Podcasts about World Trade Organization

Darrell Castle talks about President Trump’s recent summit with Premier Xi in China and points out the similarities with President Nixon’s summit in China in 1972. Transcription / Notes NIXON WENT TO CHINA TOO Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 22nd day of May in the year of our Lord 2026. President Trump just completed a three-day historic summit with Premier Xi in China. He is not the first President to visit China since President Nixon made that trip in 1972 when China was a far different nation than today as it was in the throes of suffering through the Maoist revolution. This is the Friday before Memorial Day when we pause to remember the fallen and for most it is the start of a 3-day weekend, but for Joan and I it is a different sort of anniversary to remember. Forty-nine years ago, on this date we saw each other for the first time because we were introduced on a blind date with mutual friends. So, we met forty-nine years ago on this date and we have been together ever since but our actual anniversary, the forty-nine will be in December. This Memorial Day falls 81 years after the end of World War ll, seventy-seven years after the end of the Korean War, and fifty-one years after the end of the Vietnam War. I guess the other wars, the desert wars, are still going on. Since we are into a little nostalgia this week and to prevent burying the lead it was 54 years ago that Nixon made his historic trip to China. It was historic because China and the US, although friends in World War ll had been bitter enemies for 23 years or since the Maoist revolution. The governing principle upon which the Chinese government has been based for all those years now 77 has been that capitalism would inevitably fail, and communism would ultimately triumph around the world. The triumph would come by way of revolution as it did in China but with the aid of countries where the Communist revolution had already occurred. That principle explains why the real enemy of the Western forces fighting in Korea and Vietnam was China and Russia, not North Korea and North Vietnam. When Nixon arrived in China in 1972 the Communist Revolution had been ongoing since 1949 or 23 years but China had not fared well under Communism. It was a desperately poor, agrarian society in which the people were making little or no progress. There was very little indoor plumbing, especially in rural areas, and very little access to electricity. GDP per capita was barely at subsistence levels. Unlike today, China was technologically backward with a massive military but unable to technically compete. Trade with China was at $95.9 million and Nixon sought to build a bridge across the hostility of that world. He famously declared it “the week that changed the world.” President Clinton had a different approach to China because he apparently believed that massive technology transfers and resulting economic success would ease tensions and result in a more peaceful world. In 2000 he gave the Chinese PNTR or Permanent Normal Trade Relations and supported Chinese membership in the WTO or World Trade Organization in 2001. Before Chinese entry into the WTO the US-China trade deficit was about $83 billion but by 2015 it was $367 billion. Chinese imports into the US also surged massively with an estimated replacement of US jobs at about 2.4 to 3.4 million. Communities built in the US around the manufacture of electronics, clothing, furniture, automobiles, and other products were devastated and became just the rust belt. Nixon visited a weak, agrarian society but the new economic policies turned it into an economic and military superpower. Now President Trump has visited this country which has been hostile to the United States for 77 years. Trump's approach to negotiating is to assume he has the strength in the relationship and to use it to his advantage. Tariffs, export controls, global alliances, and military power are all used in an effort to help benefit US farmers, manufacturers, energy workers, and many others. I predict that Trump's trip to China will prove similar to Nixon's in some ways. They both sought direct personal negotiation producing tangible economic benefits to both sides with protection from dangerous strategic competition. There is a knowledge or at least an assumption that President Clinton's belief that economic success alone would moderate strategic behavior did not work and guardrails have to be installed and adhered to. Nixon engaged an impoverished third-world China for the purpose of using it to counter the Soviets. Trump engaged a powerful superpower to prevent it from obtaining or maintaining dominance in key areas. He got a public commitment from Xi to stop supplying weapons to Iran and to not aid in Iranian nuclear efforts. I have some thoughts on Xi's statement about Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In my view his statement meant nothing or it was what in the law is referred to as legal fiction. He said that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and Iran should reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Well of course for the world's economies the Strait should be reopened; a no brainer. Both sides know that nukes are not the reason for the attack on Iran and not the real reason for the continuation of the war. Thomas Massie just found out in his Republican primary what the real reason is. If the Israel lobby or the friends of Israel wants you out of congress then you are out of congress. There aren't many surviving Republicans who are not totally sold out the Israel lobby. Rand Paul is an example and Thomas Massie was another. So almost no Republicans and about the same number of Democrats although some Democrats seem to survive without total subservience. If there are grounds for optimism coming from the summit they can be found in Xi's public speech or at least that's how I see them. The English version of Xi's speech comes to me via George Friedman and his Geopolitical Futures so quoting Mr. Xi. “Honorable President Donald J. Trump, ladies and gentlemen, friends, looking back at the cause of China-U.S. relations, whether or not we could have mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation is the key to whether the relationship can advance steadily. The world today is changing and turbulent. China-U.S. relations concern the well-being of over 1,7 billion people of both countries and affect the interests of the over 8 billion people of the world. Both sides should rise up to this historic responsibility and steer the giant ship of China-U.S. relations forward steadily and in the right direction.” To me that statement says this is a multi-polar world and if we are to progress together and for the good of the world's people you must recognize that. If you are willing to do that then 77 years of hostility can end at least open hostility can end. President Trump probably had the speech examined by his China people and he probably pointed out the thousands of Chinese spies who occupy every university of note, every corporation of note and even hold political office. Yes the mayor of Alameda, California has confessed to being a Chinese agent. There are hardly any members of Congress or the Senate who haven't slept with at least one Chinese spy. Mr. Xi let me ask you this if the Chinese are so smart and so technologically proficient why do you have to steal your technology and your scientific advances from us. I'm just guessing but I imagine all those things were discussed. In short, China needs the American market to save its economy. In recent years economists have noted that Chinese domestic consumption has fallen off a cliff, but production is soaring. Thar means that China cannot absorb nearly enough of its production and needs the American market to do that. America needs China and Russia to help it find a face-saving exit from its war against Iran. You both control Iran and we will endeavor to control Netanyahu. To carry my point a little further Xi mentioned the Thucydides Trap in which the ancient Greek Geopolitical Thinker pointed out that when a rising power collides with an old power war is always the result. Xi said he hopes that can be avoided for China and the U.S. If that is the case and both sides want to avoid war then talking is at least the first step and a necessary one. To that end they have scheduled another summit for Washington in September, I think. Finally, folks, it seems to me that China has everything to lose and nothing to gain by war with the United States. George Friedman pointed out the fact that he mentioned Thucydides but did not mention Lenin, or Marx, and to me that's pretty significant and could mean a turning away from 77 years of false assumptions. Why are these two men meeting and negotiating, well, I think necessity is the mother of invention and right now they need each other. At least that's the way I see it, Until next time folks, This is Darrell Castle, Thanks for listening.

A currency becomes “internationalized” when it is widely used beyond its home economy for trade, financial transactions, and as a store of value. Achieving that status can lower transaction costs and exchange rate risks, while also enhancing the issuing country's geopolitical influence. Today, the global financial system remains overwhelmingly dollar-centric, with China's renminbi playing a comparatively modest role. Yet over the past decade, Beijing has taken steps to expand its global use, expanding offshore renminbi markets, establishing bilateral swap lines, and developing alternative payment infrastructure.  To help us unpack where China's renminbi internationalization efforts stand today, we are joined by Zongyuan Zoe Liu, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Zoe's research centers on international political economy and global financial markets, with a focus on China and East Asia, as well as the Middle East. She is the author of Can BRICS De-dollarize the Global Financial System? and Sovereign Funds: How the Communist Party of China Finances Global Ambitions.   Timestamps:  [00:00] Introduction  [01:54] Strategic Motivations for Beijing  [04:55] Progress Report on RMB Internationalization  [08:16] Main Mechanisms Used to Promote the RMB  [11:08] RMB in the Belt and Road Initiative  [13:46] Using Clean Energy Supply Chains to Promote RMB in Key Commodities  [15:57] RMB as a Reserve Currency?  [21:23] Xi's Fourth Term Goals with the RMB  [27:26] How Global Conflicts Impact RMB Internationalization 

The USMCA review is fast approaching, uncertainty is building across the automotive industry, and leaders are asking a critical question: Is the agreement that binds North America together at risk?Colin Bird, the Consul General of Canada in Detroit, United States, brings clarity. This is not a collapse or a dramatic reset. It is a built-in review designed to test whether the agreement still works in a world that has fundamentally changed. The environment that shaped USMCA no longer exists. Supply chains are strained, global competition is intensifying, and China has accelerated ahead in the EV space.The real issue is not whether the agreement survives. The issue is whether North America can operate effectively under pressure. July 1 is not a breaking point. It's part of a process meant to ensure the agreement stays relevant while the industry evolves at speed.Colin makes it clear that the real danger comes when North America starts putting up barriers within its own system. The automotive supply chain has been built over decades to operate seamlessly across borders. When tariffs or policy decisions disrupt that flow, it does not just impact one country. It makes the entire region less competitive at a time when global players are moving fast.This episode is about what matters now: certainty, coordination, and competitiveness. The industry doesn't need more noise or political posturing. It needs alignment. Because if North America wants to win, it must act as one integrated system, not three separate countries.Themes Discussed in this EpisodeWhat the USMCA “review” really meansWhy July 1 is not a cliff, but a checkpointThe risk of disrupting a deeply integrated supply chainHow tariffs and policy decisions can backfire on North AmericaWhy China's EV acceleration changes everythingThe critical role of certainty and predictability for investmentWhat leaders must focus on to stay competitive globally

