TRIGGERnometry - Dr Linda Yueh on Inequality, China and the End of Poverty

00:00:00.000 Hello and welcome to Trigonometry, I'm Francis Foster.

00:00:29.660 I'm Constance and Kissin.

00:00:31.060 And this is a show for you.

00:00:32.360 If you are bored of people arguing on the internet about subjects they know nothing about,

00:00:37.380 at Trigonometry, we don't pretend to be experts.

00:00:40.080 We ask the experts.

00:00:41.960 We're here at the world-famous Angel Comedy Club,

00:00:44.480 and our amazing expert guest this week is an economist, author,

00:00:48.240 and the presenter of several series on economics, Linda Yu.

00:00:51.540 Welcome to Trigonometry.

00:00:52.740 Thank you. Good to be here.

00:00:54.320 Linda, would you tell us a little bit about your personal story,

00:00:56.900 about how you came to be literally sitting on this seat,

00:00:59.360 in your career? Well, I'm an economist. I'm also a broadcaster. So I am at Oxford University.

00:01:11.020 I'm also at London Business School. But that's part of what I do. The other part of what I do

00:01:18.520 is I'm also a broadcaster. So I have presented a number of TV and radio programs for the BBC.

00:01:26.420 I was the BBC's chief business correspondent.

00:01:29.240 I was economics editor at Bloomberg TV.

00:01:31.780 So I find myself in a very, well, a very fun mix of things to do.

00:01:38.720 So doing teaching economics, researching economics, but also getting to talk about economics.

00:01:45.760 And I have just finished a book that brings both of those sides together, talking about

00:01:51.080 economics in an accessible way to a non-specialist audience, basically normal people.

00:01:56.880 Like us, basically.

00:01:58.360 I finished a book called The Great Economist, How Their Ideas Can Help Us Today.

00:02:03.140 Oh, wow.

00:02:03.620 And I'm reading it at the moment.

00:02:04.960 It's absolutely fascinating.

00:02:05.860 I was just saying to you before we started the show that it's eminently readable for

00:02:09.980 people who are not specialists in economics.

00:02:12.440 Thank you.

00:02:13.160 Well, I guess we've talked about it a moment ago.

00:02:15.300 One of the quotes that always happens in the back of my mind is that the former U.S.

00:02:19.100 congressman dick army defined economics as the science of telling you things you've known your

00:02:24.160 whole life but in a language that you can't understand so i have avoided that well that's

00:02:30.720 that's why we do the show is we try and break more complex things down we bring on amazing

00:02:35.340 experts like you to actually explain to us what we're trying to understand so you talk about the

00:02:40.300 big challenges that the economists of the past could help us address and how their ideas could

00:02:44.420 do that and the number one challenge that i think you raise in the book early on is growth right

00:02:48.600 that's something that you bring center stage. And this is going to sound like a very stupid 0.99

00:02:53.200 question. But why is growth important? Growth is important because it gives people a sense of 0.99

00:02:59.980 possibility about the future. So if you think about countries which are stagnant, so actually

00:03:05.840 Japan comes to mind. It's a rich country. It's the world's third biggest economy. But it's

00:03:10.300 essentially been stagnant for about three decades. And when you go to Japan, you get a sense that

00:03:16.420 people are not that optimistic about their future. And so I think one of the most important things

00:03:23.440 about thinking about how economies can grow is what possibilities for employment, for

00:03:29.920 entrepreneurship it offers so that people can look to the future and say, yeah, you know, I think the

00:03:35.740 future looks brighter. And I think that's probably the main reason why economists look at growth. But

00:03:41.320 I would also say, especially for rich countries, I think we're in a privileged position where we

00:03:46.880 can think about the quality of growth. So in the book, I stress that it's not just the speed of

00:03:51.860 growth. It's actually the kind of society that you want to live in. So one of the chapters is called

00:03:57.620 Is an Equality Inevitable? And so by taking a more holistic view about why we would look at 0.91

00:04:08.640 economics as a way, a set of tools to get to outcomes such as better economic prospects,

00:04:15.860 but also creating a society with good standards of living, less inequality for everyone. I think

00:04:22.420 that's where the economic tools are really useful. But I should stress the aim of how much inequality

00:04:29.040 or what shape the society takes. Those are actually political aims. Economics is the tools

00:04:35.040 to help you analyse the route to get there or not to get there.

00:04:38.240 Now, it's very interesting you were talking about inequality.

00:04:41.100 I've been reading a lot recently about how the millennial generation

00:04:45.380 are actually going to be one of the first generations

00:04:47.820 that are essentially less well-off than the previous and the baby boomers.

00:04:53.220 Do you think that that is going to be a major problem for society?

00:04:57.080 I think it is.

00:04:58.320 I think in Britain, I think a lot of that is seen in the housing market.

00:05:05.040 So I think the latest figures say that people over the age of 50 control three-quarters of the housing wealth in the country.

00:05:14.320 Wow.

00:05:14.580 And in America, the idea of the American dream is that regardless of your background, you have the ability to move up.

00:05:25.500 And that's also not really true anymore.

00:05:29.560 And so I think that will have implications for this kind of outlook towards the future that I was describing a moment ago.

00:05:39.100 And that's why I think looking hard at how you can resolve economic challenges like slow growth, inequality,

00:05:49.420 and all these things should be front and center in terms of our public debates or debates on podcasts like this one.

00:05:55.980 Well, going on in that debate then, you talk about – you mentioned the housing kind of people holding on to housing who are older.

00:06:05.160 Frances and I have been talking about this all the time.

00:06:06.960 And one of the things I was saying was it's not Russian oligarchs and Chinese billionaires that are doing this.

00:06:13.500 It's actually – in my opinion, it's the government policy of propping up the housing market.

00:06:18.240 Does that make any economic sense or am I talking nonsense?

00:06:21.200 No, no.

00:06:21.540 I think the help to buy scheme, for instance, the government has implemented.

00:06:25.100 It helps first-time buyers get onto the housing ladder.

00:06:28.540 But if you have the same supply of housing, but you up demand for housing,

00:06:34.460 it has the effect of raising house prices.

00:06:37.540 So that's not quite solving the problem,

00:06:41.480 which is you need a bigger supply of housing that's affordable

00:06:45.060 because higher supply pushes down prices, house prices,

00:06:49.260 and makes it more affordable for people.

00:06:51.300 So I think that is spot on.

00:06:54.320 And I think there are ways the housing market could be regulated.

