reason we have booms and busts is because we have that guy with his hand on the rear stat subject to political pressure who when things get a little rocky takes political pressure and floods the economy. Qe one qe qe three whatever. And that's why we have these booms and busts and if we switch to an economy that was gold based or based on some form of money through which we can communicate that no mandarin can distort we get rid of the financial crises. That's simply not booms on us long before there was government intervention. They're booms and busts under the gold standard in the nineteenth century crisis aren't caused by currency there caused by excessive lending against week assets bad assets assets the people over valued they'll continue to exist economy dominated by two that loons and bus back in method patina. The reason why you have the phrase wiping the slate clean was because many thousand years ago. There'd be too much lending in metropolitan that recorded on the sleeps that white clay tablets clean every seven twenty fifty years. And guess what you go back to zero to. I don't know the boons and bus. They could continue or maybe not but one thing's for sure governments that are forced to compete with each other for. You are going to do a lot better than the ones that think that they have a monopoly. They can do whatever they want right now. We have a government in the us. That's fifty one percent of the gdp is government spending. And we're stuck with it and they're deciding for every person that's out there pulling a sled. There's one standing on the sleds telling him that he's gotta keep one hand behind his back. I thought that you brought up the government's competing for you is an intriguing idea. Can you put it into thirty seconds. What you mean by that short this glass the company that created this glass head to compete with all the other companies that create these glasses and to those who fancy this. He's holding up his drinking and they make they make them better and better and better so and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper so that they provide a really good product or really good service so any company out there that is alive. Today is doing what they can to compete for you to try to get you to be a customer of theirs. Governments don't feel that way. Historically they thought we control everything that we see. And we'll just tell you what the rules are and we know better than you do what to do with your money what to do how to live your life. Whatever now governments are going to do that at their own peril because other governments are going to step up and say. Hey we can provide a better healthcare program here and we can provide a better pension system than these than your government bitcoin. Those things can be completely separate. Bitcoin is a natural for this free market in the world because bitcoin is cross-border global and it's an interesting vision. I just wanna see if you're a disciplinary. Bitcoin has nothing to do with the size of the government. The government will still be able to tax people. It'll still be able to borrow in fact it will be able to borrow more effectively because people won't be worried about inflation. They can spend as much as they want. Bitcoins going to do anything about gillian. About the value of the dollar and what the feds during the much simpler alternative volleyball real estate by forest by gold. Hedge your bets is one investment principal. Another question sir. Jesuit georgetown mba. Do you see the co existence of bitcoin and fiat currencies or do you see the complete replacement of one of the currencies in other words will dollar disappear well the pound disappear and bitcoin come supreme. Tim you want to take that. Yeah it's never really one or the other. Usually fiat currencies will try to adapt. Well i they're trying to create currencies. They're just tied to their government. They missed the entire purpose. But they'll start thinking. Hey i want to create a global currency to and those governments will probably survived. It's a better currency. it's just better. It's as the engineers work on it and make it so. It's easier.

Patrick milton friedman thirty seconds washington Tim Today nineteenth century first step two gillian one hand sloan seven twenty fifty years first one fifty one percent one zero many thousand years ago one thing dilbert
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