Happy “Tax Day”! I wonder what the American Revolutionary Founders would think of ‘Tax Day’, on this momentous 250th Anniversary of our American Independence…? Links Videos / Clips [x] = Played The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer – American Archive of Public Broadcasting [x] 48:56--49:39 JIM LEHRER: What is the proper relationship, what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and a president of the United States? ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t, frankly, matter. And I’ve had very good relationships with presidents. 1. [x] Understanding Fractional Reserve Banking: How It Fuels Economic Growth Fractional reserve banking is the banking system most countries use today. It requires banks to hold only a fraction of the money their customers deposit. That amount is the reserve requirement, and in most countries, it is set by the central bank. Banks can loan the rest of their deposits to other customers, which serves to expand the economy. It works like this. Banks accept deposits from individuals and businesses providing them with savings and checking accounts in return. Banks can loan out the bulk of those deposits to other customers to buy homes or cars, start businesses, or to fund other projects. If a customer deposits $100,000 into a bank and the reserve requirement is 5%, the bank can loan $95,000 out to other customers. Once the bank has loaned out $95,000, it in essence has created $195,000. Customers borrow that $95,000 and deposit some or all of it into other banks. If the reserve requirement is still 5%, then the other banks can loan $90,250 to new customers. And the process keeps repeating itself. Financial crisis occurs when the fractional banking system breaks down and the money supply does not expand. Many US banks had to shut down during the Great Depression, because so many people attempted to withdraw their money at the same time. Today, safeguards exist to prevent such an occurrence. 1. Dollar Decline, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) & IMF as World Federal Bank – Jim Rickards – The Triffin Dilemma Headlines [x] = Mentioned / Discussed [x] Secretive Bilderberg group just met – but who knows what global elite said? | Washington DC | The Guardian [x] Prosecutors from Jeanine Pirro’s office tried to access Federal Reserve headquarters, but were turned away | CBS News [x] Grand jury declines criminal charges against 6 Democrats who urged military to reject illegal orders | CBS News [x] Google, Microsoft, Meta All Tracking You Even When You Opt Out, According to an Independent Audit | 404 Media WebinarTV Secretly Scraped Zoom Meetings of Anonymous Recovery Programs | 404 Media Farmer Arrested for Speaking Too Long at Datacenter Town Hall Vows to Fight | 404 Media The Rest [x] = Mentioned / Discussed Previous RWR Episodes [x] Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley, April 14, 2026 | Hour 1 | Hour 2 Administrative Fourth Branch [x] The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government | The Heritage Foundation [x] The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State on JSTOR [x] America Is A Don't Ask Don't Tell Nation – Road Warrior Radio The Paper Ponzi Scheme [x] Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 27 May 1788 The bankruptcies in London have recommenced with new force. There is no saying where this fire will end. Perhaps in the general conflagration of all their paper. …nothing is necessary but a general panic, produced either by failures, invasion or any other cause, and the whole visionary fabric vanishes into air and shews that paper is poverty, that it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself. [x] Money, whence it came, where it went : Galbraith, John Kenneth, 1908-2006 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent. [x] Economists John Kenneth Galbraith and Alan Greenspan appeared before… News Photo – Getty Images [x] Crash Could Not Happen Again, Heller, Galbraith and Greenspan Tell Congress – The New York Times [x] FRB Speech, Bernanke – On Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday – November 8, 2002 Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again. [x] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval (1816) – Teaching American History We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression. [x] Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address (Mar 4, 1837) | The American Presidency Project The severe lessons of experience will, I doubt not, be sufficient to prevent Congress from again chartering such a monopoly, even if the Constitution did not present an insuperable objection to it. But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government. The power which the moneyed interest can exercise, when concentrated under a single head and with our present system of currency, was sufficiently demonstrated in the struggle made by the Bank of the United States. [x] Federal Reserve Act – Wikisource, the free online library Sec. 30.. The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. [x] hypothecate – definition and meaning [x] Websters 1828 – Webster’s Dictionary 1828 – Hypothecate HYPOTH’ECATE, verb transitive [Latin hypotheca, a pledge; Gr. to put under, to suppose.] 1. To pledge, and properly to pledge the keel of a ship, that is, the ship itself, as security for the repayment of money borrowed to carry on a voyage. In this case the lender hazards the loss of his money by the loss of the ship, but if the ship returns safe, he received his principal, with the premium or interest agreed on, though it may exceed the legal rate of interest. 2. To pledge, as goods. [x] 321gold: Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan 1966 In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard. Triffin dilemma – Wikipedia The Shot Heard Round The World [x] Battles of Lexington and Concord – Wikipedia On This Day Events April 2026 Calendar of Public Holidays | Office Holidays Holidays and Observances in the United States in 2026 What day is it today? Important events every day ad-free | United States OTD Worldwide Public Holidays Wednesday April 15th 2026 | Office Holidays On This Day – What Happened on April 15 Today in History: April 15, the Titanic sinks in the North Atlantic | AP News What Happened on April 15 – On This Day What Happened on April 15 | HISTORY April 15 – Wikipedia What Happened On April 15 In History? 15 | April | 2020 | Executed Today Holidays Tax Day (US) Father Damien Day (Hawaii) Jackie Robinson Day (US) Titanic Remembrance Day (US) American Sign Language (ASL) Day (US) Historical Events 2013 – Boston Marathon Bombing: Two bombs made from pressure cookers exploded at the Boston Marathon finish line, killing two women and an 8-year-old boy and injuring more than 260. But: Who is Graham Fuller, and who is Uncle Ruslan…?123456789 1998 – Pol Pot, the architect of Cambodia's killing fields, dies of apparently natural causes while serving a life sentence imposed against him by his own Khmer Rouge. 1994 – The World Trade Organization is founded: The WTO coordinates and strives to liberalize international trade. It has been criticized for ignoring and escalating the negative social and environmental side-effects of globalization. 1990 – Sketch comedy TV series In Living Color premieres on FOX TV 1989 – A small group of students initiates pro-democracy protest on Tiananmen Square in Beijing: The death of reformer Hu Yaobang triggered the demonstrations, which grew in size and were brutally dispersed in the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4. 1986 – The United States launches retaliatory air strikes against Libya: Around 40 Libyans died in Operation El Dorado Canyon, including an infant girl. The attack was the United States’ response to the bombing of a Berlin discotheque on April 5, in which 3 people had died. 1974 – Members of the Symbionese Liberation Army held up a branch of the Hibernia Bank in San Francisco; a member of the group was SLA kidnap victim Patricia Hearst. (Hearst later said she had been forced to participate in the robbery.) 1960 – Guy Carawan sings We Shall Overcome to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Raleigh, popularizing the song as a protest anthem 1955 – Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald's restaurant in Des Plaines, Illinois. 1945 – The German concentration camp Bergen-Belsen is liberated: British and Canadian troops found about 53,000 prisoners inside the camp. Tens of thousands died before and after the liberation. 1935 – The Eastman Kodak Company launches Kodachrome: The photographic film was one of the most popular media used by professional and hobby photographers around the world. The product was discontinued in 2009 because of the advent of digital photography. 1924 – Rand McNally publishes its first road atlas. 1912 – British luxury liner RMS Titanic sunk in the North Atlantic off Newfoundland just over two and a half hours after hitting an iceberg on its maiden voyage. Over 1,500 people died; 710 survived. 1900 – Philippine–American War: Filipino guerrillas launch a surprise attack on U.S. 1892 – The General Electric Company is formed. 1877 – World’s first home telephone is installed in Somerville, Massachusetts at the house of Charles Williams Jr. 1874 – First Impressionist art exhibition opens in Paris, features Claude Monet, Edgar Degas, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Camille Pissarro and Berthe Morisot 1865 – Abraham Lincoln died after being shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theater the previous evening; Andrew Johnson was sworn in as the 17th president hours later. 1861 – Federal army of 75,000 volunteers is mobilized by President Abraham Lincoln at the start of the American Civil War 1802 – William Wordsworth and his sister, Dorothy see a “long belt” of daffodils, inspiring the former to pen I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud. 1783 – Preliminary articles of peace ending the American Revolutionary War (or American War of Independence) are ratified. 1755 – Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language is published in London 1729 – Johann Sebastian Bach’s St Matthew Passion premieres at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, Holy Roman Empire (now Germany) Births 1978 – Chris Stapleton, American country singer-songwriter and guitarist (48) 1922 – Harold Washington, American lawyer and politician, 51st Mayor of Chicago (died 1987) 1894 – Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet politician, 7th Premier of the Soviet Union (died 1971) 1858 – Émile Durkheim, French sociologist, psychologist, and philosopher [read Lark’s Collected Musings] (died 1917) 1843 – Henry James, American/English author (died 1916) 1841 – Joseph E. Seagram, Canadian businessman and politician, founded the Seagram Company Ltd (died 1919) 1832 – Wilhelm Busch, German poet, painter, illustrator (died 1908) 1452 – Leonardo da Vinci, Italian painter, sculptor, architect (died 1519) Deaths 2025 – Wink Martindale, American DJ, radio personality, and TV personality (born 1933) 2024 – Whitey Herzog, American professional baseball outfielder and manager (born 1931) 2018 – R. Lee Ermey, USMC drill instructor, American actor (born 1944) 1998 – Pol Pot, Cambodian general and politician, 29th Prime Minister of Cambodia (born 1925) 1990 – Greta Garbo, Swedish actress (born 1905) 1980 – Jean-Paul Sartre, French philosopher, writer, Nobel Prize laureate (born 1905) 1912 – Victims of the Titanic disaster: Archibald Butt, American general and journalist (born 1865) Benjamin Guggenheim, American businessman (born 1865) Charles Melville Hays, American businessman (born 1856) Edward Smith, English Captain (born 1850) Henry B. Harris, American producer and manager (born 1866) Henry Tingle Wilde, English chief officer (born 1872) Ida Straus, German-American businesswoman (born 1849) Isidor Straus, German-American businessman and politician (born 1845) Jack Phillips, English telegraphist (born 1887) Jacques Futrelle, American journalist and author (born 1875) James Paul Moody, English Sixth Officer (born 1887) John B. Thayer, American business and sportsman (born 1862) John Jacob Astor IV, American colonel, businessman, and author (born 1864) Thomas Andrews, Irish shipbuilder (born 1873) Wallace Hartley, English violinist and bandleader (born 1878) William McMaster Murdoch, Scottish First Officer (born 1873) William Thomas Stead, English journalist (born 1849) 1889 – Father Damien, Flemish missionary, priest, and saint (born 1840) 1865 – Abraham Lincoln, American lawyer, politician, 16th President of the United States (born 1809) Footnotes Jimenez, Guillermo. “The Tsarnaevs and the CIA: Who Is Graham Fuller?” Traces of Reality by Guillermo Jimenez, 2026, web.archive.org/web/20130503080950/tracesofreality.com/2013/04/29/the-tsarnaevs-and-the-cia-who-is-graham-fuller/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. It has been confirmed that the Tsarnaev family, at least to some degree, have been connected to the Central Intelligence Agency for almost 20 years. In 1995, Ruslan Tsarni (formerly known as Ruslan Tsarnaev, affectionately known as “Uncle Ruslan,” the American corporate media darling who bemoaned the alleged actions of his nephews Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev ) married the daughter of the former Deputy Director of the CIA's National Council on Intelligence, Graham Fuller. While the marriage of Samantha Ankara Fuller and Ruslan Tsarnaev was short-lived, reportedly ending in divorce in 1999, it appears that Ruslan and Graham Fuller were more than just father-in-law and son.  They may also been business partners. These key details in the history of the Tsarnaev family and the CIA were first reported by Daniel Hopsicker of Mad Cow Morning News, and the marriage of Fuller's daughter and Ruslan has indeed been confirmed by Al-Monitor reporter, Laura Rozen. ↩ Hopsicker, Daniel. “Boston Bombers' Uncle Married Daughter of Top CIA Official.” MadCow Morning News, 26 Apr. 2013, www.madcowprod.com/2013/04/26/boston-bombers-uncle-married-daughter-of-top-cia-official/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Hopsicker, Daniel. ““Uncle Ruslan” Aided Terrorists from CIA Official's Home.” MadCow Morning News, 29 Apr. 2013, www.madcowprod.com/2013/04/29/uncle-ruslan-aid-to-terrorists-from-cia-officials-home/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Corbett, James. “Who Is Graham Fuller?” The Corbett Report, 2026, corbettreport.com/who-is-graham-fuller/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ “Graham Fuller – Wikispooks.” Wikispooks.com, 2026, wikispooks.com/wiki/Graham_Fuller. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Wikipedia Contributors. “Graham E. Fuller.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Mar. 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_E._Fuller. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Wikipedia Contributors. “Islamism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Wikipedia Contributors. “Tablighi Jamaat.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablighi_Jamaat. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩ Engdahl, F. William. “Graham E. Fuller Where Were You on the Night of July 15?” Archive.org, 9 Aug. 2016, www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO9Aug2016.php. Accessed 15 Apr. 2026. ↩

As countries prepare to introduce possible tariffs on everything from cloud services to cross‑border e‑commerce, concerns are rising over what this could mean for Africa's fast‑growing digital markets.

Is open source the true future of Artificial Intelligence? In this episode of the BRAVE Southeast Asia Tech Podcast, Jeremy Au sits down with Eugene Cheah, CEO and Co-Founder of Featherless AI. They dive deep into the architecture of the RWKV model, the intense global competition between open source and closed source AI, and how China is aggressively pushing an open source strategy to bypass chip constraints. Recorded with a focus on the Southeast Asian tech ecosystem, this episode breaks down the immediate impact of AI on the global south, specifically highlighting the vulnerability of the BPO and call center industries in the Philippines. Eugene also shares his extraordinary journey from building UIlicious to securing a $1M investment in San Francisco with no pitch deck, and his ongoing work with the Linux Foundation and the World Trade Organization to bridge the global AI language divide. Discover tactical insights into startup bootstrapping, macroeconomics, and the entrepreneurial mindset required to navigate the hyper-competitive deep tech space. Tune in to learn how to future-proof your business and stay ahead of the AI curve in Southeast Asia. 00:00 - Introduction & Featherless AI 02:59 - From UIlicious to AI Research 05:45 - RWKV & the Transformer Alternative 07:13 - Spinning Out Featherless as a New Company 09:10 - Fundraising in San Francisco 16:15 - Open Source vs. Closed Source AI 21:52 - China's Open Source AI Strategy 23:57 - Advantages & Disadvantages of Open Source 28:06 - Inference as a Service & Model Variety 32:13 - The Future of AI: Reliability & Specialization 36:35 - Personal Growth & Navigating AI Politics 39:01 - Policy Advice for Southeast Asia & Global AI Impact 43:39 - Multilingual AI & Closing the Global Divide 48:44 - Being Brave: Founding Story & Closing Reflections Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/eugene-cheah-featherless-ai-open-source-ai Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at https://www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter X : https://x.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Chinese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts #Singapore #China #Philippines #AI #ArtificalIntelligence #MachineLearning #Technology #TechNews #VentureCapital #Startup #Podcast #southeastasia #techpodcast

A cornerstone of modern globalization, the World Trade Organization (WTO), is collapsing. Following the Cold War, the post-WWII system needed a legal system to enforce trade rules, so the WTO was born. Join the Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/PeterZeihan Full Newsletter: https://bit.ly/4vaKeoS