00:06:58.380 And at the moment, we're just not really seeing enough supply.

00:07:05.220 So we need to build more homes on the one hand.

00:07:07.760 But on the other hand, if politically it's a massive problem for the government that house prices fall because people feel less wealthy,

00:07:15.940 they then don't vote for the party.

00:07:17.360 Yeah, very good. That's called the wealth effect.

00:07:19.460 Oh, great.

00:07:20.360 I know what I'm talking about.

00:07:22.580 Well done. You're learning the book.

00:07:24.320 Is that something that's ever going to get fixed?

00:07:28.380 I mean, if it politically and electorally, it makes no sense to do the right thing in this sense.

00:07:35.080 Is that ever going to change?

00:07:38.160 I think one of the reasons why housing is always on the agenda, there are new initiatives now, for instance, to take away land from councils which are not building the number of houses, is because of the issue we talked about a moment ago, which is inequality.

00:07:53.680 So if you have a great intergenerational divide, the younger people who are part of generation rent, if they can't get on the housing ladder or feel it's going to be out of reach for probably until their way into their middle age, that is not going to make for a happy electorate.

00:08:14.940 So those are voters. So yes, there's certainly, you want the housing market to be buoyant,

00:08:21.700 you want prices to be, nothing dramatic happening to prices. But I think even the baby boomers 1.00

00:08:30.040 would say that no one really expects the housing market to be rising the way that it used to.

00:08:37.260 And maybe that's a good thing, because it does increase the prospect that younger people can

00:08:42.960 get on the housing ladder, and that would help with social cohesion. And importantly, as I said

00:08:48.740 a moment ago, they are also voters. They could voice their dissatisfaction at the polls.

00:08:54.960 It was quite interesting, as you touched on the United States, and you were saying about the

00:08:59.040 American dream, which is to better yourself and to, you know, essentially rise up through the

00:09:04.140 rungs of society. And you touched upon the fact that that really doesn't seem to exist anymore.

00:09:09.760 Are you sort of saying, Linda, that the American dream is dying?

00:09:15.440 I think the American dream has always been an aspiration.

00:09:20.880 I'm not sure if the economic reality really has matched it for some time.

00:09:28.360 This is actually a work done by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate.

00:09:32.120 His latest book actually traces, I think,

00:09:35.620 the disconnect between what the American dream represents and the reality of a lack of social

00:09:42.940 mobility for lots of young Americans. So what is the American dream? Why pick a fence, a house,

00:09:52.020 a good job? I think that's sort of the trappings of it. And you're the aspiring thinking you can

00:10:02.160 do that regardless of your own background is part of what makes gives I think America the sense of

00:10:07.340 entrepreneurship that it's had because in one sense America is pretty extraordinary right the

00:10:12.580 world's biggest economy very technologically advanced and they keep producing innovation

00:10:17.600 and innovators it's not like anyone sits rests on their laurels so that is still there and there

00:10:23.760 and there and they are there are some who still break through the ranks they come from nothing

00:10:30.480 and they end up tech billionaires or what have you.

00:10:33.820 But in Stiglitz's book, he documents that for lots of the American public,

00:10:41.360 doing better than your parents isn't likely to happen.

00:10:46.900 And so that's, I think, one worrying trend in America.

00:10:51.940 So a couple of economic trends behind that, which I do also discuss in my book,

00:10:56.740 is that quite extraordinarily, median income, so that's the income of the person in the middle

00:11:03.920 of the income distribution, the very rich, the very poor, median incomes have been stagnant

00:11:08.720 in America for four decades. So that means that America's economy has grown, GDP per capita average

00:11:17.020 incomes have grown, but that's going to the wealthy. So that means that for the average person,

00:11:22.940 incomes have stagnated for a very long time. And the middle class, which is defined as those in

00:11:30.280 the middle of the income spectrum, that has now shrunk to be less than half of the American

00:11:38.920 population for the first time since at least the 1970s. So you have a shrinking middle class,

00:11:45.920 stagnant incomes for 40 years in a country that by all accounts is a rich country with

00:11:51.640 lots of great innovators and I think that divide really suggests the American dream is possible

00:11:58.040 for some but for a lot it's not really it's not it's not a reality for them it's not within their

00:12:04.740 grasp. And that's very interesting and another question I wish to ask is two questions actually

00:12:09.240 how much of a part does race play in that? Is it are you more likely to succeed if you are white

00:12:15.460 and are you less likely to succeed if for instance you are black or you come from a

00:12:19.860 Latino, Hispanic background, and also as well, do you think that ultimately gave rise to somebody

00:12:25.440 like Trump, who famously said that we need to drain the swamp, as it were?

00:12:31.520 I think socioeconomic background is very much linked to privilege. So I think there is a racial

00:12:37.080 element to it, but I think a lot of it is socioeconomic. So if you're born to a household

00:12:41.580 with college-educated parents, if your parents are professional workers, entrepreneurs, that's

00:12:49.140 going to be a massive determinant as to whether or not you become college-educated and move up

00:12:54.840 in terms of income. And that, of course, is linked to race and ethnicity and racial minorities in

00:13:01.520 America. And I think what's worrying about it, obviously lots of things are worrying about it,

00:13:09.240 but one of the things that's worrying about it is that America is also the land of immigrants.

00:13:13.860 So part of the American dream is this belief that you could go to America with nothing and you could arrive in Ellis Island or Angel Island from Italy, thinking The Godfather, you know, from Asia, and you could literally make yourself into anything you want to be.

00:13:35.660 And if that isn't actually what the evidence is suggesting, then that is really striking at the heart of what is part of the American identity.

00:13:45.180 Did President Trump capitalize on this?

00:13:48.140 I think he did to a large extent.

00:13:49.860 I think he realizes that despite America's overall prosperity, there's a lot of people who feel left behind by the changes that have caused some of these trends that we're discussing.

00:14:01.600 So globalization is part of the reason why you see this divide.

00:14:05.360 But it's actually not the biggest factor.

00:14:07.200 The biggest factor is technology.

00:14:09.720 So technology, automation, is why you have a hollowing out of mid-skill jobs,

00:14:14.340 which is contributing to stagnant median incomes and the shrinking of the middle class.

00:14:20.560 But technology is harder.

00:14:22.720 It encroaches.

00:14:23.760 It's slow.

00:14:24.800 It's kind of pervasive, but not in a tangible way.

00:14:28.800 It's much harder to grasp that on the campaign trail than to talk about globalization, unfair trade, immigration.