07:33 min | 1 year ago

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

"Computers. You hang on just north central bank always gets it wrong so when you're in recession they shove you further into a recession. When you're in a boom they push you in because they moved so slowly and they never react and then they react too late and too strongly. They add more regulations. When you're already got hands tied behind your back and you're trying to feed your family. I agree with you but there is a reason why the us constitution based on checks and balances having some faith in the central bank. Not all your eggs in one basket. The problem with bitcoin is your betting entirely on the sanctity and durability of those computers either of you have bitcoin wallet. I heard that earlier right. You probably shouldn't keep all your eggs in one basket. There is another best. guess what. I have several currencies. Hang on one other service that can be performed for people who may not be with this terminology. Fiat currency eric. We haven't heard from you. So tell us what fiat currency it comes from the latin by currency that the government creates the central bank creates and then it guarantees that it will retain. It's value just in response to tim. Every advanced successful economy has had a central bank for the last several centuries. The economists have done quite well. The central banks have generally been pretty good at dealing. Patrick byrne erica. My other adam. Smith quote the government of an exclusive company of merchants is perhaps the worst of all governments and. I'm quoting him. Because despite jillian said she was speaking loosely. Bitcoin is not entirely controlled by computers. It's controlled by the programmers and the minors so the code that was created back in two thousand and nine this mythical person so toshi knock toma. He knew that he could not create a system. That will work forever. And then we'll never have any problems and so the code provides for its own by human beings. Those human beings are the company of merchants there. the bitcoin holders the miners and also they're the programmers. The people who are trusted by the miners and other people in the bitcoin community to revise the program as necessary as they have done several times. So what you're basically hearing. Is that in the security the anonymity et cetera a lot of the virtues. That you cited actually aren't built in to bitcoin. I think that's false. I think that it's an open source project. It is collaboration among a lot of people this code but that collaboration is all transparent and the records all transparent a more trustworthy process. If there's any monkey business in the code everybody can see it. It's a much more transparent process and the current political process transparent but under the control of a small number of individuals. Do you have. Do you need to concede that point. Is that actually accurate. Compare what i assume. You mean of the hashing. Power is necessary to change the code and small number of people possess that power as of two thousand and fourteen. Those people collectively were on the stage at a conference. I think in new york just a small number of people who can act in concert if they want to. That's the central bank of bitcoin. That's the fed of bitcoin. You know. I'm glad. Eric brought that up. Very concentrated. Gladder brought that up because he's spreading fear which is serve what you get from the news and whatever any of us can set up a bitcoin mining system and there are hundreds of them. Anyone who is getting that anyone is going to have more than fifty percent control this. It's spread out all over the place and then you talked about criminal activity. They're catching everybody who's using bitcoin. Because there's a perfect ledger. There's the blockchain the us marshals office started by saying. You've got to make this illegal. And they said no not so fast because they are catching every single. Bitcoin criminal if you want to be a criminal abuse fiat okay. It's so much easier. So so your argument about the criminal uses just been refuted by your opponents in a very coherent and logical way. I'd like to hear your response to that. Twenty five percent of people who use bitcoin criminals according to a study that just came out a couple of days ago the money laundering one hundred billion dollars or more a year. Most of it is bitcoin. So bitcoin is synonymous this public. Ledger just has codes. It doesn't have your actual name so very sophisticated. Criminal can use those codes in a way to maintain their anonymity ordinary. People don't know what they're doing can make mistakes. Which makes it very easy for the government to track down as happened with the silk road exchange but really smart people say out of smart guy. You read the book. It's leave how smart that does not smart enough not as smart as the not there aren't there aren't any smarter. Yeah around got busted. So don't even try it but gillian tweets and why people are buying bitcoin investing and it's not because they think it's going to be it's incredible useful thing for criminality per se is because they think it's either going to keep going up and up and up over because it's going to become a mainstream currency that will be useful and the question. I still have y all. Do we think that bitcoin. It's going to become this incredibly widely useful currency compared to all the other alternatives great adoption of bitcoin. You look where it gets it spikes. It's in places. Like crete and greece and then as well as everything collapses people want someplace they can go and get rid of this fiat into bitcoin. That's where the big spikes bitcoin. Have you ever been in war. Then i can tell you. I saw off his war reporter. If you're in a war zone if you're in that kind of stress situation you don't wanna start fiddling around with the computer you wanna get about of gold or emeralds and certainly your clothes and run. I hear what you're saying about the shortcomings or fit back currency. It ain't perfect but it's probably the least bassus nervous today. What it all melts down. You will be happy to have a robust alternative system that does not rely on any of these institutions are grandfathers. Came up with the. Us dollar is not the alternative out there. If you don't like what the feds doing if you don't like donald trump. If you don't like the way that marcus going hedge your bets ever hundred also leave. Which is what's happening. A lot of people are leaving this country and in china. It's even worse. They are fleeing china. They're going to japan where japan said we take bitcoin and it is a national currency. Here all the best engineers in the world are working on bitcoin. Not on dollars and they're gonna make better and five years. You're going to try to go buy coffee with fiat currency and they are going to laugh at you. Because you're not using crypto in south park described. Bitcoin is space. Cash says advantages. You can be a good thing you can be. You can be made across the universe. Bitcoin is just like gold. If the government collapsing i wanted to because it has only advantages of goal which. I'm happy to hear that you admire plus one you can be moved across the universe. Your argument is this kind of razor's edge argument civilizational collapse enough that the central banks will cease to function. But not so much that the internet and the computer system.

Eric china jillian donald trump Twenty five percent Smith new york japan marcus Patrick byrne erica one hundred billion dollars two thousand five years hundreds today one basket more than fifty percent Gladder north central bank gillian
"u.s." Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates

03:26 min | 1 year 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 | 1 year 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