Host: Cindy Allen Show: Simply Trade – Cindy's Version Published: April 9, 2026 Length: ~16 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center The Story of Us: Tariff Changes, CAPE Confusion, and the Trade Community Waiting for Answers Cindy Allen returns with a wide-ranging trade update set to Taylor Swift's “The Story of Us,” using the song's theme of miscommunication to frame the current disconnect between CBP, the courts, and the trade community. From a new DHS funding update and fresh uncertainty around tariffs and valuation to the evolving CAPE refund process and the latest questions around customs business, this episode captures a moment where the trade world is working hard to keep up with fast-moving policy changes. What You'll Learn in This Episode DHS and trade funding DHS remains largely unfunded, although TSA funding has now passed and some CBP officers remain funded under prior legislation. Many trade-related staff are still working without pay, and the shutdown pressure has now stretched beyond a month. Last sale and valuation debate Congress is still considering the last sale bill, which could eliminate last sale as a valuation method. Cindy explains that last sale has long been treated as part of the broader transaction value framework and is supported by court history, but Congress can still change the law if it chooses. White House tariff threats The White House floated 50% duties on countries that sell weapons to Iran, though Cindy questions what legal authority could support that now that IEEPA has been ruled unlawful. For China, the government could potentially revise Section 301 tariffs, but for other countries, the implementation path is unclear. Forced labor enforcement The Labor Department announced a new tool for assessing foreign forced labor practices, but details were sparse. Cindy notes that CBP already has a strong forced labor framework and suggests the Labor Department may be stepping into a larger detection/enforcement role. WTO criticism from USTR U.S. Trade Representative Jameson Greer published an op-ed criticizing the World Trade Organization, signaling frustration with its current effectiveness and casting doubt on the U.S. role going forward. Cindy highlights this as another sign that global trade institutions may be under pressure to prove relevance. 232 updates now in effect The recent steel and aluminum 232 changes took effect on April 6. Cindy notes that the system seems to be running smoothly, with de minimis treatment for some shipments under 15%, reduced or removed tariff coverage for certain HDS annex items, and new component-level classifications that reduce ambiguity even if the tariff burden remains high. CBP also released guidance on April 3, which importers subject to 232 should review carefully. USMCA remains strained USMCA negotiations continue, but Cindy says they are tense and may not conclude by the July 1 deadline. Despite frustration and mixed positions among the three governments, she notes the agreement still matters for North American production and U.S. manufacturing support. Customs business ruling and trade tech A recent customs business ruling has created concern among AI and trade tech companies, especially around whether certain activities now require a licensed customs broker. Cindy explains that the issue muddies the water for brokers, tech providers, and importers alike and will likely require clarification from CBP. ACE portal account requirement CBP has rolled out a new ACE portal account application process. Importers seeking refunds now need an ACE Portal account, and Cindy recommends checking CBP's site or speaking with a broker to understand the new application process. Strait of Hormuz and market impact The war with Iran is paused for two weeks, but a reported $2 million vessel toll for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is raising alarms. Cindy also points to Bloomberg reporting that some Asian factories are seeing 55% price increases on plastics, showing how oil transit issues ripple into fertilizers, plastics, diesel, and broader market volatility. CAPE and “The Story of Us” Cindy says she chose “The Story of Us” because the song reflects the miscommunication and silence she sees between CBP, the courts, and the trade community. The CAPE process is still being built, and while CBP has filed detailed updates with the court, the real uncertainty is how the court will interpret those filings and what rules will ultimately apply to importers. The biggest unresolved questions remain whether finally liquidated entries will be included, whether protests or court actions will be required, and how refund filings will ultimately work. Cindy notes that the lead case changed from Artemis to a new test case after Artemis withdrew, meaning the court started over with new orders and the process remains in motion. Subscribe & Follow New episodes every Friday. Presented by Global Training Center • Global Training Center on LinkedIn • YouTube • Spotify • Apple Podcasts • Trade Geeks Community

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured  Is the World Trade Organization beyond repair? U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer calls out dysfunction, endless bureaucracy, and ineffective global agreements. From stalled negotiations to bloated trade rules, this segment explores why multinational institutions struggle to deliver—and asks the big question: should the U.S. ditch the WTO and pursue direct, fair trade deals instead?

The Government officially accedes to the ACWL, granting Saint Lucia expert legal support in World Trade Organization disputes and strengthening its negotiating position in the global economy.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer joins Annmarie Hordern on Bloomberg TV to discuss the idea that the US is insulated from supply chain effects from the Strait of Hormuz, as well as to discuss the Trump administration’s perceived shortfall of the World Trade Organization and the possibility of a returning to a 20% tariff level with China. Greer says, “I see stability with China over the next year” as the nations prepare for talks in May.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

China has voiced support for the adoption of a major World Trade Organization agreement on electronic commerce. The E-Commerce Agreement is considered a significant milestone for the WTO.

Iran's top military leadership dismissed Donald Trump's claims that the Islamic republic was ready to make a deal, the US president appears to make abrupt policy pivots based on swings in oil prices, and the EU's trade commissioner says time is running out to stop the World Trade Organization from fading into irrelevance. Plus, how worried should investors be about the caps on redemptions at private credit funds?Mentioned in this podcast:Iran's military leaders dismiss Donald Trump's deal claimsIran war tests Donald Trump's tolerance for ‘pain' in oil marketMeta and Google liable for social media harm to children's mental health in landmark US caseWTO risks sliding into irrelevance, EU trade commissioner warnsPrivate credit's game of footsie is getting riskierAres limits withdrawals from $10.7bn private credit fundNote: The FT does not use generative AI to voice its podcasts Today's FT News Briefing was hosted and edited by Marc Filippino, and produced by Henry Larson, Victoria Craig and Sonja Hutson. Our show was mixed by Kelly Garry. Additional help from Gavin Kallmann. Our executive producer is Topher Forhecz. Cheryl Brumley is the FT's Global Head of Audio. The show's theme music is by Metaphor Music.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

① A conversation with Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana, a senior UN official, on Boao Forum for Asia and regional economic integration. (00:56) ② China has issued a set of guidelines to accelerate the establishment of a nationwide long-term care insurance system. How will this move help alleviate the country's aging challenges? (12:43) ③ Why have Chinese-developed AI models led global weekly token usage for a second straight week and overtaken their US counterparts? (25:00) ④ We talk to a senior manager of a leading Chinese enterprise software builder about the future of intelligent systems. (35:31) ⑤ Trade ministers are in Cameroon for discussions on reforming the World Trade Organization. How does the prospect of the talks look like? (45:04)

Iran attacked critical liquefied natural gas and oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, including a major source of gas for Europe. It was retaliating in response to Israeli strikes on a gas field that supplies a lot of Iran's domestic energy. This morning, we delve into what it means for the price of oil, precious metals, government bonds, and more. Plus, we learn how China's entry into the World Trade Organization impacted local U.S. banks.

Iran attacked critical liquefied natural gas and oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, including a major source of gas for Europe. It was retaliating in response to Israeli strikes on a gas field that supplies a lot of Iran's domestic energy. This morning, we delve into what it means for the price of oil, precious metals, government bonds, and more. Plus, we learn how China's entry into the World Trade Organization impacted local U.S. banks.

Natural gas prices soared as attacks intensified on energy infrastructure in the Middle East. The Ras Laffan plant in Qatar has sustained "significant damage", according to its operators, which could take years to fully repair. That will have a significant impact on global supplies, because the facility produces around a fifth of the world's LNG (liquefied natural gas). Also in the show: the World Trade Organization warns a trade slowdown could lead to mounting food insecurity.  

On this week's Series on Multilateral Organizations, Clement Manyathela speaks with Sustainability Practitioner at Ubuntunomics, Sibusiso Nyathi, to understand how the World Trade Organization works, and their association with South Africa and the rest of the continent. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Section 301 of the U-S Trade Act of 1974 is a broad tool which authorizes the sitting U.S. President to negotiate trade agreements, reduce tariffs, and combat unfair foreign trade practices. In mid-March, the U.S. Trade Representative's office put Taiwan on two 301-related lists: one for failing to take action over structural excess capacity, and the other, for failing to take action over accusations of false labor. International Trade attorney James Ransdell explains the regulation, and how it is being used against traditional U-S allies today. Hosted by I.C.R.T's Hope Ngo. -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

In recognition of International Women's Month, we speak to Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the first woman and first African to lead the World Trade Organization. We discuss women representation in leadership, the impact of the latest Middle East conflict on African economies and the shifting balance of global trade and Africa's place in it.And, we also look at LGBTQ rights on the continent. In much of Africa, homosexuality remains criminalised in 33 out of 55 countries, according to the Institute for Security Studies. While South Africa recognises same-sex marriage, most African countries do not. In Botswana, two women are now challenging the government in court for the right to marry, despite same-sex relationships being decriminalised.Presenter : Nkechi Ogbonna Producers: Keikantse Shumba and Chiamaka Dike Technical Producer: Jonathan Mwangi Senior Producer: Bella Twine and Blessing Aderogba Editors: Samuel Murunga and Maryam Abdalla

In this episode of Fraud Talk, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo‑Iweala, Director‑General of the World Trade Organization and recipient of the ACFE's Cressey Award for lifetime achievement, speaks with ACFE Chief Training Officer Andi McNeal, CFE, CPA, in a conversation recorded at the 36th Annual ACFE Global Fraud Conference. Dr. Okonjo‑Iweala reflects on the critical role transparency, strong institutions and accountability play in preventing fraud and corruption, and where technology can reduce risk alongside the key component of human judgment. She also shares insights on Africa's future in the global fight against corruption, lessons in building consensus under pressure and advice for women leaders grounded in values, courage and purpose.

Ocean fish populations are under pressure, and public money is still part of the problem. The World Trade Organization adopted a Fisheries Subsidies Agreement to curb harmful funding tied to illegal fishing, but major loopholes remain. Billions of dollars in government support continue to prop up industrial fleets that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. Research published in Nature estimates that governments provide approximately 35 billion USD annually in fisheries subsidies, with the majority considered harmful or capacity enhancing. While the WTO agreement marks progress, it does not yet eliminate subsidies that expand fleets or intensify fishing pressure on already stressed stocks. The OECD continues to track uneven reform efforts across countries, showing that global fisheries governance remains inconsistent. Can fish populations truly rebuild while governments continue to finance fleet expansion? This episode breaks down the science, the economics, and the political reality shaping the future of global fisheries. Support Independent Podcasts: https://www.speakupforblue.com/patreon Help fund a new seagrass podcast: https://www.speakupforblue.com/seagrass Join the Undertow: https://www.speakupforblue.com/jointheundertow Connect with Speak Up For Blue Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube    

In this episode, Peter Swartz, Co-Founder and Chief Science Officer at Altana, reveals how the company's AI-powered supply chain knowledge graph has helped stop hundreds of millions of dollars in forced labor goods from crossing borders and contributed to some of the largest counter-narcotics seizures in investigators' careers. Peter shares the real-world impact Altana is making across both the public and private sectors.Peter breaks down how Altana's multi-tier supply chain visibility works to trace forced labor cotton through global networks, how dual-use chemicals are being diverted into fentanyl production, and how the platform helps governments and enterprises collaborate to avoid billions of dollars in trade disruptions while saving hundreds of millions in tariff fees.Key Topics Covered- How Altana blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in forced labor goods at U.S. borders- The role of AI knowledge graphs in mapping multi-tier global supply chains- How Altana supports CBP enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act- Product passports and how they expedite legitimate goods through customs- The difference between forced labor entering legit supply chains vs. legit goods entering illicit ones- How logistics companies use Altana to prevent their networks from being misused- Proactive vs. reactive approaches to supply chain risk using probabilistic AI models- Scenario modeling for geopolitical disruptions including Taiwan and global conflicts- Saving billions in supply chain disruptions and hundreds of millions in tariff feesEpisode Timestamps00:00 - Introduction and overview of Altana's real-world impact00:41 - Understanding forced labor as a multi-tier supply chain problem03:09 - Hundreds of millions in forced labor goods stopped at borders03:45 - How the AI knowledge graph maps global supply chain connections04:15 - Working with CBP on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act04:35 - Product passports and expediting goods through customs04:51 - Counter-narcotics and the dual-use chemical problem05:45 - Helping logistics companies stop network misuse06:27 - From alert to action and the system handoff process06:49 - Responsible AI and the role of human-in-the-loop decisions07:33 - Proactive vs. reactive supply chain intelligence08:08 - Scenario modeling for geopolitical disruptions and resiliencyAbout Peter SwartzPeter Swartz is Co-Founder and Chief Science Officer at Altana. He has spoken on global trade, supply chains, and machine learning at the World Trade Organization, the World Customs Organization, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the National Academies of Medicine. Previously, Peter was Head of Data Science at Panjiva, listed as one of Fast Company's most innovative data science companies in 2018 and later acquired by S&P Global. He holds patents in machine learning and global trade, and completed his education at Yale, MIT, and EPFL.About AltanaAltana is the world's first Value Chain Management System, providing AI-powered supply chain intelligence to governments, enterprises, and logistics providers. The platform is built on a proprietary knowledge graph comprising more than 2.8 billion shipments, tracking over 500 million companies and 850 million facilities globally. Altana covers more than 50% of global trade, making it the most comprehensive and accurate supply chain map available.Resources Mentioned- Altana Atlas platform and AI knowledge graph- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)- Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)- Product passports for cross-border compliance- Altana's disruption and tariff scenario modeling toolsPeter's Socials:LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/pgswartz/Partner LinksBook Enterprise Training — https://www.upscaile.com/