00:14:36.920 And so I think a lot of the rise of populism, which is not limited to Trump, is related to this economic malaise that has characterized America very quietly, but it's now coming to more of the forefront.

00:14:49.880 It's interesting. I think we've started talking about inequality.

00:14:53.220 We've probably said the word inequality about 100 times since we started in 10 or 15 minutes.

00:14:57.720 the day that we're recording this

00:15:00.560 figures have come out here in the UK

00:15:02.520 about the gender pay gap in different companies

00:15:04.540 what do you make about this whole conversation

00:15:06.580 because the figures that we're seeing essentially they're averages

00:15:09.000 so they don't take into account the fact

00:15:10.640 that men and women have different positions

00:15:12.240 within companies, they're very broad

00:15:14.820 based measurements

00:15:15.880 so I imagine for someone who's an economist like you

00:15:18.680 you'd want to drill further down

00:15:19.980 in order to understand what they mean

00:15:22.140 what can you tell us about the gender pay gap

00:15:24.740 what's causing it, what are the different factors

00:15:26.540 that affect it

00:15:27.180 I think there's been a lot of research on why it is you have a gender pay gap, and I'm not sure that we fully understand it yet.

00:15:39.280 But the British government's forcing companies to declare in quartiles the pay gap between men and women adds a huge level of transparency.

00:15:51.080 So what you tend to find in these companies is at entry-level jobs, men and women tend to be paid around the same.

00:16:00.480 The gap is not huge.

00:16:01.900 But as you move up the ranks, the gender pay gap widens, and it tends to be the highest in the top quartile.

00:16:07.500 So what that's suggesting is that women are not being promoted to senior positions with higher pay. 1.00

00:16:14.240 It could also be suggesting that women are not as able to ask for raises or bonuses. 0.68

00:16:22.420 And partly, perhaps, that's a lean-in argument that Sheryl Sandberg has made.

00:16:27.540 But maybe it's also an unconscious bias on the part of employers, where if a woman asks for something, maybe it's viewed less favorably than if a man asked for it.

00:16:40.280 So I think unconscious bias is probably part of the explanation.

00:16:44.980 Quite a lot of the economic studies on gender suggest that once you control for observable characteristics,

00:16:54.560 such as your education, your occupation, your level of experience, your years in the job,

00:17:00.480 even taking into account labor market interruptions, such as if you go and have children,

00:17:05.140 it's still the case.

00:17:06.340 There's an unexplained portion of the gender gap. 1.00

00:17:09.180 And how big is that?

00:17:09.660 So it varies across countries.

00:17:12.840 I think the, well, the British reporting has given us the most immediate data.

00:17:19.580 I think something like eight out of 10 firms have a substantial gender pay gap. 1.00

00:17:24.340 And I think across industry, some of the pay gap is as small as maybe 2%, 3%.

00:17:30.220 But if you get into finance, construction, the gender pay gap is in the double digits. 1.00

00:17:36.720 But are we talking about like-for-like comparison?

00:17:38.720 This is the counter argument I'm putting to you because I was actually on Mumsnet this morning reading the forums about this issue because there was a particular airline, I don't want to mention their name, that had a big one.

00:17:48.420 And there were people discussing it, women from both sides.

00:17:51.000 And one of the arguments that was made by many people there is when they're making these comparisons, they're not a like-for-like comparison.

00:17:57.380 So you're not comparing someone in the same pay grade or someone in the same position.

00:18:01.380 so the reason I'm asking you is I'm trying to understand if say two two people man and woman

00:18:09.240 do the same job and there is that unexplained difference in their pay what kind of difference

00:18:15.640 are we talking about in terms of these people who are doing exactly the same thing with the

00:18:19.640 same qualifications it depends on the industry and it differs across countries as well so I think

00:18:27.240 the, you know, I think probably as a rough rule of thumb, women are probably paid, if you looked 1.00

00:18:35.840 across studies over a number of years, 10 to 20% less than men, something like that. But it's bigger

00:18:43.440 for some industries like construction and finance. So what the government's pay revelations have

00:18:50.280 shown is that they have, it's not completely comparable, but if you're in the top quartile

00:18:57.400 of wage earners in a company, then you are, you're unable, you know, without declaring everybody's

00:19:03.940 income, which some countries in Scandinavia, I believe do, without actually declaring everyone's

00:19:10.660 income, there's no way you could do what I described in economic studies, which is to control

00:19:15.060 for your level of education, your skill, your experience.

00:19:18.920 And let's not forget, as you rise up in corporate ranks,

00:19:21.680 a lot of soft skills are involved, which are very difficult to measure.

00:19:25.320 But what you do find, and this is also part of the reporting,

00:19:28.680 is people in the top quartile of income,

00:19:33.360 it's also broken down in terms of numbers of men and women,

00:19:36.900 and there are fewer women in senior jobs. 0.91

00:19:39.740 So another way to look at it is why are senior positions not being filled by men and women equally if they enter at the entry level in about equal numbers?

00:19:52.800 What you find is a tailing off of women compared to men as you move into the top. 1.00

00:19:58.900 There was an interview which went viral on Channel 4.

00:20:02.100 I'm not sure if you're aware of it.

00:20:03.560 Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at Canadian.

00:20:07.000 And he was saying that the reason that there's this big gender pay gap is that a lot of getting a higher pay grade is due to reasonableness.

00:20:18.140 And men tend to be more aggressive when it comes to negotiating a salary. 0.99

00:20:28.260 And he said that women... 1.00

00:20:29.720 And also in their general behaviour at work in general.

00:20:31.620 In their general behaviour, whilst it is not as socially acceptable for a woman to behave in that manner, 1.00

00:20:37.320 would you think that would impact it or do you think it's something far more complex?

00:20:43.320 I do think, I mean, when we ascribe things to unconscious bias, it's just sort of a catch-all

00:20:51.000 because there must be behaviours that when men do it, it looks more acceptable than if a woman were to do it.

00:21:00.340 And I can think of instances where it works the other way.

00:21:02.700 But what we do know is unconscious bias also captures a concept called cognitive dissonance.

00:21:09.500 So people like people who are like them.

00:21:13.600 So you understand people who are culturally similar to you.

00:21:19.260 Maybe you share an interest in similar interests.

00:21:23.160 And I think that's part of the unconscious bias.

00:21:25.940 So maybe with greater transparency, what that allows people to do is to say, OK, have I really thought hard about the qualifications of the applicants for this job or how much of what I'm basing it on is other unarticulated traits?