U.S. tariffs have upended decades of trade policy, but new U.N. data shows that the economies suffering most are those that can least afford a setback. At the Munich Security Conference (MSC), FP's Ravi Agrawal hosted a panel on the trade wars, with policymakers on the front lines of these economic changes: Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, the director-general of the World Trade Organization; Finnish President Alexander Stubb; German Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil; and U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis.  Follow FP's MSC coverage here. Wendy Cutler: How Countries Should Respond to Trump's Tariffs Keith Johnson: Tariffs Have Hurt, Not Helped, the U.S. Economy Rishi Iyengar: EU Don't Need U.S.? Ramon Pacheco Pardo and Robyn Klingler-Vidra: Middle Powers Don't Have to Work Together to Get Ahead Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode, Steve sits down with Tom Hardin, aka Tipperx — best known for helping expose a massive Wall Street insider trading ring. Steve and Tom discuss early warning signs that an organization might be crossing ethical or legal lines, how to build an organizational culture that promotes openness and protects from insider threats, and how to get employees to buy into things like good cyber hygiene.Key Takeaways: Governments must work with the private sector to achieve a cyber-secure environment. Boards are increasingly aware of cyber risks, but more work is needed.  Global trust is dissipating. Tune in to hear more about: The changing landscape of critical national infrastructure (5:46) Security vs. privacy in the UK (9:27) An ongoing, structural geopolitical shift (15:18)  Standout Quotes: “We need to make sure that we are thinking right across government when we are thinking about the approach to critical national infrastructure and how we can make it most safe for our users and for our populations.” - Sir Jeremy Fleming “I still encounter plenty who haven't done one for 18 months, who haven't updated to the latest threat environment, who haven't thought about geopolitics coming into play. Haven't checked that they've still contracted with a company who's gonna help them wind back in the event that they are breached. Hasn't thought seriously about whether it's gonna pay a ransom. The implications of paying a ransom.” - Sir Jeremy Fleming “The first thing is that what we're seeing now around changes in geopolitics is definitely a structural change. It's not a cyclical change. So the post 1948 Bretton Woods approach to the global order, with a whole load of United Nations agencies, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, our approach to international aid, World Bank, these are all institutions that have changed fundamentally and won't change back.” - Sir Jeremy Fleming Read the transcript of this episodeSubscribe to the ISF Podcast wherever you listen to podcastsConnect with us on LinkedIn and TwitterFrom the Information Security Forum, the leading authority on cyber, information security, and risk management.

On this episode of the Trade Guys, Bill and Scott react to President Trump's threat to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada. They also discuss their takeaways from the aftermath of the World Economic Forum in Davos and several proposals to reform the World Trade Organization.

The Ministry of Commerce says China welcomes the ruling made by the World Trade Organization panel in the dispute case brought by China against the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act.

WTO/99 is a new, immersive archival documentary that depicts the four-day clash between the then-emerging World Trade Organization (WTO) and the 40,000+ people who took to the streets of Seattle in 1999 to protest the WTO Conference and the WTO's impact on human rights, labor, and the future effects of continued globalization.Aaron sat down with WTO/99 director/co-editor Ian Bell and producer/co-editor Alex Megaro to discuss the film's bracing depiction of the WTO protests, their prevailing ramifications in the 2020s, and whether the event's radicalizing groundswell is replicable in today's polarized political reality.WTO/99 has its Bay Area debut at The Roxie next Wednesday 1/28/26. Find tickets HERE. WTO/99 returns to the Bay Area Tuesday 2/24/28 at The New Parkway. Find tickets HERE. Find more upcoming screenings of WTO/99.Watch the trailer for WTO/99.....Our theme song is "Mirror" by Chris Fish.

China has been on a generational run since it was granted admission to the World Trade Organization at the beginning of the century. Though its infrastructure investments ran in the trillions of dollars, the Chinese GDP increased 10% every year for 15 years, all while producing 1,600 high-rises, 45,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, and hundreds of airports.The contrast with America is stark. Roads, ports, rail, and airports inside the United States are all falling apart, with the bloated, $128 billion, high-speed train to nowhere stalling out in California. Meanwhile, China has evolved into maglev trains and thorium-powered cargo ships for the new Belt and Road Initiative.—Watch the video version on one of the Macroaggressions Channels:Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/Macroaggressions YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MacroaggressionsPodcast—MACRO & Charlie Robinson LinksHypocrazy Audiobook: https://amzn.to/4aogwmsThe Octopus of Global Control Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3xu0rMmWebsite: www.Macroaggressions.io Merch Store: https://macroaggressions.dashery.com/ Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/macroaggressionspodcast—Activist Post FamilySign up for the Activist Post Newsletter: https://activistpost.kit.com/emailsActivist Post: www.ActivistPost.com Natural Blaze: www.NaturalBlaze.com —Support Our SponsorsAnarchapulco: https://anarchapulco.com/ | Promo Code: MACROC60 Power: https://go.shopc60.com/PBGRT/KMKS9/ | Promo Code: MACROChemical Free Body: https://chemicalfreebody.com/macro/ | Promo Code: MACROWise Wolf Gold & Silver: https://macroaggressions.gold/ | (800) 426-1836LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com EMP Shield: www.EMPShield.com | Promo Code: MACROGround Luxe Grounding Mats: https://groundluxe.com/MACRO Christian Yordanov's Health Program: www.LiveLongerFormula.com/macro Above Phone: https://abovephone.com/macro/Van Man: https://vanman.shop/?ref=MACRO | Promo Code: MACROThe Dollar Vigilante: https://dollarvigilante.spiffy.co/a/O3wCWenlXN/4471 Nesa's Hemp: www.NesasHemp.com | Promo Code: MACROAugason Farms: https://augasonfarms.com/MACRO —

Sweet Excess: Crafting Mishti in Bengal (Routledge, 2025) by Ishita Dey is an ethnographic work on excess. Based on a decade-long fieldwork of a single food substance – sweets – it follows sweet-making in sweetshops, domestic spaces, fairs, festivals and its representation in recipe books to understand how caste, religion, science and law inform the life of a food item with an extremely short shelf life. It shows how food items of conspicuous consumption find a meaning in everyday lives of people through its socio-cultural meanings – ritual, pride of craftsmanship, heritage and cultural identity. It also shows how sweets continue to be a ubiquitous part of ‘Bengali' diet in a geography that has been witness to acute hunger, starvation, food movements and social welfare programmes to ensure food security. As a multi-sited ethnography on sweetness in diverse settings and its associated meanings in West Bengal and Bangladesh, this book explores everyday workplace hierarchies between artisans that reveal how caste and religion inform the choice of who is hired into this line of work. It also highlights how discourses on food safety and the overpowering presence of World Trade Organization have affected the life of the Bengali mishti. The volume will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of ethnography, sociology, history and South Asian studies. And if you, dear reader, love mishti, you will love this, too!Satyaki Barua is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. His research focuses on party organisation, party institutionalisation, and political mobilisation, particularly examining the interactions between the state, society, and political parties in India and South Asia. Outside of academia, Satyaki enjoys watching and discussing movies, as well as practising Hindustani classical music. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Sweet Excess: Crafting Mishti in Bengal (Routledge, 2025) by Ishita Dey is an ethnographic work on excess. Based on a decade-long fieldwork of a single food substance – sweets – it follows sweet-making in sweetshops, domestic spaces, fairs, festivals and its representation in recipe books to understand how caste, religion, science and law inform the life of a food item with an extremely short shelf life. It shows how food items of conspicuous consumption find a meaning in everyday lives of people through its socio-cultural meanings – ritual, pride of craftsmanship, heritage and cultural identity. It also shows how sweets continue to be a ubiquitous part of ‘Bengali' diet in a geography that has been witness to acute hunger, starvation, food movements and social welfare programmes to ensure food security. As a multi-sited ethnography on sweetness in diverse settings and its associated meanings in West Bengal and Bangladesh, this book explores everyday workplace hierarchies between artisans that reveal how caste and religion inform the choice of who is hired into this line of work. It also highlights how discourses on food safety and the overpowering presence of World Trade Organization have affected the life of the Bengali mishti. The volume will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of ethnography, sociology, history and South Asian studies. And if you, dear reader, love mishti, you will love this, too!Satyaki Barua is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. His research focuses on party organisation, party institutionalisation, and political mobilisation, particularly examining the interactions between the state, society, and political parties in India and South Asia. Outside of academia, Satyaki enjoys watching and discussing movies, as well as practising Hindustani classical music. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/food

Sweet Excess: Crafting Mishti in Bengal (Routledge, 2025) by Ishita Dey is an ethnographic work on excess. Based on a decade-long fieldwork of a single food substance – sweets – it follows sweet-making in sweetshops, domestic spaces, fairs, festivals and its representation in recipe books to understand how caste, religion, science and law inform the life of a food item with an extremely short shelf life. It shows how food items of conspicuous consumption find a meaning in everyday lives of people through its socio-cultural meanings – ritual, pride of craftsmanship, heritage and cultural identity. It also shows how sweets continue to be a ubiquitous part of ‘Bengali' diet in a geography that has been witness to acute hunger, starvation, food movements and social welfare programmes to ensure food security. As a multi-sited ethnography on sweetness in diverse settings and its associated meanings in West Bengal and Bangladesh, this book explores everyday workplace hierarchies between artisans that reveal how caste and religion inform the choice of who is hired into this line of work. It also highlights how discourses on food safety and the overpowering presence of World Trade Organization have affected the life of the Bengali mishti. The volume will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of ethnography, sociology, history and South Asian studies. And if you, dear reader, love mishti, you will love this, too!Satyaki Barua is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. His research focuses on party organisation, party institutionalisation, and political mobilisation, particularly examining the interactions between the state, society, and political parties in India and South Asia. Outside of academia, Satyaki enjoys watching and discussing movies, as well as practising Hindustani classical music. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

Do you ever wonder whether your grocery store cares about whether you have a healthy diet? Every time we shop or read advertisement flyers, food retailers influence our diets through product offerings, pricings, promotions, and of course store design. Think of the candy at the checkout counters. When I walk into my Costco, over on the right there's this wall of all these things they would like me to buy and I'm sure it's all done very intentionally. And so, if we're so influenced by these things, is it in our interest? Today we're going to discuss a report card of sorts for food retailers and the big ones - Walmart, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize USA, which is a very large holding company that has a variety of supermarket chains. And this is all about an index produced by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi), a global foundation challenging the food industry investors and policy makers to shape a healthier food system. The US Retail Assessment 2025 Report evaluates how these three businesses influence your access to nutritious and affordable foods through their policies, commitments, and actual performance. The Access to Nutrition Initiatives' director of Policy and Communications, Katherine Pittore is here with us to discuss the report's findings. We'll also speak with Eva Greenthal, who oversees the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Federal Food Labeling work.   Interview Transcript Access ATNi's 2025 Assessment Report for the US and other countries here: Retail https://accesstonutrition.org/index/retail-assessment-2025/ Let's start with an introduction to your organizations. This will help ground our listeners in the work that you've done, some of which we've spoken about on our podcast. Kat, let's begin with you and the Access to Nutrition Initiative. Can you tell us a bit about the organization and what work it does? Kat Pittore - Thank you. So, the Access to Nutrition Initiative is a global foundation actively challenging the food industry, investors, and policymakers to shape healthier food systems. We try to collect data and then use it to rank companies. For the most part, we've done companies, the largest food and beverage companies, think about PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and looking are they committed to proving the healthiness of their product portfolios. Do the companies themselves have policies? For example, maternity leave. And these are the policies that are relevant for their entire workforce. So, from people working in their factories all the way up through their corporate areas. And looking at the largest companies, can these companies increase access to healthier, more nutritious foods. One of the critical questions that we get asked, and I think Kelly, you've had some really interesting guests also talking about can corporations actually do something. Are corporations really the problem? At ATNi, we try to take a nuanced stance on this saying that these corporations produce a huge amount of the food we eat, so they can also be part of the solution. Yes, they are currently part of the problem. And we also really believe that we need more policies. And that's what brings us too into contact with organizations such as Eva's, looking at how can we also improve policies to support these companies to produce healthier foods. The thought was coming to my mind as you were speaking, I was involved in one of the initial meetings as the Access to Nutrition Initiative was being planned. And at that point, I and other people involved in this were thinking, how in the world are these people going to pull this off? Because the idea of monitoring these global behemoth companies where in some cases you need information from the companies that may not reflect favorably on their practices. And not to mention that, but constructing these indices and things like that required a great deal of thought. That initial skepticism about whether this could be done gave way, at least in me, to this admiration for what's been accomplished. So boy, hats off to you and your colleagues for what you've been able to do. And it'll be fun to dive in a little bit deeper as we go further into this podcast. Eva, tell us about your work at CSPI, Center for Science in the Public Interest. Well known organization around the world, especially here in the US and I've long admired its work as well. Tell us about what you're up to. Eva Greenthal - Thank you so much, Kelly, and again, thank you for having me here on the pod. CSPI is a US nonprofit that advocates for evidence-based and community informed policies on nutrition, food safety and health. And we're well known for holding government agencies and corporations to account and empowering consumers with independent, unbiased information to live healthier lives. And our core strategies to achieve this mission include, of course, advocacy where we do things like legislative and regulatory lobbying, litigation and corporate accountability initiatives. We also do policy and research analysis. We have strategic communications such as engagement with the public and news media, and we publish a magazine called Nutrition Action. And we also work in deep partnership with other organizations and in coalitions with other national organizations as well as smaller grassroots organizations across the country. Across all of this, we have a deep commitment to health equity and environmental sustainability that informs all we do. And our ultimate goal is improved health and wellbeing for people in all communities regardless of race, income, education, or social factors. Thanks Eva. I have great admiration for CSPI too. Its work goes back many decades. It's the leading organization advocating on behalf of consumers for a better nutrition system and better health overall. And I greatly admire its work. So, it's really a pleasure to have you here. Kat, let's talk about the US retail assessment. What is it and how did you select Walmart, Kroger, and Ahold Dehaize for the evaluation, and why are retailers so important? Kat - Great, thanks. We have, like I said before, been evaluating the largest food and beverage manufacturers for many years. So, for 13 years we have our global index, that's our bread and butter. And about two years ago we started thinking actually retailers also play a critical role. And that's where everyone interfaces with the food environment. As a consumer, when you go out to actually purchase your food, you end up most of the time in a supermarket, also online presence, et cetera. In the US 70% or more of people buy their food through some type of formal food retail environment. So, we thought we need to look at the retailers. And in this assessment we look at the owned label products, so the store brand, so anything that's branded from the store as its own. We think that's also becoming a much more important role in people's diets. In Europe it's a really critical role. A huge majority of products are owned brand and I think in the US that's increasing. Obviously, they tend to be more affordable, so people are drawn to them. So, we were interested how healthy are these products? And the US retail assessment is part of a larger retail assessment where we look at six different countries trying to look across different income levels. In high income countries, we looked at the US and France, then we looked at South Africa and Indonesia for higher middle income. And then finally we looked at Kenya and the Philippines. So, we tried to get a perspective across the world. And in the US, we picked the three companies aiming to get the largest market share. Walmart itself is 25 to 27% of the market share. I've read an amazing statistic that something like 90% of the US population lives within 25 kilometers of a Walmart. Really, I did not realize it was that large. I grew up in the US but never shopped at Walmart. So, it really does influence the diet of a huge number of Americans. And I think with the Ahold Delhaize, that's also a global conglomerate. They have a lot of supermarkets in the Netherlands where we're based, I think also in Belgium and across many countries. Although one interesting thing we did find with this retail assessment is that a big international chain, they have very different operations and basically are different companies. Because we had thought let's start with the Carrefours like those huge international companies that you find everywhere. But Carrefour France and Carrefour Kenya are basically very different. It was very hard to look at it at that level. And so that's sort of what brought us to retailers. And we're hoping through this assessment that we can reach a very large number of consumers. We estimate between 340 to 370 million consumers who shop at these different modern retail outlets. It's so ambitious what you've accomplished here. What questions did you try to answer and what were the key findings? Kat - We were interested to know how healthy are the products that are being sold at these different retailers. That was one of our critical questions. We look at the number of different products, so the owned brand products, and looked at the healthiness. And actually, this is one of the challenges we faced in the US. One is that there isn't one unified use of one type of nutrient profile model. In other countries in the Netherlands, although it's not mandatory, we have the Nutri Score and most retailers use Nutri Score. And then at least there's one thing that we can use. The US does not have one unified agreement on what type of nutrient profile model to use. So, then we're looking at different ones. Each company has their own proprietary model. That was one challenge we faced. And the other one is that in other countries you have the mandatory that you report everything per hundred grams. So, product X, Y, and Z can all be compared by some comparable thing. Okay? A hundred grams of product X and a hundred grams of product Y. In the US you have serving sizes, which are different for different products and different companies. And then you also have different units, which all of my European colleagues who are trying to do this, they're like, what is this ounces? What are these pounds? In addition to having non-comparable units, it's also non-standardized. These were two key challenges we face in the US. Before you proceed, just let me ask a little bit more about the nutrient profiling. For people that aren't familiar with that term, basically it's a way to score different foods for how good they are for you. As you said, there are different profiling systems used around the world. Some of the food companies have their own. Some of the supermarket companies have their own. And they can be sort of unbiased, evidence-based, derived by scientists who study this kind of thing a lot like the index developed by researchers at Oxford University. Or they can be self-serving, but basically, they're an index that might take away points from a food if it's high in saturated fat, let's say but give it extra points if it has fiber. And that would be an example. And when you add up all the different things that a food might contain, you might come away with a single score. And that might then provide the basis for whether it's given a green light, red light, et cetera, with some sort of a labeling system. But would you like to add anything to that? Kat - I think that's quite accurate in terms of the nutrient profile model. And maybe one other thing to say here. In our retail index, it's the first time we did this, we assess companies in terms of share of their products meeting the Health Star rating and we've used that across all of our indexes. This is the one that's used most commonly in Australia and New Zealand. A Health Star rating goes zero to five stars, and 3.5 or above is considered a healthier product. And we found the average healthiness, the mean Health Star rating, of Walmart products was 2.6. So quite low. Kroger was 2.7 and Food Lion Ahold Delhaize was 2.8. So the average is not meeting the Health Star rating of 3.5 or above. We're hoping that by 2030 we could see 50% of products still, half would be less than that. But we're not there yet. And another thing that we looked at with the retail index that was quite interesting was using markers of UPFs. And this has been a hotly debated discussion within our organization as well. Sort of, how do you define UPF? Can we use NOVA classification? NOVA Classification has obviously people who are very pro NOVA classification, people who also don't like the classification. So, we use one a sort of ranking Popkins et al. developed. A sort of system and where we looked at high salt, fat sugar and then certain non-nutritive sweeteners and additives that have no benefit. So, these aren't things like adding micronutrients to make a product fortified, but these are things like red number seven and colors that have no benefit. And looked at what share of the products that are produced by owned label products are considered ultra processed using this definition. And there we found that 88% of products at Walmart are considered ultra processed. Wow. That's quite shocking. Eighty eight percent. Yeah, 88% of all of their own brand products. Oh, my goodness. Twelve percent are not. And we did find a very high alignment, because that was also a question that we had, of sort of the high salt, fat, sugar and ultra processed. And it's not a direct alignment, because that's always a question too. Can you have a very healthy, ultra processed food? Or are or ultra processed foods by definition unhealthy beyond the high fat, salt, sugar content. And I know you've explored that with others. Don't the retailers just say that they're responding to demand, and so putting pressure on us to change what we sell isn't the real problem here, the real issue. It's to change the demand by the consumers. What do you think of that? Kat - But I mean, people buy what there is. If you went into a grocery store and you couldn't buy these products, you wouldn't buy them. I spent many years working in public health nutrition, and I find this individual narrative very challenging. It's about anything where you start to see the entire population curve shifting towards overweight or obesity, for example. Or same when I used to work more in development context where you had a whole population being stunted. And you would get the same argument - oh no, but these children are just short. They're genetically short. Oh, okay. Yes, some children are genetically short. But when you see 40 or 50% of the population shifting away from the norm, that represents that they're not growing well. So I think it is the retailer's responsibility to make their products healthier and then people will buy them. The other two questions we tried to look at were around promotions. Are our retailers actively promoting unhealthy products in their weekly circulars and flyers? Yes, very much so. We found most of the products that were being promoted are unhealthy. The highest amount that we found promoting healthy was in Food Lion. Walmart only promoted 5% healthy products. The other 95% of the products that they're actively promoting in their own circulars and advertising products are unhealthy products. So, then I would say, well, retailers definitely have a role there. They're choosing to promote these products. And then the other one is cost. And we looked across all six countries and we found that in every country, healthier food baskets are more expensive than less healthier food baskets. So you take these altogether, they're being promoted more, they're cheaper, and they're a huge percentage of what's available. Yes. Then people are going to eat less healthy diets. Right, and promoted not only by the store selling these products, but promoted by the companies that make them. A vast amount of food marketing is going on out there. The vast majority of that is for foods that wouldn't score high on any index. And then you combine that with the fact that the foods are engineered to be so palatable and to drive over consumption. Boy, there are a whole lot of factors that are conspiring in the wrong direction, aren't there. Yeah, it is challenging. And when you look at all the factors, what is your entry point? Yes. Eva, let's talk about CSPI and the work that you and your colleagues are doing in the space. When you come up with an interesting topic in the food area and somebody says, oh, that's pretty important. It's a good likelihood that CSPI has been on it for about 15 years, and that's true here as well. You and your colleagues have been working on these issues and so many others for so many years. But you're very active in advocating for healthier retail environments. Can you highlight what you think are a few key opportunities for making progress? Eva - Absolutely. To start off, I could not agree more with Kat in saying that it really is food companies that have a responsibility for the availability and affordability of healthy options. It's absolutely essential. And the excessive promotion of unhealthy options is what's really undermining people's ability to make healthy choices. Some of the policies that CSPI supports for improving the US retail environment include mandatory front of package nutrition labeling. These are labels that would make it quick and easy for busy shoppers to know which foods are high in added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat, and should therefore be limited in their diets. We also advocate for federal sodium and added sugar reduction targets. These would facilitate overall lower amounts of salt and sugar in the food supply, really putting the onus on companies to offer healthier foods instead of solely relying on shoppers to navigate the toxic food environments and make individual behavior changes. Another one is taxes on sweetened beverages. These would simultaneously nudge people to drink water or buy healthier beverages like flavored seltzers and unsweetened teas, while also raising revenue that can be directed towards important public health initiatives. Another one is healthy checkout policies. These would require retailers to offer only healthier foods and beverages in areas where shoppers stand in line to purchase their groceries. And therefore, reduce exposure to unhealthy food marketing and prevent unhealthy impulse purchases. And then another one is we advocate for online labeling requirements that would ensure consumers have easy access to nutrition, facts, ingredients, and allergen information when they grocery shop online, which unbelievably is currently not always the case. And I can also speak to our advocacy around the creating a uniform definition of healthy, because I know Kat spoke to the challenges in the US context of having different retailers using different systems for identifying healthier products. So the current food labeling landscape in the US is very confusing for the consumer. We have unregulated claims like all natural, competing with carefully regulated claims like organic. We have a very high standard of evidence for making a claim like prevents cold and flu. And then almost no standard of evidence for making a very similar claim like supports immunity. So, when it comes to claims about healthiness, it's really important to have a uniform definition of healthy so that if a product is labeled healthy, consumers can actually trust that it's truly healthy based on evidence backed nutrition standards. And also, so they can understand what that label means. An evidence-based definition of healthy will prevent misleading marketing claims. So, for example, until very recently, there was no limit on the amount of added sugar or refined grain in a product labeled healthy. But recent updates to FDA's official definition of healthy mean that now consumers can trust that any food labeled healthy provides servings from an essential food group like fruit, vegetable, whole grain, dairy, or protein. And doesn't exceed maximum limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. This new healthy definition is going to be very useful for preventing misleading marketing claims. However, we do think its reach will be limited for helping consumers find and select healthy items mainly because it's a voluntary label. And we know that even among products that are eligible for the healthy claim, very few are using it on their labels. We also know that the diet related chronic disease epidemic in the US is fueled by excess consumption of junk foods, not by insufficient marketing of healthy foods. So, what we really need, as I mentioned before, are mandatory labels that call out high levels of unhealthy nutrients like sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat. Thanks for that overview. What an impressive portfolio of things you and your colleagues are working on. And we could do 10 podcasts on each of the 10 things you mentioned. But let's take one in particular: the front of the package labeling issue. At a time where it seems like there's very little in our country that the Democrats and Republicans can't agree on, the Food and Drug Administration, both previously under the Biden Harris Administration, now under the Trump Vance Administration have identified for a package of labeling as a priority. In fact, the FDA is currently working on a mandatory front of package nutrition label and is creating a final rule around that issue. Kat, from Access to Nutrition Initiative's perspective, why is mandatory front of package labeling important? What's the current situation kind of around the world and what are the retailers and manufacturers doing? Kat - So yes, we definitely stand by the need for mandatory front of package labeling. I think 16 countries globally have front of package labeling mandated, but the rest have voluntary systems. Including in the Netherlands where I live and where Access to Nutrition is based. We use the voluntary Nutri Score and what we've seen across our research is that markets where it's voluntary, it tends to not be applied in all markets. And it tends to be applied disproportionately on healthy products. So if you can choose to put it, you put it all on the ones that are the A or the Nutri Score with the green, and then you don't put it on the really unhealthy products. So, then it also skews consumers. Because like Eva was saying, people are not eating often. Well, they, they're displacing from their diet healthy products with unhealthy products. So that that is a critical challenge. Until you make it mandatory, companies aren't going to do that. And we've seen that with our different global indexes. Companies are not universally using these voluntary regulations across the board. I think that's one critical challenge that we need to address. If you scan the world, there are a variety of different systems being used to provide consumers information on the front of packages. If you could pick one system, tell us what we would actually see on the package. Kat - This is one we've been debating internally, and I saw what CSPI is pushing for, and I think there's growing evidence pushing for warning style labels. These are the ones that say the product is high in like really with a warning, high in fat, high in salt, high in sugar. And there is evidence from countries like Chile where they have introduced this to show that that does drive change. It drives product reformulation. Companies change their products, so they don't have to carry one of the labels. Consumers are aware of it. And they actively try to change their purchasing behaviors to avoid those. And there's less evidence I think interpretive is important. A Nutri Score one where you can see it and it's green. Okay, that's quick. It's easy. There are some challenges that people face with Nutri Score, for example. That Nutri Score compares products among the same category, which people don't realize outside of our niche. Actually, a colleague of mine was telling me - my boyfriend was in the grocery store last week. And he's like picked up some white flour tortillas and they had a Nutri Score D, and then the chips had a Nutri Score B. And he's like, well, surely the tortillas are healthier than the chips. But obviously the chips, the tortilla chips were compared against other salty snacks and the other one was being compared to bread. So, it's like a relatively unhealthy bread compared to a relatively healthy chip. You see this happening even among educated people. I think these labels while well intentioned, they need a good education behind them because they are challenging, and people don't realize that. I think people just see A or green and they think healthy; E is bad, and people don't realize that it's not comparing the same products from these categories. One could take the warning system approach, which tells people how many bad things there are in the foods and flip it over and say, why not just give people information on what's good in a food? Like if a food has vitamins and minerals or protein or fiber, whatever it happens. But you could label it that way and forget labeling the bad things. But of course, the industry would game that system in about two seconds and just throw in some good things to otherwise pretty crappy foods and make the scores look good. So, yeah, it shows why it's so important to be labeling the things that you'd like to see less of. I think that's already happening. You see a lot of foods with micronutrient additions, very sugary breakfast cereals. You see in Asia, a lot of biscuits and cookies that they add micronutrients to. I mean, there's still biscuits and cookies. So Eva, I'd like to get your thoughts on this. So tell us more about the proposed label in the US, what it might look like, and the history about how this got developed. And do you think there's anything else needed to make the label more useful or user-friendly for consumers? Eva - Absolutely. It is a very exciting time to work on food policy in the US, especially with this momentum around front of package labeling. CSPI actually first petitioned calling for front of pack labeling in 2006. And after more than a decade of inaction, industry lobbying, all these countries around the world adopting front of pack labeling systems, but not the US. In 2022 CSPI filed a new petition that specifically called for mandatory interpretive nutrient specific front of package labeling, similar to the nutrient warning labels already required in Mexico, Canada, and as Kat said, around 16 other countries. And in early 2025, FDA finally responded to our petition by issuing a proposal that if finalized would require a nutrition info box on packaged foods. And what the nutrition info box includes is the percent daily value per serving of sodium, added sugar and saturated fat, accompanied by the words high, medium, or low, assessing the amount of each nutrient. This proposal was a very important step forward, but the label could be improved in several ways. First off, instead of a label that is placed on all foods, regardless of their nutrient levels, we strongly recommend that FDA instead adopt labels that would only appear on products that are high in nutrients of concern. A key reason for this is it would better incentivize companies to reduce the amount of salt, sugar, or saturated fat in their product because companies will want to avoid wasting this precious marketing real estate on mandatory nutrition labels. So, for example, they could reduce the amount of sodium in a soup to avoid having a high sodium label on that soup. And also, as you were saying before around the lack of a need to require the positive nutrients on the label, fortunately the FDA proposal didn't, but just to chime in on that, these products are already plastered with claims around their high fiber content, high protein content, vitamin C, this and that. What we really need is a mandatory label that will require companies to tell you what they would otherwise prefer not to. Not the information that they already highlight for marketing purposes. So, in addition to these warning style labels, we also really want FDA to adopt front of package disclosures for foods containing low and no calorie sweeteners. Because this would discourage the industry from reducing sugar just by reformulating with additives that are not recommended for children. So that's a key recommendation that CSPI has made for when FDA finalizes the rule. FDA received thousands and thousands of comments on their labeling proposal and is now tasked with reviewing those comments and issuing a final rule. And although these deadlines are very often missed, so don't necessarily hold your breath, but the government's current agenda says it plans to issue a final rule in May 2026. At CSPI, we are working tirelessly to hold FDA to its commitment of issuing a final regulation. And to ensure that the US front of pack labeling system is number one mandatory and number two, also number one, really, mandatory, and evidence-based so that it really has the best possible chance of improving our diets and our food supply. Well, thank you for the tireless work because it's so important that we get this right. I mean, it's important that we get a system to begin with, even if it's rudimentary. But the better it can be, of course, the more helpful it'll be. And CSPI has been such an important voice in that. Kat, let's talk about some of the things that are happening in developing countries and other parts of the world. So you're part of a multi-country study looking at five additional countries, France, South Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Kenya. And as I understand, the goal is to understand how retail food environments differ across countries at various income levels. Tell us about this, if you would, and what sort of things you're finding. Kat – Yes. So one of our questions was as companies reach market saturation in places like France and the US and the Netherlands, they can't get that many more customers. They already have everyone. So now they're expanding rapidly. And you're seeing a really rapid increase in modern retail purchasing in countries like Indonesia and Kenya. Not to say that in these countries traditional markets are still where most people buy most of their food. But if you look at the graphs at the rate of increase of these modern different retailers also out of home, it's rapidly increasing. And we're really interested to see, okay, given that, are these products also exposing people to less healthy products? Is it displacing traditional diets? And overall, we are seeing that a lot of similar to what you see in other context. In high income countries. Overall healthier products are again, more expensive, and actually the differential is greater in lower income countries. Often because I think also poor people are buying foods not in modern retail environments. This is targeting currently the upper, middle, and higher income consumer groups. But that will change. And we're seeing the same thing around really high percentages of high fat, salt, sugar products. So, looking at how is this really transforming retail environments? At the same time, we have seen some really interesting examples of countries really taking initiative. In Kenya, they've introduced the first Kenyan nutrient profile model. First in Africa. They just introduced that at the end of 2025, and they're trying to introduce also a mandatory front of package warning label similar to what Eva has proposed. This would be these warnings high in fat, salt, and sugar. And that's part of this package that they've suggested. This would also include things around regulations to marketing to children, and that's all being pushed ahead. So, Kenya's doing a lot of work around that. In South Africa, there's been a lot of work on banning marketing to children as well as front of package labeling. I think one of the challenges we've seen there, and this is something... this is a story that I've heard again and again working in the policy space in different countries, is that you have a lot of momentum and initiative by civil society organizations, by concerned consumer groups. And you get all the way to the point where it's about to be passed in legislation and then it just gets kicked into the long grass. Nothing ever happens. It just sits there. I was writing a blog, we looked at Indonesia, so we worked with this organization that is working on doing taxation of sugar sweetened beverages. And that's been on the card since 2016. It actually even reminded me a lot of your story. They've been working on trying to get the sugar sweetened beverage tax in Indonesia passed since 2016. And it gets almost there, but it never gets in the budget. It just never passes. Same with the banning marketing to children in South Africa. This has been being discussed for many years, but it never actually gets passed. And what I've heard from colleagues working in this space is that then industry comes in right before it's about to get passed and says, oh no, but we're going to lose jobs. If you introduce that, then all of the companies that employ people, people will lose their jobs. And modeling studies have shown this isn't true. That overall, the economy will recover, jobs will be found elsewhere. Also, if you factor in the cost to society of treating diabetes from high consumption or sugar sweetened beverages. But it's interesting to see that this repeats again and again of countries get almost over the line. They have this really nice draft initiative and then it just doesn't quite happen. So, I think that that will be really interesting. And I think a bit like what Eva was saying in many of these countries, like with Kenya, are we going to see, start seeing the warning labels. With South Africa, is this regulation banning marketing to children actually going to happen? Are we going to see sugar sweetened beverage taxes written into the 2026 budget in Indonesia? I think very interesting space globally in many of these questions. But I think also a key time to keep the momentum up. It's interesting to hear about the industry script, talking about loss of jobs. Other familiar parts of that script are that consumers will lose choices and their prices will go up. And those things don't seem to happen either in places where these policies take effect. But boy, they're effective at getting these things stomped out. It feels to me like some turning point might be reached where some tipping point where a lot of things will start to happen all at once. But let's hope we're moving in that direction. Kat - The UK as of five days ago, just implemented bans on marketing of unhealthy products to children, changes in retail environment banning promotions of unhealthy products. I do think we are seeing in countries and especially countries with national healthcare systems where the taxpayer has to take on the cost of ill health. We are starting to see these changes coming into effect. I think that's an interesting example and very current. Groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking that those things are happening. Let me end by asking you each sort of a big picture question. Kat, you talked about specific goals that you've established about what percentage of products in these retail environments will meet a healthy food standard by a given year. But we're pretty far from that now. So I'd like to ask each of you, are you hopeful we'll get anywhere near those kind of goals. And if you're hopeful, what leads you to feel that way? And Kat, let's start with you and then I'll ask Eva the same thing. Kat - I am hopeful because like you said, there's so much critical momentum happening in so many different countries. And I do find that really interesting. And these are the six countries that we looked at, but also, I know Ghana has recently introduced a or working to introduce a nutrient profile model. You're seeing discussions happening in Asia as well. And a lot of different discussions happening in a lot of different places. All with the same ambition. And I do think with this critical momentum, you will start to break through some of the challenges that we're facing now too. Where you see, for example, like I know this came up with Chile. Like, oh, if you mandate it in this context, then it disadvantages. So like the World Trade Organization came out against it saying it disadvantaged trade, you can't make it mandatory. But if all countries mandate it, then you remove some of those barriers. It's a key challenge in the EU as well. That the Netherlands, for example, can't decide to introduce Nutri Score as a mandatory front of package label because that would disadvantage trade within the European Union. But I think if we hit a critical point, then a lot of the kind of key challenges that we're facing will no longer be there. If the European Union decides to adopt it, then also then you have 27 countries overnight that have to adopt a mandatory front of package label. And as companies have to do this for more and more markets, I think it will become more standardized. You will start seeing it more. I'm hopeful in the amount of momentum that's happening in different places globally. Good. It's nice to hear your optimism on that. So, Eva, what do you think? Eva - So thinking about front of package labeling and the fact that this proposed regulation was put out under the previous presidential administration, the Biden Harris Administration and is now intended to be finalized under the Trump Vance Administration, I think that's a signal of what's really this growing public awareness and bipartisan support for food and nutrition policies in the US. Obviously, the US food industry is incredibly powerful, but with growing public awareness of how multinational food companies are manipulating our diets and making us sick for their own profit, I think there's plenty of opportunity to leverage the power of consumers to fight back against this corporate greed and really take back our health. I'm really happy that you mentioned the bipartisan nature of things that starting to exist now. And it wasn't that long ago where you wouldn't think of people of the political right standing up against the food companies. But now they are, and it's a huge help. And this fact that you have more people from a variety of places on the political spectrum supporting a similar aim to kinda rein in behavior of the food industry and create a healthier food environment. Especially to protect children, leads me to be more optimistic, just like the two of you. I'm glad we can end on that note. Bios Katherine Pittore is the director of Policy and Communications at the Action to Nutrition Initiative. She is responsible for developing a strategy to ensure ATNi's research is translated into better policies. Working collaboratively with alliances and other stakeholders, she aims to identify ways for ATNi's research to support improved policies, for companies, investors and governments, with the aim of creating a more effective playing field enabling markets to deliver more nutritious foods, especially for vulnerable groups in society. Katherine has been working in the field of global nutrition and food systems since 2010. Most recently at Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (WCDI), where she worked as a nutrition and food security advisor on range projects, mostly in Africa. She also has also worked as a facilitator and trainer, and a specific interest in how to healthfully feed our increasingly urbanizing world. She has also worked for several NGOs including RESULTS UK, as a nutrition advocacy officer, setting up their nutrition advocacy portfolio focusing aimed at increasing aid spending on nutrition with the UK parliament, and Save the Children UK and Save the Children India, working with the humanitarian nutrition team. She has an MSc in Global Public Health from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a BA in Science and Society from Wesleyan University.  Eva Greenthal oversees Center for Science in the Public Interest's federal food labeling work, leveraging the food label as a powerful public health tool to influence consumer and industry behavior. Eva also conducts research and supports CSPI's science-centered approach to advocacy as a member of the Science Department. Prior to joining CSPI, Eva led a pilot evaluation of the nation's first hospital-based food pantry and worked on research initiatives related to alcohol literacy and healthy habits for young children. Before that, Eva served as a Program Coordinator for Let's Go! at Maine Medical Center and as an AmeriCorps VISTA Member at HealthReach Community Health Centers in Waterville, Maine. Eva holds a dual MS/MPH degree in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition from Tufts University and a BA in Environmental Studies from University of Michigan.  