00:21:43.980 And where it gets tricky at the senior levels is that soft skills of leadership are very hard to objectively assess whether you're a good manager.

00:21:53.400 It's not really something that comes off your CV because you have so many years of experience or training.

00:21:59.900 And I think that's why at the senior levels, you do find a bigger gender cap, both in terms of income, but also in terms of promotions and employment.

00:22:08.540 But quite a lot of progress has already been made.

00:22:12.000 I think you already see, for instance, women going on to boards.

00:22:15.500 There's a lot of focus on putting women on the executive track. 1.00

00:22:18.960 So I think there have been a number of policies and efforts around this.

00:22:28.760 But I think what's probably we shouldn't expect is for this issue to be solved quickly.

00:22:37.400 As in now that we see the numbers, I think there's going to be quite a lot to debate for some time around why it exists,

00:22:45.620 what can be done about it, whether it's, you know,

00:22:48.980 and this is not something that's just happening here,

00:22:51.100 it's happening in different countries around the world.

00:22:52.880 So, Linda, you wrote a really fascinating article in The Guardian that I read

00:22:57.280 about the trade war between the United States and China,

00:23:01.760 and Trump is saying that he wants to implement it,

00:23:04.560 and you think this would be disastrous for both countries.

00:23:07.120 Could you give a little bit of explanation as to why?

00:23:10.480 Yeah, anything that has war in it is probably going to be America. 0.83

00:23:15.620 That's a simple way of analyzing.

00:23:19.800 I think the difficulty of the U.S.-China trade tension,

00:23:27.780 let's not use war for the moment,

00:23:29.800 is that I think it almost certainly will raise prices

00:23:33.260 because when you impose tariffs,

00:23:35.960 that's just a fancy word for tax.

00:23:38.680 So you're just going to tax things.

00:23:40.940 And both the U.S. and China obviously produce a lot of stuff

00:23:45.260 the world's two biggest economies. So we're talking about higher prices. And lots of us

00:23:50.700 buy stuff that are made in China and made in America. So we'll probably be paying higher

00:23:54.780 prices as well, because they're slapping on like 25% taxes on products. So I think

00:24:02.320 that's not very good for consumers anywhere. And I think what's potentially really worrying about

00:24:07.640 the US-China trade dispute is that they are talking in a parallel, quiet, backroom way

00:24:19.640 about resolving the trade dispute. But that hasn't really stopped these further rounds of

00:24:28.360 tariffs and the next stage is going to be restricting investment. And that's potentially

00:24:34.520 really economically damaging because trade isn't actually Portugal selling wine to Britain and

00:24:40.980 Britain selling back textiles. Trade today is based on multinational companies setting up

00:24:49.260 supply chains. So Apple produces the iPhone in different parts of the world. It gets partly

00:24:55.800 finished in China. It gets sent back to the United States. So if you restrict investment,

00:25:00.980 you're affecting firms' abilities to decide where best to locate their production.

00:25:08.340 And that is hard to reverse once you start down this road of making supply chain distortions.

00:25:16.640 In other words, you can reverse a tariff tomorrow.

00:25:19.520 But once an investment decision is made, that's very difficult to change.

00:25:24.000 And that affects people's employment, affects taxes, it affects the local market.

00:25:28.800 And so I think this is all, if this is the next step, really quite worrying in terms of where this potential trade war is headed.

00:25:39.320 They're not just looking at tariffs.

00:25:41.060 They're looking at almost a kind of economic nationalism.

00:25:46.080 And this is somewhat consistent with what President Trump has said.

00:25:50.220 He wants American companies to bring production back to America.

00:25:54.360 But they went overseas to produce things because it was cheaper and more efficient.

00:25:59.660 So that's also going to raise costs and prices for Americans.

00:26:03.020 And then the final thing I find really worrying about all of this is who's going to resolve this dispute

00:26:07.960 if the Americans and the Chinese can't agree quietly,

00:26:10.940 which so far they haven't been able to agree on how to stop this escalation.

00:26:18.140 The World Trade Organization is the body that oversees global trade.

00:26:23.180 And President Trump has described the WTO as a disaster.

00:26:28.260 And if he pulls America out of the WTO, I think that would upend the global trading system as we know it.

00:26:35.540 So the global trading system was actually formed based on American rules and American standards, but it's provided more of a level playing field.

00:26:44.940 So that means that a developing country like Thailand can take America to the WTO to say your standards on nets is unfair.

00:26:54.760 That's a protectionist measure. It has nothing to do with the nets.

00:26:57.780 And that's exactly what – and they won.

00:26:59.540 So prawn producers in Thailand couldn't sell their prawns to America because they weren't using the right kind of nets.

00:27:05.600 But before the WTO, they make that argument and they win.

00:27:09.220 America backs down.

00:27:10.140 If America pulls out, then I think we are really going back to the law of the jungle, which is bilateral resolution.

00:27:18.660 And to me, that would be the most worrying outcome of a potential trade war.

00:27:22.900 Do you think that, number one, that the Americans are going to back out?

00:27:26.800 And do you think that Trump's stand against globalization will work?

00:27:30.620 I think the Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has already gone on air to say even physical shooting wars end in negotiation.

00:27:43.740 So what they've been trying to do is to calm markets.

00:27:46.900 So markets are pretty unhappy at the escalation of trade tensions.

00:27:52.480 And so I think they're trying to say, hint at, this is just a way of getting China to open its markets.

00:27:58.760 And to be fair, China's markets are relatively less open than the United States.

00:28:04.380 But it's also not true that the U.S. is the least protectionist country in the world.

00:28:08.660 The U.S. has the same tariff levels as the European Union, another target of President Trump.

00:28:15.600 So I think will this work for President Trump in terms of his voters, his electorate?

00:28:25.160 I think if he got China to open up a bit more, that would work.

00:28:30.920 If the only way to reduce the trade deficit is to reduce imports and make those more expensive,

00:28:37.240 I don't think that's going to help most of his voters.

00:28:39.580 So there's two ways to reduce a trade deficit.

00:28:42.120 It's the difference between exports and imports.

00:28:44.420 You can either import less because it's more expensive, and then therefore your trade deficit narrows,

00:28:50.720 or better, export more.

00:28:53.020 And that requires opening up China's markets.

00:28:56.160 So I think if you were to open up China's markets a bit more, I think he would view that as a win.

00:29:02.140 But China is a hard negotiating partner.