On November 30th, 1999, tens of thousands of people shook the streets of Seattle, Washington, in protest of the World Trade Organization. The WTO symbolized the corporate takeover of human needs and the environment. On this edition, we revisit the voices from that week.  This episode, originally released in 2009, is part of the Making Contact Anniversary Capsule: celebrating 30 years of social justice journalism. The miniseries takes us from protests on the streets of Seattle to an Indiana family fighting for their daughter's gender affirming care. It explores a racial reckoning in the world of romance writers, and tells the story of border walls from Gaza to Arizona. These shows embody how Making Contact has been digging into the story beneath the story since 1994. Featuring: Gopal Dayaneni, organizer with Movement Generation; Mohau Pheko, representative of the Africa Trade Network at the 1999 Seattle WTO meeting; Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director, Oakland Institute; Chuck Collins, co-founder of United for a Fair Economy and Wealth for the Common Good. Making Contact Team: Producer: Andrew Stelzer Episode Host: Tena Rubio Executive Director: Jina Chung Engineer: Jeff Emtman Digital Media Marketing: Lissa Deonorain   Music: Infernal Noise Brigade The Platform Learn More: Focus on the Global South Bangkok, Thailand | Inequality and the Common Good Boston, MA | Institute for Policy Studies Washington, DC | International Forum on Globalization San Francisco, CA | Jubilee USA Network Washington, DC | Movement Generation Oakland, CA | Oakland Institute Oakland, CA | Ruckus Society Oakland, CA | United for a Fair Economy Boston, MA | Wealth for the Common Good Boston, MA Books and Films: Five Days That Shook the World: The Battle for Seattle and Beyond By Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair and Allan Sekula The Battle in Seattle - The Story Behind and Beyond the WTO Demonstrations By Janet Thomas This is What Democracy Looks Like (film) Making Contact is an award-winning, nationally syndicated radio show and podcast featuring narrative storytelling and thought-provoking interviews. We cover the most urgent issues of our time and the people on the ground building a more just world.

The modern anarchist movement began in 1999, when the World Trade Organization met in Seattle in order to create a set of rules which would require every country to accept the worst excesses of capitalism.Waiting for them in Seattle was a loose coalition of anarchists, farmers, organized labor, punks, Zapatistas, and giant puppets. Team Puppet won.D.W. Gibson's new book One Week to Change the World is an oral history of the Battle of Seattle. Gibson interviewed everyone from the black bloc to the riot police. The book is a history but also a guide for future protests. I highly recommend it!

Filmmaker Alex Megaro joins us to talk about his film WTO/99, an immersive archival documentary that depicts the four-day clash between the then-emerging World Trade Organization (WTO) and the 40,000+ people who took to the streets of Seattle in 1999 to protest the WTO Conference and the WTO's impact on human rights, labor, and the future effects of continued globalization. Also it's Christmas. WTO/99 https://www.wto99doc.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpV0V3aniDY WHITE ELEPHANT SHOW IN MINNEAPOLIS https://www.bryantlakebowl.com/theater/white-elephant MERCH poddamnamerica.bigcartel.com PATREON + DISCORD patreon.com/poddamnamerica

SHOW 12-17-25 THE SHOW BEGINS WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE US CONFLICT WITH VENEZUELA... 1926 USS OMAHA IN THE PANAMA CANAL. Colonel Jeff McCausland discusses the US "blockade" of sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers and the potential for escalation into a regional conflict involving Colombia. He also analyzes the Pentagon's refusal to release videos of destroyed drug boats, suggesting possible war crime concerns, and notes stalled Ukraine negotiations. Colonel McCausland reports on NATO's eastern flank "digging in," with Baltic states building defensive bunkers and Germany significantly increasing military spending. He highlights a divergence where European allies prepare for existential Russian threats while US leadership may prioritize "strategic stability" and economic cooperation with Moscow. General Blaine Holt warns that integrating Artificial Intelligence into military command increases the risks of deliberate, inadvertent, and accidental escalation. He argues that while AI accelerates decision-making, it lacks human judgment, potentially leading to catastrophic miscalculations if adversaries rely on algorithms during crises. General Holt explains that AI models in war games demonstrate a bias toward violent escalation, often prioritizing "winning" over negotiation, which leads to nuclear conflict. He emphasizes the necessity of keeping humans in the loop and maintaining direct communications between rival nations to prevent automated catastrophe. Simon Constable reports from France on high copper prices and slowing European energy demand. He describes protests by French farmers burning hay to oppose government orders to cull cattle exposed to disease and notes a significant rise in electric vehicle sales across the European Union. Simon Constable discusses the political troubles of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the suspension of a US-UK tech deal due to clashes over AI regulation. He explains that Britain's "Online Safety Act" aims to tax and regulate tech giants, which threatens to stifle American AI companies operating there. Bob Zimmerman highlights a record-breaking year with over 300 global rocket launches, driven largely by private enterprise competition. He notes that Amazon was forced to contract SpaceX for satellite launches due to delays from rivals like Blue Origin and reports on safety concerns involving Russian launch pad negligence. Bob Zimmerman reports on the success of commercial space station company Vast and orbital tug tests that outperformed government efforts. Conversely, he details problems with NASA's Maven orbiter at Mars, which has lost communication, potentially jeopardizing data relays for surface rovers. David Shedd critiques the bipartisan failure of allowing China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, which was based on the false assumption that economic engagement would lead to democratization. Instead, this decision facilitated a massive transfer of intellectual property, fueling China's rise as a predatory economic rival. David Shedd explains how China's Ministry of State Security operates as a massive intelligence entity combining the functions of the CIA, FBI, and NSA. He traces this economic espionage to Deng Xiaoping's 1984 strategy, noting that Chinese officers view theft as repayment for past Western oppression. David Shedd details espionage cases, including an Apple engineer stealing "Project Titan" car schematics for a Chinese competitor. He also describes a Google employee who stole AI data while secretly working for a Chinese firm, highlighting how corporate greed and weak internal security enable intellectual property theft. David Shedd outlines strategies to counter Chinese espionage, advocating for "partial decoupling" to protect critical technologies like semiconductors and AI. He argues for modernizing legal deterrence to prosecute theft effectively and warns that Chinese platforms like DeepSeek harvest user data to advance their "Great Heist" of American wealth. Nury Turkel discusses the plight of Guan Hang, a whistleblower facing deportation from the US despite documenting Uyghur concentration camps. Turkel criticizes the inconsistent enforcement of forced labor laws and highlights new evidence linking Uyghur slave labor to the excavation and processing of critical minerals. Rebecca Grant argues against the planned retirement of the USS Nimitz in 2026, suggesting it should be kept in reserve given delays in new Ford-class carriers. Despite the ship's age, Grant asserts that retaining the carrier offers crucial strategic depth against threats like China's PLA Navy. Rick Fisher analyzes the emerging race to build AI data centers in low Earth orbit, noting advantages like natural cooling and zero real estate costs. While Elon Musk's Starlink positions the US well, Fisher warns that China has detailed plans to use space-based data centers to support expansion into the solar system. Alan Tonelson evaluates China's economic strengths, acknowledging their dominance in rare earth processing and solar panels, often achieved through subsidies. He argues that China's heavy investment in industrial robots attempts to offset a looming demographic crash, while questioning the true market demand for their subsidized electric vehicles.

David Shedd critiques the bipartisan failure of allowing China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, which was based on the false assumption that economic engagement would lead to democratization. Instead, this decision facilitated a massive transfer of intellectual property, fueling China's rise as a predatory economic rival. 1940 EMPRESS DOWAGER CIXI

Gary Kah is founder and director of Hope for the World. Gary is Editor of Hope for the World Update. He is an author and former Europe & Middle East Trade Specialist for the Indiana State Government. Globalists have an agenda that casts aside national sovereignty, private property rights and individual freedom. In other words, they have a lust for worldwide control over nearly every facet of your life. The goal is a one-world system economically, politically and even spiritually. In order to craft this effort, regular meetings are being held by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and other globalist bodies. Gary monitors this agenda and he presented listeners with an update concerning the following: Pope Leo's brother supposedly is a strong MAGA Republican. Will this cause Trump to get "cozy" with the Pope?...the increase in hate toward anything Jewish or Christian...Zohran Mamdani and socialism in the United States...the economy and our debt...digital currency plans...and much more! It's always an information-packed program when Gary is the guest so there will be a lot to take in when you review this edition of Crosstalk.

Gary Kah is founder and director of Hope for the World. Gary is Editor of Hope for the World Update. He is an author and former Europe & Middle East Trade Specialist for the Indiana State Government. Globalists have an agenda that casts aside national sovereignty, private property rights and individual freedom. In other words, they have a lust for worldwide control over nearly every facet of your life. The goal is a one-world system economically, politically and even spiritually. In order to craft this effort, regular meetings are being held by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and other globalist bodies. Gary monitors this agenda and he presented listeners with an update concerning the following: Pope Leo's brother supposedly is a strong MAGA Republican. Will this cause Trump to get "cozy" with the Pope?...the increase in hate toward anything Jewish or Christian...Zohran Mamdani and socialism in the United States...the economy and our debt...digital currency plans...and much more! It's always an information-packed program when Gary is the guest so there will be a lot to take in when you review this edition of Crosstalk.

Twenty-six years ago, this week over 40,000 people came to Seattle to protest at the World Trade Organization's ministerial conference. Labor organizers, farmers, and environmental groups planned and executed peaceful action against what many saw as anti-democratic elements of the WTO, and the profound risks from the unfettered expansion of global trade. At events from Memorial Stadium to the waterfront and marches in downtown Seattle, advocates for the global south joined arms with American steelworkers, decrying the outsourcing of jobs. Ultimately, the “Battle of Seattle” pushed trade policy to the front page. But for many, the enduring memories from that week in Seattle are the clouds of tear gas deployed by police and broken windows at downtown businesses. A new documentary called WTO/99 tries to capture the events on the ground as they happened. It’s composed entirely of archival footage. And it highlights the way narratives around power and protest are shaped by media images. GUEST: Ian Bell, director, WTO/99 RELATED LINKS: Soundside's conversation with DW Gibson, author of "One Week to Change the World," about the WTO protests Where to watch WTO/99 Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Find the film here: https://www.wto99doc.com/ Synopsis An immersive archival documentary that reanimates the clash between the then-emerging World Trade Organization (WTO) and the more than 40,000 people who took to the streets of Seattle to protest the WTO's impact on human rights, labor, and the future impacts of continued globalization.   Check out our new bi-weekly series, "The Crisis Papers" here: https://www.patreon.com/bitterlakepresents/shop   Thank you guys again for taking the time to check this out. We appreciate each and everyone of you. If you have the means, and you feel so inclined,   BECOME A PATRON! We're creating patron only programing, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH!   Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents?   Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!)   THANKS Y'ALL   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG9WtLyoP9QU8sxuIfxk3eg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolutionpodcast/ Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   Substack: https://substack.com/@jmylesoftir   Read Jason Myles in Sublation Magazine https://www.sublationmag.com/writers/jason-myles Read Jason Myles in Damage Magazine https://damagemag.com/2023/11/07/the-man-who-sold-the-world/ Read Jason in Unaligned here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-161586946... Read, "We're All Sellouts Now" here: https://benburgis.substack.com/.../all-we-ever-wanted-was...

Donald Trump's tariff war is facing its biggest legal challenge yet this week. The Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the legality of many of his administration's tariffs. The World Trade Organization is paying close attention to this legal challenge and Christiane sat down with its Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in London.  Also on today's show: Wolf Blitzer on the death of Dick Cheney; Atlantic CEO Nicholas Thompson; Michael Sandel, Winner, Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Cutting Off the CCP: Deterrence Through Nuclear Proliferation and Total Economic Isolation. Jim Fanell and Brad Thayer discuss critical, urgent actions required to counter the PRC's strategic forces threat. Given the severe strategic mismatch, Fanell argues that warfighting proliferation must be considered, suggesting nuclear capabilities and proliferation in Seoul, Tokyo, and even Taiwan to change the calculus in Beijing and Washington. Thayer emphasizes that the current downturn in the PRC's economy presents an opportunity to accelerate Xi Jinping's fall, recommending a political warfare strategy focused on evicting Xi Jinping and the CCP from power. Fanell clarifies they are not recommending armed conflict, but rather a strategy of power politics and isolating the PRC, treating the CCP as an evil, pariah regime by denying them access to US money, stripping them of Most Favored Nation status, and removing them from the World Trade Organization. The most important recommendation is the necessity for US leadership to admit failure as the critical first step to repairing damage to US authority and its allies.