00:29:04.300 So China is targeting their tariffs on Trump voters' districts, including soybean farmers,

00:29:13.960 and also manufacturing products in the districts of Congress, members of Congress.

00:29:21.600 Wow.

00:29:22.040 Wow. So they're literally trying to hit them where it hurts.

00:29:24.820 Exactly. And there's midterm elections coming up in the United States. Congress gets – the House of Representatives is reelected every two years. A third of the Senate is reelected every two years. It's six-year terms.

00:29:35.380 So you're hitting members of Congress and saying, do you really want economic damage here, especially when the Republicans are a free trade party?

00:29:47.160 And then that would, and there's already some pressure coming from Republicans telling Trump to sort of not escalate this.

00:29:55.820 And remember, and this is a really, you know, another kind of, another step way outside the normal discussions, is there's even talk in Congress of restraining the president's powers when it comes to trade.

00:30:10.420 So the president's powers on trade is a delegated power from Congress, which is the legislative branch.

00:30:16.160 So Congress, in theory, could restrict the president's trade powers.

00:30:20.200 And that would be extraordinary.

00:30:21.460 That's very interesting because I was just about to ask you the opposite,

00:30:24.480 because the opposite movement seems to be happening in China

00:30:26.740 where the power is being more centralized and more in one man's hands

00:30:30.880 and for however long, we don't know.

00:30:32.840 What is happening in China and why is it happening

00:30:35.360 in terms of the political structure and system?

00:30:38.360 Well, President Xi Jinping has, I think, set himself up to be president indefinitely.

00:30:45.640 I think President Trump joked that's something they should try in America.

00:30:53.160 I think Xi Jinping is politically very powerful.

00:30:59.220 That's clear from what he's been able to do.

00:31:04.280 One of the, I think, challenges around whether he can really be president indefinitely

00:31:10.400 is that one of the tricky things about China's economic development

00:31:15.080 is that it's happened without political reform in any substantive way.

00:31:20.620 So it's always the case as a country becomes richer.

00:31:24.720 People need their policymakers to be accountable.

00:31:29.480 And if you have a president you can't get rid of,

00:31:34.680 before Chinese elections were not really elections,

00:31:38.100 presidents served two five-year terms.

00:31:41.060 I'm from Russia. I know what you're talking about.

00:31:42.920 And so I'm not suggesting that it was, you know, that may not be much different than it was.

00:31:49.080 But I think China is now richer than it was 30, 40 years ago.

00:31:52.800 So if you don't have a safety valve for people's dissatisfaction, then delivering on the economy becomes very important.

00:32:00.580 And Xi Jinping has really focused on local official corruption to try.

00:32:05.100 And because he knows that's an area that the Chinese people are just very unhappy with local officials, you know, taking their possessions, being arbitrary, all of violent, all of those things. 0.97

00:32:18.260 So his policies are trying to keep him in power, stabilize the system, address where a lot of the grievances are.

00:32:27.580 But I suppose if the economy slows down, will the system work?

00:32:31.480 And I suppose every time I think about where China is headed, to me that's one of the biggest unknowns, which is at some point most economies have to have some degree of rule of law that's independent from the politicians so people can protect their homes, protect their livelihoods.

00:32:53.960 And in China, that's very weak, and that's unlikely to get any stronger once you have

00:33:00.360 centralized political power.

00:33:01.900 It's very hard to see a judiciary that might be able to stand up to the executive.

00:33:07.820 Do you think that China will ever become a democracy, or do you think that's a forlorn

00:33:11.920 hope for our lifetime in particular?

00:33:15.060 I find these things really hard to predict.

00:33:17.120 The history, if you look around East Asia, is that countries have become democracies

00:33:22.380 through a really rocky path.

00:33:23.960 So if you look at South Korea, if you look at Taiwan, it's one of those things where I still remember the Arab Spring when you first had the initial, you know, pretty small incident in Tunisia, as in it wasn't Tahir Square straight off.

00:33:42.880 And it's just really hard to predict what could spark something that really brings about change.

00:33:49.980 But no, at the moment, I think China has its own version of democracy as an intraparty competition, but that's being eroded by Xi Jinping's centralization of his power.

00:34:06.760 So, you know, like the Arab Spring, I find this area very, very difficult to assess and predict.

00:34:14.680 Well, of course, an advantage of a more authoritarian system is continuity and strength and power.

00:34:19.980 as a country, isn't there? There is that element. And do you think what's happening in North Korea

00:34:24.040 now is an example of China flexing its muscles, essentially?

00:34:28.800 I think with North, well, I think North Korea is, has been a headache for some time for China,

00:34:35.140 because it's a very unstable regime on their doorstep. The bulwark between it and South Korea,

00:34:42.940 which is aligned to the United States, this is left over from the Cold War.

00:34:46.660 and I think whether there's no question that China is the most influential player when it

00:34:55.700 comes to North Korea and the fact that the North Korean leader made a initially quite quiet trip

00:35:04.580 to Beijing where nobody was sure if he was there or not you know in a train probably suggests that

00:35:11.080 China is indeed powerful in this respect because they discussed what might be discussed between

00:35:18.560 President Trump and Kim Jong-un. And there's never been a meeting between the North Korea

00:35:23.980 leader and the president of the United States. But the North Korean leader went to China first

00:35:27.760 and that tells you a lot. By the way, if President Trump were to sit down with Kim Jong-un

00:35:35.260 and they resolved the North Korea issue.

00:35:38.780 I mean, like, wow.

00:35:40.980 Yeah, absolutely.

00:35:42.180 I was just going to ask you that.

00:35:43.280 That could be a huge success story for Donald Trump,

00:35:46.080 could it not, if that were to be achieved?

00:35:47.980 Yeah, if he did nuclearize North Korea, if he normalized it. 0.93

00:35:51.420 But here's another part that would be interesting.

00:35:53.040 So say they have the summit and North Korea agrees to dismantle its nuclear weapons,

00:35:59.000 which, okay, this is all a bit of a long shot.

00:36:02.260 And it begins to talk about reunification with South Korea.

00:36:09.220 A unified Korea, which is attached in terms of a land border to China, isn't necessarily something the Chinese would want.

00:36:19.560 Because a unified Korea is probably going to be Western orientated.

00:36:24.660 And so China would want the status quo.

00:36:28.040 And so even if the South Koreans and the Americans think the only way to stabilize North Korea would be to remove the DMZ, normalize, integrate, all the kinds of things they've been hoping to do for a very long time, I wonder how much support they would get from China for that because China would be worried about having a so clearly U.S.-orientated country that is on their doorstep.

00:36:54.800 So I think the status quo would be what the Chinese would want. 1.00

00:37:00.680 And I think realistically, that's probably what we'll end up with.

00:37:05.500 But who knows?

00:37:06.380 Well, another possibility that's been mooted, of course, is the idea of a soft annexation of North Korea by China,

00:37:13.080 which kind of allows the West to say, well, it's been dealt with, the Chinese are controlling. 0.99

00:37:17.500 The Chinese don't have a unified career on their border, sitting there, frustrating them because it's a Western ally. 0.89

00:37:24.580 Do you think that might happen?

00:37:25.720 Do you think Donald Trump, because that's never happened before, because the West hasn't probably wanted that to happen,

00:37:31.980 but now Donald Trump has kind of pulled back America's influence.

00:37:36.140 Could that happen?

00:37:36.920 Is that something that the Chinese would go for and would be interested in? 1.00

00:37:40.440 I think they would still prefer the status quo.

00:37:42.880 I think taking responsibility for a regime that, because essentially you would have to take responsibility for the Kim regime, I think it's probably a step they'd be quite unwilling to take.

00:37:55.980 So the Chinese have operated for a long time based on a doctrine of non-interference.

00:38:00.840 They don't interfere in the affairs of other countries.

00:38:03.680 And by implication, you don't interfere in the affairs of China.

00:38:07.500 So they don't, for example, mess with congressional districts in the United States or anything like that?

00:38:13.880 No, unlike perhaps some other countries.

00:38:18.520 Okay.

00:38:19.340 And another thing on China that we wanted to talk to you about as well is

00:38:22.480 there's been a lot in the news recently about the social credit system.

00:38:26.480 Can you tell anyone who doesn't know anything about it like us

00:38:29.240 what it is, why it's happening, what are the consequences of it?

00:38:32.520 Just anything, really.

00:38:33.560 Yeah, it's very Big Brother-ish.

00:38:35.860 Of course, now we've realized with Facebook.

00:38:41.140 It's happening here as well.

00:38:42.500 Yeah. I think, well, the Chinese control the internet pretty closely. So the Great Chinese 1.00

00:38:49.740 Firewall, I think, is pretty well known. But they also monitor pretty actively what's posted on the

00:38:55.400 internet. So this idea of the social credit system is if you're a good citizen, then they're going to

00:39:01.820 develop a digital profile of you that could end up getting you cheaper train tickets if you're good

00:39:07.700 or things like that. How do they measure your good citizenship? How do you tell if someone is a good

00:39:12.360 citizen yeah it's a good question probably I guess if you post good things about the country

00:39:18.880 you're I don't know I don't know but I read all kinds of crazy stuff like if you're jaywalking

00:39:24.320 if you're walking on the street rather than the pavement there's facial recognition cameras can

00:39:28.720 tell that you're doing that and that affects your credit is this just kind of conspiracy stuff or

00:39:32.620 is that part of the package we'll have to see it's very hard to know what they're actually

00:39:36.640 I'm sure they're monitoring all of that but what goes into the algorithm I don't really know but

00:39:42.320 it is worryingly Big Brother-ish. And I think when they first started discussing this system,

00:39:49.480 I think a lot of people were thinking, oh, my gosh, you know, this is really, yeah, this is

00:39:55.480 Orwellian. And then we find out that in the West, we've been tracked digitally as well.

00:40:02.020 And now I kind of feel in general, we are obviously not as extreme as what China is

00:40:07.440 proposing but I think our yeah I think our digital lives have been tracked probably far more than we

00:40:14.460 realize. One thing I found very interesting when I visited China which was a few years ago now it

00:40:19.240 was 2006 is the division in wealth. It's completely changed. Oh right okay. Everything you ever knew

00:40:25.900 about China is completely wrong mate just forget about it. The economy doubles in size you know

00:40:31.100 every 10 years so it's completely changed but go on ask your super question ask your

00:40:39.580 irrelevant question but one thing that always struck me about the place was was and i mean

00:40:45.260 it is to us we have it in all societies to a certain degree but the horrendous difference

00:40:50.480 between rich and poor like going to a mall in beijing and it was like a i remember i walked

00:40:55.260 into one shop and it was like a superstore for gucci and just people buying just bags and bags

00:41:02.240 and bags and bags of you know of products you know gucci products that were literally thousands

00:41:08.480 and thousands of dollars and then you go outside and there were people there with unable to afford

00:41:14.540 a bowl of rice i mean surely that must create tension in society where you have this ostentatious

00:41:20.120 display of wealth and then you have extreme poverty especially and somebody told me they

00:41:25.400 look down i mean i may be wrong with this they make the chinese society looks down on people

00:41:30.100 who are from rural or agricultural backgrounds yeah i think they um i think for quite a long

00:41:38.720 time urban dwellers think that migrant workers um you know from the countryside they do the kind

00:41:44.040 menial tasks. Inequality in China is a massive problem. At one point, China was more unequal

00:41:51.900 than the United States by a measure of what's called the Gini coefficient, which measures

00:41:58.200 inequality. That's extraordinary. China is a communist country. Everybody's supposed to be

00:42:03.200 equal, right? Theoretically. Yeah. So I think one of the challenges that Xi Jinping's administration

00:42:12.500 is going to have to try and face is when you have,

00:42:17.560 I mean, income inequality has already, has plateaued.

00:42:19.980 It's actually not gotten worse,

00:42:21.100 but it's plateaued at a very high level

00:42:22.600 is what they would do about it.

00:42:26.300 And it's not clear a lot has been done about it.

00:42:31.000 But in China, you also now have,

00:42:33.780 and this is under Xi Jinping's, one of his policies,

00:42:37.120 and they talk about the Chinese dream,

00:42:38.740 which is even if you are from the countryside and you're a migrant worker, then you too can have a house, a picket fence, a car, a good job.

00:42:50.580 So it's basically a mirror of the American dream.

00:42:54.260 And so in that way, communist China is very similar to capitalist America because they're both not going to reduce inequality in the way that you would see in northern Europe, which is more equal because governments redistribute incomes to reduce inequality.

00:43:15.400 Both America and China seem to be using social mobility and economic opportunity 0.91

00:43:20.920 as a way of counteracting very high levels of inequality.

00:43:27.080 I'm not sure that... We'll see how it works out.