The Origins of Tariff Wars: China's Predatory Trade Practices Gordon Chang and Alan Tonelson Gordon Chang and Alan Tonelson agree that China initiated the trade conflict through decades of predatory and criminal trade practices. They assert that China's admission into the World Trade Organization in 2001 foolishly granted them substantial immunity from US laws designed to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. The hosts trace China's systematic violations dating to the late twentieth century, establishing a pattern of intellectual property theft and market manipulation. President Trump's tariff actions represent a long-overdue response to this entrenched aggression and economic warfare. 1890 SHANGHAI

Featuring Alexandra Wandel, Gonzalo Berrón, and Paul Adlerstein on the 1999 mass protest against the World Trade Organization in Seattle and on the giant global justice movement that mobilized unions, farmers, environmentalists, public interest advocates, and various radical leftists all over the world. Recorded live in Brussels with the European Trade Justice Coalition. First in a two-part series. Next up: a view from the Global South with Jane Nalunga and Walden Bello. Call in to leave a question for The Dig's mailbag episode: speakpipe.com/ListenerMailbag Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Buy Their End is Our Beginning at Haymarketbooks.org Read the latest issue from The Nation‘s Books & the Arts section TheNation.com/books-and-the-arts The Dig goes deep into politics everywhere, from labor struggles and political economy to imperialism and immigration. Hosted by Daniel Denvir.

Featuring Alexandra Wandel, Gonzalo Berrón, and Paul Adlerstein on the 1999 mass protest against the World Trade Organization in Seattle and on the giant global justice movement that mobilized unions, farmers, environmentalists, public interest advocates, and various radical leftists all over the world. Recorded live in Brussels with the European Trade Justice Coalition. First in a two-part series. Next up: a view from the Global South with Jane Nalunga and Walden Bello. Call in to leave a question for The Dig's mailbag episode: speakpipe.com/ListenerMailbag Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Buy Their End is Our Beginning at Haymarketbooks.org Read the latest issue from The Nation's Books & the Arts section TheNation.com/books-and-the-arts

Just two months ago, the World Trade Organization predicted global trade would grow by nearly 2% next year. Now, it's revised that forecast down to just 0.5% as the impact of the Trump administration's sweeping tariffs sinks in. We'll hear what's been propping up trade so far and what's on the road ahead. Then, "Marketplace Tech" shares tips for spotting job scams. And later, we'll hear how other countries' "gold card" visa programs fared.

Just two months ago, the World Trade Organization predicted global trade would grow by nearly 2% next year. Now, it's revised that forecast down to just 0.5% as the impact of the Trump administration's sweeping tariffs sinks in. We'll hear what's been propping up trade so far and what's on the road ahead. Then, "Marketplace Tech" shares tips for spotting job scams. And later, we'll hear how other countries' "gold card" visa programs fared.

Our strategists Michelle Weaver and Adam Jonas join analyst Christopher Snyder to discuss the most important themes that emerged from the Morgan Stanley Annual Industrials Conference in Laguna Beach.Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Christopher Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Adam Jonas: And I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI Strategist.Michelle Weaver: We recently concluded Morgan Stanley's annual industrials conference in Laguna Beach, California, and wanted to share some of the biggest takeaways.It's Tuesday, September 16th at 10am in New York.I want to set the stage for our conversation. The overall tone at the conference was fairly similar to last year with many companies waiting for a broader pickup. And I'd flag three different themes that really emerged from the conference. So first, AI. AI is incredibly important. It appeared in the vast majority of fireside conversations. And companies were talking about AI from both the adopter and the enabler angle. Second theme on the macro, overall companies remain in search of a reacceleration. They pointed to consistently expansionary PMIs or a PMI above 50, a more favorable interest rate environment and greater clarity on tariffs as the key macro conditions for renewed momentum. And then the last thing that came up repeatedly was how are companies going to react to tariffs? And I would say companies overall were fairly constructive on their ability to mitigate the margin impact of tariffs with many talking about both leveraging pricing power and supply chain shifts to offset those impacts. So, Chris, considering all this, the wait for an inflection came up across a number of companies. What were some of your key takeaways on multis, on the macro front? Christopher Snyder: The commentary was stable to modestly improving, and that was really consistent across all of these companies. There are, you know, specific verticals where things are getting better. I would call out data center as one. Non-res construction, as another one, implant manufacturing as one. And there were certain categories where we are seeing deterioration – residential HVAC, energy markets, and agriculture.But we came away more constructive on the cycle because things are stable, if not modestly improving into a rate cut cycle. The concern going in was that we would hear about deteriorating trends and a rate cut would be needed just to stabilize the market. So, we do think that this backdrop is supportive for better industrial growth into 2026.We have been positive on the project or CapEx side of the house. It feels like strength there is improving. We've been more cautious on the short cycle production side of the house. But we are starting to see signs of rate of change. So, when we look into [20]26 and [20]27, we think U.S. industrials are poised for decade high growth. Michelle Weaver: You've had a thesis for a while now that U.S. reshoring is going to be incredibly important and that it's a $10 trillion opportunity. Can you unpack that number? What are some recent data points supporting that and what did you learn at the conference? Christopher Snyder: Some of the recent data points that support this view is U.S. manufacturing construction starts are up 3x post Liberation Day. So, we're seeing companies invest. This is also coming through in commercial industrial lending data, which continues to push higher almost every week and is currently at now record high levels. So, there's a lot of reasons for companies not to invest right now. There's a lot of uncertainty around policy. But seeing that willingness to invest through all of the uncertainty is a big positive because as that uncertainty lifts, we think more projects will come off the sidelines and be unlocked. So, we see positive rate of change on that. What I think is often lost in the reassuring conversation is that this has been happening for the last five years. The U.S. lost share of global CapEx from 2000 when China entered the World Trade Organization almost every year till 2019 when Trump implemented his first wave of tariffs. Since then, the U.S. has taken about 300 basis points of global CapEx share over the last five years, and that's a lot on a $30 trillion CapEx base. So, I think the debate here should be: Can this continue? And when I look at Trump policy, both the tariffs making imports more expensive, but also the incentives lowering the cost of domestic production – we do think these trends are stable. And I always want to stress that this is a game of increments. It's not that the U.S. is going to get every factory. But we simply believe the U.S. is better positioned to get the incremental factory over the next 20 years relative to the prior 20. And the best point is that the baseline growth here is effectively zero. Michelle Weaver: And how does power play into the reshoring story? AI and data centers are generating huge demand for power that well outstrip supply. Is there a risk that companies that want to reshore are not able to do so because of the power constraints?Christopher Snyder: It's a great question. I think it's part of the reason that this is moving more slowly. The companies that sell this power equipment tend to prioritize the data center customers given their scale in magnitude of buying. But ultimately, we think this is coming and it's a big opportunity for U.S. power to extend the upcycle.Manufacturing accounts for 26 percent of the electricity in the country. Data center accounts for about 5 percent. So, if the industrial economy returns to growth, there will be a huge pull on the grid; and I view it as a competitive advantage. If you think about the future of U.S. manufacturing, we're simply taking labor out and replacing it with electricity. That is a phenomenal trade off for the U.S. And a not as positive trade off for a lot of low-cost regions who essentially export labor to the world. I'm sure Adam will have more to say about that. Michelle Weaver: And Adam, I want to bring robotics and humanoid specifically into this conversation as the U.S.' technological edge is a big part of the reshoring story. So how do humanoids fit into reshoring? How much would they cost to use and how could they make American manufacturing more attractive? Adam Jonas: Humanoid robots – we're talking age agentic robots that make decisions from themselves autonomously due to the dual purpose in the military. You know, dual purpose aspect of it makes it absolutely necessary to onshore the technologies.At the same time, humanoid robots actually make it possible to onshore those technologies. Meaning you need; we're not going to be able to replicate manufacturing and onshore manufacturing the way it's currently done in China with their environmental practices and their labor – availability of affordable cheap human labor.Autonomous robots are both the cause of onshoring. And the effect of onshoring at the same time, and it's going to transform every industry. The question isn't so much as which industry will autonomous robots, including humanoids impact? It's what will it not.And we have not yet been able to find anything that it would. When you think about cost to use – we think by 2040 we get to a point where to Chris's point, the marginal cost of work will be some factor of electricity, energy, and some depreciation of that physical plant, or the physical robot itself. And we come up with a, a range of scenarios where centered on around $5 per hour. If that can replace two human workers at $25 an hour, that can NPV to around $200,000 of NPV per humanoid. That's discounting back 15 years from 2040.Michelle, there's 160 million people in the U.S. labor market, so if you just substituted 1 percent of that or 1.6 million people out of the U.S. Labor pool. 1.6 million times $200,000 NPV; that's $320 billion of value, which is worth, well, quite a lot. Quite a lot of money to a lot of companies that are working on this. So, when we get asked, what are we watching, well, in terms of the bleeding edge of the robot revolution, we're watching the Sino-U.S. competition. And I prefer to call it competition. And we're also watching the terra cap companies, the Mag 7 type companies that are quite suddenly and recently and very, very significantly going after physical AI and robotics talent. And increasingly even manufacturing talent. So again, to circle back to Chris's point, if you want evidence of reshoring and manufacturing and advanced manufacturing in this country, look at some of these TMT and tech and AI companies in California. And look at, go on their hiring website and watch all the manufacturing and robotics people that they're trying to hire; and pay a lot of money to do so. And that might be an interesting indicator of where we're going.Michelle Weaver: I want to dig in a little bit more there. We're seeing a lot of the cutting-edge tech coming out of China. Is the U.S. going to be able to catch up?Adam Jonas: Uh, I don't know. I don't know. But I would say what's our alternative. We either catch up enough to compete or we're up for grabs. OK?I would say from our reading and working closely with our team in China, that in many aspects of supply chain, manufacturing, physical AI, China is ahead. And with the passage of time, they are increasingly ahead. We estimate, and we can't be precise here, that China's lead on the U.S. would not only last three to five years, but might even widen three to five years from now. May even widen at an accelerating rate three to five years from now.And so, it brings into play is what kind of environment and what kind of regulatory, and policy decisions we made to help kind of level the playing field and encourage the right kind of manufacturing. We don't want to encourage trailing edge, Victorian era manufacturing in the U.S. We want to encourage, you know, to skate to where the puck is going technology that can help improve our world and create a sustainable abundance rather than an unsustainable one. And so, we're watching China very, very closely. It makes us a little bit; makes me a little bit kind of nervous when we – if we see the government put the thumb on the scale too much.But it's invariably going to happen. You're going to have increased involvement of whichever administration it is in order to kind of set policies that can encourage innovation, education of our young people, repurposing of labor, you know. All these people making machines in this country now. They might get, there may be a displacement over a number of years, if not a generation.But we need those human bodies to do other things in this economy as well. So, we; I don't want to give the impression at all in our scenarios that we don't need people anymore. Michelle Weaver: What are the opportunities and the risks that you see for investors as robotics converges with this broader U.S. manufacturing story? Adam Jonas: Well, Michelle, we see both opportunities and risks. There are the opportunities that you can measure in terms of what portion of global GDP of [$]115 trillion could you look at. I mean, labor alone is $40 trillion.And if you really make humanoid that can do the work of two workers, guess what? You're not going to stop at [$]40 trillion. You're going to go beyond that. You might go multiple beyond that. Talking about the world before AI, robotics and humanoid is like talking about the world before electricity. Or talking about business before the internet. We don't think we're exaggerating, but the proof will be in the capital formation. And that's where we hope we can be of assistance to our clients working together on a variety of investment ideas. But the risks will come and it is our professional responsibility, if not our moral responsibility, to work with our partners across research to talk about those risks. Michelle, if we have labor displacement, go too quickly, there's serious problems. And if you don't, if you don't believe me, go look at, look at you know, the French Revolution or the Industrial Revolution, or Age of Enlightenments. Ages of scientific enlightenment frequently cohabitate times of great social and political turmoil as well. And so, we think that these risks must be seen in parallel if we want to bring forth technologies that can make us more human rather than less human. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a little preachy, but if you studied robots and labor all day long, it does have that effect on you. So, Michelle, how do you see innovation priorities changing for industrials and investors in this environment?Michelle Weaver: I think it's huge as we're seeing AI and technology broadly diffuse across different segments of the market, it's only becoming more important. About two-thirds of companies at the conference mentioned AI in some way, shape, or form. We know that from transcripts. And we're seeing them continue to integrate AI into their businesses. They're trying to go beyond what we've just seen at the initial edge. So, for example, if I think about what was going on within AI adoption a couple years ago, it was largely adding a chat bot to your website that's then able to handle a lot of customer service inquiries. Maybe you could reduce the labor there a little bit. Now we're starting to see a lot more business specific use cases. So, for example, with an airline, an airline company is using AI to most optimally gate different planes as they're landing to try and reduce connection times. They know which staff needs to go to another flight to connect, which passengers need to move to another flight. They're able to do that much more efficiently. You're seeing a lot on AI being adopted within manufacturing to make manufacturing processes a lot more seamless. So, I think innovation is only going to continue to become more important to not only industrials, but broadly the entire market as well.Clearly the industry is being shaped by adaptability, collaboration, and a focus on innovation. So, Chris, Adam, thank you both for taking the time to talk. Adam Jonas: Always a pleasure. Michelle.Christopher Snyder: Thank you for having us on. Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.