00:43:30.820 I'm not sure that is going to be socially acceptable,

00:43:35.540 given how vast the income divide is in a country which is still only a middle-income country.

00:43:43.380 So it's not as if on average people are well off.

00:43:45.720 On average, average incomes are $9,000 per year.

00:43:49.700 So it's still a developing emerging economy to have this kind of inequality.

00:43:55.280 We'll see how it sits.

00:43:56.880 But I think the prognosis for it is that they seem like they're going down the American route.

00:44:03.900 We'll do one more question, Chyna, and we'll move on.

00:44:06.440 I remember at Kilconomics hosting a discussion between you and other experts on the subject of China.

00:44:11.300 And one of the things that I remember absolutely struck me is that I'd come into the conversation thinking that China's this big threat to the West and everything else.

00:44:20.040 And what emerged actually as a result of one of the contributions that you made is the idea that China's financial system has got a lot of problems in it.

00:44:28.800 And those problems could affect China, which then would affect the rest of the world.

00:44:33.600 And basically the idea being that China's biggest threat to the world is not its intentional actions.

00:44:38.200 It's the collapse of its financial system potentially.

00:44:40.460 Can you talk a little bit about that and tell us what that's about?

00:44:44.560 Yeah, so I think China is likely to have a financial crisis.

00:44:51.140 All major economies do.

00:44:52.840 The only question is how big and when, and I don't know the answer to either of those.

00:44:58.880 Well, I remember you said you'd been predicting it for 10 years and it still hasn't happened.

00:45:02.860 Well, I've been warning about it for quite a long time.

00:45:05.720 And that's because they have such a legacy of debt from different, you know,

00:45:09.240 there have been massive buildups of debt since the 2008 crisis. So I think it matters a lot for

00:45:15.320 the rest of the world, because China is the world's second biggest economy. And we know that

00:45:19.420 countries, when they have a financial crisis, and again, this depends on the scale, but data in

00:45:25.300 China isn't very good. And so if China ends up having to deal with a banking crisis, or something

00:45:35.920 like that, the economy is likely to stagnate. And for a lot of countries, the stagnation

00:45:40.860 is a decade, or in Japan's case, two decades, three decades. And that would really be a 0.87

00:45:49.160 massive drag on the rest of the world in terms of growth, because China at the moment is

00:45:54.240 a bigger contributor to driving global growth than America. And so we should all be quite

00:46:02.360 concerned that China, whether China can deal with this debt problem. Maybe it can, but I wouldn't

00:46:09.280 rule out any major economy having a financial crisis stemming from something. It's just,

00:46:19.280 it's very unusual not to have one. It's more usual to have one. There's a book by

00:46:26.500 Reinhardt and Rogoff, where they basically track over the last two centuries, all major economies

00:46:33.580 have crises at some point. And China, in its current form, since market-oriented reform started

00:46:39.800 in 78, has not had a crisis. That's a very long run. So hopefully it'll continue, but I'm quite

00:46:48.380 worried. This is the positive note of the whole show. Perfect. One of the things that you've

00:46:53.980 talked about a lot in your talks and in your lectures is the process of ending global poverty

00:47:00.240 and you've mentioned the fact that a lot of progress has been made and I think you've said

00:47:04.500 that since 1990 about a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty and then obviously

00:47:09.560 if you go back to kind of the start of capitalism it's pretty much most of the world that's been

00:47:14.200 lifted out of extreme poverty. Where are we with that and what's happening and also how is that

00:47:20.000 happening unevenly around the world, because that's also another issue that you mentioned

00:47:23.720 in terms of Africa and China and so on. Yeah, so the end of poverty was my TEDx talk. And

00:47:30.480 probably the two things that I stress there is we have a very ambitious target to end extreme

00:47:38.080 poverty by 2030 that's been adopted by the United Nations and all countries around the world.

00:47:44.560 But the second thing I stress is past performance doesn't necessarily predict future performance.

00:47:53.000 And the reason is because we are at a historic point.

00:47:58.800 One out of 10 people live in extreme poverty, less than $1.90 per day,

00:48:03.660 adjusted for what a dollar buys in their country.

00:48:06.340 That's the lowest it's been around the world through history.

00:48:12.380 But a lot of that is due to China's remarkable growth and growth in East Asia.

00:48:18.700 What you found, so you mentioned there one of the stats is since 1990,

00:48:24.160 a billion people have been lifted out of abject poverty.

00:48:28.980 But since 1990, sub-Saharan Africa has seen the absolute number of people in poverty increase,

00:48:38.140 even though it was the second fastest growing region in the world after Asia.

00:48:43.560 So growth, if it's unequal, benefits people who are rich

00:48:49.440 and it doesn't lift those at the bottom.

00:48:53.100 So yes, growth in China and East Asia is why we're at this historic point,

00:48:59.060 but to eradicate poverty requires lifting the remaining 767 million people,

00:49:06.700 half of whom are found in sub-Saharan Africa, out of poverty.

00:49:11.060 And what you've worked before probably didn't work to raise Africans out of poverty over the past few decades.

00:49:22.020 So it's unlikely we need to try something else looking forward.

00:49:26.520 But the good news is most people recognize that,

00:49:30.880 that to deal with poverty now in Africa and in South Asia is going to have to, you're going to

00:49:39.600 have to think of new models, new ways of incorporating, for instance, what I think of

00:49:45.120 as more grassroots civil society organizations. They're reducing inequality as part of that.

00:49:52.520 But I think there is a recognition that something different has to be done because what's been done

00:49:57.640 before just well it hasn't worked well china growing more is not going to solve the problem 0.70

00:50:02.840 of poor people in africa is basically right and growth alone africa isn't going to do it 1.00

00:50:07.580 so we're going to have to think of new ways of doing it and why is that why is that different

00:50:11.780 in africa as opposed to some in other places why is it the growth that doesn't have the same impact

00:50:16.920 part of it is inequality so um if growth happens and the benefits accrue to the rich then that has

00:50:26.440 that'll raise the growth rate of the economy, it'll increase GDP, but the benefits don't go to

00:50:33.260 those who are poor, and therefore they remain poor. The answer also, even countries which, 0.55

00:50:40.240 like Tanzania, is not in the midst of conflict, their numbers of people in poverty have increased

00:50:47.100 as well. So it's not the kind of, the correlates we typically look at are not the reasons,

00:50:53.880 are not going to be enough.

00:50:55.480 You can't just focus on no conflict or promoting growth

00:50:58.500 to lift people out of poverty.

00:51:00.520 So there's no easy answer to what needs to be done,

00:51:03.460 but I think there is a widespread recognition

00:51:05.260 that economic development is going to have to look harder

00:51:10.740 at institutions.

00:51:12.680 So these grassroots groups that I refer to

00:51:15.620 is one of the chapters in my book

00:51:19.040 is entitled, Why Are So Few Countries Prosperate?

00:51:24.620 And the answer, part of the answer, is that the institutions in these countries need reform.

00:51:31.940 So we've been focused, economists focus a lot on growth.

00:51:35.100 But actually, it's about trying to get the institutions to work better, if that means using social capital or social networks or some other way to make growth more inclusive.

00:51:45.660 But because there is a recognition that something different has to be done, it is possible, given how much nations around the world are focused on this, that we could end up by 2030 eradicating poverty or most extreme poverty.

00:52:04.580 And on current trends, we will, by 2030, live in a world where, for the first time, more than half of the global population is middle class.

00:52:17.540 That means earning between $10 to $100 per day.

00:52:21.540 It basically means you can afford a refrigerator.

00:52:24.940 So that's the – but that's quite the –

00:52:27.820 I'm not sure a lot of middle class people in Britain are going to go with that definition.

00:52:30.800 But I think, you know, we are on the cusp of potentially a transformative period in the world because there is, I think, yeah, a recognition that we need to think differently about it.

00:52:43.580 And I'm always very hopeful that we will get to this point where we'll see hundreds of millions of people in the middle class.

00:52:52.580 In fact, I think the projections by the OECD are that there will be 4.9 billion people who are in the middle class out of a global population of 8.6 billion in 2030, and that would be extraordinary.

00:53:06.780 Linda, so the one thing we do like to do at the end of the show is we're always curious, because we ask you questions that we think are interesting, but actually we're constantly aware that we may not know the most interesting questions.

00:53:16.560 So what we'd like to ask is, is there an issue or several issues that you think we ought to be talking about or ought to be focusing on that actually no one is talking about or no one is focusing on?

00:53:26.040 Is there something like that that you want to bring to our attention?

00:53:29.840 I think probably, well, this is an issue that lots of people do talk about, but I think we should talk about it more, is the question of why are wages so low?

00:53:41.480 So that's also a chapter in my book.

00:53:43.460 And the reason I think this question is important is because typically if you look at what matters in economics, it has to be people's standard of living.

00:53:52.960 So when you look at this question of why wages have not kept up with productivity, it gets you into this whole world of trends that we know is affecting our livelihoods.

00:54:06.640 But I don't know that we've done enough research or analysis to understand some of these trends.

00:54:12.700 So, for instance, we've talked about globalization and a bit on technology, but technology is one of the biggest issues around what happens to the world of work.

00:54:24.680 And automation is one of the issues that's causing this hollowing out of mid-skilled jobs and then therefore depressing median wages.

00:54:35.420 So I think that's a massive issue.

00:54:37.260 And another component of why wages are so low is that workers, in terms of bargaining power, have been getting less.

00:54:45.040 So if you look at the share of income, for instance, in America, the trend is very clear.

00:54:48.980 The share of income going to owners of capital has been rising.

00:54:52.060 The share of income going to workers has been falling.

00:54:54.720 So why are workers losing bargaining power? 0.94

00:54:58.740 And that's also contributing to their low wages. 0.91

00:55:01.940 And this then all gets tied up into this dissatisfaction that people rightly have if they feel they're being left behind by the growth of a country.

00:55:11.200 So the populist movements we've seen in America and other parts of Europe, I think, do reflect the fact that people do not feel, and they would be right, they're not better off than they were years ago.

00:55:24.940 But we're not, I think, thinking hard enough about what to do about these trends.

00:55:32.660 And I think bargaining power for workers is one of the hardest things.

00:55:36.160 There is a correlation with unionization, but that's not the whole answer either,

00:55:40.980 because you don't have, as I say, kind of a simple solution to it.

00:55:46.980 but until we get a hold of why it is that people are not being paid what they're actually producing

00:55:55.620 because that's what it means for wages to keep up with productivity

00:55:57.900 that they're going to be dissatisfied with the status quo

00:56:00.880 if they're dissatisfied with the status quo

00:56:02.500 then you can get electorates which start to throw out the policy makers

00:56:08.220 they view as part of the establishment

00:56:09.740 and this kind of anti-establishment political mood

00:56:14.380 is linked to people's economic circumstances.

00:56:18.060 And just because you live in a rich country,

00:56:19.600 it doesn't necessarily mean you feel better off.

00:56:23.580 So to me, this issue around low productivity,

00:56:26.880 slow growth and wages

00:56:28.640 is one that we should be much more focused on.

00:56:32.800 There you go.

00:56:33.600 You're not being paid enough.

00:56:34.740 Yeah.

00:56:35.120 Vote for Brexit.

00:56:36.140 Well done.

00:56:37.360 So that was absolutely fascinating.

00:56:38.840 Linda thank you so much

00:56:39.880 if you'd like to promote

00:56:41.280 anything

00:56:41.640 your Twitter handle

00:56:42.600 or maybe your book

00:56:43.760 we'll have it up

00:56:44.320 on the video as well

00:56:45.020 but it's

00:56:46.100 it's at Linda U

00:56:46.660 isn't it

00:56:46.980 it's simply that

00:56:47.700 Linda has a great book

00:56:48.720 coming out

00:56:49.200 it's out already

00:56:50.240 I'm reading it

00:56:50.940 I'm really enjoying it

00:56:51.960 so I recommend

00:56:52.780 anyone buys that

00:56:53.640 thank you so much

00:56:54.640 for coming in

00:56:55.120 it's been an absolute pleasure

00:56:56.060 we really appreciate it

00:56:56.880 and if people want to

00:56:57.680 follow you on Twitter

00:56:58.440 at Constance and Kissin

00:56:59.540 and I'm at Failing Human

00:57:00.600 so give me a follow on there

00:57:01.740 and well thank you

00:57:03.120 very much for listening

00:57:03.920 and watching

00:57:04.600 if you like it

00:57:05.720 please follow

00:57:06.680 click subscribe

00:57:07.640 share it, promote it

00:57:09.820 retweet it, all the rest of it

00:57:11.740 and thank you very much

TRIGGERnometry - June 19, 2018

Dr Linda Yueh on Inequality, China and the End of Poverty

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript